Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. One of the things I want to say in response to the gentleman's first question, in response to what he referred to as the cramdown, as the gentleman knows, there were three very important provisions which were not controversial, which is perhaps why I didn't mention them, notwithstanding the fact that many voted against the bill to help homeowners, to help those who were either at risk or may be at risk of losing their homes. The bankruptcy provision was to try to facilitate, in league with the very substantial reform proposals proposed by the administration, which would be under Fannie Mae and the Treasury Department, and under Sheila Baird's aegis, trying to help homeowners. So that bill, we think, was a very important part of the comprehensive homeowners affordability plan announced by the administration. With respect to helping small business, as the gentleman knows, we passed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As the gentleman also knows, notwithstanding the fact that that was not supported by any on your side of the aisle, it had very substantial tax cuts in there for exactly the people you are talking about. That is, small businesses. So we think that, as you do, that small businesses are a vitally important part of creating jobs and creating economic opportunity in this country, and we have been supporting policies to assist them. The gentleman and I were at the fiscal summit together, we went down to the health summit. We weren't in the same breakout group, but one of the things we are looking at, as you know, is trying to help small business with health care costs. That's a major challenge confronting the small business community. Our friends at NFIB, as you know, have shared that interest. Now we haven't gotten to a specific proposal, so we will have to see what happens when we get there. We certainly share your concern, but we also believe we have been acting toward the end the gentleman suggests, and that is assisting small businesses to grow and to create jobs and to stay in business.

Mr. HOYER. I presume the gentleman is referring to the job creators that we had in our bill. As you know, we believe that the substitute that was offered to the recovery and reinvestment package that was defeated in a bipartisan way created--and there is a difference in this--our perception of this is 2 million less jobs than the bill that we offered and that was passed, which we think either created or saved 3.5 million jobs. Having said that, you asked about an additional relief package. I note you quoted the newspapers as talking about Mr. Zandi, who was one of Mr. McCain's advisors during the course of the last campaign. But I also noted in the paper that you are also quoted as saying, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor didn't rule out the idea of a second stimulus package and said Wednesday he would be willing to sit down with the White House and congressional Democrats to discuss any new emergency spending proposals. I appreciate that offer, and I want to show the gentleman that when and if--and I have no reason to believe, by the way, that Mr. Obey is doing anything as reported in the paper that he might be doing, I have no reason to believe he is doing that--but I want you to know that in light of your interest in sitting down, that I share that interest, and we will do that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a proud sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 37, legislation which will allow the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to hold the 68th Annual Greater Washington Soap Box Derby on the grounds of the United States Capitol on Saturday, June 20. Since 1938, when 223 racers descended on Washington, DC, soap box derby racing has had a long and rich tradition in our Nation's Capital. Although the race location has moved from the original site on New Hampshire Avenue to Capitol Hill, with stops on Massachusetts Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, and Eastern Avenue along the way, the ingredients of the race remain the same: home-made engine-less, gravity-powered cars, the spirit of competition, and the pure exhilaration of racing. The soap box derby consists of dozens of drivers, boys and girls ranging in age from 8 to 17, who have designed and built the cars they race. These racers are divided into three divisions: stock, super stock, and masters. The local winner of each division will automatically qualify to compete with racers from around the country in the 72nd All- American Soap Box Derby in Akron, Ohio on July 25. Community groups, police departments, fire departments, and others sponsor children each year, children who may not otherwise be able to participate. Over the years thousands of the region's young people have participated in this great race. I am proud to report that the last two winners of the Soap Box Derby competition have been neighbors of mine and constituents of the Fifth District of Maryland. In 2007 Miss Kacie Rader, a neighbor of mine from Mechanicsville, Maryland, and a rising senior in high school at the time, won in the masters division of the 66th Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. Kacie then went on to become the first Marylander to win the national soap box derby title, after competing against 550 other soap box champions. Kacie's great success was followed last year by another winner, Miss Courtney Rayle. Sixteen years old and also a neighbor from Mechanicsville, Maryland, Courtney won the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby in June 2008. She became the seventh person in her family to do so. Mr. Speaker, this event has been called ``the greatest amateur racing event in the world'' and it is an excellent opportunity for the contestants from the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia to learn basic building skills while gaining a real sense of accomplishment. The soap box derby is not just a race. It is an enriching way to engage our youth, and teach them the importance of ingenuity, commitment, and hard work. