Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman and thank him for his leadership, and I rise in strong support of the bill and strong opposition to the amendment that will be offered. Ladies and gentlemen, put this bill in context. I am not sure whether there were 435 of us, I don't know the total vote, but let's say 430. 430 of us this night, this night, voted either to give the States the option to opt out of one of the most important issues confronting us, and that is using American resources for our energy needs, or the other half voted to let the States opt in. So hear me. Everybody on this House floor voted to allow the States either to opt in or to opt out. Pick your bill. But the premise was the same, that States had the authority to act themselves. The amendment to be offered rejects that and imposes, not on Detroit that the gentleman mentioned, there is no legislation on the floor about Detroit, Michigan. There is no legislation on this floor about Indianapolis, Indiana. I don't know what their gun law is. And, very frankly, there is none about Hartford, Connecticut, or Baltimore, Maryland. But the District of Columbia comes here, unfortunately defenseless, from the perspective of some on this floor. Their defense is us. But let me speak to this. 220 years before this Capitol had been imagined and when this city was a swamp, our Founders were asking a question we still hear echoed in the District to this day: How could they establish a Federal city, cut it out from its home State and put it under the rule of Congress without violating the principles they had just fought a war to secure? That was their question. Government comes from the consent of the governed. That is a principle we hold dear, asterisk, except for the 600,000 people who happen to live in Washington, D.C. In the 43rd Federalist Paper published in 1788, James Madison answered the question that was posed, that our authority over the District would be legitimate only if some basic guarantees were in place. The Government, and I quote, ``will no doubt provide for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it.'' In other words, James Madison thought we would surely secure the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia. And when we refer to the citizens of the District of Columbia, let us, my friends, be more expansive: Citizens of America who happen to live in the District of Columbia, and, but for Maryland's generosity, would live in Maryland. They are citizens of America who happen to live in the District of Columbia. But should they be disenfranchised because they happen to live in this square that we call the District of Columbia? He went on to say, and ``a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.'' That is the options to make their policy. Now, listen to the confidence with which Madison wrote. His words suggested that ``no doubt,'' ``no doubt,'' Madison said, that surely the Congress of the United States and the Founding Fathers who had expressed the rights of our citizens would respect those rights, wherever those citizens might reside. And that ``of course'' they will be citizens, not subjects, unlike apparently those in Indianapolis or in other cities. I think his confidence would be shaken if he could hear this debate, if he could see what a congressionally imposed gun policy would do to the District's right to govern itself. We can argue back and forth the gun policy. What we cannot argue back and forth is that the District of Columbia citizens have the right and should have that right to govern themselves. That is the principle that is at stake here. I will leave the argument over gun rights and gun control to other Members. We have a gun law in Maryland. It works well. I don't get any complaints about it. If I did, I would have to address it. I wouldn't expect you to address it, unless you wanted to pass a Federal statute. This is not a Federal statute. This is a statute for one area. Whatever conclusion this House comes to, we are really confronted with a much more fundamental question, as I said: Do we impose that decision on those who have had no say in it, or do we pass the Norton bill as introduced, which I am in favor of, and require the people of the District of Columbia to comply with the Supreme Court's decision through local legislation, as all of us have to do? No more, no less. The people of Maryland need to comply with the Constitution, as do the people of the District of Columbia. But you don't interpose your judgment. In fact, somebody repairs to the courts and the courts decide. The courts decided in this case, and the District of Columbia is moving to comply with the Court's decision. You may disagree with their compliance, and indeed somebody may take it to court and the court will say, no, District of Columbia, you didn't do it right. That happens to us all. But we should not interpose our own judgment. Madison believed that would not be consistent with our principles. If Congress imposes a gun policy on the people of D.C., are we meeting any of those conditions? Are we providing for their rights and consent? No. They do not have the right to consent to anything that goes on here. Do they have a ``voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them''? Well, yes, in a way they do. They elect Ms. Norton. We don't give her a vote. That is wrong. They elect their