Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. That's correct.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me start at the beginning of his statement, that I might facetiously say was written by Lewis Carroll, who wrote Alice in Wonderland, of course, when he says that I characterized the stimulus package, which I did not; I have characterized the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which the CBO said gained us 600,000 to 1.4 million jobs. The gentleman likes to do this. He has done it a number of times. He says, ``Finally we're talking about jobs.'' As a matter of fact, in February we passed legislation--with no help, frankly, from your side-- which, in fact, CBO says has created up to 1.4 million new jobs in America. In addition, we believe we've saved a lot of jobs in America as well. We are not where we want to be. The gentleman also indicates--and I would agree--that both sides of the aisle have dug the hole deeper on the deficit. I say with all respect to my friend, we had an administration that was in office for 8 years, the Clinton administration. I would remind my friend--I am sure he is familiar with these statistics--that he inherited a $292 billion deficit from George Bush I. He reduced that deficit that year; the next year he reduced it further; the third year he reduced it even further; the fourth year he reduced it even further; and the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth years, the Clinton administration economic program took us into surplus--the only administration in your lifetime, and I am much older than you are--the only administration in my lifetime that had 4 years of surplus, and the only administration in my lifetime that ended their 8 years with a net surplus. So I would disagree with my friend that we contributed. In fact, your administration under Mr. Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus. Who said so? President Bush said so in 2001. We dissipated that into a $10 trillion deficit--arguably the largest turnaround of any nation in the world, certainly in terms of dollars. I'm not sure on percentage. Some countries, third-world countries, have pretty bad experiences. But to turn around a $5.6 trillion surplus by $15 trillion and turn it into a $10 trillion deficit and the worst economy we've seen in three-quarters of a century under the economic program that was pursued by your side of the aisle, very frankly I'm not going to take responsibility for that, I tell my friend with all due respect. This administration was confronted with the worst economic situation of any administration since Franklin Roosevelt. We have been trying with, I think, real focus, and in some respects real courage, because some of the things we did were very tough. You, I think, joined us when we responded to your administration, the Bush administration, and said through Secretary Paulson and Mr. Bernanke, the country is in crisis, and if we do not act and act decisively, we may go into a depression. You will recall that my side of the aisle responded to the Republican President, the chief executive of our country, who said we were in crisis, and we responded, and 142 of us voted on a bill that nobody wanted to vote for in order to preclude us going into crisis. Your party, unfortunately, did not support your President, as you recall, in a majority sense on that particular vote in September of 2008. Luckily, we came back. We had a failure; luckily we came back. Notwithstanding the unpopularity of that bill, we did contribute to stabilizing this economy. It was a tough vote. Americans are angry about it; we're angry about it. Bailing out people who were extraordinarily fiscally irresponsible--those same people that we want to regulate next week to make sure they are not subject to the regulatory neglect that they were subjected to for 8 years when the administration's policy was to simply get out of the way, not to regulate, not to oversee, and we saw an extraordinary financial meltdown. So I will tell my friend with all due respect, I do not accept his premise that we haven't been talking about jobs. I have not read the reports to which he referred, but I do not accept his premise that in fact making sure that these big financial institutions operate in a way that minimizes risk--not just to them; they can afford the risk. They sock away money somewhere; the people who couldn't afford the risk who saw their 401(k)s go into the tank, saw their retirement put at risk. So I tell my friend that next week, we are going to adopt legislation hopefully that will try to ensure that America does not go down that road again. Just as Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s responded with regulation to ensure that the stock market excesses and betting, on which people lost, did not reoccur and very frankly has kept us pretty stable. But, unfortunately, a lot of the regulatory neglect--which I want to make clear was not only in the Bush administration; there was some in the previous administration--we ought to have learned our lesson. I would hope you would join with us in adopting this regulatory reform package which will protect consumers and ensure responsible behavior on behalf of those whom we entrust with large parts of our national wealth and the health of our economy.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. Well, the gentleman, of course, wants to use language that we're not using. We're focused on jobs. Stimulus is a broader reach, frankly, than we are looking at. We do believe, though, as the gentleman has expressed on a number of occasions, that jobs is the focus. And we are looking at legislation which will help to create jobs, expand our economy, ensure our growth. As the gentleman knows, the CBO released their report on the Recovery Act which we passed and its impact on the economy and employment in the third quarter, which was the first quarter in 8 that we had grown the GDP. As the gentleman knows, that was not the case in 2008, of course. CBO estimates that because of the Recovery Act, 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs, more Americans had jobs as a result of the Recovery Act. The GDP, according to CBO, was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher than it would have been if we had not passed the Recovery Act. And the unemployment rate was nine-tenths of a point lower than it would have been. Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody's Economy.com recently said the stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do. It is contributing to ending the recession. In my view, without the stimulus, the GDP would still be in the negative as opposed to positive. Unemployment would be above 11 percent, and there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than there would have been without the stimulus. Having said that, you and I both agree not enough has been done. Notwithstanding the fact, essentially, there has been, with 2-months' exception with a little glitch-up, a straight-line decline in the number of loss of jobs per month from the high of the last month of the last administration of 747,000 lost. As you know, it's less than 190,000 lost. We don't have the report on Friday, but it's less than that, I think, which is progress, but it's not success. Success will be when we start gaining jobs. In that context, I tell my friend that we are in fact looking at ways and means to spur greater job creation, allow small businesses to expand, get additional credit, as well as continuing to assist those who have lost their jobs and are in need of assistance. But I cannot, at this point in time, give you the specifics. You have correctly observed the administration, because of its concern about job creation, is having a summit or a forum today to seek advice from experts on the economy, experts in the business field, and we certainly are going to look to them as well, talking to them. I want to also say to my friend that I would be more than pleased to receive from you and Members on your side of the aisle suggestions that you might have to accomplish a greater growth of jobs in our economy. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. Well, that has not been finally decided at this point in time. We'll have to wait to see what the Senate feels it can do in one of the conferences that we have. As the gentleman probably knows, under Senate procedure, while they're considering the health bill, the only thing they can rise for, without the necessity to have a 60 vote to go back into consideration of the health bill, is a conference report. So my expectation is it will be in a conference report.

