Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, every one of us who serves in this House relies on the talented and hardworking staff of ours and of the House itself. We couldn't do what we do without them. They not only serve us faithfully, but serve our constituents as well, and they often do so without recognition. Today my colleagues and I want to recognize someone who has been serving the people of Maryland's Fifth District and our country as a senior member of my staff for a decade and, indeed, before that, on the Senate side for close to a decade as well. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come to know Mary Frances Repko. If you have dealt with the environment, if you have dealt with energy, or if you have dealt with the history of the Senate and the House on energy legislation and environmental legislation over the last 20 years, you know Mary Frances Repko. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know Mary Frances well and respect her deep intellect, her professionalism, and her sage counsel. When it comes to energy policy and environmental issues, there are few on this Hill who know more of the intricacies and complexities of the issues than she does. I am very proud of Mary Frances because the leadership staffs on both the Democratic and Republican side engage her in order to ensure that all the facts and ramifications of energy and environmental legislation are known and considered. Mary Frances has been integrally involved in every major energy and environmental legislative debate over the past 10 years. I know Leader Pelosi is also a great admirer of Mary Frances Repko. Her staff and Mary Frances have worked very closely together, including on the Recovery Act, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Energy Independence and Security Act, the EPA Act of 2005, the Renewable Fuel Standard, the BP oil spill, flood insurance, Hurricane Sandy relief, the Water Resources Development Act, the Flint water crisis, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, land conservation bills, transportation bills, and fighting partisan antienvironmental riders--an extraordinary history of deep and effective involvement on the issues. She has also been my lead staff on Puerto Rico, working closely with the Resident Commissioner's staff to help the people of the island through a debt crisis and Zika. For the past 4 years, she has also been the lead staffer for House Democrats' Make It In America plan for investing in job creation and making opportunities more accessible to American workers. When Mary Frances first came to the whip's office in 2007, I felt fortunate to have enticed her to leave the United States Senate, where she had served as a senior policy adviser for the Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Earlier, she had served as Senator Cantwell's legislative director, and as legislative staffer for former Senator Russ Feingold. Now it is with a great sadness that we must wish her farewell and send her back to the Senate, where she will return to the Environment and Public Works Committee as its new deputy staff director.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I know that Mary Frances very much appreciates the words of Leader Pelosi. I know that the leader is absolutely correct: we are not sending her. She is going. But I want to tell the leader and tell this House that I talked to Senator Carper, who is the chairman of the committee, and I said: Tom, I will not stand in the schoolhouse door, if you will, and not let her out of our office; but you must pledge that she will be available for our calls and for our questions on a regular basis. Madam Leader, he assures me that that is the case. I thank the gentlewoman for the comments. Mr. Speaker, our loss, though, is the Senate's gain. I have no doubt that Mary Frances will bring her talents, her wisdom, and her Michigan- bred can-do attitude to the important work the committee will undertake this Congress and in the years ahead. I hope all of my colleagues and, indeed, the American people we serve will join me in thanking Mary Frances Repko for her contributions to the work of this House and to the service she has given to our country during her time as a member of the staff of the Senate and the House. I hope you will all join me in wishing her great success in her new position, in which I can assure you she will not be a stranger to us in the House, but a crucial liaison to the work of the Environment and Public Works Committee just across the hall. Thank you, Mary Frances. Thank you for a job well done and for your service and wise counsel.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise out of a deep concern, not just for the 30 million Americans who will lose access to health coverage and the tens of millions of others who will see their costs rise if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement, but as well for every American because the repeal will affect every American, including every American who has health insurance through their employer. Let there be no mistake. Every American will be adversely affected by the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The repeal and delay plan ought to be called repeal and deny, deny health coverage to tens of millions, deny tax credits to small businesses to help them cover their employees, deny those with preexisting conditions protection from high premiums and coverage denials, and deny parents from covering their children under age 26 through their own insurance plans. Every American will be adversely affected if we repeal the Affordable Care Act. I heard recently through social media from a woman in my district