council. They elect their mayor. But, oh, by the way, if we don't like your policies, we will overturn them. Not because a court has found them to be unconstitutional, but because we interpose our judgment. Madison would have thought that was wrong. Where is their equal vote in this Congress? Are they allowed a ``municipal legislature for local purposes''? Well, yes, sort of, but subject to our interposing our own judgment for theirs. We are not elected to be local city council persons. Well, the City Council still meets. But on this supremely local and sensitive issue, we are preparing to silence it. The principle of federalism, which so many of my colleagues profess, say that local problems are best tackled locally. That is why I suggest 435 of us, there weren't 435 that voted, but unanimously voted, either to allow individual States to opt out of an important policy, or to opt in to an important policy. But we gave those States that right. Both sides gave it to them. Every one of us voted for that option, and we turn around and say, oh, but we are not going to give that option to the District of Columbia. The closer you get to the problem, the more direct knowledge and direct accountability you find. While we in Congress may be close physically, we are still a world away from the gun violence the D.C. Council is struggling to confront, all the while upholding the Court's decision. They know they have to do that. They know the Court will oversee it. Let the law operate as it was intended to do, and if they do not comply with the Supreme Court decision, the Court will say so. I ask my colleagues candidly, who is better equipped to make these difficult decisions, Congress or the people of this community? The people of our communities believe that they are best qualified to make their local decisions. I don't know how you can call yourself a Federalist and answer Congress. A conservative columnist put it well a few years ago. ``You can't favor federalism for only ideas you like.'' Federalism is about allowing local and State governments to make decisions you don't like. So the ultimate issue here is not guns, it is a question of who here is prepared to be consistent in their principles, and of who here is prepared to respect the District's right of self-government, as was referred to by James Madison, which he said, the founders, which I am saying, the founders, took for granted. I urge my colleagues to support this base bill. Whatever position you have on guns, this is an issue of federalism and principle and local option, local government. You voted that way for the States on energy. Vote that way for the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, that provision, of course, was added under your leadership to manufacturing. It wasn't in manufacturing, as you probably know, when it was originally adopted because it was not perceived that the oil companies were in manufacturing as the bill contemplated to be. Then you thought the oil companies weren't doing well enough, and so you wanted to add that provision and you added it under Republican leadership. Very frankly, we thought that was not a wise move at that time, and we don't think it is a wise move now. And very frankly, I don't think the American public thinks that the oil companies will go out of business if we don't give them this tax incentive.

Mr. HOYER. I will yield one more time, and then I will conclude.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is a serious issue, and there are a lot of related issues. The gentleman who spoke before me, and I have a great deal of respect and affection for him, we treat one another with respect. We put a price-gouging bill on the floor because we were concerned about the spikes in pricing. Indeed, we saw, as Ike was coming and bearing down on Texas, before it ever got to the shoreline, there were $5 per gallon prices, before it ever got to the shoreline, before it ever destroyed anything. My friend voted against the price-gouging bill. These are serious pieces of legislation. The Republicans were in charge of the House for 6 years. In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, they controlled the White House. I have in my hand the eight pages that the administration, Mr. Bush, has submitted to us, President Bush submitted to us, over the last 8 years. Six of those years they were included in the appropriations bills passed by the Republican Congress and Republican Senate and signed by a Republican President. In each of those bills, the administration asked to continue the moratoria on drilling, every one of them, passed for 6 years by your Congress. We didn't have the votes to pass anything. Then we took over the control, because the Congress was fed up, frankly, with a complacent, do-nothing Congress, complicit in moving in the wrong direction, which 82 percent of America thinks we are now on, the wrong direction. This Congress has mightily tried to change direction, and, in fact, we have in many areas, including a comprehensive energy bill last year that the President signed. Sam Bodman said it was a great bill, the Secretary of Energy. It passed in a bipartisan fashion in both the Senate and the House. President Bush, in last year, fiscal year 2008, submitted a budget document, he submitted it, which said, the moratoria should continue. This year, the President submitted a bill, for the 2009 