Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I urge my colleagues to support this supplemental appropriations bill, and I appreciate the bipartisan support that this bill has received. It makes vital investments in the needs of our troops, responsible policy abroad and security at home. I want to thank Chairman Obey and his staff for their hard work in putting this legislation together. The supplemental supports our troops, who are in harm's way, and honors their service when they return home. $1.2 billion for health and support programs for military families, $734 million to compensate servicemembers and veterans for every month their service was extended by stop-loss orders. The supplemental also makes important commitments to our national security. It follows through on President Obama's commitment to remove all combat troops from Iraq by 2010, and it refocuses our attention on Afghanistan and Pakistan, which remain havens for terrorists seeking to destabilize the region and harm Americans. American military involvement is an important part of our effort for a stable Afghanistan that no longer harbors terrorists. That effort also includes training Afghan security forces, police development work and a diplomatic surge. Of the $5.1 billion that this supplemental dedicates to Afghanistan, $3.6 billion is intended for local security forces, a critical component of our objective; $980 million is for efforts to strengthen the economy and the rule of law; and $536 million is for civilian diplomacy. We've also come to understand, as President Obama has repeatedly stressed, that the stability of Afghanistan is intimately tied to the stability of Pakistan, which is under threat from insurgent Taliban. I believe that this supplemental will help reduce that threat through comprehensive funding for counterinsurgency development and diplomacy programs in Pakistan. But it is also essential that the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments hold up their end of the bargain. That is why this legislation requires the President to report to Congress by February of next year on the progress of those governments in five key areas: The level of political consensus to the level of corruption, steps to eliminate it, success in counterinsurgency, cooperation of their intelligence service with our country, and the government's ability to control their own territory. All of these are critical information points for us to have. This information will be essential to ensuring that our policy remains realistic and wise and we hope successful in this critical region of the world. Finally, the supplemental makes a number of other important investments in our security. These include funding for pandemic flu preparedness and vaccine stockpiles, the importance of which have been dramatically demonstrated in the past weeks; funding to address violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, a priority I strongly support and observed the need for when I was in Mexico last month; and funding for important international food, refugee and disaster assistance. I would comment briefly on the issue with reference to Guantanamo. First of all, this does not provide for the release of anybody from Guantanamo. Secondly, the President has widely said, We need a plan for Guantanamo, and is pursuing that. This language provides for that planning process to go forward. Thirdly, I would observe that almost none of those held at Guantanamo have used that courtroom, to which Mr. Tiahrt referred. That is to say, there hasn't been a finding in these cases. There ought to be findings. But in any event, I agree absolutely, and I think everybody on this floor agrees that anybody who is a terrorist ought not be released anywhere. We will have to decide how to resolve this issue. It's a thorny one. I might observe that the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former national security adviser to the first President Bush, observed that he thought Guantanamo ought to be closed on national television over a year ago and he said, Today, if not yesterday. Now having said that, this President is pursuing I think a very thoughtful effort to see how that goal can be accomplished. It's a difficult one, but we need to work with him in accomplishing that objective. I thank the chairman for his work. I thank the Chair and ranking member, Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young, of the Defense Subcommittee for the work that they've done on this to ensure that our troops have what they need to prosecute the policies of this country and to keep our citizens and the Nation safe.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, as is our custom, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the end of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 out of the Small Business Committee, and House amendments to S. 896, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that question. We are not sure exactly which days which bill will be considered, but I think they will probably be considered in the order that they are listed. But whether they will be Wednesday and Thursday or Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, I'm not exactly sure. The suspension bills will probably be considered most of Tuesday. I might also say, as the gentleman knows, there are a number of bills pending that may come from conference, and we will address those bills when and if they do come back.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First let me say to all Members that I advise them to advise their schedulers not to schedule Fridays in June or July. We're off, obviously, for a week in July for the July 4 work period, but other than that, I would urge all Members to make sure their schedulers understand that we may well be here late into afternoons on each and every one of the Fridays. Now, why? First of all, we're going to consider the Defense Authorization bill and the State Department Authorization bills. But in addition to that, we will be considering the appropriation bills. It is my hope and objective--and Mr. Whip, you and I have briefly talked and we are going to talk again about the scheduling of these bills--to pass all of the appropriations bills, as Senator Inouye has indicated he would like to do as well, pass all the appropriations bills, individually, through the Senate and through the House so that we might conference those bills and have them on the floor in the regular order. Those, obviously, 12 bills will take up much of those 2 months. In addition to that, of course, the committees are considering major pieces of legislation dealing with energy independence and global warming, as well as health care. Now, we do not know whether or not they might be ready for the floor or when they might be ready for the floor, but Members ought to know that those are bills that are clearly on our radar screen to be put on the agenda when they are ready.