Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would expect a number of items, certainly the jobs agenda, which will be fulsome and we will be pursuing over the next months. Small business growth, tax cuts to spur growth and jobs will certainly be on the agenda in the coming weeks, in addition to addressing health care and the 2011 budget.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Well, the gentleman and I had the opportunity, a historic opportunity, I might say, to participate in an extraordinary event in the history, perhaps, of our country. I'm not sure that I can cite another instance certainly in my career when a President has spent a whole day sitting with the legislative branch, the leadership both of the Republican and Democratic Parties in the Senate and the House and also of the committee Chairs. I think that was an unprecedented meeting. I thought it was an extraordinarily good meeting for the American public as I thought it was a good meeting for all of us who participated. I think what the public saw was each side thoughtfully and clearly, from an informed basis, expressing their view as to what was needed and how to get to where we wanted to go. It also indicated, I think, to the American public legitimate differences of opinion on the ways and means, if you will, of effecting health care reform, which obviously the overwhelming numbers of the American public believe is necessary. As I quoted, as you recall, both President Obama and Presidential candidate McCain in the debate in October of 2008 both said that health care reform was necessary, and Presidential candidate McCain indicated that he thought we needed a program that covered all Americans with affordable health care. Now, that's the context in which we're going to move forward. I thought it was a productive, positive opportunity for us and, as I said, the American public. We are moving forward. The President indicated we'd be moving forward. The President, as you point out, I don't think he has a bill yet, but he's put language of the 11-page document you've seen and that was referenced at the meeting--he's put that on the table. It is obviously an attempt to reach agreement between the Senate-passed bill and the House-passed bill, which, although this was not a conference in the classic sense of a conference, in many ways it was, I suppose, a superconference in that rarely is the President in the room, but obviously Republicans and Democrats were in the room and had their time to discuss the President's proposals, trying to resolve differences between the two Houses. Certainly it's going to be taken into consideration over the next few days, I would think, to see whether or not there can be a resolution. In addition to that, I tell my friend honestly that we went through a number of aspects of the health care bill in which I think we found common ground, and many of us said that. I think some of us were surprised that some Members were as focused as we think we are on certain items. First of all, I think there was agreement on principle, if not on application of that principle, and that was that the solution is to be found in the delivery of health care through the private sector. And, in fact, both bills in the Senate and the House provide for private sector insurance companies to be involved and to be the insurers and to be the agents for financing health care insurance for Americans. In addition, Dr. Coburn was very clear that he thought we needed to focus on wellness, on prevention. There are, in both bills, substantial provisions which deal with that, with wellness and prevention, best practices, with innovation, with efficiencies in the delivery of health care, health information technology, other issues. In addition, he spoke of eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse. As you recall, and both of us listened to him, he made the point that he thought 1 in 3 health care dollars were not spent on the delivery of health care. Now, they weren't all waste, fraud, and abuse. We know that there are very substantial administrative costs in health care. And as I responded to Senator Coburn, there are very substantial provisions related to waste, fraud, and abuse in both bills and in the President's suggestion. In addition, the purchasing of policies of insurance across State lines was discussed by both sides. I think the President indicated, I think, we can reach agreement on that. I hope we do. And insurance pooling to acquire health insurance at lower prices was also discussed, not only with respect to small business, but, obviously, we discussed it with individuals who do not have availability to group policies. The answer, therefore, to your question is we certainly hope we can move forward. We hope we can reach some areas of agreement. I want to tell you very frankly, I don't think we have any intention of starting over with a clean slate, as you requested. I want to be honest with the gentleman. Literally thousands and thousands of hours have gone into countless hearings participated in by both of our parties, countless markups, public markups with amendments offered both in the House and the Senate. But that does not mean that these are set in stone. Therefore, the answer to your question is I continue to be interested in your thoughts, but if the thoughts are simply to, as Mr. Boehner indicated, scrap it, and Mr. Alexander said that as well, I frankly don't think that's a very productive direction to go in given the complexity and challenge that confronts us. There was a lot of discussion about polling data in yesterday's meeting. In point of fact, we believe that the polling data does indicate that Americans are not happy with this bill. In my view, in part they're not happy because they've seen it be the center point of