fiscal year, which said the moratoria should continue. So these crocodile tears about how Democrats have taken over and all of a sudden gas prices have spiked, you give us far more credit than we deserve in light of not being able to override the President's veto on almost anything that he didn't want. He signed some things that he didn't want like the minimum wage. He signed some things he said he wasn't going to sign, like the GI Bill. He signed some things that we passed through the House and Senate. But these crocodile tears are unwarranted by your record, and by the submissions of the budgets, by your President, for 8 years running. Now, a couple of months ago, the moratoria which was put on by George Bush, his father, was lifted. Why? Because our constituents are hurting. Why? Because we are being held up by those who are selling oil. Why? Because the market is being manipulated and speculators are impacting on price. You think that's not the case, or do you think all of a sudden demand went down by a third, so it went from $146 down to $92 today, within just a few months. Who believes the free market operates in a way that demand spikes for oil that much in a 90-day period? Nobody on this floor who is rational believes that. Something is rotten in my home of Denmark. And, actually, it's not rotten in Denmark; it's rotten someplace, though. Mr. Abercrombie is going to speak on behalf of this bill, as he met with Mr. Peterson and tried to come together. Originally this bill, the gang of 20 in the Senate, which apparently you don't like, because they are undermining the drill, drill, drill political advantage that you have sought, the 20 said let's deal with four States. We are saying let's deal with every State. We do say with sensitivity, as the previous speaker said about his State, States are going to have the opportunity to make a determination as to whether they want to proceed. Now, you could argue that that shouldn't be the case, because, after all, that's Federal. It's not State property, you get that far out. We have done a lot of work. We have done a lot of work in trying to work across this spectrum. I want to congratulate Mr. Rahall and Mr. Green and others who have worked so hard to try to bring us together. I will tell my friend, we do deal with oil shale in this bill. In your bill, you repeal a section which had caused a problem. We repealed that as well, so your bill and our bill did the same thing on that. Furthermore, we said three States that have substantial oil shale ought to have the same opportunity that the coastal States have to opt in to develop that. Whether the technology is available now, I don't know. In part, I believe the arguments used on this floor, which I will say as an aside, I think was a misuse of this floor. But notwithstanding that, arguments that were made day after day after day were not accurate, and you knew they were not accurate, which is why it made it so difficult to respond to. None of you ever mentioned the fact that the President of the United States, George Bush, submitted, months ago and 7 years prior to that, and you passed 6 years in a row, on your watch, the moratoria, of which you now wring your hands. All of us are concerned. All through the summer and into the fall Americans have been filling up their cars at record prices in my district and every district, $60, $80, $100 a tank and looking for Washington to help, to see what we could do about it. We are trying to do something about it. Now, you passed an energy bill in 2005. Your Speaker, Mr. Hastert, your majority leader or now minority leader, Mr. Boehner, and my good friend, your whip, said to us, and I won't quote them all at length but I will quote your Speaker, Americans need this bill--your energy bill passed in 2005--to lower their energy prices, to drive economic growth and job creation, and to promote greater energy independence. That's what you said your bill was going to do. You also said, of course, in 2001, that we were going to have the greatest economy we would ever have seen if we passed your economic improvement program. I doubt that any American believes that you accomplished that objective. You passed your bill, the President signed it. Just a short number of months later prices went from $1.46, when you took over, to over $4.20. If it was a successful energy program, it was a successful energy program in driving up the price of gasoline for all of our consumers. To see what we could do about this we met, we talked to Mr. Abercrombie, we talked to Mr. Peterson to try to bring our caucus together. It was a diverse caucus. A lot of people felt President Bush was right, those 8 years that he submitted those bills and that you passed 6 years you were in charge. To relieve the strain on their budgets and their families, not 10 years from now but now, today, I am sure you are wondering whether we will throw up our hands on the work of compromise and retreat into finger pointing. I think we can do better than that on both sides. Both of us want to make sure that we bring prices down, and both sides of the aisle want to see energy independence. We can pass this bill, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. You say it's not perfect. Many Members on our side say it is not perfect, but it is a very significant step and a very significant expansion of where oil could be found. I