whose family was able to save more than $1,200 a month because of the ACA marketplace. Another wrote to tell me that the ACA made it possible for her to sign up for coverage for the first time in years since she lost her job and her employer-based insurance. When she needed to be hospitalized this spring, having coverage saved her life. Repeal and deny would be a disaster for our people and our economy. I urge my Republican friends to instead work with the Democrats to improve the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Hurd for his work, which has been an ongoing continuing work on this issue and on this particular program. I rise in support of this bipartisan bill, which builds on the work that Majority Leader McCarthy and I and others in this House have been doing to modernize government technology and renew America's faith in government. In 2016, exit polls showed that dissatisfaction with the government spanned the political spectrum. That is a shame because government is supposed to be a force for improving people's lives, keeping our country safe, and expanding opportunities for all Americans. That is why I unveiled the House Democrats' Renewing Faith in Government agenda last summer. We must present bold solutions to reform our democracy and our government. Certainly, on both sides of the equation, that is what the American people were saying in the last election. One of the goals of our agenda is modernizing government technology. Most Americans understand the transformative power of technology--the Majority Leader spoke of it in so many different aspects of our lives-- and how digitizing businesses makes them more efficient, transparent, and accountable. We have seen it in the private sector. Every day, millions of Americans shop on sites like Amazon or Etsy and catch a ride using Uber or Lyft. Government technology is in terrible shape, and bringing the latest practices from Silicon Valley into government would make a huge difference in serving our citizens and streamlining the way government works for the American people. Last year, I worked closely with the Obama administration and Tony Scott to advance one of its top priorities in this area: creating a technology modernization fund for the rapid upgrade of the most outdated, costly, and insecure technology systems across the Federal Government. Mr. Hurd was involved deeply in that effort. The result was the Modernizing Government Technology Act, which the House passed overwhelmingly with the help of Chairman Chaffetz and Majority Leader McCarthy. Last month, Majority Leader McCarthy and I expressed our bipartisan support for one of President Obama's most successful efforts at bringing Silicon Valley talent into the Federal workforce: the U.S. Digital Service and GSA's 18F program. In fact, I visited the 18F program in San Francisco and was extraordinarily impressed with the individuals who peopled that project and were giving of their time. I guess we were paying them a little bit, but, relatively speaking, they were giving their time. Today's bill, the TALENT Act, would make permanent the precursor to both these programs: the Presidential Innovation Fellows. This program has a proven track record of bringing top talent from the innovation economy into the Federal workforce where it is sorely needed. I hope the next administration will continue all of these innovative programs, which have begun to change the culture within our government. I also hope that the talented individuals--many of whom, as I referenced, left high-paying jobs in the private sector--will stay on through the transition and continue to serve their country by improving government technology. President Obama made real progress in this area, including with the launch of his Open Data Directive, his We the People petition platform, and his Cyber National Action Plan. More could have been achieved if Congress had agreed to his request to invest more in these areas. We have seen a dramatic example of why cybersecurity investment is so critically important for our country, not for Democrats, not for Republicans, but for all Americans. This is an effort toward that end. I hope we can work together in this new Congress to unleash the transformative power of modern technology within government and help renew America's faith in our government. That is critical if we are to be successful as a Nation. I am sure it hopefully is what all of us want to do on a bipartisan basis. I thank Representative DeSaulnier for his efforts, and I thank Representative Hurd for his leadership on this effort. I am pleased to join with my counterpart, Majority Leader McCarthy, in strong support of this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Amendment X: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, for yielding. I rise to thank and to pay tribute to Tim Berry. Mr. Speaker, the American public sees us so often when we are confronting one another--disagreeing strenuously sometimes and disagreeing sometimes disagreeably. What they don't see is the staff working with staffs across the aisle in a constructive effort to reach consensus and to move democracy forward. What they don't see is the collegiality that is engendered through the years between staff who have the responsibility of ensuring not only that their Members have full knowledge of what is being considered and their advice and counsel, but also of assuring that there is positive communication across the aisle even when we disagree. Tim Berry has been one of the most adept, most cordial, most positive, and most effective staffers in effecting that end. We Members sometimes mask how effective our staffs are. I am sure they will lament that