Mr. HOYER. I will choose my words carefully. As opposed to expect, I hope that there will be a bill. Clearly, the Senate is debating that bill. We believe that this is one of the most important bills that any Member will have considered during the course of their tenure in this House, including myself, and I've been here, as you know, some time. The Senate is debating those bills now. Senator Reid has had great difficulty getting this bill to move along in an orderly fashion, which, I think, makes it impossible to predict when the Senate will be able to pass it. I can tell you that I know that Leader Reid is hopeful that this bill will be considered over the next 10, 12 days, and that they will be able to pass it prior to the 18th of December. And I'm hopeful that they can as well.

Mr. HOYER. Not only do I expect it, my belief is that it's mandatory that we do so. Obviously, the United States has never defaulted on its debt, and to do so would cause international disruption in the financial markets, further exacerbating an already difficult economic situation for our country and for countries around the world. So it is not only my expectation, but I believe it is absolutely essential that we do that. As the gentleman knows, we have passed already, in this House, an extension of the debt. The Senate has not passed that at this point in time, but I do expect it to be included in one of the pieces of legislation that we consider. I think it is absolutely essential and, in my view, whether you like the debt or don't--I mean, none of us like it--it would be irresponsible for the Congress not to pass a debt extension for debts that it has incurred. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. Nor for that matter, as the schedule, as you know, reflects, the week after the 1st, which is the 3rd, I guess.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, our Capital City is mourning the death of one of its leading citizens, a man I was proud to call my friend: Abe Pollin. Our thoughts and sympathy are with his wife, Irene, and his sons, Robert and Jim. Abe Pollin's business skill, his philanthropy, and his civic spirit changed Washington, D.C., for the better; and, indeed, his legacy extends far beyond this city. It is a legacy that will long outlive Abe Pollin himself, but I rise today to honor the man behind it. Abe was the sun of a Russian immigrant who came to this country speaking no English, and he rose to become one of this city's most successful developers. He was a boy whose fondest memories were of paying 25 cents to sit in the bleachers at Washington Senators games. And even when he had brought basketball and hockey teams to Washington, he kept his childhood passion for sports. The same work ethic that sent him to local railroad yards at 4 in the morning to buy supplies for his father's contracting business helped make him a fortune building housing for thousands. For some that would have been enough, but for Abe it was only the beginning. Like his father, Morris, whose generosity earned him the nickname ``Charity'' in the Washington Jewish community, Abe Pollin has a proud place in the great American and Jewish traditions of philanthropy. There are thousands and thousands who owe him thanks, whether or not they knew him firsthand. They are sons and daughters of 9/11 victims whose education Abe helped pay for, D.C. families who live in affordable housing that Abe built. Speaking in 1997 of the arena that was the centerpiece of Washington's downtown rebirth, Abe said this: ``I walk through that building and I get tears in my eyes. I've got everything I've ever done in my life on the line.'' It was his money that paid to build that arena. ``My advisers think I'm nuts. But I wanted to do something special for my town.'' Indeed, Abe Pollin's life was something special for this town, for sports not only in this town but in America, and for his country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to say to my friend who has just spoken, the ranking member of the committee who chaired the committee, who said they wanted to pay for things, what this bill does is put statutory PAYGO into law. He's right. But what he didn't say to you is when their side controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, they jettisoned paying for things. They did away with statutory PAYGO, they did away with PAYGO generally, and what happened? We went from substantial surpluses under the Clinton administration to substantial deficits under the Bush administration. Now we were told those substantial deficits and deficits that were being created would create economic growth in our country. In point of fact, however, after 8 years of that economic policy where they jettisoned PAYGO, a PAYGO which provided $5.6 trillion of surplus available in March 2001, according to President Bush; but they abandoned PAYGO, which is in this bill. This is not a question of payoff to anybody. This was in the President's budget when he sent it down here earlier this year. It was in our budget that passed the House and the Senate. We said we were going to do this. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. Today, we have the chance to vote for health care our seniors can count on and a fiscal future for all Americans that they can have faith in. Very frankly, my friend also said, We on the Republican side want to fix this. My question is simply: Why didn't you? Why do we still have this issue that confronts us year after year after year because we didn't have the courage to face it? I'm going to talk about the deficit, because this adds to the deficit. I will lament that, but there is not an option, as you added to the deficit every time you fixed it one year at a time. Doctors couldn't rely on it. More importantly, seniors couldn't rely on the fact that their doctors wouldn't have a big cut and push them out. I'm going to talk about that as well. We can do it by stopping a massive Medicare payment cut and by committing future policies to the tested principle of pay-as-you-go. Now my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like pay-as-you- go because it constrained them in cutting revenues over a trillion dollars, which is one of the reasons we have such a large deficit, because they didn't pay for what they bought. Interestingly enough, my friends, they bought at a rate twice the growth in spending that occurred during the 1990s, in the 2000s, which was about 3\1/2\ percent per year. It was 7 percent a year when my friends on the other side of the aisle controlled all of the levers of power. So they decreased revenue and increased spending, and we had large deficits and the biggest recession we have faced since the 1930s were inherited by this administration and, frankly, by this Congress. Now going back to the pay-as-you-go. First, the Medicare payment rate cut, if we do nothing, payments to doctors treating Medicare patients will drop by 21 percent in the new year with more cuts in the years to come. If we allow that to take place, many seniors will find their doctors no longer available to treat them. So this is not only about compensating