Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. I thank him for his outstanding leadership as ranking member of the Budget Committee on fiscal stability and fiscal responsibility and his willingness to lead in ensuring that America invests in its future. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I think I quote the chairman of the Appropriations Committee as much as I quote any other Member: Unrealistic and ill-advised. Those two words of his relating to the sequester are emblazoned on my frontal lobe, and I thank him for that statement. Madam Speaker, this agreement represents a bipartisan effort to prevent a catastrophic default and lessen the chance of a government shutdown in December--lessens the chance. It doesn't preclude it. It shows what is possible when Democrats and Republicans work together to get something done in a bipartisan way. This has been a unique week. The Export-Import Bank passed with a majority of Republicans and an overwhelmingly majority--all but one--of Democrats. This is going to pass, in my view, with overwhelming numbers of Republicans and overwhelming numbers of Democrats voting for it. That is what Americans want, and that is what they expect. They want us to work together, not always agree with one other, but to work together. Madam Speaker, this bill replaces the sequester, that ill-advised policy that is hurting our country. It replaces it for 2 years and does so with parity for defense and non-defense sequester relief. It protects Medicare part B beneficiaries from seeing higher premiums, and it saves the Social Security Disability Insurance program from insolvency. All of those are worthwhile objectives. This legislation will give us a chance to work on a long-term solution to our fiscal challenges over the next 2 years. This agreement, like Ryan-Murray, is a short-term agreement, and the end of it comes sooner than we expect. Congress ought not to wait until this agreement is about to expire 2 years from now to act. We should get to work right now on a big, bipartisan deal to put America's fiscal house back in order and enable our Nation to afford investments in a stronger economic future. Americans are not looking for a rickety bridge to 2017, but a sturdy one that can carry us into a stronger economic future. Businesses across the country are clamoring for long-term certainty, for Congress to find a way to replace the sequester and remove the uncertainty that it has created and continues to create. So I hope, Madam Speaker, the history that is written about this legislation is that it was a bipartisan first step towards securing the kind of long-term agreement all of us know we must achieve. I had the opportunity to serve with Mr. Rogers for a couple of decades on the Appropriations Committee. He and I have served in this Congress together for a long period of time. He is a responsible leader in the Congress of the United States, and I quote him because his perspective and mine are the same--although we differ on many issues--and it is that we owe it to the American people, we owe it to America, and we owe it to future generations to create the fiscal stability that will allow the Appropriations Committee, very frankly, to again become the center of decisionmaking, which it was for many of the years that I served on it. Too often now we ignore the Appropriations Committee whose job is to set priorities and to apply the resources of our country to those priority items. If we don't adhere to that process, that will not happen. Madam Speaker, in closing, we need to get a long-term fiscal resolution. This is a short term. I will support it. It is good for the country. But we need a long-term solution. I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking member, Mr. Van Hollen, my friend, who has done such a terrific job.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I listen to this welfare-state rhetoric. The American public ought to know that 147 Republicans voted to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank just a few years ago under the leadership of Mr. Cantor and myself. It was not until the ideological--how do I say what has happened in the House of Representatives--when we retreated from bipartisanship and working together, we retreated from pragmatism and we repaired to ideological hideboundness. Those are pretty tough words, I understand that. You have 147 Republicans and every Democrat, 330 Members of the House of Representatives, voting to reauthorize this bill just a few years ago. This rhetoric that I hear now that somehow this is selling out to the welfare state is a little difficult for me to believe. I know it has become an issue for some hardline groups, and this is not just for big business or medium business or small business. This is for American jobs, the little people. Do big people provide jobs for little people? Yes, they do. Do we want that done? Yes, we do. Should we, therefore, be competitive with the rest of the world who offers subsidies so their corporations, so their medium-sized businesses, so their small businesses can create jobs for people? Mr. Speaker, 330 of us voted to reauthorize this just 3 years ago, but we have had some immaculate awareness that this is somehow preening to the welfare state. Let us come together as practical people with common sense who want to be competitive with the rest of the world. Let's pass this bill. The House is for it. The majority is for it. It has been bottled up, which has not allowed the majority to work its will. Today, through the courage of Mr. Lucas, Mr. Fincher, and others, the majority will work its will. Isn't that wonderful. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend from Texas, there were 3 years to do exactly that. It wasn't done. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding, and I thank him for his courage and Mr. Lucas' courage for working within the rules to bring this matter to the floor. It is an important matter. Since July, businesses and workers across the country have been asking Congress to reopen the Export-Import Bank so that they could compete on a level playing field in overseas markets. This is about jobs and a competitive America. Opening the Export-Import Bank, Mr. Speaker, is about creating and keeping jobs here in America. A motion on the floor tonight will demonstrate that a majority of this House supports taking action to pass a multiyear extension of the Bank's charter authority. We will have a chance to show the American people that Congress can work together, Democrats and Republicans, to get something done that helps businesses and workers compete and create jobs.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank Mr. Fincher, I thank Mr. Lucas, I thank Ms. Waters, I thank Ms. Moore, and I thank Denny Heck. Vote for this motion to put a bill on the floor that the majority supports. That is democracy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. No, I didn't refer to you----

Mr. HOYER. What is that?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. McCarthy, the majority leader, for purposes of telling us what the schedule will be for next week. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information, and I want to join him. He and I both had the opportunity to speak to participants in the Hackathon that is going on as we speak. Mr. Cantor and I were cooperative in this effort as well, and Mr. McCarthy and I have continued this tradition. Like Mr. McCarthy, I believe this will be of great assistance in moving us forward with technology to make our institution more transparent, the people's business more available to them, and that we will benefit from this in this institution. In addition to that, of course, we believe it will have ramifications beyond this institution as they brainstorm and come together on how technology can be used better in our democracy both in terms of our government and politics, but also in terms of our economy and growth of jobs. So I thank the gentleman and his staff. I want to mention my own staffer, Steve Dwyer, who is one of the real talents in my office and, in my opinion, within the House staff, Republican and Democrat, working together on behalf of the better use of technology. So I thank my friend for his observation. Mr. Speaker, this week we have had two bills that we have spent significant time on that purported to deal both with debt and with deficit reduction, neither of which I think anybody in this House, Republican or Democrat, would place much of a bet on becoming law. They were message bills. We now dealt with legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 61st time, and we dealt with a bill to close down Planned Parenthood, which clearly is not going to happen. Indeed, it should not happen. Ninety-seven percent of what they do is providing health care to women who need healthcare services. So we passed, also, a bill that the gentleman, the majority leader, points out we need to do something to extend the debt limit. He is right on that. We do need to do it. But we spent a period of time on a bill called debt prioritization. I call that a charade, Mr. Speaker. I believed it was a charade. I believe that once you don't pay one of your bills, you have defaulted. Whether or not you prioritize and pay 10 bills that you owe first, get those paid, if you don't pay the other 10, it is default. But we do need to pass a debt limit extension. We need to pass a clean debt limit extension. We will run out of time on November 3. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the majority leader, was just talking to Mr. Ryan, who possibly will be the next Speaker of this institution. Mr. Ryan said, when asked a question in 2011, shortly after the Republicans took charge of this House--to be specific, on January 6, 2011--will the debt limit be raised? Does it have to be raised? Mr. Ryan answered yes. Even more compellingly, Mr. Hensarling, one of the most conservative Members of this body, said that not raising the debt is not an option. He went on to say: What I do think is, yes, it would be catastrophic to have the Nation default upon its debt. Hensarling said that to The Hill on April 10, 2011. Mr. Speaker, I believe if we bring a clean bill to this floor Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, almost every Democrat will vote for it. Why? Because we agree with Jeb Hensarling not to do so would be catastrophic. It would also be irresponsible and malfeasance. Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority leader, who has said that we need to do it, we must do it, can the majority leader tell us when that bill will be brought to the floor? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, that is a nice theory, nice rhetoric. We don't have an agreement on a number of things the gentleman says. What we do have agreement on, I presume, is that the gentleman, the majority leader from California, wants to see a solvent nation, a nation that pays its bills, a nation that does not create a lack of confidence in our own country and around the world, a nation that does not take hostage either its government by shutting it down or take hostage its creditworthiness by bringing us to the brink, time after time after time, on whether or not we are going to do something that Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Ryan and Mr. Boehner--I didn't quote him, but I have got a quote here from Mr. Boehner--said that if we don't do, it will have extraordinarily adverse effects on America and on every American. And the answer that I heard, Mr. Speaker, is an answer that, if you don't do something we want you to do, we may not extend the debt limit. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader, is that his position? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority leader's admonition, but the government was shut down because we wouldn't repeal the Affordable Care Act. In other words, the government was taken hostage because we wouldn't repeal the Affordable Care Act. We came very close, with 167 Republicans to do so, to shutting down the Department of Homeland Security. Now, Mr. McCarthy voted to keep it open, Speaker Boehner voted to keep it open, and Mr. Scalise voted to keep it open. But only 72 colleagues of theirs on the Republican side joined them. So I do not refer to Mr. McCarthy personally, but the strategy seems to be that we won't do something that everybody in this body ought to believe needs to be done, and that is to ensure that America remains a creditworthy nation, unless we do something that, frankly, I don't think, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have pursued too diligently; because over the last Congresses that they have been in charge, they put bills on this floor that have cut revenues by over half a trillion dollars without paying for it. Presumably my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren will have to pay that debt. So this is not about tradeoffs. This is about making sure that our Nation remains solvent, responsible, and creditworthy. And, indeed, because the rest of the world relies on the value and stability of the dollar to value its products, its currency, it will affect the whole world. So I am pleased to hear that the majority tells me that it needs to be on the floor. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have been, for 2\1/2\ months, urging us to do what the majority leader now says we need to do: get to an agreement. They passed a budget; he is correct. It implemented sequester. They didn't follow it. And 102 Republicans have said they won't vote for a CR that follows the sequester because they want to increase defense, because they think sequester will hurt defense if it is followed. And, in fact, when the bill came to the floor, they didn't follow their sequester. They used OCO, which, by the way, does not score, but it is real money and exacerbates the deficit. So when you are talking about alternatives, the alternative is not just about whether we invest in our national security by investing in defense. We need to do that, and I, for 35 years, have been a strong supporter of that. I also believe that we need to invest in our highways if we are going to do another temporary, because we have not, in 90 days, been able to come to grips. The gentleman talks about coming to grips with alternatives. We are going to do another short- term highway extension bill. Why? Because the majority party hasn't figured out how to pay for it. And the debt limit may be on the floor, but what I hear, Mr. Speaker, is it may be on the floor if something else happens. Well, I hope something else happens. I hope we get a longer term funding agreement. But very frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have got six appropriation bills that haven't even been brought to this floor, and there is no constraint on the Republicans bringing it to the floor. They are in charge, Mr. Speaker. But half of the appropriation bills that were the responsibility of this House to pass have not been brought to the floor. And, Mr. Speaker, they say, well, the Senate hasn't been passing them. Well, we are not in charge of the Senate. We are responsible for actions on this floor. And one of our responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, is to pass a debt limit extension. And I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the majority leader said that there aren't 30 votes or 40 votes on each side of the aisle to pass a clean debt limit extension. Mr. Speaker, I find that incredibly hard to believe because, as Mr. Hensarling said, if we don't do that, it will have a catastrophic consequence on the country and on the international community. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the leader is right, that we bring a bill to the floor unrelated to disagreements. Some legitimate, most legitimate differences we have between us, we will have to work them out. But in that process, we ought not to put the credit of the United States at risk. We ought not to put individual American consumers at risk of having their interest rate raised because we couldn't pass a debt limit extension. We ought to act responsibly, Mr. Speaker. I hope the leader is right. I hope this bill comes to the floor. I hope it is clean, so that it will not be weighted down by political controversies that are so self-evidently existing in this body for all the American people. We have got a Speaker who is resigning, couldn't fill the Speakership. You may now fill it maybe next week, maybe as early as next week, but this body has not been functioning effectively. Let us not risk the credit of the United States and international stability. Let's bring a clean debt limit extension to this floor, and, hopefully, all of us will vote for a solvent nation. There is no deal on that. I presume that every Member of this body wants a solvent nation. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that we summon our responsibility and our duty to this country and our constituents to get that done. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to answer that presentation because, in my view, it conflates two issues. I have been on this floor willing to deal with the other side on a regular basis to bring down our debt and to apply discipline. Part of applying discipline is paying for what you buy. And the gentleman is right; we had PAYGO. But when the Republican side of the aisle took over, they negated that; and they negated it specifically for tax cuts because, I suppose, they believe they will pay for themselves. I have been here for a longer time than Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Speaker. In 1981, they did that, and we increased the deficit under Mr. Reagan by 189 percent. We could have dealt with it then. Then we had a commission that was called Simpson-Bowles, which tried to deal with what the gentleman is talking about, and all three Republican Members from the House of Representatives voted ``no'' on it. Why? Because it asked us to pay for what we bought. So, Mr. Speaker, talking about A when you need to do B is a way of not dealing with B. Do we need to deal with the debt? We absolutely do, and the bills that are supposed to do that, as I just indicated, have not been brought to the floor. They represented sequester. The gentleman, apparently, is for sequester. I am not for sequester, although the gentleman would say, ``Oh. Well, it is your party which instituted sequester,'' which is not right. Mr. Speaker, we need to do a debt limit extension, and we need to reduce the debt of this country. It will be hard to do the latter. It ought to be easy to do the former. It will require courage to do the latter; but when Mr. Camp, the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, brought a tax reform bill to the table, it was dismissed out of hand by his Republican colleagues in the last Congress. Why? Because he paid for it. Dismissed out of hand. Never brought to this floor. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I am just very hopeful that, in fact, we will do the only responsible thing we can do at this late date. Remember, Mr. Speaker, for 2\1/2\ months, I have been asking that we have a way forward. The Republican Party, Mr. Speaker, has been somewhat distracted. I understand that. Hopefully, we will get a way forward and a responsible way forward; but we only have 5 days to do this debt limit, and let us not take an action which is catastrophic, which is what Jeb Hensarling said it would be if we don't adopt it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been here for some period of time, and I have heard a lot about caucuses. But I would like to see us do what the gentleman from Indiana says, although I disagree with him on his conclusion. I would like to see the formation of a responsibility caucus, a caucus that is honest with the American people, that doesn't pretend that this debt limit vote is a real vote. It is a real vote when you cut revenues by hundreds of billions of dollars and don't pay for it. And if you think that that does not up the debt and somehow pays for it, you haven't been around for the last 35 years watching. The responsibility caucus would say to the American people: If we bought it, we are going to pay for it. Whether it was Social Security, Medicare, an aircraft carrier, roads and bridges, whatever it was, we will pay for it. But one of the first things our Republican friends did was they negated pay-for, and they certainly wouldn't have it apply to tax cuts. Almost every responsible economist I have talked with says there is no way you can do this without effectively having default. Because if you prioritize debt, by definition, what you are saying is there are some debts we will not pay. As soon as you say that, you have defaulted. You may not default to a bond owner, but you have defaulted on an obligation of the most creditworthy nation on Earth, the United States of America. This is a game. It is an irresponsible game. It is a game unworthy of responsible representatives. Of course we are going to pay our debts. We are America. When we say of course we are going to pay our debts, it means that we will pay our debts. In order to do that, you need to up the debt limit. If you don't want the debt limit to go higher, stop buying things or pay for things or do both. I urge my colleagues to reject this irresponsible charade that is a pretense of fiscal responsibility, not a reality. This is not worthy of this Congress or the American people. It is clear that this House has been a deeply divided House and a dysfunctional House for a number of months now, indeed, for a number of years. I understand that there are some people who demand legislation like this that won't go anywhere and really won't do anything, and it will put the credit of the United States at further risk. Let us reject this charade.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I join my friend, Mr. Forbes, in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would harm America's national security. Under the program that it seeks to eliminate, the Pentagon reserves capacity on roughly 60 U.S.-flagged commercial ships to ensure the supply and transport of American troops. It is a program that supports our private sector as well, requiring the Defense Department to contract private commercial ships rather than building their own. So there was not redundancy, but complementary ability. It is a program that enhances America's national security by ensuring that our military can depend on U.S.-flagged and crewed vessels instead of foreign ones. It is a program that supports important domestic maritime jobs. In my view, we ought to reject this amendment. This legislation is, obviously, controversial. I hope this amendment is not controversial and that it receives overwhelming bipartisan opposition.

