Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He talks about IPAB. Of course, we add the $17.5 billion to the debt. The gentleman did not mention the $1.5 trillion in additional debt that the passage of the tax bill will result in, but he did talk about some people who are going to be really advantaged. So I would like to ask the majority leader: Will those people who will be advantaged or, for that matter, disadvantaged have the opportunity next week to testify in a hearing on the substance of this bill? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come. (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that information. First, I want to start by saying that the majority leader and I and four other Members of the House had an opportunity to visit both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands last weekend since we had our last colloquy. First, I want to thank the majority leader for organizing that trip and including me on it. It was an eye-opening trip. The majority leader and I have done an op-ed, which will be appearing sometime in the near term, on our observations. One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I know the majority leader and I had the opportunity to see, we were in Marathon, where you had housing that was built after Andrew and housing that was built before Andrew. Now, the difference was, after Andrew, that extraordinary hurricane, the building code was changed. We saw the stark difference between housing that survived essentially Maria and Irma and housing that did not, and the difference was, of course, that the housing that survived was built to different standards after Andrew. The majority leader and I discussed this matter, along with Mr. Bishop, who chairs the committee that oversees both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and I think all of us are convinced that it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish not to build back, as Florida did, to standards that can withstand storms of this type. So I wanted to thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue. The majority leader took the extraordinary effort to climb down a river bank, go across the river--the river was very low at that point in time--and then up a very long ladder, because people were stranded on the other side. The majority leader went to see them and assure them that we would not forget them. We were the first codel to go to the interior of Puerto Rico, as opposed to simply go to San Juan or another large city, so I thank the majority leader for his leadership on that issue. Mr. Leader, let me ask you about tax reform. That, of course, has been the big issue for some period of time now, but now we have a bill that is not on the floor yet, but was released yesterday. It is clear this bill will cut taxes, in our view, for the wealthy. I don't know the statistics yet, what the division is, whether it is 80/ 20, as the initial proposal was, or perhaps a little less than that that goes to those over $900,000 in income. But, in any event, it also eliminates tax preferences that the middle class families rely on, and, obviously, we think it is going to face hurdles in Congress. What I wanted to ask was: When does the gentleman expect the bill to be marked up? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me remind the leader that we passed the Dream Act through the House of Representatives. We brought it to the floor. We had a vote on it. I know you and the Speaker said there was going to be a working task force on this issue, and it has been, I think, going on for nigh on to a month, but we haven't seen anything on the floor. Mr. Leader, what I am saying is that I think we agree on this issue. Let us not confuse it with things on which we do not agree. Don't hold hostage these 800,000 young people who are positive--because if they are not positive they couldn't get into the Dream Act--I mean, they couldn't get into DACA. They had to have a sterling performance, be in school, be working, be in the Armed Forces. This is not a free pass to people. We agree on this, I think. Maybe I am wrong on that, but it seems to me that we agree. The President seems to agree. Wouldn't it be--as we have done in the past some bipartisan things, and we thought that was good for the institution and good for the American people to see us work in a bipartisan fashion. I think we agree on this issue. Some of the things you want to attach to it, we are going to have disagreements on. Why don't we enact what we agree upon? By the way, this has been pending for a long period of time, as opposed to your tax bill. I know you think we have had hearings on it, but, very frankly, that bill changed from Tuesday to Thursday of last week. We think your bill is a pretty new bill and we would like to have hearings on it. But nevertheless, on DACA, I think we have an agreement. If you bring it to the floor, I think it will get a majority of the votes, a significant majority. I think it will get close to 300, if not over. So I would just urge my friend to see if he, as the majority leader--I was the majority leader--as the gentleman knows, I could bring a bill to the floor or I could keep it off the floor. This is a bill that ought to come to the floor. We ought to give peace of mind to these 800,000 of folks, and we ought to pass this bill and give the House an opportunity to work its will. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not want to say anything further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Offset.