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join with me and the other original cosponsors, Representatives Chris Van Hollen, Frank Wolf, James Moran, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Donna Edwards, and Gerry Connolly, in supporting this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have one option here because the government will shut down tomorrow by action of this Congress. And so our alternative is to keep the government operating, to defend our people in many ways, continue health care in many ways, to make sure that the services that are needed and available for our citizens remain so. The Senate has already deemed the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion to be passed. Why? Because they've gone home. They're not here. I urge every Member to reject this motion to recommit. Why? Because it will be objected to by at least one Senator, and therefore, the government will shut down. Pending before the Senate is an appropriation bill passed by this House to fund government and to apply the resources of our country to our country's priorities. The gentleman from California knows that we had to do that numerous times under his chairmanship. Sometimes we passed those bills in January, sometimes we passed them in February, having a very large number of bills because the regular order was not effected within the time frame set forth. He did not like that. I did not like it. We don't like it as a process. None of us like this process, and hopefully we will have the cooperation of both sides so that it is not affected again. But we have pending in the Senate a bill, the omnibus bill, and let me read to you the quote of the Republican leader of the United States Senate: ``If we want to do a bill immediately, again, my recommendation is the omnibus appropriations bill.'' Hear me. This is Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader. ``These were nine bills that were not passed by October when they should have been passed.'' I agree with that. ``They are ready to go,'' he said. ``They've already been vetted by both sides,'' he said, ``would pass on an overwhelming, bipartisan basis,'' he said, ``and much of that spending, George''--he was speaking to George Stephanopoulos--``would be on things similar to what the President may be asking for in that package.'' He was accurate then; he's accurate now. But unfortunately, the Senate did not effect the passage of this bill in a timely fashion, although they have had it for a significant period of time. And so the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is confronted with but one option because the option that is offered on the other side will not receive unanimous consent. And the Senate, as I said before, has gone home. And so I say to all of my colleagues on our side of the aisle, we need to pass this motion, and we need to reject the motion to recommit. And responsibly, there is not another option. So I ask all, on both sides of the aisle, to give us the opportunity to move forward, to keep the government open, and to continue the debate that the Senate apparently wants to continue to have. The minority does not have the votes in the Senate to do what they want to do. The majority will vote for the omnibus appropriations bill. This is not a question of whether the majority of the Senate is for it, it's a question of whether the minority will stop its passage. We can be here Saturday and Sunday and Monday and heaven knows how long, but it will not change the fact that confronts us. Reject this motion to recommit that will not be approved by the Senate, pass the short-term continuing resolution proposed by the chairman, and let us come back next week and work the will of this House and the Senate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. With respect to the card-check bill, as the gentleman knows, we have already passed that bill with a very handy vote. We believe that that is an appropriate bill to be passed and are supportive of it. However, we have passed that bill. The Senate has indicated that they are going to consider that bill, and my expectation is that they will be doing so in the relatively near future and we will see what action they take.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican whip for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business tomorrow, as is usual. In addition, we will consider H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009. We also possibly will consider H.R. 157, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.

Mr. HOYER. I want to make it clear, if the gentleman will yield, that it is our intention to move this bill, but we are expecting the Senate to move and we will see what they have done and we will take that up in good time.

Mr. HOYER. As you know, there is a lot of interest on both sides of the aisle on this bill and very significant interest in the Senate to see this bill completed and sent to the President. We will continue to work together with the Republican leadership and the Senate leadership to get this bill to the President's desk as soon as possible. I have discussed this, as you know, with you and the leader, so we are hoping to bring this forward soon, possibly next week.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, as you have stated, the President announced a plan last Friday at a meeting in the White House and then announced it publicly down at Camp Lejeune. It calls for withdrawal of our troops, to be out of Iraq in terms of a military role within 18 months. This is, I think personally, a responsible plan. The gentleman asked me whether or not I think there will be a resolution of disapproval. I don't think there will be a resolution of disapproval. Clearly, as the gentleman well knows, there will be an authorizing bill that will come forward later this spring, there will be an appropriations bill appropriating money for the Defense Department, and obviously those two opportunities will present themselves to Members who may want to express themselves on this issue. But as to the gentleman's question, do I expect a resolution of disapproval, I do not.