Mr. HOYER

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. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. Mr. Speaker, the last 2 weeks have been filled with a lot of things going on in this House. But I know the majority leader would be profoundly disappointed if I didn't ask him about one thing that doesn't seem to be going on, but which I think is critically important. I know the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, joins with me in not wanting to see American jobs lost overseas or American jobs not created here in America for American workers because we are able to make products and sell them overseas. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished majority leader, knowing full well, as he does, that Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE, was here; and he spoke to both Democrats and Republicans. I know he talked about 500 U.S. jobs going overseas because we have not yet reauthorized the Export-Import Bank. The Senate voted 64-29 to reopen the Bank. They voted in July. Almost two-thirds of the United States Senate. As the majority leader is tired of hearing, I know, but I still believe there is a significant majority of Members in this House that would vote for it. Now, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was extraordinarily pleased to read--I didn't hear, but read--the majority leader's comments when he was talking about the failure of the Senate to proceed on a vote of disapproval or approval on the agreement with Iran on nuclear arms control. He said he was deeply distressed that ``so consequential that they demand revisions to the Senate's procedures.'' And he went on to say those revisions would be ``to let the people''--in this case, the Senate--``have a voice'' That was quoted in The Wall Street Journal just a few days ago. I know the gentleman doesn't want us to lose jobs. I know he is quoted as saying that the people's voice ought to be heard. I know that he shares with me that this is the people's House. And I ask the gentleman: It is not on the schedule next week, but does the gentleman expect the Export-Import Bank to be voted on in this House before the end of this month? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, that is the answer I expected. That is the answer I have been getting. And, very frankly, that is the answer this House has been getting. I know some of my Republican friends are very frustrated by that answer, and I know all of our side is frustrated by that answer. I will say respectfully to my friend I would certainly hope we could bring that bill to the floor. Win or lose, whether you win or I win or Export-Import Bank is reauthorized or not, you are correct: the voice of the people should be heard on such a critical issue for jobs in this country. Also, I know that we had marked up in committees reconciliation bills. Those reconciliation bills repeal provisions of the Affordable Care Act and defund Planned Parenthood. The gentleman I think knows full well that the United States Senate voted on the Planned Parenthood issue and only got 47 votes for it. So in the one instance, we have an issue that got three less than one-half of the United States Senate being proposed to come to this floor, and an issue that got 64 votes in the United States Senate, as the gentleman so correctly observed, is not yet scheduled. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not these reconciliation provisions are going to be brought to this floor, knowing full well that they won't pass the Senate and, even if they did, the President wouldn't sign them and we would sustain that veto? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, we may have a difference of opinion, but perhaps we will see who is right on whether it passes the United States Senate or not. I understand reconciliation only needs a majority, but we will see. Mr. Speaker, I want to also ask the majority leader: One of the issues that I know the majority leader has been working on--and I know that all of us on this floor feel it to be very, very important to pass before October 30, when the highway bill authorization expires, and I know the gentleman from California is a strong supporter of it. Clearly we need to invest in infrastructure, again, to expand the economy. Can the gentleman tell me what prospects we have on passing or at least considering the highway bill? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader. I hope that optimism is realized and that we do have the opportunity to consider a highway bill. I would urge the majority leader to urge those who are working on a resolution that the pay-fors, which are difficult, as he observes, are pay-fors which can be supported in a bipartisan fashion. I think that is important not only to pass the Senate, but to be signed by the President. And we all, I think, share the view that this is a very, very important bill for us to get done. With that, unless the majority leader may want to reconsider and tell me the Export-Import Bank is coming to the floor, which apparently he doesn't, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is my 35th year in the Congress of the United States. I don't know that I voted against, prior to this year, either a Defense Appropriation bill or a Defense Authorization bill. I will vote against this bill. I regret that I will vote against this bill because I regret that we have not gotten ourselves on a fiscally sound path in a bipartisan way that makes this country more secure not only on the national defense side, but secure on the domestic side as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report, which I believe does a disservice to our men and women in uniform and undermines our national security. I do not believe this is the chairman's fault. I want to make that very clear. The chairman has been dealt a hand, and he is trying to play the best hand he can. I understand that. I agree fully, however, with the ranking member, with his concerns and opposition to this bill not because of most of its substance, but because of the adverse impact it has on so much else. This continues the Republican sequester sneak-around strategy. What do I mean by that? My Republican colleagues historically--since I have been here--talk about spending money. What they don't like to do is pay for things. That is, of course, what we do with taxes. It is not for free: national security, education, health care, law enforcement. You have to pay for it. And if you want to put a level of doing something, you need to pay for that or you pass it along to the next generation. This bill continues the sequester sneak-around strategy of blowing through their own defense spending cap by misusing emergency overseas contingency operations funding for nonemergency base defense spending. That is why the Pentagon is opposed to this. That is why the Joint Chiefs believe this is bad policy fiscal policy for the military. As our military planners and Secretary Carter have made clear, such an approach to funding undermines the Pentagon's long-term planning process, which is based on multi-year budgets and predictable funding streams. Unfortunately, the fiscal policies of the leadership of this House over the last 6 years have been anything but predictable. We avoided a shutdown of government yesterday, notwithstanding the fact that 151 of my Republican colleagues voted not to fund government today. Only Democrats ensured the fact that we kept the government open. Ninety-one Republicans voted with us, but that was far less than half of their caucus. This proposal undermines the chances for a bipartisan budget agreement to replace the sequester before the CR we passed yesterday expires on December 11. Mr. Speaker, 151 Republicans voted even against keeping government open for a short period of time, approximately 2 months. This approach included in this bill also harms fundamental national security priorities by characterizing core defense items as part of contingency operations. That is not true. It is not fiscally helpful. This includes the Iron Dome missile defense program and all other U.S.-Israel joint missile defense programs that help Israel protect civilians from Hamas and Hezbollah rockets. Additionally, this report continues to prevent the administration from closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, which remains a recruiting tool for terrorists and undermines America's role as a beacon of constitutional rights and freedoms around the world. Meanwhile, we are spending $2.4 million per detainee every year for those we hold in Guantanamo.