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 19, 2009, for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Twenty thousand votes is a quantifiable criteria. What, for those of you who are new, is not as quantifiable is the real measure of the man. Twenty thousand votes, a conscientious Member. But the real measure of Bill Young, which Americans would have observed had they been with him during each of those votes, is the decency of Bill Young, is the collegiality of Bill Young, of his inclination to reach across the aisle, reach across ideology, reach across and say, How can we do this together? Bill Young is an example for us all of how to treat one another and how to engage in this process, though we may have differences, in a way that built a better institution, not tore it down. That is why those 20,000 votes are deserving of so much respect, because the character with which they were cast and the character that characterize and continues to characterize the gentleman from Florida's service. Bill Young, we are in your debt. You have served your country well, and we look forward to years of service with you, my friend. Thank you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, it is well-known by now that our economic crisis began as a foreclosure crisis. It began with homeowners across America signing up for mortgages they could not afford. And even though few of us knew it at the time, much of our financial system was riding on their ability to pay those mortgages off. When it became clear that many of them could not, the economic chain reaction affected every community in America. For a family, a foreclosure is traumatic enough-- but we have also learned from this crisis that foreclosures can have wide public consequences, as well. Of those who applied for mortgages they could not possibly pay back, some were simply irresponsible. But many others were hardworking, responsible homeowners who fell victim to predatory lending. Unfortunately, incentives in our financial system made that predatory lending possible: unscrupulous mortgage brokers were not required to provide sufficient information to homeowners, and those who then sold the mortgages had little reason to see that they were sound. This bill goes a long way toward correcting those flaws, protecting future homeowners, and cracking down on predatory lending. It helps consumers get full information--the information they need to decide wisely on what is one of the biggest financial commitments of their lives. It prevents lenders from steering borrowers into higher-cost loans and bans yield spread premiums and other compensatory incentives that lead brokers to push those loans on borrowers. It also establishes national standards for the protection of borrowers and ensures that those who entrap consumers in predatory loans are liable for adjusting the loan's terms and paying the borrower's costs, including attorneys' fees. Finally, this bill requires those who securitize loans to third parties to put ``skin in the game'' and retain interest in at least 5% of the credit risk of each loan they sell or transfer. This provision will ensure that, at every link of the chain, there is an interest in seeing that the loan is repaid and that the homeowner does not go into foreclosure. Mr. Chair, this is a strong, carefully deliberated response to the foreclosure crisis, one that rules out many of the unscrupulous practices that harmed so many responsible families--and helped put an entire economy at risk. I believe that if these provisions had been in place 10 years ago, the foreclosure crisis might have been averted. We cannot turn back time. But we can learn--and if we have learned anything, it is how much we need legislation like this. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Well, we have a number of pieces of legislation. We have done a lot over this work period. We did the National Water Research Development and Initiative Act, credit card legislation, hate crimes, budget conference report, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, which we passed, and the Fight Fraud Act, which we passed yesterday, and we did the predatory lending. In addition to the items that I already mentioned for next week, we will be keeping, obviously, in touch with the Senate as to what they are passing. We get a number of these items at conference before we have a break on Memorial Day. We hope that will happen as well. But we have a number of items that will be pending. I hope to be able to move the D.C. vote bill, we are working on that, before the Memorial Day break, and we will see what the committees are able to report out in the coming week that we can put on the floor the last week.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 2 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30. 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. A complete list of those bills will be provided by the end of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High- Performing Public Schools Facilities Act; H.R. 2101, the Weapons Acquisition Systems Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act; and the fiscal 2009 war supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. HOYER. The markup was just concluded. I have not reviewed the Tiahrt amendment, nor have I had discussions with the chairman regarding the rule and what amendments would be asked for or what amendments would be made in order. Very frankly, I will tell my friend, it's not the majority that needs your help in passing this bill; our troops need your help in passing this bill, our country needs your help. And I appreciate your comments that you support the President in his efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are confronted with an extraordinarily difficult situation, destabilizing situation, dangerous situation, and this supplemental obviously is directed at making sure that our troops have the resources they need to pursue the objectives that we and the President have given to them. We look forward to having that bill passed with bipartisan support.

Mr. HOYER. I think all of us are concerned about the Second Amendment. I hope all of us are also concerned about 600,000 citizens in the United States of America who have a Representative in this House who can't vote. Unfortunately, too many people, in my view, voted against that bill. So what we have now done is undermine the home rule rights of the District of Columbia, as well as preventing them from voting on this floor. I think that is very unfortunate. As the gentleman is well aware, there are, obviously, significant differences on the amendment that was offered in the Senate. We are going to be considering how we can try to get this bill through. Because the reality is, neither position might enjoy a majority in the final analysis, either in the Senate or perhaps here. So I am trying to figure out how we can give 600,000 of our citizens--an awful lot of us get up on this floor and we talked about how important it is, in the 1980s, behind the Iron Curtain, to get people free. We talk about, in Cuba, how it's important to get people free. We talk about how it's important, in some Middle East states, to give people a vote. But here, in the Nation's capital, the center of freedom and democracy, we do not have a representative. Unlike any other capital of any other democratic nation in the world, their representative cannot vote in this parliament. I think that's a tragedy. I think it's a diminishment of our democracy. And I will tell the gentleman that I would hope that this House would rise up as one voice saying this is not right, and we will pass the D.C. voting rights. We can deal with other issues that are very important, but it certainly seems to me that we ought to deal with that issue directly. Unfortunately, as you know, when Mr. Davis introduced that bill, a majority of your party, an overwhelming majority of your party, Mr. Davis being of your party, a leader in your party, did not support that bill. There is no doubt that the amendment that was added in the Senate complicates its consideration here, which is why it hasn't come to the floor a long time ago. But we are trying to figure it out.