would reiterate, there are 68 million acres right now, right now, as I stand here, that could be drilled upon right now without any further legislation, regulation or administrative action. This legislation, this bold step towards a comprehensive energy policy, is worthy of the 21st century. Lower gas prices today, American oil and natural gas for the years to come, that's what this bill promises and will provide, and serious investment in a new generation of energy technologies for a cleaner, more secure energy future. It's all here, and we are all going on record this evening. Here is what the energy package is going to accomplish. First, we are going to drill for more oil and gas here at home. That's what Americans have said. Use our resources. Don't rely on the Middle East. Don't rely on Venezuela. Don't rely on Russia. Certainly, don't rely on Iran. Drill here. We have both said all along, we put a bill on the floor, drill responsibly in presently leased land, that Mr. Rahall led. Most of you, many of you voted against it. For many of my colleagues, I know that drilling is the most contentious part of this compromise, but we have worked hard to find common ground. Drilling will come with strong, new environmental protections. Americans want that. They want resources, but they want them safely gotten. It will take place well offshore, as opposed to the 3-mile zone that will go up for grabs in 15 days if we vote this bill down and do nothing. I don't know how many of you are for that. Maybe all of you are for it on that side. I don't think our citizens are for it. In the areas closer to shore, we are letting the States themselves make the final call. To my colleagues on the Republican side who argue that States won't opt in without revenue sharing, I reply this, if the ground swell for drilling is as strong as you have said it is, and I believe it is, surely our State leaders will listen. Do not ascribe to us the only ones who will respond to the public's desire to find more resources. Certainly our State leaders will respond as well. They will feel comfort that their State has made that determination. That's not to mention the job creation that will occur in States, what a motivation that is. We are also including diligent development provisions, which, by the way, you included in your 2005 bill. We thought it was a good provision. We called it ``use it or lose it.'' You voted against it because it wasn't your bill. You voted for it when it was development in your bill. When we put it on the floor, you voted against it. Second, we are going to take immediate action to lower the price of oil by releasing 10 percent of the oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We proposed that; the President said ``no.'' We said don't buy any more. The President said ``no.'' Both of those policies are now being pursued by the administration. Tax incentives for plug-in hybrid cars, solar and wind power, biofuels and energy efficient homes. Why? Because we can't drill ourselves out of this. We need to drill, we want to drill, we are providing for drilling, but that's not the solution. It is part of the solution. We all understand, you say, all of the above. We say, yes, let's invest in alternative research, for cutting- edge energy research, support for mass transit and renewable energy. We need all of those steps if we are going to be energy independent. Some day soon I think we will look back on these investments as the beginning of the end of our oil addiction. We are going to fund them by recovering the royalties the oil companies owe the American people. Who here believes you need to incentivize a company to produce a product that is getting the highest price it has ever gotten in history. I don't find that premise in my free market concept. The free market operates that if people are buying your product and they are paying you a very good price, by golly, you try to provide more product for them. Refineries were operating at less than 90 percent, or about 91 percent this summer, the lowest point they have been at refining capacity in a number of years, not because they didn't have supply. They have got supply. There are no shortages, there are no lines. They are just charging a high price. We are going to fund that research, as I said, by asking the oil companies to pay their fair share. They are making good money and our citizens shouldn't have to pay more to run their government because some oil companies are not paying their fair share. It simply doesn't make economic sense to do billions of dollars of tax cuts to oil companies while our citizens are paying high taxes. All of that is our energy solution. We have not left a stone unturned or a remedy untried. To my Democratic colleagues, I don't think a single one of us is happy with every single provision in this bill. I know I am not. There would have been some additional things I would have liked in this bill. But I also know that is the price of a good compromise, and making good compromises is our business. To my Republican colleagues, you have told us loud and long, and I want to congratulate Mr. Peterson for the work he has done in bringing this issue to the fore and talking about it, not just this year because I have known him for a long time. We served on the Appropriations Committee, and he has been consistent and constant in his focus on this