Mr. HOYER. The ranking member of the Armed Services Committee opposes this bill strongly, as do members of that committee. The President has made it clear he is going to veto this bill not because he is against national security. Ironically, Republicans have come to the number that the President proposed. There is a difference. The President paid for his number. He didn't pass it along to our children. We must recognize this conference report for what it is: a vehicle for partisan messaging and an instrument for breaking with the Murray- Ryan principle of parity in defense and nondefense sequester relief. It is not a bill that makes America safer and a stronger force for justice around the world. Therefore, I will oppose it. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) once again for his work in trying to improve this bill in committee, on this floor and in conference, and for his untiring work in support of the men and women of our Nation's armed services. I thank the chairman of the committee for the same thing. He was dealt a bad hand. I understand the hand he has to play. It is not good for our country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) has been a leader on our agenda of Make It In America. It is a jobs plan which has included reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank as a way of helping our businesses and workers compete on a level playing field internationally. Since the bank's charter expired on July 1, many small- and medium- sized exporters have been left without a critical resource, forced to compete with foreign companies that have the support of more than 80 foreign export credit agencies. Uncertainty over the bank's future has already led businesses to announce jobs being moved overseas. My friend from New York talked about General Electric moving hundreds of jobs from his district and other districts as well. Jeff Immelt, the president and CEO of GE, was here. He talked to Democrats and Republicans and said: You are hurting American jobs. Yet, we do not have the Export-Import Bank reauthorization on the floor even though, Madam Speaker, it enjoys a majority support in this House. We have heard a number of very sound arguments for why Congress ought to pass a multi-year reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank without further delay. One of those, Madam Speaker, came from Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue, who wrote on September 17--this is the Chamber of Commerce president, not Steny Hoyer, the democratic leader. He said this: Every major trading nation has an export credit agency like Ex-Im. . . . Failure to reauthorize Ex-Im would amount to unilateral disarmament in the face of other governments' far more aggressive export credit agencies. He went on to say: American companies are being forced to compete with one hand tied behind their back. Another comes from 28 Governors on a bipartisan basis who sent a letter to us and said this: Failure to act--meaning failure to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank--will place American industries at a significant disadvantage in the global marketplace and harm businesses in our States. The Governors, bipartisan, said: We strongly urge you--we, the Congress; we, the House of Representatives--to pass a long-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Let me add, Madam Speaker, another voice to this discussion as well. That is the voice of Speaker Boehner, who said in April: There are thousands of jobs on the line that would disappear pretty quickly if the Ex-Im Bank were to disappear. The Speaker has also said, when he took office, that the House ought to work its will. Madam Speaker, the votes are on the floor of this House to pass the reauthorization. Republicans and Democrats are working together to help create American jobs, retain American jobs, grow our economy, and be competitive internationally. It is now time to put the principle into practice of letting the House work its will. Sixty Republican Members of this House have cosponsored a bill to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. If you add up the 180-plus Democrats who have signed a discharge petition and those 60 Republicans, you get to 240. You only need 218, so clearly we have the votes to pass it. I say to the Speaker and the majority leader, the House's will is clear. The effects of allowing the Ex-Im shutdown to continue are clear: more and more jobs being sent overseas. Our responsibility as the representatives of thousands of businesses and workers is very clear. Bring the Export-Import Bank to the floor for a vote. I want to thank Ranking Member Maxine Waters, Ranking Member Gwen Moore, and Representative Denny Heck for their continued leadership on this issue. I want to thank my friend Representative Tonko from New York for leading today's Special Order on such a critically important issue, an issue that we all speak to, that we all say we are committed to, that we all say we want to work towards, and that is creating jobs for Americans in America. I thank my friend from New York.