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for his question and I understand his concern. As he says, I have expressed a concern with respect to that issue. However, having said that, I am not going to anticipate at this point in time what the Budget Committee is going to do. Clearly the Budget Committee is having hearings and the Budget Committee will be, some weeks from now, marking up a budget and bringing it to the floor. As you know, we are very committed on this side of the aisle to PAYGO, paying our bills and trying to reduce our deficit. Clearly we have added very substantially to the deficit because of the economic crisis that confronts us, but we still feel a great responsibility to move ahead on making sure that we move towards reducing that deficit in the long term. Clearly the President has proposed from our perspective one of the most honest budgets that we have received in the sense that it includes costs of the war, it includes costs for adjusting the alternative minimum tax, it includes the costs within its budget contemplation of fixing the doctors payments for Medicare. So in all those ways and more, this budget sets forth a responsible alternative for us to pursue. In addition, as the gentleman knows, it provides for the continuation of a tax cut for 95 percent of American families and individuals. So we think those are all very important proposals. We know that the Budget Committee will be considering that. As the gentleman knows, both your side of the aisle and my side of the aisle will be discussing and debating that and we will be adopting a budget. I do not want to at this point in time anticipate each and every item that they may or may not include in that budget, however.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. Let me first observe that, quite obviously, we are going to provide for tax relief, as the President said in his campaign, as he's reiterated in his speech to the joint session, tax relief for 95 percent of taxpayers. We have every intention of pursuing that. We also have every intention of having a fiscally responsible budget. We also, as the President also indicated in his speech to the joint session, will pursue vigorously energy independence and the issue of global warming. The gentleman speaks of one of the alternatives, an alternative proposed by the President to deal with that issue in terms of cap-and- trade. The Energy and Commerce Committee will be considering that, as the gentleman knows, and I'm not going to anticipate their specific action. But I am going to say that we are committed on this side of the aisle, as I hope your side of the aisle will be as well, to very, very substantially reducing the carbon footprint that we are making in this country, and indeed, that's being made around the world, which we believe that science is pretty clear on this. And very frankly, the previous administration, which did not express that view early in its tenure, during its last year, changed somewhat its view. In any event, we want to deal with that. And the gentleman has mentioned an alternative the President has proposed. It's an alternative supported by a large number of people, and that is before the committee. And we'll see what the committee does with it.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. Of course, at the center of that question is the crisis that we confront in the economy. As the gentleman knows, he talked about, in a bipartisan way, supporting the President's policy on Iraq. As the gentleman knows, in a bipartisan way, we supported the Bush administration's request, both in January of 2008, in September of 2008, and again in December of 2008, when the President made a request for the second tranche of the TARP. I think every Member of this Congress believes that the first tranche did not work as well as we had hoped it would work. We also, in these past 2 weeks, have passed extraordinarily quickly and robustly, consistent with the advice of the last administration and this administration, an attempt to do what the gentleman says we want to do, create jobs. The gentleman also knows that we passed a recovery and reinvestment bill that had over $250 billion of tax relief, some for individuals and some for small businesses, some for businesses generally. About 35 percent of that bill was tax relief for our citizens. The other percentage of that bill was for investment, was for dealing with those who have been put at deepest risk by the economic crisis, in terms of losing jobs, in terms of not being able to feed their families and not having health care available to them. So I say to my friend that, as we move forward on the budget, and as we look to the administration for the clarification that the gentleman seeks, appropriately, in my opinion, and in our opinion, a more specific outline of how the administration's going to proceed, we will have that in consideration when we produce a budget. And as I say, we intend to produce a responsible budget that looks towards deficit reduction. That obviously won't be until some time from now. We've got to turn this economy around, start creating jobs which, hopefully, will have the effect of the stock market going up, not down, which is to the interest of all of us.