Mr. HOYER. I think that the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facility Act will probably be on the floor on Wednesday. The weapons acquisition system and supplemental, I would expect the supplemental on Thursday or Friday, depending upon how our business proceeds.

Mr. HOYER. First of all, I want to say to the gentleman, the reason it's not on the calendar for the next 2 weeks, it was never intended to be on the calendar over the next 2 weeks. The intention, as I have articulated all along, and the chairman's intention, was to have a target of marking up the bill in committee prior to the Memorial Day break. So there was never any intention that a bill would be on the floor prior to the Memorial Day break. Secondly, I would tell the gentleman, I don't know that the chairman has made a decision on whether to mark it up in subcommittee or mark it up in full committee. I do know that it's going to be marked up in committee and open to an amendment in committee, open to debate and open to a vote. Now, whether it's in subcommittee or full committee, that determination, as I understand it, has not been made. But it will be, certainly, marked up in committee and subject to full debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 12, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the ranking member for his views. There is a disagreement, Madam Speaker. We have had a substantive disagreement for a long time. In fact, when I was elected to the Congress in 1981, we had a very substantive disagreement on what the economic policies would produce in terms of the supply-side economic theory. My view, which differs from Mr. Ryan's, is that it produced large deficits, and it produced large deficits in every year that it was practiced in the 29 years that I have been here. Only in the 8 years where President Clinton had the veto pen and said no, we're not going to go down that road, did we produce surpluses. Now, they were produced in large part because of an economy that rose more rapidly than any of us expected because of the chip, the information technology explosion, all of which was to the best interest of our country. We had a $5.6 trillion surplus projected in 2001 by President Bush as a result. Unfortunately, we pursued a policy with which I disagreed and which I said would produce high deficits and would not help our economy. In fact, we produced high deficits, and our economy was in the worst shape that any President has inherited an economy since Franklin Roosevelt. President Obama was confronted with an economy that was in substantial decline. Today the House has the rare opportunity to set America on a responsible course for the future. I congratulate Mr. Spratt, I congratulate Mr. Boyd and Ms. DeLauro, members of the conference, for the courage and leadership they have displayed. Mr. Spratt has been, as always, extraordinarily informed and extraordinarily involved with all of our Members in trying to get to this point. The course that we set ourselves on, in my view, is one of lasting prosperity, and I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity. Along with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this budget is a key part of our response to this recession. We have the power to emerge from this recession a stronger Nation, one with a future of clean energy and energy independence and a workforce ready to compete with the best in the world and a reformed system of health care. This budget provides for those objectives. We also have a chance to vote for the principles of fiscal responsibility and put ourselves on a truly sustainable course. There is a real difference in this House, in the Senate, and in this country about what fiscal responsibility means. I believe it means we pay for what we buy rather than simply cutting our revenues, increasing our purchases, and hoping somehow something magical will happen to balance the budget. It has never happened in the 20 years that I have served with Republican Presidents pursuing that philosophy. On energy, the budget funds incentives for cutting-edge research and clean energy jobs, as well as an energy-efficient, money-saving, critically necessary smart grid. On education this budget builds upon the recovery plan with additional support for early childhood education, elementary and secondary school students, and efforts to help more Americans obtain a college degree. It expands access to education in the make-or-break years of early childhood--I think critical if we are going to be competitive in world markets. It increases Pell grants to help more students afford higher education and promotes job training and significant education reform. On health care this budget responds to the skyrocketing costs that are straining families and businesses across this Nation. Family premiums have more than doubled since the year 2000, and over the past 5 years, our total health care spending has increased at more than twice the rate of inflation, consuming more and more of our economy and our budget each year. This budget fights that trend by making a significant down-payment on the reform, taking steps to lower health care costs, improve quality, and expand access. That is what America voted in 2008. That is the responsibility that we are carrying out. The budget also allows us to use reconciliation to provide for an up- or-down vote on reforming health care, not as an option or first resort but as a fallback if partisanship blocks progress. Essentially we're saying the majority will make policy. It didn't take 60 percent to elect the President. It didn't take 60 percent to elect any of us to this body. The premise of our Founding Fathers was if a majority of Americans believe we ought to move in a direction, that's the direction we ought to move. That has proved a very successful policy for over two centuries. It is a policy that we are providing for here. It is a policy that was provided for by the Republicans when they were in charge time after time after time. As the bipartisan Concord Coalition points out: ``The budget reconciliation process was used in 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 to reduce taxes,'' as opposed to deficit reduction, which, of course, reconciliation is designed to address. Moreover, a case can be made that health care reform that includes spending restraints and squeezes inefficiencies out of the system is integral to reining in the rapid growth of health care costs, which is a major, a major driver of deficits. I want to stress that last point. It is essential that health care reform includes difficult choices