Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we here like to refer to ourselves as the House of the people, the ``People's House'' as Bill Natcher used to refer to it. We exercise what our Founding Fathers set up as a free democracy, where the people can speak through freely elected Representatives. And very frankly, we are that because we have brave men and women who are willing to serve us in the Armed Forces of the United States. From time to time, they have an opportunity to visit with us. It is not, under the rules, appropriate to directly address people who are in our gallery, but it is always in order to pay honor to those who serve us and serve us so well. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, the complete list of which will be announced by the close of business today. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider further action on H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. That is my hope. It may not be my expectation. It is my hope, and it is my plan, but obviously, as the gentleman well knows, having been in this position in the past, that is somewhat contingent upon what our colleagues in the other body do. But it is my intention, and I have announced that December 18 is the last day on which we are planning to meet. I very much want Members to be able to be home Christmas week. But as the gentleman knows as well as I do, that is dependent upon what our colleagues across the Capitol do. Clearly, we have now passed most of our appropriations bills except for the Defense bill, so we've funded most of government. The Senate still has to enact, of course, the omnibus that we sent to them 2 days ago, which has six of the appropriations bills in it. One remains. So that if they pass that, 11 out of the 12 would have been passed. But obviously, we want to make sure that we pass our Defense bill as well.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As is true of almost all pieces of legislation that are pending, that will depend upon Senate action. And until such time as we know what the Senate is going to do, it's almost impossible for me to say with any clarity and assurance that we are going to be able to take up health care or any other piece of legislation because, obviously, the Senate action will be essential for that to happen. Again, with respect to the Defense appropriation bill, it is essential that we pass that bill. It's essential that we pass the debt limit. It's essential that we extend, in my opinion, unemployment insurance and COBRA. It's essential that we extend the Patriot Act for at least 90 days while the legislative committees are trying to complete that. So there are a number of things, clearly, that I think it's necessary for us to do because of the time limits. But as my friend knows, health care does not have a time limit and will depend upon what action the Senate takes and when it takes it.

Mr. HOYER. I don't know that the Speaker and the codel are going to be gone if, in fact, we have business to do. I think you're probably scheduled to be on that codel. I know I am. But we're going to be here working if we have work to do to complete our business. And I will be here. The fact is, as you know, the Copenhagen conference ends I think on December 19 or maybe December 18. The Speaker had contemplated taking a delegation to that conference--which we think is extraordinarily important--but that will be contingent upon what our schedule looks like for December 17 and 18 and what we've done and accomplished by the evening of December 16.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think to the extent the Americans are considering that, they are considering that, for the bulk of this decade, I would say, we were spending money that we didn't have on a regular basis at very high levels, which is why we went from the $5.6 trillion surplus to the $10 trillion deficit. Having said that, we have passed a debt extension, as the gentleman knows, and that debt extension is in the control of the United States Senate. They can take that off the table and pass that debt extension. So while it needs to be passed, we have done our work here. The Senate has that debt extension. I can't imagine there are any of us that don't want the United States of America, as we would expect of all of ourselves and of others, to pay its debts that it has incurred. But it could be accomplished in a number of ways, and the Senate has a debt extension bill, and if we don't act further on that, they can take that up off the floor or the desk and pass it. That is one option available. The other option the gentleman refers to is doing a new debt extension at a larger number, and that decision has not yet been made. But I want to emphasize the Senate has on its desk a debt extension that will make sure that the United States of America pays the bills that it has incurred.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, let me say with respect to COBRA and unemployment insurance, I wouldn't call that a stimulus plan; I would call that a tourniquet plan to try to stop the bleeding of some people who have been badly damaged by the extraordinary depths to which this economy fell starting in December of 2007, leading to unemployment in the last month of the last administration of 741,000 jobs lost. As the gentleman knows, this past month we had only 11,000 jobs lost. That's significant progress but not success until we get into creating jobs. We clearly believe that one of the important things that we want to do before we leave here is a jobs bill. A stimulus tends to be viewed as a more broadly-based piece of legislation. We've done a lot of that, as the gentleman knows, with his vote sometimes and without his vote sometimes, over the last 12 months. The fact is that we want to address trying to create more jobs, get our economy going, make lending available for small businesses, expand our infrastructure--which is a direct not only creation of jobs but addressing infrastructure--roads, bridges, highways--as well as sewer and water systems critical to our economy, critical to the health and welfare of our people. So we're looking at that as we speak, and we're trying to put together a package that the Senate may agree to and that we could pass before we leave here. With respect to the No Cost Jobs proposal, as I said at the White House with you, I