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer. Perhaps now he knows why I asked the first two questions. Apparently, it is not the debt that is of concern, because if the debt were of concern, the $17 billion would be of concern. That was put in the bill, as the gentleman knows, to try to pay for, as we paid for every nickel of the Affordable Care Act, and that was one of the larger pay-fors. Now, many Members on your side of the aisle don't like that pay-for, and many Members on my side of the aisle don't like that pay-for. That pay-for said that we are going to decide, if we are exceeding expenditure caps, what needs to be cut. As the gentleman knows, that board has never been appointed. But if it had been appointed, we would have had 30 days--30 legislative days or calendar days--30 calendar days in which to say, no, we don't agree with that. So the representatives of the people would have had that. But my point is we are selective in what we want to pay for, and I think that is a concern certainly to me, and I am sure it is to others. And the gentleman said: Of course, it is offset. The gentleman, here, says this is not offset. Can I ask the gentleman, why is this not offset? Why is this $17 billion apparently not a worry for the debt and the other dollars for children are necessary to be offset? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader announced that the CHIP bill will be on the floor next week. CHIP and community health centers have always been, as the majority leader points out, a bipartisan priority. Unfortunately, this bill did not come out of the committee as a bipartisan bill, and negotiations were essentially not fruitful, and the committee reported out legislation to extend these important programs that included billions of dollars in partisan offsets. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the majority leader, does the gentleman know whether the $8.2 billion reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which serves nearly 9 million children from low- income working families, will be offset? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I didn't yield yet. I simply say to my friend, had I instructed or the leader instructed, that outcome may have been different. However, there are some really substantive issues that we had, we had for a long time, we negotiated for a long time, and we didn't reach agreement. My question to you was: Are they offset? I think your answer was, yes, they were offset, and then you proceeded to tell me what the offsets were. Now, let me ask you a follow-up question to that. Does the gentleman know whether the repeal of IPAB is offset? That is a $17 billion deficit creation item. Is it offset? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. First, let me say, as far as I know, the leadership didn't give any direction to the committee. The committee decided on its own that it thought that the cuts that were being proposed by the Republicans are very harmful to some very important programs in healthcare for seniors that the gentleman, in his previous remarks telling us what the schedule was, said were very important. So the reason that we have concerns is we believe the offsets being proposed, Mr. Speaker, by the Republicans, and why we don't agree with the bill that is being brought forward is because we think it hurts the healthcare of millions of Americans. Let me ask another question, Mr. Speaker, of the majority leader, and let me preface it with Mr. McCarthy said in response to my question about the CHIP program: Of course, it is offset. Let me ask him a follow-up question. Does the gentleman know whether the $7.2 billion for community health centers that provide primary care services to 26 million medically underserved Americans will be offset?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am chagrined that I have stunned my friend, the majority leader. Yes, we don't agree with some of those pay-fors. I happen to, by the way, agree. There is no reason why a lottery winner of millions of dollars ought to be on Medicaid.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. The gentleman has come to me. We tried to work on getting it bipartisan. We didn't reach that conclusion, and I regret that we didn't reach that conclusion. The majority leader did, in fact, come to me in, I think, absolute good faith, and I wanted to try to get to a resolution. We didn't get there, and I regret that. We are where we are. But I want to tell my friend that I am going to continue to try to work towards that objective. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response. I was going to respond later, but let me respond now. This bill was not marked up in committee prior to its expiring, prior to the authorization ending. So when the gentleman talks to me about time, with all due respect, had it been an item of importance--which it is a bipartisan bill. We both want to see this get done. The gentleman is correct, this program exists. The gentleman is also correct that, until we fix this, there will be States that will be running out of money. That is a great concern to us. It will adversely affect millions of children. We ought to get this done. We ought to get it done in a bipartisan fashion, and I am sorry that we didn't. I am sorry the committee didn't get it done so it didn't have to come to the majority leader or come to my attention or the leader's attention. But having said that, that does not answer the question