from time to time. Tim Berry, I want you to know--we are very proud--is from Silver Spring, Maryland. He grew up in Silver Spring and grew up in our State. Tim Berry is a proud son of our State. Yes, he is a Republican; yes, he has been on staff on the other side of the aisle; but he is an American first, who has cared about his country, who has cared about this institution, and who has cared about showing respect and concern for staffs on both sides of the aisle. I have had a number of chiefs of staff, one of whom is Cory Alexander, now the vice president of UnitedHealth. Cory Alexander and Tim are good friends. They worked together very constructively when Tim was with Tom DeLay. Mr. McCarthy is in that office, and I had the privilege of using that office for 4 years. There was never a time when we walked down that hallway that we didn't think of Detective Gibson losing his life and Officer Chestnut losing his life outside that door. Tim Berry was there to serve. Tim Berry served, notwithstanding the dangers that were self-evident. Lisa is in the gallery and his children who have been mentioned by Leader McCarthy. Young people, you can be extraordinarily proud of your dad. I know, Lisa, you are as well. He has made this institution a better institution. He has made the relationship between the parties more positive in times when it was greatly strained. Tim, thank you. Thank you for your service to the Congress, thank you for your service to the country, and thank you for your service to each and every one of us. God bless you and Godspeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reiterate the strong, bipartisan support for our ally, Israel, in the United States Congress. Support for Israel has always been a bipartisan value, and it reflects the values of our country. Although we are entering a period of one-party government, bipartisan support for Israel remains a strategic asset, and those who support Israel need to be careful not to jeopardize that. I think none of my colleagues do that. I want to make it clear. In supporting this House resolution, we are expressing our deep concern regarding the decision to abstain in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334. Some may point out that the decision to abstain does not veer from the actions of past administrations. They would be right. It does not. That may be true, but it does not justify, in my view, this particular vote. Allowing a one-sided resolution, which I perceived the U.N. resolution to be, to be adopted at this juncture sends the wrong signal and emboldens Israel's and America's enemies. The United Nations is notorious for its disproportionate criticism of Israel. As Ambassador Samantha Power said before the U.N. Security Council vote on Resolution 2334: ``As long as Israel has been a member of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations.'' She also noted that, in 2016 alone, the U.N. adopted more resolutions critical of Israel than it did nations that brazenly violate international law and violate human rights--more than Syria, more than Iran, more than North Korea, more than South Sudan, more than Russia, combined. A one-sided resolution that assigns exclusive blame to Israel for the continuation of the conflict--without addressing Palestinian incitement to violence, Hamas control of Gaza, or their continued insistence on the so-called right of return and refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish state--undermines prospects for a two-state solution. Also deeply concerning is this resolution's reference of Israeli presence in East Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Western Wall, as illegal.

Mr. HOYER. The only way to achieve a real and lasting peace that enables Israel to protect its security and remain both a Jewish state and a democratic one is a two-state solution, which I strongly support. There are two parties to this conflict. Both have responsibilities. Both need to take steps toward peace. For Israel, this means not building in areas envisioned in the long term as part of a future Palestinian state; and for Palestinians, it means ending incitement, ending terrorism, and affirmatively accepting Israel's right to existence. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to someone whom I have known and called a friend for many, many years--over three decades, perhaps four--Barbara Mikulski--the tallest short person I have ever met. She fills a room. Everybody knows when Barbara Mikulski is in the Chamber or in the room or in the auditorium. Barbara Mikulski, as you have heard, will retire at the end of this Congress after having served Maryland in the House and Senate since 1977. I had the opportunity to serve with her in this House for some 6 years. For 40 years, she has been a voice for the people of our State, not just a voice for all people, but, in particular, for those people whose voices needed amplifying: the poor, the sick, the overworked, the underpaid, the Baltimore dockworkers worried for their jobs, the women earning less than their male colleagues for the same work, the children in foster care or in homeless shelters. All of them have come to see Barbara Mikulski as their champion. In many ways, she began her career as a social worker and brought that work to Congress. She returns as one of the most successful social workers in history. She has worked hard to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, to support America's first responders, and to broaden our exploration of space and science. What a giant she has been for NASA. She has helped seniors afford health care and keep America's promise to its veterans. She passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act to end the wage gap once and for all, and has fought continuously to raise the minimum wage. Senator Mikulski blazed the trail as the longest-serving woman in the history of Congress; was the first woman to be elected without a relative as a predecessor; and was the first woman and first Marylander to chair the Appropriations Committee. She has left an indelible mark on millions across Maryland and across America. I have been proud to serve alongside her and I will miss her in the Capitol as I know so many others will as well. My colleagues and I rise. We will lament the loss of Senator Mikulski as our colleague in the Congress, but we will be so proud that we have been able to call her colleague and friend.