doctors for the services that are vitally important and we want them to give, but it is also protecting seniors' access to doctors. That will mean less access to health care, longer waiting lists, and serious conditions going untreated and. In sum, if we do not act on this bill, it will mean sicker seniors. That's why it's essential that we stop these cuts before they're allowed to take effect. The cuts, of course, will occur on January 1 of this year, approximately 1 month from today. It is important to remember that this bill would simply prevent cuts, not increase payments to doctors. But it is true that ensuring our seniors' access to their doctors will add to our deficit, just as extending any of the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire next year would do. Because seniors' health is at stake in this bill, I believe that stopping these payment cuts is worth the cost. It's also worth pointing out that this bill represents a new honesty in budgeting. As far as Democrats are concerned, the days of pretending that the costs of the ``doctor fix'' will be made up by even deeper cuts next year are over. That, of course, is a policy we followed in the first 8 years of this decade. We pretended that somehow we'd fix it later, and we never did. Indeed, most of the costs associated with this bill are the result of stopping the gimmicks that were used for years and cleaning up the mess created by those gimmicks. The first step to getting out of debt is being honest about the debt we're in. It is too deep, it is dangerous, and we need to address it. So let's be honest. Our country is in a deep fiscal hole for reasons that go far beyond Medicare payments. In fact, there's no one reason for our record national debt. It's bipartisan in nature, not exclusively Republican or Democrat. The causes include the previous administration's debt financed tax cuts, which I've spoken of, for America's essentially wealthier citizens who got most of the tax cuts; the cost of two wars, which we did not pay for; our escalating entitlements programs, which all of us have supported; the recession that we have confronted and that started in the seventh year of the previous administration's term; and the deficit spending--and we need to clean up that economic mess; spending that economists tell us is necessary to stimulate demand and recession. In other words, we needed to spend the money to preclude a depression, not just a deep recession that we're in, and almost every economist, including Marty Feldstein, said that that was necessary. A recent New York Times analysis tells us that 90 percent of our deficit has been brought about by the policies of the previous administration and the extension of its policies and the economic crisis that it left behind. No one step will get us out of our fiscal hole, but the most important immediate step we can take is to commit ourselves to the principle that in new policies of our country, we will pay for what we buy. That is the principle of pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, which was in place in the 1990s as we went from deep debt into surplus and that $5.6 trillion surplus that President Bush inherited in 2001. In the 1990s, President Clinton used it to turn huge deficits into a record surplus, and when President Bush abandoned PAYGO, and my friends on the other side of the aisle abandoned PAYGO, record deficits returned. When Democrats took back the House majority in 2006, we demonstrated our commitment to fiscal responsibility by making PAYGO a part of the House rules. It's sometimes been difficult. And now with the support from President Obama and both Chambers of Congress, we have a real chance to give PAYGO the force of law by passing this bill. Under PAYGO, Congress will be forced to offset all new policies reducing revenues or expanding entitlements, so that they add nothing to our deficit. In essence, we will be forced to make the hard budgeting choices that are so tempting to avoid. We are avoiding them today. We ought to admit that very honestly. Why are we doing it? Because as a practical matter, in the deep recession that we're in, we cannot pay for it without depressing the economy further. That is not an acceptable alternative. If we want to cut taxes, we'll have to explain which programs will suffer cuts. If we want to expand entitlements, we'll have to spell out how we are going to pay for it. And no matter which party is in power, we'll be forced to distinguish wasteful spending and subsidies from the long-term priorities that really matter to our country. Some have explained that statutory PAYGO would not apply to extensions of some existing policies that have bipartisan support, one of which is the one we're talking about today. Policies on the alternative minimum tax, which we've already done. And by the way, I am one of those--wasn't in the majority--who voted against extending the alternative minimum tax if we did not pay for it. In addition to that, Medicare doctor payments, which we're talking about today, and the estate and middle-income tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. I sympathize with their concerns. They are not specious concerns. I have said repeatedly that I would fight to pay for all of these policies. Hear me, if the Senate sends this back paid for, I will support it. I challenge all of you on that side of the aisle and all of you on this side of the aisle to do the same. That stands in contrast, frankly, to the first 8 years of this decade, when repeatedly it was stated that they do not believe that extensions of tax cuts need to be paid for. Unfortunately, it's a political reality that the votes to pay for extensions of the Bush policies are most likely not there. A PAYGO law that ignored that fact would be waived for those policies and then again and again. I prefer a law that we can enforce consistently. And very frankly, that is supported by some of the most consistent voters for fiscal responsibility on this floor. Mr. Speaker, in our country's economic meltdown last year, we all saw the damage that deep debt can do. It's time for our Federal Government to learn that lesson and act on it. If we fail to act, liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican, priorities will suffer alike. We can still prevent that outcome, ladies and gentlemen of this House. We cannot get back to fiscal health in one afternoon's vote, and we will not, perhaps not in this President's term or the next, but we must start. We must take a step toward that end. This bill does that. It supports not only ensuring our seniors access to quality medical services but also ensures that we, again, adopt the policy that brought us $5.6 trillion in surplus. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), who does such an extraordinary job of leading the committee. I thank Mr. Smith for his leadership. I also want to thank David Wu, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his leadership. All of them have joined together to get this bill to the floor. And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge their contribution, because this bill, the genesis of it, was really with Mr. Pascrell of New Jersey, who worked so many years ago to work with the Senate in generating this idea so that it came back to the House, but he was the godfather, if you will, of this piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge his presence here and thank him for his leadership. And I certainly want to thank Mr. Mitchell, Congressman Mitchell, who has been so critical in getting this bill to this point in time. He is an extraordinarily able Member of the Congress, and the firefighters throughout our country I know are appreciative of his efforts on this bill. Every day, Mr. Chairman, we and our families live under the blanket of protection provided by America's firefighters, both career and volunteer, men and women who are willing to risk their lives to safeguard us, our loved ones, and our property. We may not often think about those sacrifices but every firefighter does. Last year, more than 100 of them died in the line of duty, and tens of thousands more sustained injuries. To honor those sacrifices and to make our communities safer places to live, Congress has worked to become a partner with the fire departments across the Nation. Today we can reaffirm that commitment by reauthorizing two successful grant programs for firefighters: FIRE and SAFER. I also want to mention a former fire chief from Pennsylvania who was also critically important in working on this legislation. He's no longer a Member of this body, Curt Weldon, a Member of the other side of the aisle. He and I cochaired the Fire Service Caucus for over 15 years. His leadership was critical in moving us towards the partnership of which I have just spoken between the Congress and the emergency responders throughout our country, career and volunteer. This bill reauthorizes both programs through fiscal year 2014, pledging a total of $2.2 billion per year to our firefighters. The FIRE grant program authorizes $1 billion per year for state-of-the-art fire equipment, up-to-date training, and fire prevention programs. These competitive grants will benefit career, volunteer, and combination fire departments throughout the country. I know the chairman and subcommittee Chair have already spoken of what it will do, but I wanted to add as well State training academies and volunteer EMS departments, so critical to our emergency response strategies and team. The SAFER grant program ensures that our community firehouses never have to sit empty: Its $1.2 billion per year will ensure 24-hour staffing at eligible departments so that there are always firefighters on duty in case of emergency. In fact, of course, it is the firefighters and emergency medical response teams that are usually the first on the scene at almost any disaster. It is therefore critical that they be available during a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week schedule. It also commits money each year to help volunteer departments recruit and retain new members. Since FIRE's inception in 2000 and SAFER's in 2004, these programs have won support from Democrats and Republicans alike. This is truly a bipartisan effort on behalf of our communities. Our respect for firefighters and our commitment to get them the tools and training they need has transcended party lines, as it should have, and I hope today it will be no different and I know it will be no different. I want to commend my colleagues Harry Mitchell and Bill Pascrell, as I said, the father of the FIRE grants program, for their leadership on this issue, as well as Chairman Gordon and Chairman Wu and my fellow Fire Caucus co-Chairs Peter King, Rob Andrews, and Jo Ann Emerson. I urge all of my colleagues to vote to reauthorize these grants and carry forward this successful and vital partnership.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, Mr. Ackerman, for yielding, and I thank the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for bringing this resolution to the floor. Next week, as has been said, President Obama will be hosting the first State dinner of his administration, and the guest of honor, appropriately, will be the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh. Prime Minister Singh visits America at a time when the relationship between our two nations is as strong as it has ever been. In India we see a vital partner on issues of national security to world trade. We see a nation that confronts many of the threats that challenge America, from terrorism to global warming. We see an emerging economic power with a growing middle class. And though our nations are separated by distance, language, and culture, we recognize in one another the democratic values we share; and of course we have a language in common as well, as well as common values, despite its great size and diversity. And for those who may not know, India will soon be not only the largest democracy, but the most populous nation in the world. India has remained a democracy since its independence more than 60 years ago. And this year, Prime Minister Singh was returned to power in the world's largest democratic election. In fact, India made him the first Prime Minister since Nehru to return to office after completing a full term, a truly remarkable accomplishment. All of us should be proud, and I know we are, to host the leader of one of America's most vital allies. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Speaker Pelosi, and all of us on both sides of the aisle, and Mr. Boehner, I am pleased to have this opportunity to welcome Prime Minister Singh to the United States and rise in strong support of this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Elaine Armstrong Vall-Spinosa Cochran Dunkle for her inspiring leadership and devoted service to both her community and country. For the past 54 years she has applied her considerable skill to promoting civil discourse and civic engagement across both state and party lines. She has served, and continues to serve, as a bastion of inspiration for those who adhere to the principle that democracy is not an idle state, but a work in progress that expects our involvement should it seek to endure. On May 14, 1915, Elaine was born into a society that did not permit women to vote. Five years later, Congress ratified the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote under the U.S. Constitution. Elaine can recall her father giving her mother instructions on how the voting process worked. It was a memory she carried with her when, at age 21, Elaine cast her first ballot for Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1936 Presidential election. After college, Elaine became a history teacher, and it was at the helm of a classroom that she first experienced a deep connection with politics. She felt a tremendous sense of responsibility to the children she taught, and to honor that, took the time to educate herself and them on the great issues of their day, such as Roosevelt's ``New Deal'' and the Marshal Plan. She left teaching, however, to raise her own family and it was shortly thereafter that Elaine was invited to a life- changing meeting of Virginia's League