to cut costs, which will eventually result in lower deficits. Why? Because of the $2.4 trillion that we spend on health care, half of that comes from the government, either Federal or State. All of these investments are vital to our future economic health and competitiveness. As President Obama recently pointed out: ``A cash- strapped family may cut back on all kinds of luxuries but will insist on spending money to get their children through college.'' Our country is in the same position. These tough times are no excuse to cut back on investments that will pay off many times over down the road. Finally, this budget puts America back on the path of fiscal responsibility. It's no secret that past budgets have made easy choices and kicked the difficult ones down the road. Let me say, as I have said so many times before, it takes no courage whatsoever to cut taxes. None. Zero. What takes courage, political courage, if we want to buy things, is to pay for them. That's what takes courage. You can make one of two decisions: Don't buy and keep revenue stable, or buy and pay for so that your children aren't paying for it. Those are the decisions that I am prepared to make and, very frankly, have made over the last 40 years that I have been in office. This House needs to make those choices. That's why Allen Boyd, John Spratt and others have pursued so vigorously statutory PAYGO requirements. That's why I am in such support of them. In 1990, statutory PAYGO led to that surplus that I referred to. Jettisoning that in the early part of this decade led to the deficits that we have experienced. And why did you jettison PAYGO? Because you were unprepared to pay for the revenue losses that you voted for. But by passing this budget we will be leaving a different legacy, one that makes clear that our government must pay for what it buys. This budget cuts the deficit from 10.5 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3 percent of GDP in 2013--in other words, by nearly two-thirds. Those savings come from spending restraint and oversight that save taxpayer money. We must do that. We cannot pursue the policies that we have been pursuing. They are not sustainable. Most importantly, the House is strongly committed to statutory PAYGO. President Obama asked Congress, and again I quote, to develop a PAYGO law that would help return the Nation to a path of fiscal responsibility, and that is what we intend to do. That is what this budget does. The House will not consider any bills on middle-income tax cuts, the estate tax, AMT relief, or the sustainable growth rate in the Medicare program unless they include statutory PAYGO, they are fully offset, or statutory PAYGO has already been enacted. Everybody wants to deal with those four issues. Let us see if everybody is prepared in this generation to pay for them and not pass those costs on to the next generation. I urge my colleagues to approve this conference report, pass this budget and show our constituents that the priorities they voted for in 2008 are ours as well. I again congratulate the chairman, the members of the conference committee and the members of the Budget Committee for their leadership and for their courage.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I am pleased to follow the distinguished gentleman who just spoke because what he said was he agrees with the objectives of this legislation. One could argue, I suppose, about the means, but really it is the objective that is the most important, and the objective is to in this country make a statement that violence against individuals because of the group of which they are a member or their nationality or their race or their religion or their sexual orientation, whatever the distinction might be, we in America have said that we believe all people ought to be treated equal. This legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is a powerful statement, I suggest to you, of some of our most important American values, Mr. Kirk spoke of those just a little earlier; tolerance, respect for differences, and accountability for those who are driven to violence by hate. I disagree with my friend from Illinois when he said perhaps we didn't need this earlier in our history. Yes, we have become more diverse, but in our early history, those whose skin was black were subjected to violence not because of their character, not because of anything they had done, but because of the fact that their skin was black, and because violence was visited against them, all who were similarly situated were put in fear. That is why this crime is different from simply violence animated, as the distinguished ranking member indicated, so many of our crimes are. He is right. But this is a particular character of crime that not only puts the victim at risk, but puts all members of the group to which that victim belongs at risk and at fear. This bill allows us to expand the existing Federal hate crimes law, which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, and, as was pointed out, was signed by one of our previous Republican presidents. Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crime is limited to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, and only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting. My friends, if America stands for anything, it stands for equality under the law; of inclusion; of not making arbitrary and capricious distinctions based on factors other than American citizenship, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What hate crimes do is to put that at risk. What hate crimes do is adopt the premise that somehow there are some citizens less than the rest of us because of the group to which they belong. That is what this bill is all about, the basic fundamental tenet of America that all men and women are created equal. God does not see the distinctions sometimes that we see, arbitrary, capricious, and, yes, tragically sometimes hateful, that then lead to violence and injury and death. This legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, religion or national origin, as I said. It also expands current law to prohibit the same conduct when motivated on the basis of a victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. ``All men and women.'' No parentheses, ``except . . . '', no comma, ``not these . . . '', no further comma, ``but we don't mean these Americans . . . ''. ``All,'' our Constitution and Declaration of Independence say. The principle is the same. Hate crimes sow fear and division in our communities, no matter what group is targeted. Expanding the protections of the law responds