would be glad to discuss it, and I do look forward to discussing it with you. We can discuss it further this afternoon, some of the proposals that you have. I will tell you though, my friend, I have found very few things in life which are free. If we are going to create jobs, if we are going to expand our economy, to pretend to the American public that it's free, just as your tax cuts were not free--any tax cuts are not for free. It sounds like it, but then there are consequences. And we believe that, for instance, the TARP funds that your motion to recommit sought to eliminate were essentially, while targeted at the time, really were for the purpose, you and I both voted for them when they were adopted, initially, they were for the purpose of trying to bring our economy from the depths to which it had fallen, preclude it from falling off the cliff and to bring our economy back. I would suggest to you that one of the reasons we don't want to see these funds eliminated after they have helped the banks is we want us to use some of those funds to help Main Street, small business and job creation. So, with respect to jobs, we are very focused on jobs. We look forward to working with you on that effort and your side of the aisle and suggestions that you have. And if we can reach consensus, I think the American people will be very pleased.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Very frankly, he says most people believe that. The polls don't reflect that. A lot of Members on both sides don't believe that. And that's why these bills are controversial on your side and on my side. I think longer term that is the fact. We have people, however, who are having a challenge feeding their families, keeping their homes and paying their bills right now as we speak. It's not free for them. They need help. On our side of the aisle, we think we need to give them help. Yes, we gave help to the banks. Yes, it stabilized them. I voted for that. You voted for that. I think it was the right thing to do. But those moneys, however, were to stabilize the economy. Now, they were targeted on banks, which were the immediate problem. There are an awful lot of my constituents and a lot of people around the country saying, Hey, you can help the banks, but guess what? I'm not there. My family is not there. My small business is not there. I need help. Our proposition, under those circumstances, is, yes, the good news is, we didn't have to use all the money that President Bush asked for. President Bush used about half of it before he left. President Obama has used about half of it for the purposes intended. We also used some of it, as you know, for General Motors. That wasn't in the bill. But President Bush decided those funds ought to be used for that purpose, and Chrysler as well, to stabilize the automobile industry. Now, I will tell my friend with respect to our discussions at the White House, and I understand we have a difference of agreement. We differ fundamentally on how to get this economy moving. Your party voted to a person against the economic package that we had in 1993, and we voted pretty much to a person, not unanimously, against your plan. I think the plan in 1990 worked. I think the plan in 2001 and 2003 didn't work. And I think statistically that is irrefutable. And we fell, as a result of a plan you supported, into the worst recession we've had in three-quarters of a century. What we are saying is we need to take some of that money, we need to make sure that Main Street, bank lending to small business so they can stay in business and create jobs is a good use of those funds, because we are not done yet. Your leader, Mr. Boehner, said on this floor, it was over, the recession is over. I think what he meant was, correctly, that the economists say essentially we have bottomed out and we are coming up. I suggest to you we bottomed out because we not only passed a bill that you and I voted for, but we passed a bill that you didn't vote for, and that is the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Since that time, we have created 600,000 to 1.4 million jobs. According to the CBO, the gross domestic product for the first time since the third quarter 2008 has grown, actually 2007, has grown to where it was the last quarter of the last administration, 6.4 percent decrease. It grew 2.8 percent. That is almost a little over a 9-point turnaround. That's good news for the economy. But there are a lot of people still struggling. So, yes, we believe that we need to have a jobs bill. And we think it is appropriate to address the funds that we've already authorized, not new funds but that we've already authorized, to try to bring this economy back, to not just look at it globally, but to look at individuals who are hurting. We want to apply those funds to those folks who are hurting and try to get them in their homes, get them a job, and get their families more stable.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I'm going to give him the answer he knows is absolutely crystal clear. The answer to that is ``no.'' The bills are not ready to come to the floor. They need to come out of the Ways and Means Committee, as you know. They are not reported out of the Ways and Means Committee, and we are not going to bring them to the floor next week. If we brought them to the floor next week, and the gentleman knows, they would have no immediate impact. The gentleman also knows, and has correctly stated, that I certainly am for and have been publicly reported over the last 6 months or more, I guess over a year, reported as being in favor of passing the Colombia agreement and passing the Panama agreement. I think the Korea agreement is a little more complicated in terms of making sure our markets are open to our automobiles, to our beef and other agricultural products to make sure we have a fair exchange. But Korea, obviously, is one of our largest trading partners. As the gentleman knows, that's an important agreement. We ought to give attention to it. The gentleman knows that we are not going to bring those to the floor next week. The gentleman also knows that if we did and we passed them, and the Senate passed them somehow, that it would not make an immediate impact. You and I both agree that over the long term, it would be a positive impact. Others don't agree with that, but the answer to your question is ``no.''