confrontation, controversy, and, from my perspective, a lot of misinformation. But having said that, I think every poll seems to reflect that when you ask them about component parts, do they believe that preexisting conditions ought not to be a disabling factor in the receipt of insurance, a very high percentage of the American public says, yes, they think that ought to be not a factor. Do they think that there ought to be lifetime caps? They think no. If they have insurance, they want to keep it, and if they get really sick, they want to make sure their insurance compensates them for that. They also want to make sure that they are not bankrupted in a year that they have a very serious illness because the insurance company has capped what they can get in any one year. So there seems to be, on the individual items, pretty high support-- and when I say ``pretty high,'' high 50s, 60s, and sometimes in the low 70s--of various component parts of the bill. I think if we can respond to that which the public is for and listen to the public, I think we can have some success. And we look forward to working with you over the next few weeks to see if we can come to agreement. The President made it very clear that he wants to do that. I reiterate we want to do it. But the President also made it clear, if we can't do it, then we're going to proceed, and that's what he told the American people he was going to do. And, very frankly, he was elected handily just a little over a year ago, and he said what he wanted to do was a health care plan which would provide access for Americans to affordable quality health care. And, in fact, that's what John McCain said in that debate in October of 2008 when they were both debating each other. That was not a contentious issue. They had differences of how to get there, but covering all Americans with affordable, quality health care was not one of the contentious issues. I know that was a long answer, but I wanted to place it in context for my friend so that productively we can work on what has passed the House, passed the Senate, and if we can make changes that would lead you or members of your party to support legislation, then I think we can have a productive discussion about that. On the other hand, frankly, if it's simply scrap all the work you've done or we're not going to play, then I think we won't have much progress.

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 Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this Intelligence Authorization bill, which authorizes the tools America needs to detect and combat its greatest threats, including what President Obama called ``a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.'' In the past weeks, we've seen a great deal of evidence that policies adopted by President Obama and Democrats are working to keep Americans safer. In Pakistan, the government is cooperating for the first time in the arrest of top Taliban leaders, including second-in-command Abdul Ghani Baradar and Abdul Kabir, a member of the senior leadership. At home, Najibullah Zazi has just pled guilty in federal court for attempting to bomb New York City's subway, and the Christmas Day bomber is giving us timely intelligence. This bill continues the policies that are working and strengthens America's intelligence collection. It significantly increases funding for human intelligence, a resource that is irreplaceable in disrupting terrorist networks. To ensure the broad reach of our intelligence community, it makes important investments in language training and scholarships, so that our personnel will have the resources to infiltrate networks and intercept communications around the world. It also strengthens our defenses against the emerging threats of cyberterrorism and cyberwarfare, which, if unchecked, could have a crippling effect on our military and economy. And this legislation makes an important contribution to America's nuclear non-proliferation efforts by requiring reports on the nuclear intentions and capabilities of Iran, Syria, and North Korea, as well as on the worldwide black market in materials that could contribute to nuclear weapons. At the same time as it strengthens our intelligence capabilities, this authorization bill also ensures that they receive reasonable and responsible oversight to protect Americans' rights. It creates an independent inspector general with responsibility for the entire intelligence community; protects the Intelligence Committees' access, through the Government Accountability Office, to the information it needs to conduct proper oversight of intelligence activities; and requires that the CIA Inspector General audit each covert action at least once every three years. To prevent the abuse of detainees that weakens our moral case to the world without making Americans safer, this bill also prohibits private contractors from interrogating detainees in CIA custody. Finally, this bill, like the recently-passed Defense Authorization bill, prevents the release or transfer of Guantanamo detainees until the president provides a plan for dealing with those detainees and mitigating any risk their release or transfer might cause. Madam Chair, the Founders spoke of providing ``for the common defense'' not only because we face common threats, but because the work of overcoming them must be common to all of us. That work is far too important to be subjected to fear-mongering or the demands of the political cycle. That doesn't obligate all of my colleagues to vote for this bill, though I hope they will; but it does oblige us to conduct this debate, today and in the days to come, with the respect and responsibility that our common defense from common danger demands.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I certainly yield to the gentlelady from Michigan.