of Women Voters. Rising the ranks within Virginia's delegation, Elaine soon found herself guiding the League in an attempt to prevent Congress from dismantling price controls in the midst of the Great Depression. Believing that price controls were crucial to keeping household staples affordable for the average Depression-stricken family, she led a motorcade with League representatives from all 48 states to the Capitol. Together, they succeeded in convincing Congress to delay the dismantling of those controls. Years later, Elaine was still active within the League of Women Voters. Now residing in Maryland, she played a vital role in a countless number of the League's Calvert County endeavors. As President of the Calvert County unit, she oversaw a number of initiatives aimed to increase public awareness of political issues. These included the hugely popular ``Know Who's in Charge'' pamphlet and the Calvert County Voter's Guide. One of her reigning achievements was her League's invaluable role in building the Chesapeake Bay Coalition--a union of five states joined in the fight to preserve and protect America's largest estuary. With the use of independently-funded studies, Elaine and her League members poured endless hours into persuading policymakers that it was the right action to take for our country. They succeeded. Madam Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that ``we in America do not have government by the majority--we have government by the majority of those who participate.'' Elaine Cochran Dunkle has spent her life participating and as a consequence has left a lasting mark on our country. I extend my sincerest thanks for her tireless commitment to our nation and for all the many accomplishments that commitment has engendered.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. My colleagues, I ask you to reject this amendment. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle demanded 72 hours' notice for the bill and they've gotten 4 or 5 months' notice. They gave us 72 seconds to consider this amendment. This amendment deals with some very complicated subjects; and it provides, of course, as we are not surprised that it would, for substantial billions of dollars back to the insurance companies. That's what their objective is. And, yes, they say something about equity of distribution of money. No study. We set up a very careful study to make sure that the people's money is distributed to the States in an equitable, fair, effective fashion. That is why we ought to reject this amendment for which we received no notice, no consideration, no discussion in the public. The Republicans have been outraged about that. I ask our party, I ask each one of us, to reject this motion to recommit and pass this bill.

Mr. HOYER. I thank Mr. Waxman for yielding. Our rule was chaired by John Dingell, himself a historic figure on a historic day. I want to congratulate all of those who have participated in the accomplishment of the product that we consider this day: Mr. Waxman, one of our senior Members in the House; Mr. Rangel, one of our senior Members in the House; and Mr. Miller. I want to thank too the Republicans who engaged in this discussion, in this debate, because it is historic, and all of us who sit in this Chamber know that it will have a great effect on our people. Some perceive that effect as not positive. More, I believe, think it is positive. In any event, none of us believe that it is not extraordinarily important. Soon each one of us is going to look into his or her conscience and vote on this bill. And when the time comes, I don't know if any words of mine will sway any of you. But I know that the most powerful arguments for the bill won't be spoken on this floor. They are being lived right now in our country in every one of our districts, in every one of our towns and counties and municipalities. In the anxiety of the family that finds itself paying more and more each year for health insurance that grows weaker and weaker. In the frustration of the small business owner weighing the choices of dropping her employees' coverage against the threat of being driven out of business by her competitors. And in the fury of the patient who learns that an insurance company bureaucrat has deemed him too sick for the coverage he paid for. They are our families, our neighbors, our fellow citizens. They are waiting for health insurance reform that is more affordable, more secure, more just. Their stories will be with me and I know with each of us when we cast our vote. Because I want to say to every American facing down illness: never again, never again will you be denied coverage because you have diabetes or asthma or some other disease or because you're pregnant or because you have anything else your insurer decides is a preexisting condition. Never again will your coverage run out. Nor will you find the coverage you thought you had paid for was actually not there at all. And never again can insurance companies drive out competition and set premiums as high as they like, because there will be a public insurance option and a transparent marketplace to keep them honest, to keep them competitive, to bring prices down. I want to say to our middle class families, the backbone of our country: you will have coverage that you can depend upon. Even if you change your job or lose your job or decide to start a business, you will be able to find affordable coverage in a competitive marketplace, an insurance exchange that offers you a choice of good policies at fair rates. In fact, according to an MIT analysis, buying coverage on the exchange will bring your premiums down by a great deal, even without the affordability credits. If your family makes $90,000 or more, you'll save more than 1,200 bucks. If your family makes $60,000, you'll save more than $5,000. And if your family is making $38,000, you'll save more than $9,000. That's the kind of tax cut that America needs to secure its medical future. I want to say to our seniors: you can count on Medicare, on a Federal program, for dignity and peace of mind in your golden years. And that will not change. Today we will vote to protect your access to your doctor, to encourage Medicare physicians to cooperate on higher quality care, to keep your Medicare solvent for longer, and to bring an end to the doughnut hole that leaves prescription drugs unaffordable for so many. I want to say to our small businessmen and women: I know your premiums keep going up and that each year they make it harder to stay in business, to compete with Big Business and with foreign firms. You deserve a fair playing field; and in the insurance exchange marketplace, you'll be able to buy coverage at the low group rates you're now being denied. I want to say to the 35 million Americans without insurance, who are forced to skip checkups and preventative care, who are forced to turn to the ER as the first and only line of defense, who live sicker and shorter lives: you will have what every man, woman, and child has in every other industrialized country in the world: health coverage you can afford and that you can count on. And