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, the gentleman has an inclination to state premises that we all agree on things that we don't necessarily all agree on. Clearly, we want to give notice. Clearly, we believe we ought to give fair notice. As it relates to the bill that was considered today, that bill has had over 3 months of hearings and has been on the table for a long period of time. The gentleman is correct that the final bill and the manager's amendment did not have 72 hours, but almost all the components within it had been known to everybody as proposals that were on the table either in committee or substitute committee markup for some period of time. With respect to the bill that you referred to that we passed on the six appropriations bills, we, of course, had numerous committee hearings, subcommittee markup, full committee markup, House consideration. We passed all six of those bills through this House. The gentleman is correct that there were amendments included in there, and there was notice of all those, but I would have liked more time. The problem is, of course, we have come to what is, as the gentleman pointed out, a target date of the 18th. We still have important work to do. We intend to do that. We are going to give as much notice as we can do and meet our responsibilities to the American public. The gentleman smiles when I say as much notice as we can give. The gentleman surely will not say, because the gentleman is honest, he understands this process as well as I do. He and I have been here for some years. I have been here a little longer. When his side was in control, as he knows, some majority pieces of legislation were considered within hours on this floor, the prescription drug bill being a specific example, the biggest entitlement reform we had had in a long period of time. You reported it at some hour in the a.m., 12 or 1 o'clock a.m., and reported it on the floor a little after 9 a.m. We considered the bill that afternoon and passed it that day or early the next day. And that wasn't even, as I recall, at the end of the session. But the gentleman knows, as a practicality, both leaderships find it necessary, in order to complete the business that the public expects us to complete, to sometimes move that, when agreement can be reached, at the end of a session. Unfortunately, I've been at this legislative process for over 40 years, and Members like to delay until such time as they think delay is no longer an option.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield before he yields back his time?

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's observation that you were let go. I want to make it clear to the gentleman, I do not believe you were let go because you failed to meet a time frame for reporting bills. I believe, frankly, the substance of our work is that which the public makes a judgment on. And, frankly, we think that the reason that they turned to us in 2006 and 2008 was because they thought that the programs and policies you were pursuing weren't working for our country or for the economy or for them, with all due respect. But I continue to tell the gentleman that we want to try to make sure, as you did--sometimes--that you, our Members, the public have sufficient knowledge to make the decisions that are called upon for them to make.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a longtime constituent of mine, Frank G. Forgione, Sr., for his outstanding dedication to music, service, and country. From his earliest days, Frank--the son of two musicians--demonstrated an appreciation and recognition of the power of music. At age 11 he began studying music with Frank Holt, a percussionist for noted bandmaster and composer John Philip Sousa. At the encouragement of his instructors, he auditioned and was accepted into the Navy School of Music here in Washington in 1938. In December 1941, Frank was stationed at Pearl Harbor aboard the USS Oglala. During the attack of December 7, the Oglala fell victim to the Japanese attack and sank. Fortunately, Frank was able to make it to a dock. He often said that every day he lived after that was a gift. In 1951, he became head of the percussion department at his alma mater, the Navy School of Music. Just 10 years later, he founded and led the U.S. Navy Special Show Band--the first Navy Show Band--on a tour in South America. Called the Navy's Goodwill Ambassadors, the band toured through South America during a period of unrest. When the band encountered anti-American sentiment or threats at their shows, Frank directed the band to perform, believing that the universality of music would be enough to win over the crowd. More often than not, his instincts proved correct. The band went on to make several more tours throughout South America and the rest of the world. Frank Forgione's service did not go unnoticed. He became the first musician since John Philip Sousa to receive the Secretary of the Navy's Commendation Medal. In 1972, Frank retired with the rank of Chief Warrant Officer. Retirement did not ebb his desire to serve. Inspired by his tours in South America, Frank dedicated himself to relieving the poverty he witnessed while on the continent. For the next 16 years, he enlisted many national corporations to donate food, educational