to the reality in America today. For instance, hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation are almost as equally common as hate crimes motivated by religion. The gentleman from Illinois suggests there are less crimes, and we are pleased about that, but one is too many. This bill would also allow the Federal Government to provide assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Why? Because it is not simply a local threat. It is a threat to all Americans everywhere in every State if the group to which they belong, the distinction that is made because they are in that group is applied because of that membership. It clarifies the conditions under which such crimes would be federally investigated and prosecuted. I have spoken to why this legislation is necessary, because hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and identify or disability not only injure individual victims, as I have said, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our Nation's social fabric. That is why this legislation, in my view, is so fundamental to what America is and means to our own citizens and to people around the world. This legislation does not affect, does not affect, does not affect free speech. It is actions, not speech, that is the object of this legislation. It only seeks to punish violent acts. Enacting these important additions to current law will send a very powerful message. Crimes committed against any American, simply because of who he or she is, are a threat to all Americans and will be dealt with as such. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because it embodies the essential American values of tolerance, equality and justice. I congratulate the chairman for his leadership. I thank the ranking member, notwithstanding his disagreement on this issue, for facilitating this bill coming to the floor.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mitch King, a government relations manager at the U.S. Postal Service, who, on May 1, is retiring after 36 years of work for the Postal Service, for Congress, and our Nation. Mitch King began his postal career in 1973 as a letter carrier in Falls Church, Virginia, just a few miles from here, and then became supervisor of letter carriers before becoming an instructor in the delivery service branch of the Postal Management Academy in Potomac, Maryland. In the spring of 1982, he began working in the government relations department at Postal Service headquarters in Washington, D.C. In 1992, he was promoted to the position of government relations manager, a postal career executive position equivalent to the executive branch's senior executive service. During the latter part of his career, he managed postal service congressional liaison activities for the States of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and the District of Columbia. He also served on the Election Mail Task Force. Mitch has managed government relations activities with many Members of Congress, addressing an ever-expanding variety of postal-related issues. He has also served as the principal postal contact for the House Appropriations Committee and the Financial Services Subcommittee. When I chaired the Treasury Postal Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, I dealt with Mitch on a regular basis. Since that time, as whip and majority leader, I have continued to deal with Mitch King and have found him very responsive, very knowledgable, and very conscientious. He was, in short, a model of an employee that the citizens of this country would want to have. For years, Mitch worked with me to help ensure my constituents the level of service they have rightfully come to expect from the Postal Service. Indeed, he's done that for all of our Members. He was a true and dedicated public servant. He did his work well and faithfully for decades with no expectations of great rewards or renown. For 36 years, Mitch King helped keep the mail going. He was part of a collective accomplishment that is no less impressive for the fact that it happens 6 days a week. The United States Postal Service handles millions and millions of pieces of mail a day. Does it make some mistakes? Yes. But an extraordinarily small percentage. In fact, it's the most productive mail service in the world. And 40 percent, frankly, ahead of number two. At the same time, Mitch's humor, intelligence and consummate skill help make him entirely unique in many ways. I know I speak for all of us when I say he will be missed from public service. I am sure that he will go on to continue to contribute to his community, to his family, to his State, and to his country. Good job, Mitch King. Godspeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his kind comments. The gentleman from New York is very generous. I want to thank my friend from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) with whom I served on the House Administration Committee for many years; and also, of course, my dear friend, one of the Republican leaders in this House, Mr. Blunt, who has cosponsored this legislation with me. It so happens my name is first, but Mr. Blunt and I have worked on this effort together, because we both believe it's a very important one for our country and for all of those who are advantaged by this program. I am proud, therefore, to speak in favor of this bill supporting Best Buddies, an organization, as Mr. Ehlers has pointed out, dedicated to the social integration of children and adults with intellectual disabilities. It was founded some 20 years ago by Anthony Kennedy Shriver. Best Buddies is the first social and recreational program of its kind in the United States. It has already reached hundreds of thousands of Americans, both with and without disabilities, a total that is set to reach a half a million by 2010. Best Buddies, Mr. Speaker, fosters and supports friendships and mentorships between participants from kindergartners to adult professionals, sponsoring more than 1,000 volunteer-led chapters at schools and workplaces. Not only do volunteers learn leadership training, they learn firsthand about the important contributions made by their fellow citizens with intellectual disabilities. Participants with disabilities learn that they are valuable members of our communities, capable of forming a wide range of real and lasting friendships. This legislation authorizes a total of $10 million for grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to be distributed to Best Buddies by the Department of Education in fiscal year 2010, along with such sums as may be necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years. These