every American who is rightly worried about our mounting deficits and debt, I can tell you this: this bill does not add to the deficit over the next 10 years or the 10 years thereafter. This bill means health care that is more fiscally sustainable for years to come. That is what this bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, can achieve for our country and for our people. It isn't a simple bill. It isn't a perfect bill, but it is the product of months and months of careful debate, sometimes animated debate, yes, even angry debate, careful scrutiny, hard work, and citizen input. And it's the right response to this time of economic insecurity in which we have been called to lead. If we miss this chance, or if we vote for a Republican plan that does very little to expand coverage, weakens insurance, frankly, for millions who have it, and continues to allow millions of Americans to be denied affordable coverage, we'll find ourselves back here again. But by then, premiums will eat up even more of our families' budgets; health care will consume even more of our economy; and even more Americans will have died for the lack of health care. If we miss this chance, if we miss this challenge of nearly a century's duration, when Teddy Roosevelt, one of the great Presidents of this country, a Republican President of this country, said a hundred years ago we need to have health care coverage for all Americans--this is not a new idea, but it is an idea whose time has surely come--the years between this chance and our next one will be filled with stories that are unworthy of America at its best. Stories like Linda's, who wrote to The New York Times of the anguish she felt suffering from abdominal cancer and standing in the hospital just feet away from the drugs that could help save her life, drugs her insurance company was denying her. Stories like Deamonte Driver's from Prince George's County, just a few miles down the road, who died at the age of 12 from a toothache, a toothache that was not treated by a dentist; and, as a result, it became infected. That infection went into his brain. He was in the hospital for 30 days at a cost of $250,000. Why? Because he didn't have $80 to get that tooth filled. This bill will change that. We can be better than that. America is better than that. We must be. Americans rightly want to know what's in this bill for them and for their families, but there's also something important in this bill for us as a people: a system worthy of the values we profess and the principles we hold dear. We will vote for a healthier America. We will vote to give our fellow citizens a greater sense of security. We will vote to make Medicare stronger for our seniors. We will vote for a healthier economy, for affordable coverage for individuals and small business. We will vote to begin containing costs, which will otherwise be unsustainable for our children and for our grandchildren. We will, in sum, my colleagues, on this historic day, vote for a more perfect Union of which our Founders dreamed.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is obviously an historic rule. There were some of us who were for it and some of us who were against it, but I know that all of us, all 434 of his colleagues, are honored to serve with the longest-serving Member of this House, who has committed himself to health care throughout his life, as did his father. We honor him for the service he has given to our country. Ladies and gentlemen, let us stand in honor of John Dingell.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I join Mr. Carter in asking for this moment of silence. And as we do, we remember all of those in our Armed Forces, whether they are here in America, they are in uniform or in civilian service in the defense of our country. Obviously, these brave souls were the objects as members of our Armed Forces. And as we rise in a moment of silence to them, we remember as well all of those brave men and women who are serving around the world to maintain peace, security, and freedom.

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, I rise with the extraordinarily sad and wrenching news that 12 of our people at Fort Hood have been killed today by a gunman or more and 31 others were wounded. President Obama called the incident a horrific outburst of violence, and he went on to say these are men and women who made the selfless and courageous decision to risk their lives in the service of our Nation. The President went on to say it's horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil. I know that all of us are extraordinarily saddened and shocked by this incident. Our hearts, our minds, our prayers go out to the families of all of those whose lives have been lost and our prayers for their wholeness and health go out to those who have been injured. Now, Madam Speaker, I yield to Congressman Carter in whose district Fort Hood is located.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, as the House well knows, we are contemplating the consideration of the Health Care for All Americans Act on Saturday. We will be considering the amendments on the chemical protection bill that we are now considering tomorrow. We will consider perhaps some other suspensions as well. My expectation is that on Saturday we will convene at 9 o'clock in the morning. I expect to have five 1-minute speeches on each side, as we usually do on Friday and the end of the week. We will then go to the rule on the health care bill, and then it is my expectation we will have consideration of the health care bill and the Republican substitute. It is my expectation that if we proceed apace and come to a vote and disposition on that piece of legislation, that we would then adjourn Saturday at whatever hour we complete our work and that the adjournment would be to the 16th of November, the Monday of the following week. We will convene on the 16th at 6:30 p.m. and meet through Friday of that week. It is my expectation, as I have indicated, that we would be off the following week, which is Thanksgiving week. That's my present plan, which oft go awry, as all of us know, but that is my present plan for the balance of the month.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. That would be my expectation. Again, I want to clarify and make sure that everybody understands it is our intent to finish the health care bill, but assuming that we finish the health care bill sometime Saturday, Saturday night, or early Sunday morning, it would be my expectation there would be no further business until the 16th.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Washington, and I rise in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, a year ago this week Barack Obama was elected President in the midst of the greatest economic crisis in almost three-quarters of a century. Since his inauguration and the swearing in of the 111th Congress, we have been working hard to turn our economy around and put America and Americans back to work. And whether we are Democrats or Republicans, there is reason for hope in the results we have seen in that time, because they mean growing economic security for the people we represent. We're not there, we need to keep working on it, but we've made progress. Last month, we saw news that the American economy grew at a rate of 3.5 percent between July and September. That, Mr. Speaker, is the best growth in 2 years and a reversal of four quarters of decline. That's progress. It is not yet success. According to Moody's, the Congressional Budget Office and the Council of Economic Advisors, the Recovery Act has saved or created about 1 million jobs. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently concluded that the Recovery Act kept 6 million Americans from falling into poverty and reduced the severity of poverty for 33 million Americans. It was the right thing to do. But we're not there yet. Facts like these have combined to convince unbiased observers that the recession the President inherited is over. Yet that is not the whole picture. For millions of American families struggling with unemployment, the recession is not over. It's not over until their loved ones get back to work, until they have a job, until they can pay for the housing and the food and the clothing and the schooling their families need. So we in Congress cannot consider the work of recovery done until those jobs are back. The truth is that long-term unemployment remains at its highest rate since we began measuring it in 1948. Over 33 percent of the total unemployed have been out of work for more than 26 weeks. And because it's harder to get hired the longer you've been out of the workforce, long-term unemployment can become a vicious cycle. This bill lends a hand to nearly 2 million Americans whose unemployment insurance is set to run out by the end of the year. It extends their unemployment insurance by up to 14 weeks, and by a further 6 weeks in the States with the most difficult job markets. This means they will be able to survive; not thrive, but survive. Who are those 2 million Americans and who will benefit? Many of them are middle-class Americans who lost their jobs without warning. According to a survey recently conducted at the Rutgers University, ``Six in 10 of those whose employer had let them go had no advance warning.'' What a wrenching experience that was, for them, for their spouses, for their children and, yes, for their entire extended families, as well as their communities. Adding to the pain for many, nearly four in 10 said they had been employed by their company for more than 3 years and one in 10 more than a decade. These were people with stable jobs and commitments based upon those stable jobs, such as college payments and mortgages. People have found the ground falling out from under them through no fault of their own. We owe it to them, Mr. Speaker, and their families to help, and we owe it to our economic health as well. The money provided by unemployment insurance quickly goes to necessities and boosts local economies. In fact, according to the CBO, every dollar we spend on unemployment insurance generates $1.61 in local economic activity, making this bill an investment that pays off for all of us, so we have a win-win situation here. We help people in very bad straits; and we help our economy and help us all. I am also glad that this bill is fiscally sound. It's fully paid for. It does not contribute to the deficit. Though we have made progress since the depths of last winter and the depths of the recession inherited by President Obama and this Congress, there is, as I have said, clearly more work to do. We pledge to continue that work. We can take action today for those families for whom recovery is not yet a reality, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for introducing and working with the chairman on this resolution. I rise to voice my objection to the unfair, unbalanced, and inaccurate report of the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict, otherwise known as the Goldstone Report. The report not only paints a distorted picture of Israel's legitimate efforts at self-defense, in my opinion, but it epitomizes the practice of singling Israel out from all other nations for condemnation. The Goldstone Report does little to build confidence that the U.N. or its Human Rights Council can deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an evenhanded manner. I agree with those who spoke before me that it ought to, but the Goldstone Report does not give us much confidence that that's what's happening. For one, the Human Rights Council's mandate for the report specifically targeted Israeli actions, ignoring, ignoring the deliberate Hamas attacks on civilians that provoked Israel's self- defense in Operation Cast Lead. The report's lead author himself, Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, objected to that one-sided Band-Aid. Let me repeat that. Goldstone himself, when the commission issued its report, objected to that one-sided mandate that they issued. But notwithstanding his objection, it was not formally altered. Similarly, former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, whom many of you know, Mary Robinson, not known as a great defender of Israel, Mary Robinson, who has criticized Israel's record in the past, also objected to this one-sided mandate. In her words, and I quote Mary Robinson: ``Unfortunately, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution seeking a fact-finding mission to only look at what Israel has done, and I don't think that's the human rights approach,'' said Mary Robinson. Secretary of State Clinton agrees. She said this: ``We believe that the mandate for the Goldstone Report was one-sided and that many of the recommendations are appropriately dealt with by the institutions within Israel.'' And, indeed, if they were not, I would be here to say that we ought to support the United Nations' actions. The Goldstone Report largely neglects the context within which Israel's action took place. Why is that context so vital, and why is the report so empty without it? Because for years--for years--Israel has been the target of asymmetrical warfare for terrorists who hide behind civilians and aim to kill civilians. For 8 years before Operation Cast Lead, Hamas, aided by Iran and others, launched deadly rockets and mortar fire into Israel, even after Israel dismantled its Gaza settlements, even after it withdrew its military. More than 6,000 rockets have fallen indiscriminately on southern Israel's cities and towns. I can't imagine there is one of us in this Chamber that if Canada or Mexico rained down six missiles on our civilian population--not 6,000 on our population-- that there would be a Member here who would not want decisive response to stop that assault. Each was intended to kill the maximum number of civilians. These rockets did not target military targets. They targeted civilians. How do I know? I've been there, and I have seen the effectiveness firsthand of the fear that has been put in the minds of the people of Sderot and others. In the Israeli town of Sderot, I saw children who had lost literally the ability to speak, who no longer had control over their bodily functions, who were condemned