materials, medicine, and other essential supplies to help improve the living conditions for those less fortunate. In addition, Frank continued fulfilling his love of music. He created the Fort Washington Continentals, an award-winning youth drum corps located in Prince Georges County. The corps was selected to lead Washington's Bicentennial Parade. At age 70, Frank became bandmaster for the New York Military Academy in Cornwall-on-Hudson, touring extensively throughout the United States, Europe, and Australia. While there he was given the honorary rank of Army Colonel. He retired again in 2005 at the age of 87. Though Frank passed away on July 27, 2009, it is undeniable that his spirit and appreciation for music have remained with those he touched throughout his life. Madam Speaker, Frank G. Forgione, Sr. was blessed with the gift of music and committed to serving others. He helped to make the U.S. Navy, the State of Maryland, and communities throughout the world a better place. I urge my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to this extraordinary individual for a life well lived and in offering sincerest condolences to his friends and family on their loss.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Freeman Hrabowski, President of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who has recently been honored as one of Time magazine's 10 Best College Presidents. President Hrabowski's deep commitment to fostering talented students, especially in science and math, has helped increase UMBC's number of African-American science and engineering majors sevenfold. Today, UMBC is one of America's biggest producers of African-American science and engineering Ph.D.s. As a fellow college president put it, President Hrabowski ``has taught all of higher education that minority and low- income students . . . can meet the highest standards and excel.'' Those high standards are, importantly, a matter of national competitiveness--but they are also a measure of this nation's promise of equality. As a child in Alabama, Freeman Hrabowski remembers Martin Luther King, Jr. telling civil rights marchers: ``What you do this day will have an impact on generations as yet unborn.'' Today, at places like UMBC, that promise is coming true in the lives of the young men and women who are making the most of what those marchers won for them. I join the members of the Maryland House delegation in thanking President Hrabowski for his commitment to his students and his extraordinary contribution to higher education. We congratulate him for this much-deserved recognition of his achievements.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It's my expectation that it will not. But I want to give this caveat. If, in fact the Senate passes its health care reform bill early enough so that we may have a conference and conclude a conference so that at some time in December we could pass a conference report, with that caveat--now whether that will happen or not, obviously I am not able to predict that, but other than that circumstance, it's my expectation that we will not be in the week of the 21st or the week of the 28th.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning- hour debate and noon for legislative business, with votes postponed until Tuesday. On Tuesday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning- hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business. Members are advised votes could occur as early as 10 a.m. on Tuesday. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider H.R.--I don't have the number yet, of the tax extenders bill of 2009, and H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. First of all, let me say to the gentleman that it is my hope that we will adjourn the first session of the Congress from the House's perspective by the 18th. With respect to the bills that we are considering, obviously we have seven appropriation bills that have not yet been enacted. The continuing resolution expires on the 18th of December. It is my hope that before that time we will have provision for the passage of all seven of the appropriation bills, either individually, which may be difficult because the Senate has not passed three of those bills on its floor. In one form or another we will have all seven of those bills passed prior to the 18th. The Speaker, Leader Reid, and I all want to avoid another continuing resolution, which we think is not the best way to move forward. We are hopeful that we can accomplish that. In addition, the regulatory reform bill you heard will be next week, the tax extenders. We have the unemployment insurance. We have the COBRA extension. Both of those expire on December 31. We have the PATRIOT Act, the provisions of which expire on December 31. We want to address that. We have got highway reauthorization, which also expires on December 31. We want to address that. And we have, I'm sure, other bills that we will be considering. As you know, I know you're happy about it, I'm happy about it, Iran sanctions will be on the calendar as well, on the Suspension Calendar the week after next.