issue. Your Presidential candidate is running for office under the motto ``Country First.'' We would all run on that platform. I am for Mr. Obama, as all of you know. He wants to see change and a new direction. But certainly all of us agree that our country comes first, perhaps not before God, perhaps we would say our family is critical, but certainly country is our consideration. Democrats and Republicans, we are all being watched today and they can see partisan differences, partisan divide, and sending a partisan bill to the Senate. We can perhaps do that, and maybe we will. Our public will not be pleased. This bill is not perfect. It is not everything you wanted; it is not everything I wanted. But it is a substantial expansion on drilling, a substantial investment on renewables, a substantial investment on conservation. We ought to pass this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, they go no place in the world, my friend, where they pay less than they do in the United States to those nationalized countries that allow them to drill. No place in the world do they pay less. If they went to Venezuela, they pay 93 percent. If they went to Norway, they pay 78 percent. Nowhere in the world, my friend, do they pay less than they pay here, and the difference is made up by your taxpayers and my taxpayers. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill. But it is a good-faith effort to move this issue forward, to make us independent, to bring prices down, to invest in the future which renewables are clearly the harbinger of, and to make sure that we take the action our public wants. I thank Mr. Rahall for his leadership, and I urge every Member of this body on both sides, vote for this piece of legislation. Move us toward energy independence, not just today but tomorrow and tomorrow.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, after consultation with the minority, we have agreed that we will take the debate on the District of Columbia bill tonight. We will conclude debate, but we will roll votes until tomorrow so that we will not have to keep Members here. I've discussed this with, as I say, the minority. I've also discussed it with the Members of our side. Those who will want to participate in the debate, obviously, will remain, but there has been agreement that there will be no further votes tonight.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to suspend the rules relating to the following measures be considered as adopted in the form considered by the House on Tuesday, September 9, 2008: House Resolution 1207, H.R. 6169, and H.R. 6513.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1420) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 20 minutes accorded to me be managed by Mr. Ackerman of New York.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I thank Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, for bringing this to the floor. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this resolution not as a Democrat but as an American. September 11 is seared into my memory just as December 7 was for an earlier generation. Indeed, I know it is seared in the memory of every American. It was a day of horror and of heroism, and each year it will be a day for us to renew our devotion to the ideals that make our Nation what it is, ideals of liberty, tolerance, equality, and the rule of law. On this seventh anniversary, this resolution introduced by myself and the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, recognizes September 11 as a day of remembrance and resolve. We mourn nearly 3,000 men, women, and children murdered. We pledge to keep their names alive and their memories fresh, and we pledge ourselves, once again, to those who loved and lost them. And we recall the heroism of this day, the light of courage that shines brightest in the darkest hours. We remember the service and sacrifice of our first responders, firemen, policemen, medical personnel, average citizens; 343 firefighters, 37 Port Authority officers, 23 police officers. They served us unto death and they died in service. We remember the heroic passengers of United Flight 93, ordinary Americans who found in themselves unthinkable reserves of heroism and saved the building in which we stand at the cost of their lives. The Capitol's dome rises on this hill as a symbol of freedom and liberty and democracy. Surely that was the target of those terrorists, and they would have succeeded save for the extraordinary courage of the passengers of that flight. We send our thoughts far away as well from this Chamber where our servicemen and women are serving and fighting in harm's way as we speak. Inspired by each and every one of those sacrifices, let us renew our resolve. We commit ourselves to defending our people against any and all future threats. We remain steadfast in our commitment to disrupt, dismantle, defeat, and destroy terrorist networks that endanger all that we hold dear. We will devote to that cause all of our military might, all of our diplomatic skill, and all our moral force. Americans have worked tirelessly to make our Nation safer. This Congress has passed, and the President signed, numerous laws to assist victims, combat terrorism, protect our homeland, and to support the members of our Armed Forces who defend our interests at home and around the world. Most importantly of all, we adopted