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, there are times when we have the opportunity to witness a particular historical event. We are about to do that now. The gentleman from Michigan, my dear friend, Dale Kildee, is the epitome of gentleman. I don't think there is a person in this House that doesn't think that Dale Kildee is a thoughtful, considerate, compassionate gentleman, a person who cares deeply about his country, cares deeply about the Page program to which he has devoted so much of his talents, and cares about each one of us. None of us are objective in talking about Dale Kildee because he is such a decent, wonderful, good human being. He is also an extraordinarily faithful Member of this House. I am going to yield to Mr. Dingell, the Dean of the House, at this point as we are about to witness Mr. Kildee casting his 20,000th vote in the House of Representatives.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for her comments. I am pleased to yield to my good friend, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the dean. And now, Dale, we will cease and desist as you cast your 20,000th vote. God bless you. You have served our country, your district, and all the Members as well as our pages, so well over those 34 years. Thank you. Godspeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 30 additional seconds. I also want to congratulate an extraordinary individual who worked for an individual who's not on this floor, Charlie Stenholm, who deserves a portion of the credit this day for this legislation. And he was assisted, as I am now assisted, as all of the House is assisted, by an extraordinary member of our staff, Ed Lorenzen. Ed, I want to thank you personally for the extraordinary efforts you have made to get us to this day. Madam Speaker, I designate Mr. Boyd of Florida to control the remainder of the time.

Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 2 additional minutes. Under President Clinton, PAYGO helped turn record deficits into a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. We also know that PAYGO was disregarded, waived and finally allowed to expire under the last administration. And as I have pointed out on this chart, our deficits exploded and, indeed, our economy was hurt as well as those deficits exploded. Some argue that the PAYGO legislation on the floor today is too weak. But I'd point out that it brings our country more fiscal discipline than it has seen in nearly a decade. The perfect ought not to be the enemy of the good. PAYGO can't get us out of our fiscal hole, but it can keep us from digging it deeper. When my Republican colleagues raise their concerns about our growing debt, I absolutely agree with them. They're right. All of us understand this debt is not sustainable. But it's not enough to complain about the debt; we have to do something about it. If my colleagues are sincere in their concerns, I hope they'll work with us to pass PAYGO and contribute to the bipartisan fiscal commission announced by President Obama. I hope you'll participate in that commission, helping us get our country to fiscal balance. America's dangerous fiscal condition threatens our prosperity and our place in the world. If my colleagues will forgive a Democrat for paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, there are no easy answers to this mess, but there is a simple answer. The answer lies in recommitting ourselves to the principle that has served our prosperity so well in the past, the principle of responsibility. Ronald Reagan was right. Let us pass this legislation. In closing, let me say, Madam Speaker, that so many people are responsible for this day; the Blue Dogs, I want to congratulate them. In a minute I'm going to yield to Allen Boyd who has led this effort on behalf of the Blue Dogs for such a long and successful time.

Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 3 additional minutes. A New York Times analysis found that 90 percent of our deficit is due to the policies of the previous administration, the extension of those policies, and the economic downturn. However we believe America got into this mess, this Congress can begin getting America out of it. That is why Congress must pass one of the most proven deficit cutting tools we know, statutory pay-as-you-go legislation or, as it is affectionately known, PAYGO. Now, let me point out this chart to my right, your left. The deficits are when we did not have statutory PAYGO in effect. Now, when statutory PAYGO was put into effect in 1990, we still had deficits, but you can see that we started reducing those deficits almost on a straight line. And then in 1997 we went into surplus, fiscal year 1998, and we went into surplus for the next 4 years under PAYGO. Unfortunately, you will see that in 2001 it was decided that we would waive PAYGO, and then in 2003 it was decided by the then majority party that we would eliminate statutory PAYGO. And you can see the result. We returned to deep deficits. So what we are voting on on the floor has demonstrably made a difference, has demonstrably helped America discipline its finances and bring surpluses. As I said, when George Bush took office from President Clinton, he, his administration, based upon the past record of the Clinton administration, said we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. Unfortunately, for the country, when President Bush left office we had an almost $8 trillion deficit confronting us. PAYGO compels Congress to find savings for the money it spends, so it keeps our deficit from increasing. Under PAYGO we'll be required to find savings to balance any new tax cuts or entitlement spending, which makes this law essential, essential to the wise prioritization that responsible budgeting demands and, indeed, that our fellow citizens expect. As the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan fiscal responsibility group, put it, and I quote, ``PAYGO requires anyone proposing tax cuts or entitlement expansions to answer the question, How do you pay for it? Going through this process will force an explicit trade-off between spending, taxes and debt, which is exactly the priority-setting exercise that the budget process should and must facilitate.'' We all know that such deliberate priority-setting steps stops us from passing our bills on to our children.