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the bipartisan work. I see the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my friend, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who has worked very hard on this as well with Mr. Berman. I'm pleased this is coming. It's very important that we send a very strong message as we see the Iranian Government and the President say they are going to do one thing, but apparently never do it. So I think it's appropriate that we act.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. He is correct, I have made that representation; and I want to try to accomplish that objective. As the gentleman also knows, on both sides we have experienced this issue, at the end of a session, as I fervently hope we are closely achieving, at the end of a session obviously when you're having conference reports, it's not necessarily possible to do that if you can't get the conference reports moved quickly enough by the time you want to adjourn. However, having said that, the gentleman is correct, the regulatory reform bill that is going to be reported out by the committee has been reported out, will be available this evening, and will be available--I don't expect to have that on the floor any sooner than Tuesday of next week. So there will be plenty of time to review that piece of legislation. As you know, that has had extensive hearings. Two of the bills that are included within the framework of that bill we've already passed, as you know. So for that bill there will be a lot of time. With respect to the omnibus that you referred to, we have discretely, individually, considered each one of those bills. They've passed the House. The Senate and the House have reached agreement, I think, or hopefully, are on the verge of reaching agreement on those bills individually so that they can be included. The Senate, as I pointed out, has not considered three of the bills on the floor, and I'm not sure, given their focus on health care, that they will be able to do so. So from that standpoint, they would be included in a conference report as opposed to considered on the Senate floor. They've been considered on the House floor, and we will give as much notice as we possibly can on those. But the good news is we've considered those individually on the floor, so the overwhelming majority of those bills are well-known to Members.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We got off your premise pretty quickly--to another bill that's in the Senate--my view is because we did create jobs, CBO says we created jobs, and for the gentleman to say the economy is not in better shape today than it was when we took over from the last administration, I would remind the gentleman, 747,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the Bush administration; 3.8 million jobs were lost in the last year of the Bush administration as opposed to the last year of the Clinton administration, comparing the last two administrations, 1.9 million jobs were added. I suggest to the gentleman what we see on this regulatory reform bill is exactly the philosophy that was brought under the Bush administration. If we simply get out of the way, don't bother anybody, just get out of the way, Government, take the referees off the field and all the players will play fairly, my experience in life has not been that. My experience in life is when you get the referees off the field, somebody leaves the line about a second before the ball is hiked, and people lose. And that is what happened. The SEC didn't regulate, the FDIC didn't regulate the way it should have, the administration didn't regulate the way it should have. And what went wrong? The financial community went amok. Mr. Greenspan came before the Congress of the United States and said, I made a mistake. I thought people would act consistent with a fair evaluation of the risk they were willing to take. And Mr. Greenspan said, I was wrong. In fact, they did not. And they incurred risk. And who paid the price? All of us paid the price. All of us as taxpayers paid the price at Secretary Paulson's request, Republican Secretary of the Treasury, to try to sustain this economy not going into a depression. So I disagree with my friend that I haven't addressed the issue of jobs. We have. I disagree with the gentleman when he says 1.4 million jobs. Well, we're still losing jobs. We are. But we're losing--and none of the statistics, by the way, that I have intoned this afternoon has the gentleman rejected as being accurate: 747,000 jobs lost during the last month of the Bush administration. Less than 190,000 this month. Is that where we want to be? Of course it's not. We want to create 190,000. We want to create 500,000 jobs. We want to get people back to work. But the first thing we had to do was to reverse the extraordinary decline that we inherited in January of this year. I think we've done that. I will tell my friend that when those who open up their retirement funds that are invested in mutual funds or something else and find that their retirement funds are up 57 percent from the low point shortly after this administration took office, they're going to think that's progress. Is it where they want to be? No. They want to be back at a hundred percent of where they were. They're not there yet. We need to keep working, and that's why we're considering a jobs bill before we leave here. If we can put one together, hopefully in a bipartisan fashion, we will do so.