last year all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. And now we must implement them. We must keep working to keep America secure. We can always do more. And, as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission pointed out, we are not yet strong enough. Today is a reminder that in this uncertain century, even the most powerful Nation on Earth is vulnerable. So let us add humility and watchfulness to our mourning because we are defending something greater and more powerful than our own lives. We are defending the same ideals to which our founders pledged more than two centuries ago, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. We are defending the American ideals that stretch through our history and animate our spirit even today. And no attack, no attack, can break them. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with Mr. Boehner and me in unanimously supporting this resolution of remembrance and resolve.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in memory of a Maryland native who died last month in our country's service: SGT Ryan Baumann of Great Mills. I know how small a difference any words of mine can make for those who loved and lost him; but still, he deserves all the honor we can give. Ryan Baumann grew up in Great Mills, Maryland, where he excelled in sports and was an award-winning photographer. He met his fiance, Lauren Smith, soon after graduating from high school; tragically, he was killed in action before they could marry. Sergeant Baumann was a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, a highly decorated soldier. His awards included the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, two awards, the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Ribbon. He was also posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. Sergeant Baumann's death typified his outstanding service. Traveling on Route Alaska in Khost Province, Afghanistan, Sergeant Baumann spotted an improvised explosive device from his Humvee. As his fiance explained, ``They were going downhill and he saw the land mine and he was telling them to stop, and you can't stop a Humvee going downhill, and he told them to veer to the left, which made him take the brunt of the explosion. He wouldn't have had it any other way.'' Sgt. Baumann died of his injuries; every other serviceman in the Humvee survived. In the wake of his death, we honor his commitment to our country, his tremendous sacrifice, and his devotion to his comrades-in-arms. As they mourn their great loss, our thoughts are with his family: his father Robert; his mother Cindy; his stepfather Gary Lohman; his sister Christina; and his fiance, Lauren Smith. I pledge to them all the support a grateful nation can give.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this year marks the 350th anniversary of the founding of Charles County, Maryland, one of the five counties I have the privilege of representing in the United States Congress. I rise today to congratulate the county on this milestone and to pay tribute to its citizens--individuals who have made it such an inviting place to live, work, and visit. One of Maryland's oldest counties, Charles County was chartered in 1658 and named in honor of Charles Calvert, the 3rd Lord of Baltimore and a royal proprietor of the Colony of Maryland. Since its establishment, the county and its residents have played an important role in shaping the development of our State and the history of our Nation. From its earliest days, Charles County served as a center of commerce for the region. Port Tobacco, one of the oldest English settlements in North America, was the home of Maryland's second largest port and seat of the Charles County government prior to its move to La Plata. Charles County was the birthplace of several of our Nation's Founding Fathers. Thomas Stone, a member of the Continental Congress and one of Maryland's four signers of the Declaration of Independence, was born in Charles County. His home, Habre de Venture, still stands and is a unit of the National Park Service. His uncle, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, was a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention. John Hanson, a long serving member of the Maryland assembly and the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled under a fully ratified Articles of Confederation, was born at Port Tobacco. Residents of Charles County witnessed the landing of British troops in Benedict during the War of 1812. During the Civil War, Camp Stanton was established in Benedict for the purpose of recruiting and training African-American men for the Union Army. Following the war, John Wilkes Booth, assassin of President Lincoln, traveled through Charles County stopping at the home of Dr. Samuel Mudd to have his broken leg set--on his escape from Washington, DC. Charles County was also the birthplace of Josiah Henson who was born a slave, escaped to Canada and later wrote his autobiography which is believed to have inspired Harriet Beecher Stowe's ``Uncle Tom's Cabin.'' Matthew Henson, who accompanied Admiral Robert Peary on several Arctic expeditions, including the discovery of the North Pole, was also a native of Charles County. Henson, who was likely the first man to reach the spot, planted the American flag at the North Pole. Today, Charles County continues to make history. It