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker, and I yield myself 1 minute. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, as we have on numerous occasions, we just raised the liability, or the ability, of the United States to pay a substantial amount. What we are doing now that we have not done in the last decade is to adopt a fiscal constraint at the same time, a fiscal constraint to get us to wherever Americans want us to be, and that is to fiscal balance, to a fiscally responsible government and a fiscally responsible country to match the fiscal responsibility of most of our citizens. The House has just voted that our country should pay the bills it already incurred. Those obligations, of course, come from actions America has already taken. Those actions cannot be changed, so it was necessary to pay the bill. But we can and must confront our record debt going forward. We can and must set a more responsible path fiscally for our country.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1065, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory limit on the public debt, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The last time we voted on this issue, the floor was packed on both sides of the aisle. And I observed at that time that, and I repeat today, I really doubt that there are any of the 435 of us, Madam Speaker, who believe that this matter that is included in this rule ought to be defeated. I would hope that's the case. The gentleman who represents the minority party on the Rules Committee has confronted this issue in the past. He confronted it in 2002. He confronted it in 2003. He confronted it in 2004 and again in 2005. On each of those occasions, he voted to increase the debt limit. His party was in charge. Unfortunately, my party voted against it at that point in time because we weren't in charge. The point I make is that the American public too often believes that we do not do what we think is the responsible thing for our country but what we think is the right thing to do from the perspective of our party. They are not impressed by that kind of action. In fact, not only did Mr. Sessions vote to increase the debt limit on numerous occasions, many of us voted against it essentially for the same reasons, because we said the other party had incurred liabilities with which we did not agree. In fact, I'm sure all 435 of us could say we incurred certain liabilities in which we did not agree. But the fact of the matter is that America, voting through its representatives in the House and in the Senate, incurred those liabilities. Creditors throughout the world relied on the fact that the United States of America, the world's wealthiest Nation, would, in fact, pay its bills. I will say that in the future when this issue comes up, I will not repeat again the mistakes that I made in the past. I said that last time. And if it so happens at some time in the future the other party is in control and we come to the necessity of ensuring that America can pay its bills, it will be my intention to vote with the majority party to increase the debt limit--not because I want to see us deficit spend; I don't. I voted for constitutional amendments to balance the budget to constrain the spending of this body. In a few minutes, I will speak strongly in favor of adopting statutory PAYGO, which is made in order by this rule. Statutory PAYGO will be a constraint on the spending that this Congress votes for, a restraint to bring in line spending on mandatory items with the revenues and abilities that we have. And so I say to both sides of the aisle, this is not a vote about party. This is a vote about country. There is no one in this room, no one who has raised his or her hand to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, not one of us who honestly can say that it is an alternative available to us to not ensure that America can pay its bills. That's what this is about. That's why my friends on the Republican side, when you were in charge, you voted, in some cases almost to a person, almost unanimously, to increase the debt five times under President Bush. Very frankly, I tell my friends on the Republican side, when President Bush was in office, we did the same thing you're going to do today. We pretended that somehow because we did not agree with the policies that had led us to the place where we had incurred those debts that somehow we would take no responsibility for paying those debts. Ladies and gentlemen, our creditors around the world on whom we are now relying in order to fund our government don't really care about our partisan politics. They do care, however, about the will that we have to meet our responsibilities to pay our bills and to meet our obligations to them. Everybody understands that if we did not increase this debt limit, at some point in time, not too long thereafter, checks to Social Security recipients would have to stop, checks to veterans would have to stop, and checks to employees who work for the government would have to stop. No one thinks that's a rational alternative. We may think there ought to be less or more, but no one thinks that we ought to have none. And so I say to my colleagues this is a vote for American responsibility, not Republican responsibility or Democratic responsibility, but for American responsibility. Both of us--both of us have pursued politics in this matter. The American public is hopeful, as we all can