Mr. HOYER. Who mentioned that? Do you have any other windmills that you want to tilt at?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, Mr. Pomeroy, the representative of the Ways and Means Committee, for yielding, and I want to thank him for his efforts in pursuing this bill and introducing this bill and effecting the policy that currently exists in this country of a generous but fair provision for exemptions on estates. That exemption, as has been, I'm sure, debated today, provides for $3.5 million for each spouse, or $7 million a family, for an exemption under the estate tax. However, what the Republican policy did was create a situation where there is no certainty, no ability to plan, and no confidence of what the tax policy will be in the coming years. I, therefore, rise to support this bill which permanently extends estate tax relief to American families and which strikes a fair balance between what we owe to families, farmers, and small businesses, and what we owe to our country's fiscal future. This bill simply continues present law at current rates and exemptions. But it does not abolish the estate tax altogether, which I think would be a mistake. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt thought it would be a mistake. Teddy Roosevelt thought it would be a mistake because he did not want to see the constant accretion in just a few very wealthy people in America of the wealth of this country. Abolishing the estate tax would add billions and billions to our deficit, as will happen next year if we do not pass this bill. And while a small number of wealthy families would benefit, the growth of our economy as a whole would suffer. So would vital programs on which millions of Americans rely. The estate tax also sets a limit on the concentration of inherited wealth from generation to generation. That's what Teddy Roosevelt, Republican President the early part of last century, thought was appropriate in American policy, which, at a time when this country's middle class is truly struggling, would make inequality even starker and more damaging to our country's social fabric. That is why advocates of a dynamic economy have supported an estate tax for generations. When first proposing an estate tax, Theodore Roosevelt said, ``The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.'' And Bill Gates, along with Warren Buffett, one of the two wealthiest people in America, recently argued that the estate tax, ``puts a brake on the concentration of wealth and power, generates substantial revenue from those most able to pay, and encourages billions of dollars in charitable giving each year. The estate tax is not only fair,'' Bill Gates said, ``but an essential component of our Nation's economic dynamism.'' That's Bill Gates, who will, I think, be perceived by the American public as having probably the possibility of one of the largest estates. Finally, it's important that this bill is permanent, and not a temporary fix. That guarantees families, farmers, and small businesses the certainty they need to plan ahead rationally. President Bush's estate tax policy, by contrast, gave the country anything but certainty. It phased out the estate tax, repealed it entirely for 2010, and then brought it back, at 2001 levels, for 2011. In other words, 3.5 today, zero tomorrow, and 1 in 2011. No accountant or estate planner is going to look you in the eye and say, Well, based upon that policy, I can give you some rational advice. That was truly an irresponsible tax and fiscal policy brought to us, very frankly, by the minority party when it was in power. It made it impossible for families to plan with confidence for the future. It also hid the policy's true cost to our national budget. This bill can change that. It is in keeping with President Obama's pledge of a new honesty in budgeting. I also want to point out that passing this bill is also an important step toward fiscal responsibility because attached to it is the House's support for statutory PAYGO, as it's affectionately referred to by some, me included. Now, let me say something about statutory PAYGO. My friends on the Republican side of the aisle are not for it. They're not for it because they wanted to make deep revenue cuts and didn't want to pay for them. They wanted my children to pay for them and my grandchildren to pay for them. And very frankly, that's who's going to pay for them. Those of us of my age are not going to pay for them because we incurred real debt by not paying for what we buy, and created extraordinary deficits over the last 8 years of the Bush administration. As we know, the principle of paying for what we buy was central to turning record deficits of 1993, of 1992, of 1991, of 1990, and all of the years of the 1980s, turning record deficits into record surpluses. It was statutory PAYGO that allowed us to do that, along, obviously, with the extraordinary growth in the economy that occurred under an economic program put in place in 1993, for which none of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle voted. It can be an important step in our return to fiscal health today. By passing this bill, we can also strengthen our commitment to pay for all new policies that reduce revenues or expand entitlements. In fact, I wish that this extension of estate tax relief were also paid for. It is not, of course. Why is it not paid for? Because we can't pay for it at a time when we are at great economic risk. We can't depress the economy. We need to stimulate our economy. But if we put in place PAYGO, we will give additional confidence to those who are prepared to invest their capital that we will continue to have sound fiscal policies. It's unlikely that we will have the votes to pay for this extension of policies with bipartisan support. I choose to support the strongest version of PAYGO possible. That is the PAYGO provision in this bill. So, on the one hand, we bring in this bill estate planning rationality, substance, and confidence. And on the other hand, we adopt once again in this House the premise of statutory PAYGO, which got us to 4 years of surplus during the Clinton administration, the only 4 years of surplus in the lifetime of anybody in this Chamber. I hope that the Senate will join the House in taking this essential first step out of America's deep fiscal hole. My friend, Mr. Brady, thinks that they will not. Perhaps he is correct. If he is correct, it will be unfortunate. My friend, I know, has been a proponent for the years he's been here, and some others have been, of going to zero, no estate tax. Very frankly, because of that position, we have not been able to reach compromise and, therefore, we find ourselves in this untenable position. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, which makes a fair estate tax permanent, makes estate planning more reliable, and makes our commitment to fiscal discipline clear and unequivocal.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.