of the gentleman says IPAB doesn't exist. It certainly exists in scoring. As the gentleman surely knows, this is a $17 billion item that will have to be paid for at some point in time, and it will add to the debt if we don't pay for it. It may not exist right now. It may not exist for reasons that the gentleman probably points out, correctly, that a large number on his side and a large number on my side are not for it. I want to tell the gentleman that I am for it. I voted that way. But a large number of the majority of my party, I think, are not for it. I agree with that. But the fact of the matter is repealing this is not paid for, and, as a result, the costs will have to come from somewhere; but on CHIP we had to pay for it, and on community health centers we had to pay for it. I agree with that, by the way, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. I believe I did. No? I am checking on it. But I am saying here, publicly, I voted for the ACA. I think the ACA was good for the country, and one of the pay-fors we said we would pay for, and we did, one of the pay-fors was IPAB. If we want to substitute some other way to pay for the healthcare that we are giving, fine. That will not increase the debt. But if we don't pay for repeal of this IPAB, it is going to increase the debt. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thought I said, and let me reiterate, I voted against repealing IPAB. I am for IPAB. I will say it again. I know it is politically very controversial. It is a tough thing to do, but it helps pay for what we buy. And the problem in this House and the problem that we just did on the tax bill is we are not paying for what we buy. It is not spend-spend or tax-tax. We do not pay for what we buy. It is easy to buy and it is hard to pay. Here we are with another example. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and I appreciate the premise for which he stood. I look forward to having the Dream Act brought to the floor, which a majority of Members are for on this floor and will vote for. I believe my friend knows that to be the case, and I hope we would bring it to the floor. Let me go to this, if I can. The majority leader did not mention whether Alexander-Murray was going to be on the floor next week. Obviously, as the gentleman knows, there is an extraordinary disruption of the marketplace in the healthcare insurance field. Alexander-Murray, at the request of President Trump, was an effort by Senator Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, a former Secretary of Education, and a former Governor of Tennessee, to respond to the President's request and, as the gentleman has just noted, working in a bipartisan fashion to come to an agreement to stabilize markets to ensure that people are going to have healthcare and particularly to ensure that the poorest among us can afford their healthcare. Alexander-Murray is bipartisan and has over 60 Senators supporting it. Do you believe that that will be brought to the floor at any time in the near future?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my friend, the majority leader, with whom I work in a constructive way on many, many items mentioned earlier about how children may lose their health insurance or some of our less well-off citizens who rely on Community Health Centers will lose access, and that, therefore, we need to get this bill done soon. Millions, I suggest to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, will be adversely affected if we don't pass a bill stabilizing it. Yes, I understand you introduced a bill to repeal. You control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We are now 10 months into the year. That bill hasn't passed. So what we implore, Mr. Speaker, the administration and the majority party to do is not to do indirectly, that is, destroy access to affordable, quality healthcare for millions of Americans, that which they cannot do directly, and they haven't done it directly. So I would hope that we could bring at least a bipartisan bill, in light of the failure to pass a partisan bill, which has, I am told, 60 Senators who have indicated they support it, maybe more. I would hope when it comes from the Senate, if Senator McConnell will put it on the floor, that we will consider it forthwith, because the instability that grips the system now is hurting millions, costing them millions, perhaps billions. So I hope that would be a priority item for us, along with the bill that we call the Dream Act. We need to redeem the dream, Mr. Speaker, and continue a policy which the Speaker has indicated he thought was erroneously repealed by the President of the United States, which I think many Republicans with whom I have talked to think is a policy that ought to be pursued. I hope we can bring that to the floor as soon as possible, and certainly before Thanksgiving. Mr. Speaker, unless the majority leader has anything further to say, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have been here--this is my 37th year. This is the most reckless and irresponsible budget that I have seen in the 37 years that I have been here. Today, we are considering the Senate's budget resolution, not because the House supports it, but because it is just a vehicle to get partisan tax reform--strike that--tax cuts. On an issue as consequential as tax reform, the Congress should not be rushing to meet self-imposed political deadlines without enough time to read and analyze the effects. More importantly, we should not be