see, that at some point in time we all realize that playing politics is not the policy that Americans want us to pursue. They want us to pursue the well-being of our country and of our citizens. We've incurred debts. We expect people to pay the debts they owe us, and they, in turn, expect the same. That's what this vote is about. And so there are not a lot of Members on this floor. I hope a lot of Members, Madam Speaker, are watching, because I hope when they come to this floor to vote for this rule, which will deem the authorization of the ability of America to meet its responsibilities, that they will vote for their country, for our citizens, and for our responsibility. It's the right thing to do. Every one of us on each side of the aisle, Republican or Democratic, knows it's the right thing to do. Let's do the right thing. I urge support of this rule. I urge support of the statutory PAYGO provision made in order by this rule, which will say that, notwithstanding the fact that we have authorized additional debt, we are also, at the same time, going to constrain the incurring of additional debt beyond that which we are prepared to pay for. That's what families have to do. That's what we need to do. Vote for this rule. It's the right thing to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I don't want to get into what we've been getting into, but simply to observe that as the gentleman knows when he uses the 60 some odd percent, much of that, a significant part of that spending, was specifically not included in the baseline, so that it will not be incorporated in the freeze. It will be a lower number than that because, although some of it was in the baseline, a significant portion of it, as the gentleman knows, was not in the baseline.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 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, Mr. Speaker, until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and on Friday the House will be in pro forma session at 9 a.m. No votes are expected in the House on Friday. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business Friday. In addition, we will consider H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancements Act of 2009. Also possible consideration of Senate amendments to H.J. Res. 45, to permit continued financing of government operations.

Mr. HOYER. Well, as the gentleman probably knows, there are some 260 bills that we've sent from the House to the Senate and we look forward to them sending some of those back to us. And my expectation is they will. In addition to that, we are considering a number of pieces of legislation, but they are not yet ripe, and what I mean by that simply is the committee chairs have not signed off that they're ready to go, so we are still, frankly, working with the committees to see what legislation they will have ready to move forward. I know that wasn't very responsive, and I wish I had a more responsive answer but that's the accurate answer

Mr. HOYER. It is possible, but, again, as the gentleman knows, given the differences between the two Houses, there's still ongoing discussions as to whether they can be resolved, and if they can't, what alternative steps should be taken. So it is possible

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. As you know, the President has not yet submitted his budget, so anticipating when we're going to pass it or bring his budget to the floor is a little premature. But I would certainly hope that we would bring it forward in the regular course of business. We're getting the budget significantly earlier this year. As you know, at the transition we get it later, as we did last year. But I expect to get it early. I think Mr. Spratt and Mr. Ryan will be working on the budget, and I expect it to come forward certainly either late in March, which is when I would expect it to come forward. The Easter break, as you know, is the last week in March, first week in April, I believe, so I would be hopeful--let me make it clear: I'm not saying that's when it's going to happen, but I'd be hopeful we'd do it before we leave on the Easter break. And the second part of your question, which I think is the most important part of the question, because the other is speculative, I would expect the Congress to honor the President's suggestion of freeze with respect to the overall numbers on discretionary spending. But let me make an observation that I know you know, but I think it's important for us to remember that we have: There is no doubt the deficits that confront us are of very large proportions. It is, I think, a critical problem confronting our Nation, not just the Congress, but our Nation. It is an issue on which I think we need to focus and address. I will tell my friend, as he knows, that with respect to the freeze, that deals with a relatively small portion of the budget, about 14 to 15 percent of the budget. As the gentleman knows, defense discretionary spending is not covered by the President's. As you know as well, because of Afghanistan and Iraq, expenditures on defense have escalated substantially. And as the gentleman knows as well, the other portion of the budget deals with entitlements and interest payments on the national debt. So that I would simply observe that if we're going to get a handle on the budget and spending, sometimes people view spending as only spending on discretionary nondefense amounts. That's not accurate. Every nickel that we apply to some objective that we have decided to apply it to is spending. And we're, frankly, going to have to look at the whole gamut of spending if we're going to get back to a fiscal balance, which I think is absolutely essential. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield just for one minute?