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, It can be easy to think that a neighbor's home troubles are no concern of ours. If we can still pay our mortgages, it's easy enough to shut our doors on their problems. But the world doesn't work like that. Our prosperity is bound to theirs, in good times and bad. A single foreclosed home can threaten a neighborhood; a neighborhood of foreclosed homes can help bring down the economy of a city; and a nation full of foreclosures can expect economic turmoil, and frozen credit, and layoffs, and decreasing demand, and more layoffs. That is where we are today: a nation with 14 million families' mortgages underwater, and counting; a nation in which foreclosed homes can drive down the value of their neighbors' property by nearly 10 percent. That's why this bill is so necessary. The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act puts into law some of the most important provisions of President Obama's homeowner stability plan. It makes it easier for lenders to renegotiate mortgages for families who are underwater, close to foreclosure, or nearing bankruptcy. And for families that are driven into bankruptcy by their home payments, this bill allows bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of their loans--a step that is free for taxpayers and could reduce foreclosures by 20 percent. Today, investors can restructure debt on their vacation homes; real estate speculators can do it for their property; corporations can do it for their private planes; and you can even do it if you own a boat. It is only fair that average Americans have the same right for the homes they live and raise their families in. I also want to make very clear that this bill is not designed for those who bought bigger houses than they knew they could afford. It is made for those who acted responsibly but need this breathing room because of circumstances they could not control--circumstances like unemployment or the nationwide decline in home values. Maybe someone listening in this chamber, or watching on TV, knows what it's like to lose a home. You know, in a way that I do not, just how wrenching it is to be forced to box up your things and turn over your key. But this bill is not just about you--it is about all of us. As President Obama said this month, ``In the end, all of us are paying a price for this home mortgage crisis. And all of us will pay an even steeper price if we allow this crisis to deepen.'' The effects go far deeper than one family and one now-vacant house. They go to the health of an entire economy--to the jobs and livelihoods of people on the other side of the continent. They go to a crisis that will not end until this mortgage mess is cleaned up. So for all of our sakes, we need to pass this bill and begin putting President Obama's plan into effect.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, as you know, the continuing resolution expires at midnight tomorrow. As you also know, the other body is still in the process of considering the omnibus appropriation that we sent to them some days ago. They are currently in the process of voting on five amendments. That will take probably another half hour. At the conclusion of that, they will be discussing whether or not they can get to two more votes to conclude their consideration of the omnibus appropriation. There have been no amendments adopted in the Senate to the omnibus appropriation. As a result, if there are no amendments adopted and the Senate can come to a vote sometime this evening and that is assured, then it will not be necessary for us to return tomorrow. But I cannot tell you at this point in time. I'm hopeful that by 8:30 I will be able to give you a pretty definitive word on whether or not we will need to be here tomorrow. So I wanted to bring you up to date. We will try to have it, as I say, by 8:30. If we get it earlier, we will give you that notice earlier. But I'm hopeful that by 8:30 we will be able to inform you. We have one more vote now; but, again, if they proceed, as has been the case, and they can get an agreement on voting tonight, then it would not be necessary for us to be here tomorrow. If not, obviously we will have to be here tomorrow to assure that we do not shut down the government.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Speaker, I will close on behalf of the Speaker and myself; and I know that the Speaker, on behalf of all the House, irrespective of party, Gay, wants to thank you for the service you have given to us, the friend you have been to us, the fairness you have displayed throughout 32 years of your career, and wish you Godspeed. Thank you very much. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, just 2 days ago--and I know one of the Members said can we do this after votes--but some people, like Mike Sheehy we talked about the other day, have put in extraordinary weeks and months and years serving this institution and every one of us. They make this institution run in a way that accommodates not only the contention but the compromise and the action. They do so as well with a spirit that makes this a better place in which to work. As surely as each of us who are elected, they serve our country and serve it well. I have particular honor to rise on behalf of all of us, not just the majority party. I will yield to my friend, the minority leader, the Republican leader in just a minute, but I am particularly pleased to rise because this particular person lives in my district. I've known her for a long period of time. She has served the House of Representatives for 32 years. She must have started at 9 or 10 years of age, I think. She is the retiring clerk to the Parliamentarian. She will retire tomorrow. It will be her last day. All of you have seen her, if you don't know her. If you've seen her and talked to her, you know that she is a warm and gracious person who greets all of us of whatever party, whether we're first-year Members or, in my case, a 29th-year Member. She will be retiring tomorrow. She lives in Upper Marlboro, and she graduated from Frederick Douglass High School, which is in my county and the county represented by my colleagues Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen. She started working