is home to important Federal agencies, including the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division which was established in 1890 and is the international leader in energetic research and development. Recently, scientists and researchers at Indian Head developed, in short order, the thermobaric ``cave busting'' bomb to combat terrorists abroad. Charles County offers its residents scenic rural areas, wildlife habitats, and waterfront views with convenient access to the Washington metropolitan area and the Federal Government which helps it live up to its motto of ``Where Eagles Fly.'' With a vibrant and robust business climate, coupled with its hardworking and dedicated residents, Charles County has strong appeal and has become one of the most diverse communities in Maryland and one of the wealthiest for its size in the Nation. I am proud to represent Charles County in the U.S. Congress and congratulate its current County Commissioners--Commissioner Wayne Cooper, President; Commissioner Edith Patterson, Vice President; Commissioner Rueben Collins, Commissioner Gary Hodge, and Commissioner Samuel Graves as they celebrate this great milestone. Congratulations Charles County on your 350th anniversary and may your citizens have continued prosperity for years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in memory of my good friend, and a pillar of our Washington community, L.B. ``Bud'' Doggett, Jr. Bud died last month, while Congress was out of session, but I want to take this moment to note how dearly he will be missed, and how many will miss him. Bud was one of Washington's most successful businessmen, who turned a small parking company founded by his parents into a local business powerhouse. But he was far from content to simply enjoy his success; instead, he made himself into a vital civic leader, contributing immeasurably to Washington's development into a world-class city. Bud was born here in the District, and he always said he never crossed ``the Potomac Ocean'' unless absolutely necessary. Everyone who lives here is a beneficiary of his dedication to his hometown. But to Bud, leadership meant service as much as it meant power. He learned the spirit of service in the European Theater of World War II, and he put it to work back home. Perhaps his most lasting accomplishment was the foundation of Heroes Inc., a charity that for the last 45 years has provided for the families of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty. As his wife, Cherrie Wanner Doggett, said at his funeral: ``What he most loved was watching his friends and the people he loved being happy. His pleasure in life was doing for others--especially when he knew he was helping someone who could never give him anything in return.'' Our community was blessed to have a servant-leader like Bud Doggett, for so long. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Senator Moynihan once said, ``You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.'' The dominant political fact of the last 8 years has been Republican failure, serial governing malpractice. This month, we will be holding them to account. There ought to be a heavy cost for 2.5 million lost jobs; for 5 million more of our fellow citizens thrust into poverty; for stagnating wages; for skyrocketing costs of essentials; for 8.6 million more Americans uninsured; for surpluses turned into record deficits; for an America whose respect has been reduced around the world; for foreign borrowing that has exceeded the total racked up under the first 42 Presidents combined. All of that happened under the grip of Republican ideology. Eight years in the White House, 6 years with all the levers of power, and after all that, they suggest more of the same. Every time they try to change the subject, every time they pretend to be agents of change, we will answer with the simple facts of failure. We have faith in the facts. We will stake an election on that faith. And when we win, we will govern secure in that faith.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 398, 110th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I must say to my friend on the other side of the aisle, I believe it's never the wrong time to do the right thing, and this is the right thing. My friend mentions trial lawyers. Trial lawyers are in the business of redressing grievances. Juries and judges are in the business of deciding whether the grievance deserves redress, not trial lawyers. Trial lawyers raise the issue. Judgments are not given by trial lawyers, but by judges and juries. Equal pay for equal work. When we put the principle as bluntly as that, I doubt that anyone in America would disagree. It's a basic ideal of fairness. Is there a woman on this floor that believes they ought to be paid less than the men that do exactly the same kind of work? And I would suggest the answer to that is no, whether they're staffers or Members. I hope there is not a female page who watches these proceedings that believes that they are less valuable than the male pages that serve this House. They are equally valued, irrespective of gender. The value of work lies in a job well done, not in the gender of the worker; but within my lifetime, it was a radical notion. For decades, it was perfectly acceptable for women to earn less simply because they were women. We celebrated the 60th anniversary of the integration