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Friday, January 29, and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 2, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I don't know about counting on. I don't know what you mean by ``counting on.'' I think the Speaker's comments this morning, you asked me if it was an accurate statement. I think she believes that is an accurate statement in terms of where the votes are today. I responded, as I told the gentleman, there is substantial differences. We are discussing those differences, as we have been for some period of time. Let me make another comment. The gentleman is very animated and very happy, as I would be in his position, about the results of Massachusetts, as we were very happy about the results in New York 23, where the health care bill was also at issue, as the gentleman knows, in a district that we hadn't won for 150 years just a couple months ago. And as the gentleman knows, we won that district in a district, as I said, unlike Massachusetts, that we had not won in 150 years. But let me say something. Your candidate who did win supported the Massachusetts plan, which has great similarity to the plan that he now opposes. So it is somewhat ironic that we would take that as a bellwether, because he, as a member of the State senate, actually voted on a plan that, much like our plan, tried to reach the objective of covering all people. So he has already voted for a plan like that. He has indicated he is not going to vote for this plan. I understand that. But it is not like he hasn't got a record of wanting to achieve the objectives that the bills that are under discussion are trying to achieve.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the question. In answer to his question, we passed a jobs bill through this House in December. It is pending in the Senate now. We believe that that would substantially move forward on creating jobs. It is not the answer, but it is one of the answers we think. It focuses, as the gentleman knows, on infrastructure, which we think is a very important initiative that gets people working immediately, jobs here in America. We think that is very important. It also tries to help States so they are not laying off teachers and policemen and firemen. We think that is very important as well. But let me say something. I get a little confused, and perhaps these facts are not well known to you, but I thought I would remind you of these facts. We pursued an economic program that your party put forward from 2001, 2003 on for 8 years. Now, while the people gave us the majority in the House and the Senate in 2006, obviously President Bush threatened to or did in fact veto any changes that we made in economic policy. That economic policy, which you were a very strong supporter of and your party was a very strong supporter of, you continue to mention jobs; so I want to make sure you know these statistics. In the last 3 months of the Bush administration under the economic policies that not only did you pursue then but you still want to pursue, because, in fact, the proposals that you have made essentially mirror the proposals that were made in 2001 and 2003, those proposals were touted by you and others--I'm not going to go through all these quotes--as going to grow the economy, create jobs, and have a robust growth in our economy. In November and December and January, that policy which you pursued lost 2,019,000 jobs in 3 months, and we confronted the worst recession, the ``great recession,'' if you will, worse than at any time in three quarters of a century. And it somewhat confounds me that you still--your party, not necessarily you personally--presents an economic policy which was the poorest job- creating administration, 8 years, since Herbert Hoover, an average of approximately 4,000 jobs per month. You needed 100,000 just to stay even. Now, I would tell the gentleman, since the Recovery Act, which you nor your party voted for, since the Recovery Act, let me tell you what the last quarter was. Perhaps you know. We still have not succeeded in growing jobs, so we haven't had success, but we've had great progress. Let me tell you how much progress. Remember I told you that you lost, in the last 3 months under your economic program, 2.019 million jobs. The last quarter we lost 208,000 jobs, a quarter, 3 months. That's way too many jobs. We want to be creating, as the Clinton administration did, on average 220,000-plus jobs per month; 22 million in total over 8 years. So I tell my friend that when the gentleman says we haven't had progress on this, those figures, in my view, belie that assertion. In fact, we made progress. Not only that, the stock market is up 60 percent. It's had a couple of bad days. It's up 60 percent since we adopted the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It had a minus growth under your economic policies during the 8 years of the Bush administration, minus to the extent it decreased in value so that the investment I had in 2001 was about 26 percent less valuable in December of 2008. Contrast that to the Clinton administration in its 8 years. The value of your stock portfolio or investments went up 226 percent. That's a 250 percent difference. So I tell my friend that we have taken very substantial action. We're going to take more action because until we get Americans back on the job, until we get America growing so that it creates the kind of jobs our people need and must have to support themselves and their family, we're not going to be satisfied. So, yes, we passed a bill last month which you and your party voted against. We think that's unfortunate. If you have ideas, I would love to sit down with you again and discuss your ideas. Very frankly, however, some of the ideas we've discussed to date are some of the same ideas that, in my opinion, led to not such a robust job-creating economy; in fact, as I said, the worst economy we've seen in 75 years. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 26, 2010, for morning-hour debate.