in the House of Representatives in 1977 as an official reporter where she worked until 1986. She began working for the Office of the Parliamentarian in 1987 and has worked there for 22 years. The Office of the Parliamentarian is an absolutely critical office, nonpartisan, knowledgeable, focused on assuring that the business of the American people is done in a way that reflects fairness and reflects well on the House as an institution. And each and every one of those who work with our Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, make it a better service organization, not just for the House of Representatives but, as I said, for the American people. Before I close, I want to yield to my friend, the Republican leader, John Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. HOYER. I now want to yield to a Member, senior to me, very good friend from Michigan who has served this institution so well, Congressman Kildee.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today, the House can complete its work on the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills. The omnibus bill we bring to the floor today is the result of collaboration between Democrats and Republicans, and today, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can vote to fund some of America's most important priorities. We are at this point today because President Bush's last budget ignored critical investments in our country's future. It shortchanged our military families; it shortchanged police departments across America; it shortchanged our schools and teachers by $3.3 billion; and it shortchanged American workers by cutting job training and worker protections--an especially irresponsible step in a deep recession that was already underway when that budget was submitted. This bill corrects those oversights. This is legislation designed to confront an economic crisis and geared to mesh with the job-creating recovery legislation we passed this month. It funds worthy programs including research on energy technology and efficiency; investments in healthcare access and K-12 education; new training for Americans who have lost their jobs; and more. Mr. Speaker, it would be shameful if the families and public servants and scientists and workers on the other side of this bill are shortchanged because of a phony pet issue--a pet issue like earmarks. Railing against earmarks may be a popular partisan crusade here in Washington--but I challenge any Member of this House to go to his or her district and ask the people there if the issue of earmarks is more important than a good-paying job, more important than quality schools, more important than safe communities. The truth is that it's Democrats, not Republicans, who have reformed the earmark process. We imposed strict accountability and disclosure rules on ourselves--so that the public can see how every dime is spent. We cut earmarks by more than 40 percent last year, and we've cut them again this year. In this bill, we have taken them down to less than 1 percent of the budget. But if someone wants to stand in the way of better schools and healthcare and jobs because they have a problem with less than 1 percent--they can be my guest, and then they can explain it to their voters. The truth is that getting our fiscal house in order--after years of Republican neglect--is not about earmarks at all. It is going to take hard decisions and hard work. It's the work that began when President Obama called a fiscal responsibility summit at the White House, and when he spoke to us last night in this chamber, as an adult speaking to adults. That is the hard work our country demands, work without partisanship or posturing. And for that job, everyone in this chamber is needed, and welcome.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the Speaker yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I have risen before to note how well this country is served by those who work for this institution and with all of us. They are not elected; they are selected. They are selected by those of us who have been given the honor and privilege of serving in this body. They are, however, equally important. They don't have a vote, but they have extraordinary influence, and their influence in many respects is in direct relation to the substance of their advice and counsel. By that yardstick, I think there is no staff person with whom I have worked through the years that surpasses Mike Sheehy in terms of the value added to the considerations of the critical issues that confront our country. In particular, Mr. Sheehy has been involved in some of the information most vital to protecting our people and our Nation. He has done so with great intellect, with great integrity, with great insight, with great thoughtfulness. Mike, America does not know the name Mike Sheehy, doesn't see you on C-SPAN, but they have been extraordinarily well-served by you. Well, they may have seen him from time to time perhaps on C-SPAN. But they have been extraordinarily well-served by you. Your country has been well-served by you in the Navy and in this institution, and each and every one of us have been well-served by you. But in particular I know, as I said as we were walking to the Chamber, the Speaker of our House will uniquely miss your quiet presence, your extraordinarily good advice and counsel, and your steady hand. Mr. Speaker, I express my gratitude to Michael Sheehy, a true public servant of the finest caliber--who leaves us at the end of the week. Mike has spent 30 years on Capitol Hill, following five years in the Navy. That makes a grand total of 35 years in public service to the people of this great Nation. I have known Mike personally for several years. He is a studied and cautious professional, with extremely sound judgment and an almost unparalleled depth of policy knowledge on national security issues. Most recently, I had the pleasure of working with Mike on renewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Mike proved critical to the arduous negotiations, and went above the call of duty--spending several late nights with me, in my office, poring over bill text. He has been an asset and a loyal friend to me and my staff, certainly to Speaker Pelosi, and to the Members he served before her. He is irreplaceable and will be missed tremendously, although we wish him well in all that lies ahead. Godspeed. Good luck. Well done.