Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, I thank her for taking this Special Order, and I thank her for the extraordinary work she has put in over the years. Madam Speaker, President Zelenskyy, a brave leader of a determined people who are defending their democracy and international law, warned us today that the resources we sent his people in their fight for freedom have run out. Two legislative days remain to deliver urgent aid to Ukraine and to Israel. If we leave town on Thursday, then we will have to wait 1 month until we get another opportunity. Our allies cannot afford the wait. Neither can we. Our failure sends a dangerous message to the world about our commitment to freedom, democracy, and international law. Each week we see: reluctance over resolve. Each day: doubt over determination. Each hour: division over decisiveness. Each minute: contention over conviction. Our allies watch in dismay and our adversaries watch in delight as the beacon of democracy that is America dims in the face of the gathering storm. Instead, we must ensure that freedom's holy light continues to burn bright. Winston Churchill understood that, Volodymyr Zelenskyy understands that, and most Members understand that. There is also an overwhelming consensus to support Israel in its imperative mission to defeat Hamas and ensure the devastating attacks on October 7 never occur again. If we do not pay the price of freedom with money and material now, then we may well pay for it with American blood and lives later. We ought to be thankful that we have that choice. Our allies do not. Madam Speaker, I just read a story about a Ukrainian de-miner who lost his leg while clearing Russian mines on September 22. He is now out doing the same thing on his prosthetic leg. He risked life and limb, and he volunteered to do so again. The sacrifice this Congress must make pales in comparison. Madam Speaker, I think of the mother in western Ukraine I just read about who lost two sons. The burden we must bear does not compare to theirs. A significant majority of this House remains, as has been said by Republicans and Democrats, united in our determination to see Ukraine prevail. We came here not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as people who recognize this threat for what it is, an existential one. We are the majority in this House. Until the Speaker gives us a clean vote, however, we cannot act on this consensus. Madam Speaker, the Speaker introduced a bill in the 115th Congress that said one subject per bill. The Speaker must follow that premise that he asked us to support. I urge the Speaker not to allow an important but unrelated goal to prevent us from doing what is necessary to achieve a victory for our own national security and the security of the free world. Politics should stop at the water's edge because this sort of partisanship emboldens the enemies of freedom to set their sights on our own shores. Rather than sending the despots and dictators of the world a signal of retreat, let's send them a clear and unambiguous message that we will not shrink from this challenge. Our inaction is not worthy of the land of the free and the home of the brave. America is better than that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there are 4 legislative days left in 2023. Yesterday, I spoke from the well about the need to provide critical aid to Ukraine and Israel--just as I did the week before, just as I did the month before, just as I will continue to do until we act. All Congress has to show for it is a failed vote in the Senate yesterday. Representative Dusty Johnson recently said that there is ``a strong majority of lawmakers in both the House and the Senate that understand this world is a lot more dangerous when America recedes from leadership. Clearly, we want to help our allies like Israel and Ukraine.'' The Speaker should heed the words of his Republican colleague. He refuses to give us a clean vote. The world becomes more dangerous. It must stop. Mr. Speaker, I will continue until we act. There are 300 votes on this floor for Ukraine and over 400 votes for Israel, yet we are unable to vote. That is a shame for our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are fiddling while freedom burns. We have 5 legislative days left to aid our allies, Israel and Ukraine. Each hour we wait makes it harder for our allies to defend freedom and democracy against tyrants and terrorists. OMB Director Shalanda Young made it clear this week that the past resources we secured for Ukraine have run out. As Speaker Johnson said in Florida, Putin won't stop in Ukraine. He will continue to devour territory and undermine democracy until he is stopped. My Republican colleagues ask what the plan is in Ukraine and Israel. The plan is to win. The plan is to defeat Putin. The plan is to vanquish terrorism generally and Hamas in particular. Most Members agree on that plan--300 on Ukraine and 400 on Israel. I urge the Speaker to give us the opportunity to act on that consensus now. Freedom demands it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, many years ago there was a rule adopted called the Holman rule. It allows the arbitrary and capricious cutting of a salary if you don't agree with what the person does. It is somewhat like if the Speaker of the House, who didn't like a vote of one of the Members, could cut their salary to $1. Now, there are a number of citizens who would probably like that, but in fact it would be unfair, capricious, and undermining of our democracy. Punishing someone for a difference of