to play in an armored playground from fear of the rockets that could kill with only seconds' warning. There is no military establishment in Sderot. Families, children. That is the context of which the Goldstone Report makes such short shrift. Tragically, civilians in Gaza suffered and continue to suffer. They suffer in major part from the determination of their imposed leaders to pursue indiscriminate terror. I have had a discussion with my friend Mr. Kucinich, for whom I have a great deal of respect. We ought to have great empathy for the Palestinian people who have been put at great risk by their leaders pursuing terrorism. We ought to have empathy for those children who live in the camps in Gaza. Terrible condition. I've been there. Is there anybody here who doubts that if those children living there for decade after decade after decade were European children or American children or Jewish children that they would still be there in those camps? I say to you, not the case. Why are they there? Because the Arab community does not want to absorb them, and their leaders will not seek a meaningful peace. That is why they're there. Hamas, like its state sponsors, is notorious for using men, women and children as human shields and political props. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it earlier this year, ``Hamas has held the people of Gaza hostage.'' They still do. Should we have empathy for those young people and not so young people held hostage? Absolutely, we should. Should we act to help their plight? Absolutely, we should. But that does not mean we ought to rationalize terrorists who attack children in Sderot or any other place. Hamas continues to hold them hostage, likely subjecting the Goldstone Report's Palestinian witnesses to intimidation and threats, a possibility that the report does not take into account, of course. Unlike Hamas and its sponsors, Israel is a democracy with an independent judiciary, and all of us know that that judiciary frequently has said to the military and to the Israel Government, you cannot do this. You did it wrong. You're going to be held accountable. There is nothing like that in Gaza, little like that in the West Bank, although the West Bank is getting better. Its security is increasing. Abbas and Fayad are making progress. It is fully investigating its military for any--I am going back to Israel now--for any human rights violations that may have been committed in Gaza. That is appropriate. They ought to do that. Tragically, we know that when men and, indeed, women go to war, that there are those who do not always act properly on both sides. We need to hold that conduct accountable. I believe in the integrity of Israel's investigations because I believe in its legitimacy as a democratic state, but I do not accept the legitimacy of singling out Israel for biased censure. It is essential to hold every nation to international norms of behavior in peace as well as in war. Israel must be held to the same standards as any other nation. It holds itself to such standards, I would add, even when its enemies do not. Indeed, few nations constrain themselves more than Israel, but no other nation has so many in the U.N. eager to condemn it, irrespective of facts and justification. Soon, the U.N. General Assembly will vote on endorsing the Goldstone Report. Goldstone himself said that their report was not a fair report, but by doing so and by condemning Israel, the U.N. would also be threatening the just self-defense of any state endangered by asymmetrical warfare. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me again express the fact that I believe this bill has received the most extensive consideration of any bill since I have been in Congress, and that hasn't always happened. The gentleman has been here for a number of years, and he was here, I believe, on June 25, 2003. He recalls that that was a bill which was the most massive change in Medicare in over a quarter of a century. The gentleman probably recalls that bill; the prescription drug bill, referred to affectionately. I know the gentleman must clearly remember how we considered that bill. But just on the off chance he doesn't, let me remind him. On June 25, 2003, a new version was introduced and referred to committee. Hear me. New bill, introduced, referred to committee on June 25. On June 26, at 6:20 a.m. in the morning, a rule for martial law was considered by the Rules Committee, with 3 hours of debate and a Rangel substitute permitted with 1 hour of debate. On June 26 at 6:55 p.m., debate began pursuant to House Resolution 299. Then the House proceeded with 3 hours of general debate. On 6/27--6/27--at 2:32 a.m., there was a 50-minute vote, and the bill passed 216-215 after all of about 36 hours of exposure from introduction to passage. Now, that bill, of course, went to conference, and it came back from conference. Let me remind my friend about the timing on the conference report. On 11/21/2003 at 1:17 a.m., the conference report was filed. At 11/ 21/2003 at 3:41 a.m., 2 hours and approximately 20 minutes later, martial-law consideration of conference report by the Rules Committee. At 11/21, the same day, 2003, at 11:26 p.m.--now this started at 1:17 a.m. in the morning--at 11:26 p.m., it passed the House, the rule. Now, at 11:36 p.m., 10 minutes later--10 minutes later--Mr. Thomas brought up the conference report for consideration. At 11/22, at 2:39 a.m., we began to vote. I am sure you remember that vote. It took 3 hours. Now, of course, we had had this under consideration from the day before at 1:17 a.m. when the conference report was reported back. This side of the aisle won for 2 hours and 45 minutes while you spent time changing votes on your side of the aisle. You were ultimately successful. About 2 hours and 55 minutes into that particular vote, the longest vote which I have considered, and, frankly, the longest time this was considered as a piece of legislation, you changed the votes. And it won, 211-222, at 11/22 at 5:50 a.m. In other words, consideration of the conference report was laid on the table at 11/21/2003 for the Rules Committee consideration, and by 11/22 at 5:50 a.m., about 30 hours later, it was passed. I tell my friend in reviewing this, this was an 800-page bill, by the way, no extensive hearings on that bill. By the way, when you had press conferences regarding that bill, none of us were invited. You know that and I know that. I would tell me friend with all due respect, this saying that the Democrats have rolled out a bill, we rolled out a bill 4 months ago. We rolled out a bill 6 months ago. We rolled out hearings 8, 9 and 10 months ago. Your major piece of legislation, in 25 years the most significant amendment to the Medicare Act that had passed to that period of time, you passed with less than 48 hours' notice from the Rules Committee consideration to the passage. We have said we have had months of consideration, months of debate, months of transparency on the Web. Now on the Web we are going to give you, as I promised we would, at least 72 hours notice to read that bill and to have it considered on this floor.