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. We are coming close to the end of this debate. America and Americans are in trouble. They're hurting. Millions of our constituents are in great pain. They've lost their homes, they've lost their jobs. Their salaries are not keeping up with the costs that confront them. And so we come here, 435 of us, and five representing the territories and the District of Columbia. We come here to act, to act on their behalf, to try to make a difference, to try to ease the pain that this economy has visited upon them. Those of us who have been here for many years have heard this debate very often. And I tell my friends, I'm sure that had I been here in 1929 and 1930, I would have heard much the same representation. And we were told, frankly, in the last of the 1980s, stick with us on this economic program. And it didn't work. And we were told in 2001 and 2003, stick with us on this economic program, and it didn't work. And like the failed program of the 1920s that brought our economy so low, the failed policies of the early part of this century have brought this economy to the lowest point it has been since the policies of the late 1920s. And so we hear the debate. We hear the debate about investing in our people. We hear the debate about trying to build up our economy, create jobs. And we hear one argument, do it our way, do it our way and you'll create those jobs. Well, my friends, we did it your way. In 2001, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, in 2005, 2006, 2007 and in 2008. And we had the worst job performance of any administration since the late 1920s and early 1930s. I would hope that every Member on this floor, of whatever party, of whatever ideological persuasion, would pray that this bill works; not for political purposes, because if this bill works, we will create those 3\1/2\ million jobs. Am I absolutely assured that it will? I am not. I regret that I'm not. But the best advice and counsel that I have received over the last 5 months that we've been working on this bill, September, October, November, December, January, as we hemorrhaged jobs in this greatest economy on the face of the earth, as a million people lost their jobs over the last 60 days, as 65,000 Americans lost their jobs in 1 day 2 weeks ago. And so America expects us to act. And none of us can guarantee that we have all the answers. But economist after economist after economist, including one of John McCain's economic advisers, says that we have to act, we have to act with speed, and we have to act substantively, and we have to act with large investment. On the tax side, in cutting taxes, millions and millions and millions of Americans will receive a tax cut when we pass this bill and President Obama signs it. Millions and millions and millions of people will be helped as they've lost their jobs and can't put food on the table of their families, will be helped by this bill. Millions of families who know that their children are going to have to compete in a global marketplace will be able to send their children to college because of this bill. And in addition to that, we will invest billions of dollars in making sure that we are no longer subject to being held hostage by the oil barons who wish us no good will. And so, my friends, we come pretty close to the end of this debate. And we ought to vote, not as Republicans, not as Democrats. We ought to vote recognizing the policies that we've been pursuing have not worked, demonstrably, statistically, obviously. There's no argument on that. Millions of people unemployed. Millions lost their jobs under the economic policies we've been pursuing. And so, yes, President Obama said to the American public, we need to change. This is our moment. We need to move in a new direction. And that's what this bill does. Some would like to stay on the same path, pursuing the same failed policies. The sign of a good person and a good legislator is to say, I moved in this direction and it didn't work, and so I'll change directions. That's what this bill does. Every American prays that this bill will work. I think all of us pray that this bill will work. I hope that we come together, not because this bill is perfect, but because it is a substantial investment of America's money in resuscitating its economy that is causing it such great pain. My friends, it is time for us to act. Vote for this bill to restore, to recover, to invest in a better future for all those who sent us here, hoping that we would act in their best interests and the best interest of their children, their family and their country. I believe voting ``yes'' is doing just that. And I urge my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the two gentlemen from Michigan, Mr. Peters and my good friend Mr. Upton. There is no partisanship on this floor today. There is a universal expression of respect, affection, admiration, sometimes fear, always awe. I rise to note the service of a great American, a good man, who has advantaged this House, his State, and the American people by his service. Today, we honor a man who has sat in this Chamber for nearly a quarter of its existence. Think about it. He and his father have served longer than a quarter of the existence of this House. In so many ways, the history of this House is the history of John Dingell and his family. His father helped create Social Security. John presided over the House, as has been noted, when we passed Medicare. In his