opinion is the antithesis of American democracy. For years, however, Republicans have made it their policy to vilify Federal workers. The Holman rule is their tool of choice. They use it as an instrument of political vengeance to cut the salaries of specific Federal officials who don't share their partisan agenda; not for misfeasance or malfeasance, but because they didn't agree. In the past 2 months, Republicans used the Holman rule to advance 64 amendments targeting individual Federal workers. Fifty-five of those were voted on. Two were withdrawn, and all 53 were defeated. What it is is essentially pandering to their rightwing, to allow their rightwing to pretend that they are doing policy. Every one of them has been defeated by over 250 votes. They have wasted over 9 hours of floor time on these pointless amendments, time that we could have and should have spent funding our government, time that we should have spent funding Ukraine, our ally, which is under siege from a dictator who has broken international law. Yet, we vote on reducing salaries to $1. How capricious. They are about settling political vendettas. It is sheer, petty, and irrational political posturing. Among those Federal officials singled out were the FDA officials tasked with ensuring the safety of America's medicine and food. There was no finding that they weren't doing that properly. It was just because they didn't like the policy. Others were Federal employees who administer crucial food assistance programs and other services upon which American people rely. Mr. Speaker, Republicans also took aim at DOD, Homeland Security, cybersecurity, and infrastructure security agencies. These men and women are in charge of promoting military readiness, gathering vital intelligence, and protecting our national security. There were no arguments that they weren't performing those services. It was that Republicans didn't like the policies. Trying to eliminate their pay signals to America and to the world that their essential work, their services don't matter. It also gives the answer to what Texas Congressman Chip Roy said, that the Republicans have not done anything. Chip Roy, a Republican, a conservative. Republicans attack Federal employees only to advance extreme policies that are out of step with the American people, from restricting reproductive care to undermining diversity and inclusion efforts. Their vindictive behavior is nothing new. In 2017, House Republicans tried using the Holman rule to eliminate one-third of the Congressional Budget Office's staff, a nonpartisan, impartial agency. Why? It was because they didn't like the scores their bills were receiving. They didn't say they were wrong, but they said they didn't like them, and they had a way to go beyond them to fund projects they wanted to fund or policies they wanted to pursue. The people responsible for government oversight and transparency should not have to face reprisals for their thorough and objective work. That is no way to run a country. No business on Earth would conduct itself in this way. No employer that threatens to cut its employees' pay to $1 on a whim can expect to recruit and retain top talent. They would simply walk out the door, and properly so. The Holman rule is not only vindictive, as I said, but it endangers our democracy and our separation of powers. It is part of the politics of vindictiveness, the so-called revenge tour President Trump promises to unleash on America. It is just another way he and his followers can, in his own words, and I quote Mr. Trump: ``root out the . . . radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.'' What kind of rhetoric is that? What kind of objective is that for somebody who might responsibly be the head of the greatest government on Earth? Though these amendments have no chance of becoming law, we must not ignore them. They force our Government to serve the political interests of their authors. Instead, we must allow our Government to serve the people. Thank you, and I yield back.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of my friend Linda Lamone: Maryland's longest-serving Elections Administrator and the second-longest-serving chief elections official in America. In September, she retired after overseeing our elections for more than a quarter century. Linda is a woman of tremendous vision, integrity, and reverence for our democratic institutions, and we appreciate her outstanding service. After serving Marylanders for decades as a Counsel to the Maryland State Assembly, the Chief Legal Counsel to Governor Schaefer's legislative office, a private attorney, and an Assistant Attorney General under Governor Glendening, Linda started as Elections Administrator in 1997. She oversaw 13 federal general elections, including six presidential elections, over the course of her impressive career. Linda started the role at a pivotal moment for American elections. New digital technologies offered new opportunities to enhance our electoral system. Around the same time, the 2000 presidential election revealed how vulnerabilities in our elections can undermine the American people's faith in our democracy. That experience led me and a bipartisan group of Members to pass the Help America Vote Act to keep our elections secure, accessible, and transparent. Linda was instrumental in helping the Election Assistance Commission and I implement HAVA in Maryland and beyond. From modernizing and standardizing our state's voting machines to digitizing campaign finance and voter registration resources, Linda brought our elections into