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the current CR expires on December 9. He has announced the CR will be on the floor next week, and it is my understanding that December 9 may be our last day in session, so I presume we need to act before December 8. Does the gentleman have a perspective on the specific scheduling of the CR and when it will be on the floor? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment that I know the CR will be the vehicle. I know Mr. Tom Cole made a comment--and I have talked to him about it--with which I agree. I am disappointed, our side is disappointed, and I think some on your side with whom I have talked are disappointed that we were unable to do an omnibus appropriations bill which would reflect the work of the committee on our side and, indeed, the work of the committees on the other side of the aisle. A CR is not helpful to management, obviously, not knowing specifically what resources they will have available for the balance of the year. Very frankly, although there will be anomalies in the bill to reflect the changes from last year's funding levels, they will undoubtedly not take care of a funding stream which will be appropriate for good management in the Federal Government. I would hope in the year ahead that we would certainly work toward having bipartisan appropriation bills done bill by bill. Both sides have had trouble doing that from time to time, but let's hope that we can work toward that end. Because a CR, in many ways, is simply a failure; and forgetting about who is at fault or who is not at fault, it is a failure to operate the government in a way that is rational, reasonable, and most effective. So I want to make that comment. I know the gentleman agrees with me on trying to go through regular order, and it is unfortunate that we didn't get there. I yield to the gentleman from California if he wants to say anything on that. I have another question.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as a constructive suggestion, I notice that the gentleman has scheduled--and I want to thank him for his communication with our office so that we could work together on trying to get the schedule together--we have four working weeks in June. As you know, essentially, the Appropriations Committee tries to get its work done by the end of May in terms of its bills--they don't get all of them done by the end of May--so we can start moving them to the floor. I congratulate the gentleman for putting sufficient time in so that we can do that in June and July, so that all the bills, hopefully--the objective, I would suggest, ought to be to have all of the 12 appropriation bills sent to the Senate prior to the August break. I thank him for his schedule on that. Originally, March 31 was, as I understood, the CR date, but that is somewhat flexible now, I understand. Can the gentleman tell me what date he expects the CR to expire on? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we are certainly very hopeful of--your office and my office were having a lot of discussions about that, as are Leader Pelosi and Speaker Ryan having a lot of discussions--is the WRRDA bill. This deals very critically with the Flint crisis that has been ongoing now for 2-plus years. I am very concerned, although we apparently have an agreement on the dollar figure, can the gentleman tell me whether that dollar figure will, in fact, be appropriated within the structure of the WRRDA bill? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, when you say within WRRDA, in the event that that does not occur, would the gentleman believe that we would deal with the assurance of the funding in the CR itself? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from California that I appreciate the fact that our offices work together, that the Speaker and the leaders' offices have been working together and that the committees have been working together. I would urge, however this money is appropriated--whether it is appropriated within the CR, whether it is appropriated in the WRRDA bill itself--that the money needs to be made available before we leave this week because this is an issue that has dragged on for too long and the people of Flint are still in dire distress, which is terribly unfortunate given the length of this crisis and the causes of this crisis, in some respects. Lastly, Mr. Leader, I asked this and you responded that December 9 was the date; but do you see any possibility of going beyond the 9th that we need to warn our Members about? We are hearing that both on the Senate side and on our side, that there is every expectation that next week will be the last week that we will be in session in the 114th Congress. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mirrors my words. When people would ask me when we are going to conclude, I would say we are going to conclude when we finish our work. Now, finishing, I guess, one's work is a subjective judgment; but certainly these two pieces of legislation need to get done, and hopefully we can get those done. If we don't have a further week, this will be the last colloquy. I want to say to my friend that we have been able to work on a lot in the 114th Congress. We have had real substantive differences. We will continue to have those differences. But I look forward to working closely with the majority leader when, in fact, we agree, and when we disagree, to try to work constructively on trying to get to an agreement. This election has caused us, I think, some real challenges. The election itself was a challenge, and I know we will have a lot more to say on that afterwards. I want to thank the gentleman from California for the ability to work together and constructively on behalf of the American people where we have been able to do that. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, well, I know how much you look forward to these colloquies. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California and return that wish for a Merry Christmas. This is not our last week. We are going to be here next week, so maybe we will save that for then. I do look forward and the people look forward. This election has been a deeply troubling one for all sides in many respects. I think it is our responsibility to try to bring some degree of confidence to all of our constituents, whatever they believe, whoever they voted for, that we are going to move forward in a constructive, positive way to make America an even greater country than it is now. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the text of a speech delivered by former Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who is a dear friend and former Prime Minister of our ally Denmark. He spoke at the ``Celebration of Democracy'' dinner hosted jointly by the National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute, and his remarks testify to the strong bonds between our nation and its NATO allies. He also reaffirms a core component of our foreign policy: that the world needs strong American leadership in the years ahead, just as it benefitted from our leadership in the twentieth century. I'm extremely pleased to see the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute work so closely together in a bi-partisan manner to promote freedom and democracy. During the last 70 years, we've got used to a world where protectionism was replaced by free trade, closed societies were replaced by open societies, and dictatorship was replaced by democracy. During these 70 years the world has experienced an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity and progress. Now, we are living in an era where the fear of the consequences of globalization has led to stronger support for protectionism, fear over the influx of immigrants and refugees has led to stronger support for closed borders, the fear of chaos and weak leadership in democracies has led to stronger support for tough men and autocracy. Under these circumstances, there is a strong need for good men and women who will stand up for the basic ideas upon which we so successfully have built and developed our free societies. Secretary Albright and Senator McCain are such solid people. As American ambassador to the United Nations and as Secretary of State you, Madeleine Albright, was a staunch proponent of American engagement in the Balkans to stop the bloodshed. And it wasn't until the United States took leadership that a lasting peace was created. As Secretary General of NATO, I asked you to lead the preparations for a new strategic concept. You and your group of experts did an outstanding job, and in 2010, we adopted a new strategic concept for NATO. Madeleine, you have always been a steadfast fighter for freedom and democracy. And your mood can always be read in the pins you're wearing. In the book, ``Read My Pins'', you said: ``I had this wonderful antique snake pin. So when we were dealing with Iraq, I wore the snake pin''. You had balloons, butterflies and flowers to signify optimism and, when diplomatic talks were going slowly, crabs and turtles to indicate frustration. John, I'm so happy to also be with you tonight. First of all, congratulations on your re-election as US senator. Recently you turned eighty, but if we didn't know, we wouldn't believe it. You are still going strong, and you are setting an example for all of us to continue working as long as we can. We have met on several occasions in Europe. You have been a frequent guest at the Munich Security Conference, as leader of the US delegation and as a highly valued speaker. We have never doubted your position as one of the strongest American voices in favor of American global leadership and continued engagement in Europe. You were disappointed that NATO did not engage more in Syria. You also criticized me. Tonight I can tell you, I agreed with you. But I couldn't get the allies to support even prudent planning for an operation. John, you have always remembered America's friends and allies. I still recall how warmly you thanked me for my personal support for the United States and my country's contribution to international military operations all over the world. John, we owe you great respect. And I would like to use this occasion to express my admiration and my gratitude for your service to the United States and to the world. We all know that Secretary Albright and Senator McCain belong to different political parties. But they are united in their desire to see freedom and democracy flourish in the world. Madeleine and John, you represent the very best in the American democracy: the bi-partisan support for American global leadership. Let me put it directly: the world needs a policeman. The only capable, reliable and desirable candidate for that position is the United States. We need determined American global leadership. The world is on fire. The Middle East is being torn up by war, terrorism and humanitarian catastrophes that have forced millions of people to flee. Europe is almost sinking under the refugee burden and internal political division. In North Africa, Libya has collapsed and become a breeding ground for terrorists who are spreading instability throughout the region. In Eastern Europe, a resurgent Russia has brutally attacked and grabbed land by force from Ukraine. China is flexing its muscle against its neighbors around the South China Sea. North Korea is a rogue state that threatens its neighbors and the United States with a nuclear attack. There is a link between the American reluctance to use hard power and this outbreak of fire. If the US retrenches and retreats or even if the world thinks that the US retreats, it leaves behind a vacuum that will be filled by the bad guys. If the United States withdraws to concentrate on ``nation building at home'', the forces fighting against liberal democracy and our way of life will gain ground. The US will be faced with stronger foes, weaker friends and a more insecure world. That would definitely not make America great. Appeasement doesn't lead to peace. It just incites tyrants. Any failure to counter oppression will only invite further oppression. That is the lesson of the twentieth century--a lesson we must never forget. That's why President Truman established a new, rules-based world order, centered around a series of international institutions and economic programs. He created an American led world order that set the stage for the Cold War. Truman elevated engagement to moral choice directly affecting every single American citizen, because it was based on American values. He said: ``I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.'' In 1961, President Kennedy expressed what is probably the strongest commitment to American global leadership ever given by a president of the United States: ``Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'' And President Reagan ended the Cold War peacefully due to his firm conviction that capitalism is superior to communism. He said: ``America's economic success is freedom's success; it can be repeated a hundred times in a hundred nations''. He was firmly convinced that peace does not come from weakness or retreat. It comes from economic and military superiority. Peace through strength. President Truman showed strong leadership and effective conduct by establishing the world order that for seven decades secured an unprecedented peace, development and wealth. President Kennedy came to stand as a beacon for the free world with his energetic and eloquent communication. And President Reagan led the United States and the world to the victory over Communism and oppression by his firm conviction of American exceptionalism. Hopefully, future US presidents will combine President Truman's effective conduct, President Kennedy's inspiring communication and President Reagan's firm conviction. This would prepare the ground for strong American global leadership and a better and safer world. And make America great again. The United States is indispensable in its ability to protect and promote freedom and to prevent conflicts, to resolve conflicts and to help with post-conflict reconstruction. However, the United States should not be left to carry out that job alone: Smart American leadership should strive for alliance-building. There is a need to create an overwhelming, credible, and strong democratic supremacy in order to counterbalance the rising and assertive autocracies. To create a stronger global democratic community, the American president should use his convening power to assemble the world's true democracies in a strong ``Alliance for Democracy''. It would be a community of shared values, individual liberty, economic freedom, democracy, and the rule of law; a community that would bolster the identity and potency of democracy in a world where the forces of oppression are trying to regain ground. The Alliance for Democracy could help confront common security challenges, including terrorism. It could work to make the liberal capitalist democracies more prosperous, competitive, and attractive by promoting commerce, economic growth and job creation. It could help promote democracy directly through advice, support, and assistance. It could be a forum for the coordination of policies in other international organizations, including push for reforms to make the United Nations more effective. And the Alliance for Democracy could also be used for joint action, particularly humanitarian interventions. Many of us are inclined to believe that the community of values with the best story will win, that the West won the Cold War because the better world view triumphed, and the progress is inevitable. However, the rise of autocratic powers and Islamic radicalism reminds us that the victory of democratic powers over oppression is not inevitable and it needs not be lasting. History has taught us that we cannot be complacent. Thomas Jefferson reminded us that ``the price of liberty is eternal vigilance''. I will continue dreaming of the predominance of capitalism and liberal democracy. I will not accept the argument that certain people are not well suited for democracy. In a world that grows in freedom and democracy, people will have a chance to raise their families and live in peace and build a better future. The terrorists will lose their recruits and lose their sponsors and lose safe havens from