funds will enable this important organization to reach hundreds of thousands more potential volunteers and participants, promoting the crucial values of shared participation and community and social equality. All of us will be advantaged by this program, not those immediate participants alone, but all of those whose communities will be better places for the participation of those directly involved in Best Buddies. I want to thank Congressman Blunt for cosponsoring this bill. He and I worked together for many years on this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, today we come to the House floor in memory of a fine Member of this body who distinguished himself here, in my opinion, and left a lasting legacy. Bill Orton, who our colleague, Jim Matheson, informed us passed away in an accident in Utah, who represented the people of Utah's Sixth District from 1991 to 1997, died last weekend at the age of 60. Bill always was an independent thinker and serious-minded public servant. He was elected three times as a Democrat in one of America's most conservative districts, as our friend Jim Matheson has done, a fact that testifies both to his persuasive skills and the deep respect he earned even from those he didn't persuade. As a local paper wrote, ``Utahans couldn't have done much better than electing Bill Orton.'' I agree with that sentiment, Mr. Speaker. In just three terms here, Bill left a permanent mark. He was a founder of the Blue Dog Coalition, which has stood up for fiscal discipline ever since and is well represented here tonight. Bill was instrumental in creating the Democratic ideal of fiscal responsibility. And ever since, when Democrats have come to this floor to defend the government's essential programs while advocating for a balanced budget, they have been following in Bill's footsteps. Now, every time we speak out for a government that pays for what it buys, we have an opportunity to carry on Bill's work. But as much as we will miss him, I know that his community and his family will miss him incomparably more. Bill became a father late in life, but his boys, Will and Wes, filled what turned out to be the last years of his life with so much joy. Those who know Bill remember, I'm sure, how he turned half of his congressional office into a nursery, or how he proudly brought baby Will to sit with him at hearings. I know that nothing can make up for the loss of a father, particularly a father of young children. For Jacquelyn Orton, I know that nothing can make up for the loss of her husband. But I hope it will be some consolation--small, but some--to know that Bill was important to the life of his State and of his Nation, and that he shaped them for the better; that even though he had more to give, he gave much more than most ever do. To his family, we extend great sympathy. From his country, to Bill Orton, we say thank you; thank you for serving so well the people of Utah and the people of the United States of America. God bless his family.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Certainly.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman went there. The gentleman knows that under President Clinton we had a $5.6 trillion surplus projected. Not by Clinton, but by George Bush. When he took office in March of 2001, he said, ``I have inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus.'' And, indeed, in the year before the Bush administration came to office, I tell my friend from Wisconsin, we created in that last year 1.9 million new jobs. Mr. Spratt spoke of the average 217,000 jobs per month. You need about 100,000 new jobs per month to stay even. Two hundred thirty thousand jobs per month were created, on average. Some months were a lot higher. Two million new jobs in the last year of the Clinton administration. And what happened in the last year of the Bush administration? After 8 years of the economic policies that you pursued and for 6 years had total hegemony, total control, what happened? You heard the figures of unemployment, but you doubled the deficit from $5 trillion to $10 trillion--the debt, not the deficit. That was the result of your economic policy. I heard the former chairman of the RSC--I was constrained to come to the floor, but my staff tied me down--who said, ladies and gentlemen, that we have been in office for 50 days and look what has happened to the country. Nobody in America thought that was a credible statement. Nobody. The policies of the last 8 years have led to the worst economy that we have seen in this country in over a half a century. Some of us stood on this floor and said that is what would happen. We did it because we were fiscally irresponsible and because we were regulatorily negligent. We took the referees off the field. We pretended that the private sector would referee itself, that they would manage risk responsibly. They did not. And the gentleman from Texas to whom I am referring said we didn't care about his children. That is not right. If he loses his job, we provided as our first bill that his children will have the availability of health care. But we want to provide his children, my children, my grandchildren, and, yes, my great granddaughter, with a fiscally sound Nation. It is not there now, and it will not be next year, and it won't be the year after, because the hole we have dug is so extraordinarily deep that it will take years and years of discipline to get us back to where we were on January 19, 2001. I think everybody in this House wants to do that, but we have different views of how you do that. I have served in this House, as the gentleman has heard me say before, now 29 years. Eight of those years have been under a Democratic President, Bill Clinton; 20 of those years under Republicans. Every single year of a Republican Presidency since 1981 has run deep deficits, every one, without failure. Now what is the significance of that, you might say? It is that a President alone can stop spending. The only one that can stop spending. I can vote against spending, my friend Mr. Ryan can vote against spending, but we need 217 other people to do the same. Only the President of the United States by vetoing spending can say ``no.'' President Bush signed bills and presided over an economy that resulted in the doubling of the national debt. And so, my friends, we come to a responsible budget, but not the budget any of us would like. Why? Because, as they lament on the Republican side of the aisle, the deficits are too high. They are right. I agree with that. I don't like these deficits. I prefer to vote for balanced budgets. I