the twenty-first century. She helped other states make progress in these areas through her involvement with the National Association of State Election Directors. Linda also helped our state and our democracy weather unprecedented crises. She led the effort to ensure that Marylanders could vote safely in the 2020 election during the Covid-19 pandemic. She also sought to maintain Americans' faith in their democratic system amid a wave of election denialism. We were fortunate to have Linda's leadership in 2020 and all the years before and since. No matter the task at hand or the challenge before her, Linda tackled it with determination. She always knew that she could count on the support of her family--especially her husband of 53 years, Rudy. As Dean of the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, College Park, and as a prominent academic and entrepreneur, Rudy was another crucial leader in our community. We all mourned with Linda when he passed away earlier this year, and we continue to keep him in our prayers. As Linda brings her career to a close, we find ourselves at another pivotal moment for American elections. We see leaders openly cast doubt on the outcome of free and fair elections. Some people deliberately try to erode our electoral system and other democratic institutions. Linda Lamone serves as an example of the countless hardworking, principled elections officials across the country who help uphold our democracy in the face of these threats. Their work isn't easy, but it is absolutely essential. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Linda and the democratic principles she devoted her career to protecting.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have less than 3 weeks scheduled in the remainder of this year for us to act. We have less than 3 weeks to secure aid for Israel and Ukraine before we return to our districts in December. They cannot afford that time. Each day we wait, winter grows colder in Ukraine. Each day we sit on our hands, American and Israeli hostages in Gaza become more fearful that they have been forgotten, as do their families. Each day we idle, our allies sacrifice more lives in their fight against tyranny and terror. Each day we fail to act, America's reputation as the world's greatest defender of freedom and democracy decays. Inaction suggests to our friends and foes alike that our Congress chooses doubt over determination, reluctance over resolve, and contention over conviction. We embolden those assaulting democracy in Israel, Ukraine, and elsewhere to set their sights on the rest of the free world, including our own shores. We must not project uncertainty in our willingness to oppose despots and international terrorists. Securing this supplemental aid without condition and without delay needs to be this House's priority. I have served in Congress for over 42 years, including 28 years in the leadership. In that time, I have seen Democrats and Republicans work together to defend democracy and further freedom. Earlier this year, I went with former Speaker McCarthy to meet with Israeli leaders to reaffirm our vital U.S.-Israel relationship. I worked with him to preserve the overwhelming bipartisan support our Congress has had for Israel for the past 75 years, just as I did with past Republican leaders. Now, Mr. Speaker, we come together in solidarity as Vladimir Putin threatens freedom, democracy, international law, and the lives of Ukrainians. A few years ago, I stood with Republicans in Kyiv's Independence Square to lay wreaths for the prodemocracy protesters who were gunned down there during the Revolution of Dignity in 2014. Republicans also joined me on my codel to Ukraine's border just last year. When I met with President Zelenskyy and House leaders on both sides of the aisle in September in this House, we expressed our unanimous commitment to Ukraine's cause, to America's cause, to freedom's cause. We saw that same bipartisanship on the House floor in recent weeks when some 75 percent of us voted to approve additional funding for Ukraine. All seven times, perhaps eight times if you count a couple of bills, that issue came up for consideration, 75 percent of us voted for Ukraine's funding. We ought to act on the strong consensus that exists in this body to deliver aid for Israel and Ukraine now, today, perhaps tomorrow, but certainly very soon. Neither dysfunction nor disagreement ought to undermine that effort. Victory is our objective; delay is our enemy. I have spoken with Israeli and Ukrainian leaders. I have met with officials from NATO partners and other allies. I have talked with the families of American hostages held captive by Hamas and Gaza. Their question is the same: Is America still willing to pay the price of freedom? Our answer, Mr. Speaker, and the answer of America must be yes. Now. We must send a deafening message to our friends and to the enemies of freedom and democracy. We will defend our allies and our shared values, not only in the next few days, but in all the days to come. Mr. Speaker, it is time to act. It is time to act without condition. Ukraine needs us, Israel needs us, and freedom, democracy, and international law need us. Let us act now.