considering a bill to cut taxes that is partisan and that is as terrible as we are hearing the majority's proposal will be. I say that because we still haven't seen the full details of a bill that this resolution provides for Republicans to jam through on an expedited process; one they will reportedly introduce, mark up, and bring to the floor in the few legislative days we have left before Thanksgiving. Is the sunshine too bright for you? Even my friends on the other side of the aisle don't know exactly how bad it will be for their constituents. When asked about the details of the Republican bill, Representative Chris Collins, a Republican from New York, said: ``We don't know, we don't know, we don't know, we don't know, we don't know.'' That is a Republican Member of Congress who is saying he has no idea what this bill is empowering. But we do know that, based on a nonpartisan analysis of their framework, it will raise taxes on 47 million Americans. We know that 80 percent of the tax cuts--80 percent of the tax cuts-- will go to the top 1 percent. And we know, as well, that nearly half of all taxpayers with children, 44.5 percent, will see their taxes go up. Those same children will be on the hook for a $2.4 trillion cost. This is the biggest debt explosion of any bill that I have seen. Republican Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida summed up today's vote as being for a budget--hear this, my friends on both sides of the aisle. This is Matt Gaetz, Republican, Florida, summed up today's vote as being for a budget that ``nobody believes in so that we have a chance to vote for a tax bill that nobody's read.'' That is not what we should be doing. We ought to be working together to craft a bipartisan tax reform package that is revenue neutral. It will be the height of hypocrisy to say that you are for fiscal discipline and to vote for this budget. Let's not risk our fiscal future and the economic security of our people. Defeat this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to former Prince George's County Fire Department Chief Steven T. Edwards as he prepares to retire as Director of the Maryland Fire Rescue Institute (MFRI) after twenty-four years. I've had the pleasure of working with him throughout those years, including in my capacity as Co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus. Steve is a fifty-year veteran of the fire services. He began his career with the Prince George's County Fire Department as a high school cadet. Over the years, Steve rose through the ranks and became Chief in 1989. After a four-year tenure marked by accolades for his leadership and citations for the Department--including the International Association of Fire Chiefs Award for Excellence--he stepped down to take on a new challenge leading MFRI. A world-renowned training institution for firefighters and emergency services personnel, MFRI prepares more than 38,000 students each year to enter the fire services. Under Steve's leadership, MFRI set high standards that help ensure that trainees are ready to face any emergency when they go out to serve in fire departments across the country. MFRI has been working closely with the Congressional Fire Services Caucus for more than a quarter-century, conducting training programs for Congressional staff. Steve has been instrumental in preparing these programs and making them so informative. Steve has also contributed his time and talents to advancing the safety and health of fire service personnel at the national level. In 1997, he was named President of the North America Fire Training Directors, a forum for exchanging information and best practices among state fire training and education programs. In addition, Steve has served in leadership positions with National Fire Protection, the National Board on Fire Service Professional Certification, and the Congressional Fire Services Institute's National Advisory Committee. For the latter, he served as Chair from 2004 to 2006, and we worked closely together to ensure that Congress was providing fire departments with all the tools necessary to carry out their work safely and effectively. I'm proud that Prince George's County has produced such a fine national leader for the fire services in our country. Throughout the years I've known Steve, I've seen him give all his passion and talents to the work of supporting firefighters and emergency services personnel and their families. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Chief Steve Edwards on his retirement, and thanking him for his work on behalf of the fire services in Maryland and across this nation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Rev. Jonathan Leslie Weaver on his thirtieth pastoral anniversary with the Greater Mt. Nebo African Methodist Episcopal Church in Bowie, Maryland. Throughout the past three decades, Rev. Weaver has been ministering to a growing community of worshippers in Bowie and the greater Washington metro area. I've been honored to know him, to call him a friend, and to work closely with him to strengthen our communities in Maryland's Fifth District. Since 1988, Rev. Weaver has overseen both the expansion of his church and a plethora of charitable endeavors through more than fifty ministries serving its members and the wider community. These have included programs to prevent domestic violence, to empower families through economic literacy, and to combat hunger. Under his guidance, Greater Mt. Nebo A.M.E. Church members have participated in Christmas in