time here, John has had his hand in everything from the Clean Air Act to the Endangered Species Act, to the just recently passed Children's Health Insurance Program. And John Dingell sat to the right of the President of the United States as the President signed that bill, and President Obama took that first pen with which he signed that bill and turned to Chairman Dingell and gave it to him. How appropriate it was for President Obama, a young and vigorous President, whose tenure in public office is relatively short, to turn and give that pen to an individual whose term in office has exceeded now that of every other American in history. John was here when we passed the first civil rights bill. John was here when we put a man on the Moon. He was here when the Berlin Wall and the Twin Towers fell. So much of our institutional memory is embodied in this one giant of a man, the longest-serving Member in the history of the House--a walking, talking, Library of Congress. One way to last this long is to keep your head down, to stay quiet and unobtrusive, to hope that no one notices you year after year. That may be one way. It was not John Dingell's way. But the other way is to make yourself so instrumental that your constituents and this body could hardly imagine life and legislation without your input, without your advice, without your counsel, without your prodding, without your expressing a vision for a better America. Everyone here knows that that is the path that our friend John Dingell took. For more than half a century--it's been mentioned, 19,420 days--John came here, to this Chamber, every day, asking what he could do to bring a little more security, a little more dignity, a little more prosperity, to his constituents and to my constituents, and to all of our constituents, to his fellow citizens. And he came here to this Chamber, every day, asking what he could do to advance the ideals that he has held so tenaciously and so ably and defended so passionately throughout his life and throughout his career in this body. As Michael Barone wrote a few years ago, and I quote, ``Whether you agree or disagree, the social Democratic tradition is one of the great traditions in our history, and John Dingell has fought for it for a very long time.'' The good news for my great granddaughter is that John Dingell is still fighting for that tradition. Still fighting for her and the millions of her cohorts, very small. They will not know John Dingell personally, but all of them will benefit by John Dingell's service and passion and caring and effectiveness as a giant among the legislators of our history. He is still fighting. And he will go on fighting. We know how much more John has to contribute to the life of this House and this Nation as he adds to his record every 24 hours, from here on out. I want to join my friend Joe Barton, who's John Dingell's friend, as is Fred Upton, his friends and his admirers join Joe Barton in saying that we look forward to John Dingell's leading us as we confront the issue of the passion of his life and of his father's life. And that is ensuring that every American has the availability of quality health care. John Dingell will be the principal sponsor of that health bill, and our principal leader on that effort. He has much to do. As Ulysses once said, ``Tho' much is taken, much abides.'' I understand that President Clinton quoted that famous Ulysses poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson. That poem ends by saying that, ``Tho' we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.'' Tennyson did not know John Dingell, but Tennyson spoke of the character and courage and commitment of our friend, of our historic colleague, our chairman, John Dingell of Michigan. Congratulations, and thank you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. But much more than that, I thank him for the work he does as our chairman of the Budget Committee and for the work he has done over the years as ranking member, the minority member of the Budget Committee, for being consistent and, in my opinion, accurate in his observations as to what we would reap from the fiscal policies we have sowed over the last 8 years. We are here today, in my opinion, to be honest with the American people. They need to know that this economic crisis will not end overnight. I think the chairman has made that pretty clear. And they need to know the reasons for the deep, deep, deep fiscal hole we have inherited after 8 years of fiscal recklessness. In fact, the projected deficit for fiscal year 2009 is $1.2 trillion. That is a figure difficult to comprehend. It's a figure particularly difficult to comprehend when President Bush and his economic advisers opined that they were worried about paying off the debt too early under the Clinton policies. One point two trillion dollars of deficits. Two factors have helped create that record-shattering number, the consistent irresponsibility of the past administration and our efforts to dig out of the economic mess he left us. It was not that long ago that you could hear on this floor heated debates about how to spend a projected $5.6 trillion, 10- year surplus created under the Presidency of Bill Clinton. Who would have thought, who would have thought then that our surplus would be wiped out by one President's borrow-and-spend foolishness by five record-setting budget deficits in 7 years? I would remind my colleagues, who undoubtedly need no reminding, that there has been a hegemony of power, a monopoly of power, a singular control of policy over the last 8 years. Now I understand some of my Republican friends would say, well, the Democrats were installed because of the obvious need for change recognized by the American voters in 2006. They put you in charge in 2006 and 2008. That is true. But as I also point out, the President was not on the ballot, and two- thirds of the United States Senate was not on the ballot, and therefore, it