voted for a balanced budget amendment. And, very frankly, had we had a balanced budget amendment, we would be in much better shape today, because you couldn't have enacted your tax cuts because you would have had to have paid for them. Because you would have had to pay for them, and while you were very prepared to give the wealthiest in America big tax cuts, you were not prepared to pay for them, perhaps because of the logic that you expressed in that article of 2003. My friends, we have an important decision to make. That decision is whether or not our investments in the future will continue by the adoption of this budget. We adopted, under the Bush administration, the Troubled Assets Relief Program. There was disagreement on that, not between Mr. Ryan and myself. We believed that was necessary. We didn't like it, too much money, too much debt and too much borrowing. But we thought it essential to bring this economy back and to stabilize it and to try to keep jobs. It hasn't yet succeeded. And we have lost far too many jobs. Too much pain in America, too many people without a job, too many families who aren't sure where their next meal is coming from or how they are going to pay their mortgage payment or how they are going to send their kids to school. There are too many Americans in pain. Now we can, in my view, deeply cut those items which are there to help people in pain and trouble, as I believe your budget does. Or we can do what Mr. Spratt has recommended, bring the deficit down, not to where we would like it, but bring it down substantially, about 3.5 percent of the gross domestic product by 2015 as opposed to 10.5 now. Is that too high? It is. Would I like it lower? I would. But I tell my friends that this is a responsible budget, not just for today but for the long term, because although we had a Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that was to staunch the decline, the fiscal crisis and the economic crisis and the job crisis and the health care crisis that we inherited from the Bush administration. That is why I'm going to vote for this budget. That is why I urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote for this budget, because it invests in the health care of our people. It invests in the energy independence, and therefore the national security of our people. And yes, it provides for the national security. There are two wars that are going on. This budget provides that we will respond to them and keep our people safe. But it also responds to the need to keep people safe right here at home. That is why I will vote for this budget. That is why I urge each and every one of you to support this budget, not because it does what we would like it to do, as so many of my Republican colleagues have urged us, but those same colleagues indicated to me that their budgets would balance the budget and would cut spending. Because there has been so much talk of spending on your side of the aisle, Mr. Ryan, I remind you that under the Clinton administration, discretionary spending rose at a rate of 3.5 percent. However, with you totally in control, it rose 7 percent. You doubled spending. So it rings hollow to say that it is spending we ought to cut. You cut taxes, and you increased spending. This is a tough budget. It is tougher than a lot of people would like. It is tougher than Mr. Berman would like. Because he knows there are children all over this world that we are helping stay healthy, kept alive by feeding. And allies kept on our side when we confront terrorists. This is a tough budget. The Budget Committee made tough decisions, but they were right decisions, right for our country and right for our people. Support the Spratt budget. Make America better. Madam Chair, today, with the passage of this budget resolution, the House has the opportunity to set America's priorities for years to come and build a sustainable, widely shared recovery. Along with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this budget is a key part of our return to prosperity; it provides the long-term investments that will make prosperity last. Today we have a chance to begin bringing down the cost of healthcare; breaking our addiction to foreign oil; creating the best-prepared workforce in the world; and returning America to fiscal health. On healthcare, it is clear that rising costs are straining American families and crippling American businesses. Family premiums have more than doubled since 2000, and over the past five years, our total healthcare spending has increased at more than twice the rate of inflation, consuming more of our economy and our budget each year. This budget is the start of efforts to reverse that disastrous trend. It makes a significant down-payment on reform, taking steps to lower healthcare costs, improve quality, and expand access. Healthcare reform is also key to entitlement reform, because we will never be able to control the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending as long as healthcare costs continue to increase at more than twice the rate of inflation. On energy, this budget increases support for energy independence programs by 18 percent. That includes incentives for the development of new technology and clean energy jobs; support for cutting-edge research; funding to start on an energy-efficient, money-saving national smart grid; and programs to help Government from the Federal to the local level save energy and money. On education, this budget builds upon the investments made in President Obama's recovery plan with additional support for early childhood education, elementary and secondary school students, and efforts to help more Americans obtain a college degree. It expands access to early childhood programs, makes college more affordable with increased Pell grants, and promotes job-training and significant education reform. A lasting recovery isn't simply about ending the turmoil in our financial markets--it's about having workers who are prepared to compete in the 21st-century economy with anyone in the world. Finally, this budget reverses the irresponsible Republican policies that turned record surpluses into record deficits and puts us back on a fiscally sustainable path. That begins with an honest accounting of where we are--an assessment that takes into account the cost of two wars. From that honest foundation, the budget cuts the deficit from 10.5 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.5 percent of GDP in 2013. In other words, we cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds. We do so by restraining spending, investing in oversight that saves