of the Armed Forces just a few days ago. Colin Powell spoke, and he indicated that he was too small to really remember the ramifications of that executive order, but he said to himself, how strange it would seem today to think that men and women would be segregated by unit and by housing because of the color of their skin. It is equally wrong to make distinctions of gender in payment for services. Thanks to the hard work of generations of women advocates, we've closed that gap from 61 cents back in 1963 to 77 cents on the dollar today. Being 77 percent right is not enough, we need to be 100 percent right. We need to pay dollar for dollar for work performed. In fact, it depends on staying hidden, it depends on keeping women in the dark. Because, of course, it's against the law not to pay equally, but if you don't know that you're being discriminated against, how can your grievances be redressed? In fact, the Constitution of the United States says, as all of us know, that Americans are guaranteed the right to petition the Congress of the United States for redress of grievances, and yet we keep people in the dark as to whether or not, in fact, they are aggrieved. By now, we have all heard about the Lilly Ledbetter case. Ms. Ledbetter was a supervisor at a tire plant in Alabama, and for years she was paid less than her male coworker. I would be interested if any Member of this House is prepared to come to this well or stand at one of these microphones and say it was right to pay a supervisor that was a woman less than a supervisor who was a man. And if you do come to this well and say that, I look forward to debating you on that issue. But Lilly Ledbetter had no way of knowing that she was being paid differently. She didn't know the truth. And by the time she found out, years after the discrimination began, the court said it was too late, time had run, statute of limitations gone, insurance run out. She didn't have the right to redress her justifiable grievance. Her case is hardly unique. Justice Ginsburg has written that ``comparative pay information is often hidden from the employee's view.'' In many workplaces, merely asking a coworker about his or her pay is a firing offense. Far from protecting privacy, rules like that can protect an employer's power to discriminate. And should we say, well, I know the employer discriminated, but we don't want to have a lawyer take that case because, after all, we don't like lawyers, they bring to our attention wrongdoing, they ask for redress of grievances, they petition the jury and the court; this is wrong. You know, a famous individual from my State, Justice Thurgood Marshall, did that. He was a trial lawyer. And he petitioned the court and said, it is wrong to segregate blacks and whites, it is wrong to give secondary education to African Americans, just as lawyers come and say it's wrong to discriminate on gender as opposed to quality of work. In many workplaces, as I've said, merely asking a coworker about his or her pay is a firing offense. That's why this bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, is so necessary. It is time to do the right thing. It may be too late for some, but it's the right time for many. It amends the Equal Pay Act to bar retaliation against employees who share or inquire about pay information. It strengthens sanctions against discriminatory employers--which have not been adjusted for 17 years. It clarifies acceptable reasons for differences in pay related to factors other than gender. And it authorizes additional training for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff to better identify and handle wage disputes. I want to recognize my colleague Congresswoman DeLauro for working so hard for so long and so passionately to bring this bill to the floor. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. It's the right time. It's the right place. It's the right time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I know that all of you are concerned about the schedule. There was some hope that we would be able to get out late tonight. We have been unable to reach an accord on unanimous consent on the adjournment resolution. As you know, the Senate has not passed an adjournment resolution. As a result of that, we will be here tomorrow. So we are going to proceed in the following way: We will have no further votes tonight. I have discussed that with the minority, and they are not going to be asking for votes on amendments, and so we will be having no further votes tonight. We will meet tomorrow at 9. We will be considering whatever amendments and the Military Construction and Veterans bill, we will vote on that. We will then have a rule on the adjournment resolution, and that will be the balance of our business. It is my hope, again, not knowing what might transpire during the course of the day, that we would be able to complete the business that will be before us before 1 o'clock tomorrow, perhaps earlier, again, depending upon how many votes we have and what action is taken on the floor. I wanted all the Members to know that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, not only for his announcement, but for the hard work of he and his committee. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the Republican Whip.

Mr. HOYER. Exactly.

Mr. HOYER. There are two votes apparently left.

Mr. HOYER. That is correct.