was impossible to make the change that America knew was needed. They have done that now. But they have done it after a very deep hole has been dug. While Democratic budgets were on pace to eliminate all of our public debt, today we are more indebted than ever. The national debt is now over $10 trillion from that projected $5.6 trillion of surplus. Who projected that? Not Bill Clinton. George Bush. President Bush's OMB projected that. Who told us that? President George Bush in 2001, speaking in this Chamber, told us that is the surplus that we could expect. Tragically, that was dissipated. That $10 trillion of debt now has replaced that $5.6 trillion of anticipated surplus. We will be paying hundreds of billions of dollars in interest on that debt that we have incurred. That's just one more way in which the Bush legacy means large structural deficits for years to come. So what does that mean for our economy and for American families? It's easy to see a budget as nothing more than numbers on a page and it's just a short step from there to agreement with former Vice President Cheney's nostrum that deficits don't matter. In fact, he said that Ronald Reagan taught us that, that deficits didn't matter. Unfortunately, the Federal Government pursued that policy. Unfortunately, business pursued that policy, and unfortunately, and tragically, to their harm, too many consumers followed that policy. But deficits do matter. Mr. Speaker, they matter profoundly. Deficits and debt tie up huge amounts of capital, and when it comes to mitigating a financial emergency in the early stages, they tie our hands too. Republican fiscal policies have also made massive borrowing seem normal and acceptable, as I said, the five largest deficits in history over the last 8 years. They've set the disastrous example that it's just as acceptable for a household as for a government to live far beyond its means. And just as surely as unchecked borrowing can pay for unsustainable luxury today, the bill will come due. In 2006 Comptroller General David Walker told us that American irresponsibility, public and private, will gradually, and this is a quote, ``will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our standard of living and ultimately our national security.'' How true his words were. Mr. Speaker, there's nothing to gain from pointing fingers at the last 8 years, but there is much to learn and a great deal to gain from looking back honestly at the fiscal choices we've made in the past. We learned just how much this painful legacy will complicate our efforts to confront this crisis, and we strengthen our pledge to return this Nation to budgetary sanity. With your leadership, and with the courage on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of Capitol Hill, hopefully, we will accomplish that. While economists agree that getting out of this recession will require deficit spending, that spending would be deeply irresponsible without a long-term plan to restore fiscal health. I know, Mr. Chairman, you're focused on that objective. I am as well, and all the Congress needs to be, as well as the American people. Getting the budget under control is going to require hard choices, choices we're going to see reflected in President Obama's first budget, in my opinion. It will be a serious document for serious times because getting back on a sustainable fiscal path is going to take sacrifices from every one of us. But we can call confidently for those sacrifices for two reasons. First, because they will be truly shared from Members of Congress to every working family. And secondly, because if we put off our hard choices, they will grow harder and harder by the year, until they're absolutely crippling. Last month we heard our new President declare, and I quote, ``a new era of responsibility.'' This is what it looks like. This is where we are. Let's meet it with our eyes open and make the best of it together. Mr. Chairman, there's been much made of bipartisanship. I'm for bipartisanship. But I note, in 1990, there were really three reasons we created that $5.6 billion surplus. We made an agreement with President Bush I in 1990. In 1993 we passed a bill that set us on a fiscally responsible course, and in 1997, in a bipartisan way, we confirmed that course. Unfortunately, history shows us that we haven't had bipartisan support. In the 1990 Budget Act, one of the key three steps that got us to that $5.6 trillion budget surplus, when we passed it through the House, there were only 10 Republican yeses, only 10. That was one of the key steps in getting us to fiscal surplus. Not one of those 10 serves in the House of Representatives today. In 1993, of course, no Republicans voted for that bill. And in 1997, it was a bipartisan bill, which, Mr. Chairman, you and I both voted for. We then came on very hard times and we confronted the TARP bill. Let me go back to 1993, however, when I said no Republicans voted for that bill. When it came back from conference, excuse me, there were no Republicans that voted for that bill. But in 1990, when it came back from conference there were 47 Republicans ``ayes.'' One of them remains here today. Now, one could draw the conclusion that, well, they lost because of those votes. That would be the dead wrong conclusion. What they lost as a result of, I think, first of all, retiring, and secondly, feeling that perhaps their party was moving in a direction that they could not agree with. I hope that their party and this party comes together. On the TARP vote that we had to meet this crisis caused by this fiscal irresponsibility, the Democratic Party stood with President Bush in making very hard votes, and the majority of us did so. The minority of his party chose not to do so. It is time for the majority of both parties to stand with the American people and future generations to return fiscal responsibility to this Nation and to our people. I thank the chairman for his leadership.