which to launch new attacks, and there will be less room for tyranny and terror. But to ensure the progress of freedom and democracy, we must ensure an invincible global balance in favor of the forces of freedom and democracy. You have just had presidential elections. I don't think the American people have mandated retreat. On the contrary, I believe that the outcome of the elections was a reaction to the receding freedom and democracy and the growing terrorism and autocracy that you have witnessed during recent years. I trust America and American leadership. Of course, also America makes mistakes. But who else should be the leader of the free world? I'm tempted to quote Winston Churchill who once said that the Americans will always do the right thing-- after having tried everything else. Ladies and gentlemen, the world's democracies must rise to the challenge. America must exercise determined global leadership.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Engel, and I thank the chairman, Mr. Royce, for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. I thank them for their efforts on behalf of our country, on behalf of the security of our country, and on behalf of ensuring that tough sanctions stay in place. Tough sanctions are what brought Iran to the negotiating table, Mr. Speaker, in the first place; and the prospect of a snapback of sanctions is what I hope will keep Iran compliant. Make no mistake: Iran continues to be a bad actor, sponsoring terrorism, contributing to instability in Syria and Iraq, threatening Israel, and suppressing democracy within its own borders. We must continue to ensure that Iran abides by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. We had differences on its merits, but we had no differences that Iran must comply. No malfeasance ought to be tolerated. Iran's theocratic leaders continue to threaten Israel and Americans in the region. They continue as well to pursue ballistic missile technology that destabilizes the region, and its regime has held Americans captive for years as bargaining chips in negotiations over its compliance with basic international law and norms. This legislation will ensure that President Obama and his successor will have the full force of sanctions available should Iran violate the nuclear agreement in any way. It is critical that our approach to Iran remain bipartisan. Mr. Royce and I have had that discussion; Mr. Engel and I have had that discussion. I say again that it is critical that our policy remain bipartisan. Doing so sends a strong signal to our allies--and even more importantly to our adversaries--that we are united in our efforts to stop Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. Now that this legislation is completed, we need to turn to the critical task of ballistic missile sanctions. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to respond appropriately to Iran pursuing ballistic missile capabilities in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Again, I reiterate the fact that we work together, Republicans and Democrats, where we have many differences; but on this, we should not have differences because the security of our Nation, the security of the nations of the Middle East, and indeed the global security depends upon it. I thank both Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel, and I thank my colleagues for working so hard toward this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for yielding. Anne, apparently my colleagues did not understand the gravity of this occasion, the solemnness of this occasion, and they did not dress accordingly, apparently. Anne, I want you to know that I just left the Crown Prince of Denmark and Princess Mary because I told them I had to come see Queen Anne. I have risen before and talked about our extraordinary staff, the people who really make this institution what it wants to be. They are the best of us, whether they are at the desk, whether they are with the Sergeant at Arms, whether they are recording our debates; and the best of them who has one of the toughest jobs is to help us, as the Speaker has said, manage this floor. Sitting next to me is Shuwanza Goff. She is the floor director on our side. You cannot leave.

Mr. HOYER. Anne, as the Speaker so well said, serves us all. Shuwanza does as well because their job, as the Speaker has so well stated, is to help make this institution work in a democratic nation to make our citizens proud. Very frankly, if they knew the work of Anne Bradbury and others who work on this floor, the level of their pride would be much higher than sometimes it is, because they are people of extraordinary ability, great reticence and fairness in dealing with Members, all 435 of us. Anne, you have been a shining example of the best that is in this House. You have always been quick to share your views as to what needed to be done. You were always fair when any of us talked to you--I know, when I talked to you. There were differences, of course, as one would expect, but there was no acrimony. There was no judgment. There was simply an attempt to make sure that this institution was working well. Anne, we will miss you. The Speaker, as he says, will be inconvenienced. We will be sad, and we will be a lesser place for your leaving. You also worked with my chief of staff, Alexis Covey-Brandt, who was at one point in time the floor director. Both Shuwanza and Alexis have unrestrained respect and affection for you. You have made us all better. Whatever you do in the future, I know you will bring the same quality, the same commitment, the same energy, the same judgment, the same fairness, and they will be advantaged, as we have been. Godspeed.