April, Tools for School, and other social service projects. Rev. Weaver has also carried his ministry across the ocean, visiting Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Benin to engage in mission projects there for more than a quarter century. As National President of the Collective Empowerment Group, Rev. Weaver has helped build a network of churches across seven states and the District of Columbia that host financial literacy seminars, educational programs, health care screenings, and homeownership clinics. The Collective Empowerment Group also partners with banks and local businesses to facilitate wider access to economic opportunities for those living in their communities. I have participated in a number of Collective Empowerment Group programs, and I can attest to the wonderful work the organization performs to help families reach for the American Dream. Rev. Weaver holds degrees from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri; St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore, Maryland; and Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. When he arrived at Greater Mt. Nebo A.M.E., the church had 100 members; today, he has overseen its growth to more than 1,600 members. It is a testament to his vision, his inspiration, and his faith. Rev. Weaver also has overseen the construction of the community's present church building as well as its Christian Academy school and Family Life and Wellness Intergenerational Center assisted-living facility. I hope all my colleagues will join me in congratulating Rev. Weaver and his wife, Pamela Lynn Weaver--who have two daughters and four grandchildren--on reaching this milestone. I thank them both for their work and spiritual guidance to so many in Maryland's Fifth District and for their friendship over the years.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud that Maryland is home to some of the finest military installations in the country, where our nation's most dedicated service-members and civilian defense employees work to keep our country safe. Over the last eighteen years, they and their families and the communities that support our installations have had an outstanding advocate in Brigadier General Michael Hayes USMC (Ret.). Since August, 1999, after his retirement from a distinguished career as a decorated Marine Corps officer, Mike has led the State of Maryland's Office of Military and Federal Affairs as its first Director. Under Mike's leadership, the Office of Military and Federal Affairs and the Maryland Military Installation Council have overseen efforts to bring community, academic, and military--as well as federal, state, and local--resources together to promote regional development and economic growth. I've had the pleasure of working closely with him over the years to ensure that Fifth District military installations--Patuxent River, Webster Field, and Indian Head--can continue to grow, serve our national defense, and bring jobs and opportunities to surrounding communities. Mike has played a pivotal role in these efforts, which have earned him accolades, including being named one of two national `Public Officials of the Year' by the Association of Defense Communities (ADC) in 2007 and becoming a member of the ADC Board of Directors in 2011. Mike's service to the State of Maryland caps a long career as a Marine officer. He served on active duty during the Vietnam War, commanding artillery batteries during two tours. Later, he went on to command Marine units based in the United States, Japan, and Panama before serving as Chief of Staff to the II Marine Expeditionary Force during Operation Desert Storm. Following his return home, Mike served as Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Facilities and Services at the Marine Corps headquarters before his retirement from thirty-three years of commissioned service in 1999. A native of Wisconsin, Mike obtained his B.S. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin, and he holds degrees as well from the Naval War College and the National War College. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in thanking Mike for his long career of service to our nation and to the State of Maryland. I wish him and his wife Barbara, as well as their two children and three grandchildren, all the best.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, millions of our fellow Americans in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are looking to Congress and the administration to work together to provide aid and assistance in recovery and rebuilding. I disagree with the President of the United States that we are going to leave Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands or any other American precipitously before we have done the job we need to do. The recent hurricanes have left 3.6 million Americans in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands still without power, fuel, clean water, food, electricity, and access to medical facilities. That is unacceptable, I say to the administration. We are witnessing a humanitarian disaster of historic proportions, and it will get worse if we do not come together as a nation and bring to bear the full force of the Federal Government to assist. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor to effect that end. That is why I have called on President Trump to muster every Federal resource, to muster and ensure that aid and supplies can reach those who need them, and to work on restoring power, water, and communications. Because many are still out of reach, we do not yet know the full extent of the damage and loss of life. Today's Washington Post has a front page story chronicling the tragedy that continues as of now to unfold in Puerto Rico, where nightfall brings complete darkness, and diseases are spreading by way of contaminated water. The island has been plunged into the 19th century. The Virgin Islands shares that status. This supplemental must be followed in the weeks and months ahead by additional measures to provide disaster relief funding and financial assistance to bring the infrastructure of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands up to 21st century standards in order to prevent a repeat of what has occurred. According to a letter sent to the congressional leadership on October 7, by the governor of Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rossello, the damage of that island is estimated to cost as much as $95 billion, which is 150 percent of Puerto Rico's gross national product. This funding package is an important step, though it fails to provide urgently needed Medicaid funding to help the 1.6 million in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands who rely on Medicaid for their healthcare. Congress must do its part and ensure that the resources are available, but it is up to the administration to make certain that the resources we provide get to those who need them. So I ask my colleagues to join me in passing this bill, and I call on the President again to take every necessary measure to address this humanitarian crisis affecting our fellow Americans. Mr. President, do not send a message to any American that we will turn our backs on them. That is not fair, it is not right, and you ought to correct the statement you made this morning.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. John Gabriel Smith, a constituent in St. Mary's County, Maryland, whose courage broke barriers and advanced the cause of integration and equality in our country. This Saturday, he will be honored at the homecoming game at Gonzaga College High School in Washington, DC, where he made history in 1954 as its first African-American graduate. Along with his two sisters, Gabe--as he is known to his family, friends, and neighbors in St. Mary's County--learned hard work and diligence from his parents amid the turbulent times of Jim Crow as he grew up in the 1940's. He found comfort and calm in the teachings of his Catholic faith and in fellowship at St. Peter Claver Church in Ridge, Maryland. There, he served as an altar boy and met the Jesuit priest who would become his mentor, Father Horace McKenna. Under the guidance of Father McKenna, Gabe developed a deep desire to find God and pursue the priesthood. Asking his spiritual guide what he would need to do, he learned that he would first have to study Latin. However, none of the segregated schools in Southern Maryland offered Latin courses. From Father McKenna, though, Gabe also learned that Gonzaga College High offered Latin and all the other subjects prerequisite to prepare for the priesthood--and then-Archbishop Patrick O'Boyle had ordered the desegregation of the schools within the Archdiocese of Washington in 1948. Thus, in 1951, Gabe walked into Gonzaga College High as its first African-American student, bravely breaking the color barrier and preparing the way for the more than 1,100 African-American Gonzaga College High students who have followed him. At Gonzaga College High, Gabe witnessed less of the abusive conditions of segregation that he had encountered in Southern Maryland, and many of his classmates stood with him in solidarity against bigotry outside the school walls. But as a member of the school's Purple Eagle football team, he had to face opposing teams from still-segregated schools whose players and fans directed their ignorance and hatred in his direction. His coach, Joe Kozik, stood by him throughout and presided over a team that rallied around Gabe. He would never forget the support he found among his peers and from Coach Kozik, who became as much a mentor to him as Father McKenna had been. When Gabe became the first African-American student to graduate Gonzaga College High in 1954, the Supreme Court reached its historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education and required the complete integration of America's public schools. Gabe and others who had already been trailblazers inspired other young African-American students around the country to be the first in their communities to desegregate their local schools as our nation struggled to achieve full enforcement of the Brown decision in the years that followed. While Gabe never ended up becoming a priest, he nonetheless rooted his life strongly in faith and built a career as a pharmacist upon the foundation in Latin and the sciences that he studied first at Gonzaga College High and then later at Howard University. He worked in the field for more than four decades, retiring this past spring. For many years now, Gabe has been an active member of the Mt. Ennon Baptist Church's Men's Ministry, helping to inspire others to achieve and pursue their own dreams as he did his. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Gabe on his retirement after a long and productive career serving the community in St. Mary's County and on being honored this weekend at his alma mater. I wish him and his wife of fifty years--Mrs. Jeanette Graves Smith--and their entire family well on this happy occasion.