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a time of sadness, of wrenching pain, of anger, and of determination. It is my solemn duty, Mr. Speaker, to speak on this floor today about a courageous, talented, and generous young man, Itay Chen. His family is in the gallery. I had the opportunity to speak to them just a few minutes ago. As any family would be, knowing that their child is at great risk and not knowing his present welfare, they are grieving but determined. Itay is an American-Israeli dual citizen bravely serving his nation in the IDF. That is probably incorrect. This is his nation. IDF is the land of his forebears and of his ancestors and a land that offers sanctuary and safety to the Jewish people who have been savaged, hated, killed, and maligned for millennia. On October 7, Itay was taken hostage during Hamas' brutal criminal and savage attack on Israel and on innocent civilians in the land that is not contested by anybody. Itay is only 19 years old. Mr. Speaker, I have not met Itay, though I hope to do so in person in the near future. However, I met with his father, Ruby, who is with us in the gallery today, as I said, and his mother, Hagit, is joining us, as well. Mr. Speaker, everything I have heard about their son has only reinforced my resolve to help bring Itay home and the other hostages home, as well. Itay was raised in New York City, the city in which I was born, Mr. Speaker. He was always a precocious kid and a kindhearted young man. Like his dad, he is an avid lover of basketball. Unlike his dad, however, he is a diehard Lakers fan. So, there is a little conflict in the family, but that has not affected the deep love and concern that his family has for Itay. I want to assure them, Mr. Speaker, that is shared by the 435 Members of this body. It is not a partisan issue but a human issue. Itay may not have inherited his father's basketball loyalties, Mr. Speaker, but he did inherit his New York grit. Itay also developed a calling for service at a very young age, participating in Boy Scouts and serving his community. That commitment to serving others drove Itay to join the IDF. I know his experience in captivity, as awful as it is. Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, the Red Cross has seen the horror of how these hostages are being kept, and they ought to tell the world that truth. Nevertheless, we know that his experience will not break his generous spirit nor his dedication to the sacred Jewish principle of tikkun olam, repairing the world and doing good so that others may do better. His parents, Ruby and Hagit; his brothers, Roy and Alon; and the rest of his family and friends continue to show tremendous resilience and courage. We can do no less in the Congress, no less in the White House, and no less in America than make sure we bring this American home alive and healthy. I think, Mr. Speaker, how I would feel if one of my three daughters or one of my three grandchildren or one of my four great-grandchildren were in some tunnel or crevice illegally and criminally. I would do everything I could to get them back, and we must do everything to get back not only Itay but all those pictures that we will see of innocent people killed, maimed, and taken hostage by a criminal group we call Hamas. I want Itay and his loved ones to know that we are going to make sure this Congress does everything it can to bring him and the other hostages home as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, as a symbol of that promise, I am wearing a dog tag that Ruby gave me just weeks ago. Until they return safely to our shores, we will continue to stand strong with their families. Their grief is our grief. Their hope is our hope, and that hope grows with every hostage released. It will not end until they are all home, safe in the arms of their families and loved ones. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for taking this Special Order and for yielding to me.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of an outstanding Marine, Marylander, and American: my friend. George William Owings III. I had the privilege of working with him when he served in the Maryland House of Delegates and during his tenure as the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs. On October 31, he passed away at the age of 78. His passing was a great loss for our state and country. Although born in Florida, George was Marylander to his core, growing up in Calvert County and attending Calvert High School and the University of Maryland, College Park. From a young age, he showed tremendous commitment to his community and his country. In 1964, George left UMD to enlist in the United States Marine Corps. Serving multiple tours in Vietnam, George attained the rank of Sergeant and received numerous commendations, including the Presidential Citation, Navy Unit Commendation with Bronze Star Device, Navy-Marine Corps Medal, and Vietnam Service Medal with Silver Star Device. George continued to serve when he returned to Maryland. After finding success in banking, he started a career in Maryland politics. Governor William Donald Schaefer appointed him to serve in the House of Delegates in 1988. He won reelection multiple times and remained in the House of Delegates for sixteen years--ten of which he served as House Majority Whip. Recognizing George's character, skill as a legislator, and experiences as a veteran, Governor Robert Ehrlich appointed him to serve as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs in 2004. Later, in 2007, Governor Martin O'Malley asked George to stay on as acting Secretary for the department, which he did for six months. Eight years later, Governor Larry Hogan asked him to serve in the role once again. That Democratic and Republican governors alike believed George was best suited to serve the needs of his fellow veterans is a testament to his strong reputation and record of getting things done. George was a crucial advocate for veterans, military families, and all Marylanders. I join them in mourning his loss. My prayers are with his son George, grandsons Patrick and Emerson, life-partner Katherine Marie Boyd, and the rest of the family and friends he cherished above all else. I hope they can take some comfort in knowing that George's positive impact on our state and our people will forever endure. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in praying for George and all those who mourn him.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This bill perhaps will pass this House. It certainly will not pass the Senate, and it will not see the light of day on the President's desk. We spend our time here arguing a bill that violates the agreement made by 314 of us in this body, 165 Democrats and 149 Republicans. A majority of both parties said that we are going to have a funding level, otherwise known in our jargon as a 302(a) number; we will mark to that number; the Senate will mark to that number; and we will be able to get a bill. We have not done that, nor is there any intention to do that because compromise is out of the question and confrontation is the order of the day. I do not rise solely to talk about this Labor-HHS bill. I rise because I just came from a rally. It was an American rally on behalf of Israel, on behalf of the people of Israel, and in opposition to terror, murder, genocide, and the willingness of some to claim the destruction of Israel and its people as their objective. Yet, what do we do here in the House of Representatives? We sound an uncertain trumpet. If Speaker Johnson, who spoke at the rally today in support of Israel, would bring that bill to the floor to help fund that effort, it would pass with over 400 votes. Yet, it lies slumbering somewhere between the House and the Senate, and the Senate won't consider it. In addition, we are here disagreeing but disagreeing peacefully. Unfortunately, the citizens of Ukraine do not have that luxury. They stand. They fight for freedom, for democracy, against a Russian criminal attack on a free and sovereign nation. What do we do? We argue about a bill that is going nowhere, another uncertain trumpet of our conviction that the defense of democracy and freedom is worthy of our votes. Mr. Chair, 400 votes for Israel, over 300 votes for Ukraine, and it does not come to the floor. How strong a voice does America send to not only our enemies but to our allies as to our commitment to democracy, to freedom, and to international law? How muddled our voice seems to be on the international scene. Mr. Chair, I hope you bring those two bills to the floor, not as a political deal, not as a tit for tat, but as a statement of America that we stand for those who fight for freedom and democracy and a world of law. Bring those bills to the floor. We have already voted eight or nine times on Ukraine, 300 votes every vote, and Israel, over 400 votes. Please do that, Mr. Chair. Please do it for our own ideals. Do it for the defense of democracy and freedom and survival in Israel and freedom and democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine. America ought to do no less.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 101 Offered by Ms. Tenney

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I don't want to prolong this debate, but to hear about election denial from the other side of the aisle is extraordinary, and it is extraordinarily inconsistent with the performance of the former President who lied regularly. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, this is another unserious amendment. We have had over 50 of these. Every one that has been put to a roll call vote has lost, and this one will, as well, I hope. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this seems to be the substance of the Republican response to all the issues that the gentlewoman raises. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, the proposed rule promotes transparency by requiring Federal contractors to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. This transparency enhances accountability and helps the government and the American people make informed decisions regarding its contracts. By addressing climate-related financial risk, the rule encourages businesses to assess and mitigate their exposure to climate-related challenges. This proactive approach is critical in addressing the financial implications of climate change and fosters sustainability. Access to data on greenhouse gas emissions and climate risk enables the government to make more informed procurement decisions. This means selecting contractors that are actively addressing climate change and demonstrating environmental responsibility. Mr. Chair, for all those reasons, I strongly oppose the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I will not characterize it as rightwing or leftwing, but what the gentlewoman does not talk about, of course, is the donor base of the Republican Party and the interests that exist that do not want this transparency. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I have great respect for my friend from Missouri, and it seems to me that this is a very serious matter that she has raised. It is also my belief that it ought to be considered in the context of the Financial Services Committee and legislation propounded and offered to this House for careful consideration of the serious assertions that the gentlewoman makes. We ought to have the time to debate and fully understand the ramifications of the actions that the gentlewoman speaks of. However, in the context of this bill, we don't have the opportunity to really make that kind of assertion or analysis. The authority granted to the Financial Stability Oversight Council, FSOC, to require supervision and regulation of certain nonbank financial companies helps mitigate systemic risks in the financial system. I was here in 2008, and we saw that. We saw it at great cost to the economy and to individuals. By identifying and regulating systemically important nonbank entities, FSOC can prevent potential destabilizing events that could harm the broader economy. The 2008 financial crisis highlighted, Mr. Chairman, the need to monitor and regulate nonbank financial firms that can pose very significant risks. The FSOC's authority fosters a coordinated regulatory approach, ensuring that nonbank financial companies are subject to appropriate oversight without duplicating efforts across different regulatory agencies. Mr. Chair, this may well be something that ought to be the subject of greater discussion by the committee of jurisdiction and expertise, but I strongly oppose the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, again, I thank the gentlewoman for her observations and concern because, obviously, the conclusion that she makes would be of concern to all of us. I simply suggest that this is not the proper place for us to give the analysis and assess the correctness of the assertion that has been made in terms of cost. We have experienced a time where a failure to deal with nonbanks cost this economy one of its deepest recessions since I have been in the Congress of the United States. I have no reason to believe one way or the other whether the gentlewoman's assertion is correct because I just don't know. She is a member of the Financial Services Committee, to my understanding, and if her assertion is correct, then I think a bipartisan bill ought to be brought to the floor and considered. However, I think at this juncture this amendment ought to be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I urge its defeat, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicates that he came from the private sector. I am sure he was very successful in the private sector, as he has been in public life. In the private sector, one of the things that we admire is the ability to innovate, adjust, and to make changes when those are demanded by the marketplace. This amendment undermines the ability of the Small Business Administration to do exactly that: to innovate and reach more small businesses by taking away the agency's pilot loan authority. The gentleman is the chairman of the committee and knows better than I, but pilot loan authority is the flexibility to assess the market, assess the need, and take action. If they don't have that authority, then, as some have argued in numerous amendments here, the Congress ought to take that responsibility. Congress has not taken responsibility very well, Mr. Chairman. We are not doing things we ought to do. If the private sector or the SBA were as inefficient and ineffective as the Congress of the United States, we would shut it down, but of course we can't shut down the Congress. We can just lament the fact that we can't do our work, that we don't respond in a timely fashion. I am particularly concerned about Ukraine, under assault by a despotic power. They need resources from the United States. By the way, I read a report today that the United States is not the biggest contributor to Ukraine. We are certainly the major partner. The EU and others, including Japan, are the major partners because they want to defend freedom. I am concerned about the fact that we haven't acted to send a message to Putin, to Iran, to other despots that we will not shrink from the responsibility of defending freedom here and around the world. This authority, in a microcosm, is to try to give the SBA the opportunity to respond in a timely and effective fashion to opportunities that it sees on behalf of small businesses. Pilot 7(a) loans are provided by SBA to address the development of a specific sector or geographical region based on the agency's identified needs. We can shut everybody down in government, and unfortunately, frankly, government is very risk averse, not as nimble as the private sector. Why? It is because the administrators of all these agencies know that they have got us looking over their shoulder, and if they make a slight mistake, they have an amendment or they have a hearing or they have some Congressman or Congresswoman who says: A-ha, gotcha. If the private sector had that, it would be immobilized. It wouldn't help because in the private sector, we understand that mistakes happen because you are taking risks. By definition, risks sometimes result in not succeeding or they wouldn't be a risk. When we have an amendment like this--and we have had a number of amendments like this, and concerns expressed--I get that. However, it seems to me in this instance when my friend starts by saying he is in the private sector, I welcome his experience. It is critically important. We are the most successful economy on Earth because we allow people to take risks. By definition, some fail. Obviously, most fail, as a matter of fact. However, some are extraordinarily successful because they took that risk. Now, what needs to happen, of course, in the course of risking is when you find a failure, you stop it. Mr. Chair, I urge that we reject this amendment because it precludes the SBA from taking chances when they are available and can be successful.