taxpayer money, and, most importantly, reinstating the pay-as-you-go rule in law and requiring that new initiatives be paid for. Our Government must pay for what it buys. Republicans, by contrast, would abandon that discipline in favor of a $3.6 trillion tax cut, which the non-partisan tax policy center calls ``by far, the largest tax cut in history''--one that goes almost exclusively to the richest Americans. Paying for tax breaks like those, as Mr. Ryan proposes to do, would require deep cuts to vital services. So taking the massive tax breaks to their logical conclusion, Republicans support cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other essential programs that are critical to our economic recovery. As the Washington Post notes today, the Ryan substitute would ``freeze most Government spending for five years, halt spending approved in the economic stimulus package, and slash federal health programs for the poor and elderly.'' When Republicans claim their budget will create jobs, they conveniently ignore the impact that the deep spending cuts in their plan would have on jobs. Virtually all economists, including conservatives such as Milton Friedman, agree that Government spending during a recession creates jobs. In fact, when we use the model of the conservative Heritage Foundation and take into account both tax cuts and spending cuts, we find that the Republican plan destroys jobs. Of course, Republicans have another option to finance their tax breaks--increasing our deficit and piling up our debt even higher. That would be in keeping with the fiscal ideology that has dominated among Republicans as long as I have served in this House, the dogma summed up by Vice President Cheney: ``Reagan proved deficits don't matter.'' Our country has come to see the foolishness of that belief--and I think it has also come to see that only one party has a track record of responsibly reducing deficits. Chairman Spratt put it well: ``Republicans turn surpluses into deficits. Democrats turn deficits into surpluses.'' The Republican case on substance is truly weak--and their argument on process is weaker. Republicans have repeatedly decried this budget's use of the reconciliation process to provide for a majority, up-or-down vote on health care and education if Congress has not reached agreement on these issues so critical to our economic recovery. But the truth is that both parties have used reconciliation to implement the policies assumed in budget resolutions. Under President Bush, it was the Republican option of first resort to pass irresponsible tax cuts; under this budget, it is simply a fallback if partisanship blocks progress. I urge my colleagues to vote for this budget--one of the most important votes they will take in this Congress. This is our chance to build the foundation for recovery and plan wisely for the long term. We cannot miss it.

Mr. HOYER. You mean the deficit was lower.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman for yielding, and I rise with great respect for the quality of character and the quality of intellect that he brings to his job, one of the most important jobs we have in this Congress. I also rise with great respect for the ranking member, Mr. Ryan. I like Mr. Ryan. I think Mr. Ryan is a very bright, able, conscientious, honest Representative. By the way, as an aside I will tell the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) who called our attention to page 30, page 30 is a blank page.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Ryan gave my quote. I believed that then and I believe it now. I believe we've pursued for too long policies of fiscal irresponsibility, a concept that we need not pay for what we bought. I believe it was called supply side economics, which to me meant that if you do less, you get more. Nothing I have done in my life instructs me that if I do less, I get more. But because the gentleman used a quote of mine, I thought it might be nice to use a quote of his. May 4, 2003, the Journal Sentinel: ``Is the deficit a concern?'' This is a quote. ``Absolutely. But Congress should not constrain economic growth and keep people out of work to pay down the deficit. Coping with the deficit requires getting the economy growing at a more robust rate and getting people back to work. More people with jobs means more tax revenue being generated. This will help us pay down the deficit more quickly and address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as the baby boom generation retires.'' My, my, my. Mr. Ryan, you don't seem to feel that way now. The fact of the matter is the Obama administration handed us an inheritance.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate my constituent Rob von Gogh who today marks the end of his twenty-two years of service as an employee of the United States Government, including ten years of distinguished service to the U.S. House of Representatives. Rob began serving the House of Representatives in 1998 as the Branch Manager and Graphic Artist within House Information Resources (HIR), preparing visual communications for Members of Congress. In 1999 he was promoted to HIR's Director of Client Services, where he managed the COA's centralized, non-partisan technology support team that provides infrastructure support for the entire House of Representatives and the more than 950 district offices across the country. Rob was selected as the recipient of the 2006 Chief Administrative Officer's Excellence Award for his role managing the Client Services team. Rob has guided the House's technological infrastructure through periods of significant transition and strain. Within his role as manager of the Client Services team Rob has been involved in many milestones and business changing events of the House. They include the House's Y2K transition, the anthrax crisis and September 11th attacks, the House Mobile Computing Project, House Active Directory Project, CAO Seat Management for computers and the House Information Hosting Service. Rob has served in a nonpartisan role as one of the senior problem solvers for House operations. Blending an artful balance of technical knowledge with compassion and a keen focus on delivering results, he instilled a sense of quality customer service with his teammates that earned him the reputation as a person who gets things done fast, right and always with a smile. Mr. von Gogh served the House and our country with distinction. On behalf of the entire House community, I'd like to extend a heartfelt thank you to Rob for his service and years of dedication to the United States House of Representatives.