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on September 26, 2015, people throughout Maryland and the Fifth District will celebrate the 125th anniversary of the founding of the Naval Support Facility Indian Head and the unique role it has played in strengthening our national security and growing the local community. The facility traces its beginnings to Assistant Naval Constructor Robert Brooke Dashiell, a graduate of the Naval Academy in Annapolis who was dispatched by the Bureau of Ordnance to build a testing ground to support America's growing naval power at the turn of the century. Opened in 1890 as the Naval Proving Ground, NSF Indian Head was the Navy's first installation in Southern Maryland, beginning a long tradition in the region. Throughout its history, NSF Indian Head has been the site of development and testing for some of the most important weapons in the Navy's arsenal. Some of the world's most powerful rockets were created there, along with technologies used in pilots' ejection seats and life-saving armor. Today, NSF Indian Head is home to several Navy tenants, including the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center; the Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Incident Response Force; the Joint Interoperability Test Center; and the Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division. The work these tenants carry out at NSF Indian Head is critical to helping our seamen and Marines conduct their missions around the world and to ensuring their safety as they do so. I've been proud to visit NSF Indian Head many times over the more than two decades I have represented the installation and meet with those who serve there--as well as to support robust funding in Congress for the Navy to continue doing great work at NSF Indian Head. For 125 years, residents of the Town of Indian Head and of Charles County have been extraordinary in their support for the men and women stationed at NSF Indian Head. Since the early part of the twentieth century, the town has grown up around the base, and communities across Charles County have benefitted from the economic activity that NSF Indian Head generates by employing some of our nation's top energetic scientists and engineers. NSF Indian Head continues to be important not only to our national security but as one of the largest employers in Charles County and Southern Maryland. I join in congratulating the men and women of NSF Indian Head on the facility's 125th anniversary and look forward to continuing to work with the Indian Head community to make sure the base has every resource it needs to carry out its work, which is so critical to our national defense.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the career of U.S. Capitol Police Detective William J. Zimmerman, who is retiring in October after thirty-two years with the force. Since 1987, Det. Zimmerman has served with the Threat Assessment Section, the division responsible for investigating threats made against Members of Congress, their families, or others who receive special protection under the law. Det. Zimmerman currently serves as the Senior Investigator, playing a lead role in identifying threats and keeping Members of Congress safe as they serve this nation. When an individual or group contacts a Member's office in a suspicious way, it is up to Threat Assessment Section investigators like Det. Zimmerman to assess whether a danger is present. As a longtime veteran of the process, Det. Zimmerman has helped establish threat assessment and management programs for other law enforcement services across the United States and in the United Kingdom as well. He has conducted training for House and Senate staff on security awareness and spoken at conferences around the country to share best practices. Det. Zimmerman served as the first President of the Washington D.C. chapter of the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals and holds that position today. In 2004, he became the inaugural recipient of the Association's distinguished Meritorious Service Award for his work and leadership in the field. The U.S. Capitol Police play an extraordinarily important and often- overlooked role in the functioning of our nation's democracy. Without the safe and secure space they provide, lawmakers would be unable to conduct the American people's work and carry out our functions under the Constitution. All of us who serve in Congress hold the U.S. Capitol Police and its personnel in high esteem, and we are grateful for those who put on its uniform every day. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Det. William J. Zimmerman for his more-than three decades of service to the U.S. Capitol Police, to the Congress of the United States, and to our nation. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be in session next week. Normally, as you know, we have a colloquy on the schedule. There is no colloquy today because, essentially, there is no schedule. We don't know what is going to be proposed to fund government, which will shut down in approximately 14 days if this body does not act. Actually, it is less than 14 days. It is 6 legislative days, Mr. Speaker. The Export-Import Bank has been allowed to essentially go out of business for new loans, and we are losing jobs, Mr. Speaker, but there is no schedule. The highway bill on which States, cities, counties, localities, and private sector relies for some degree of certainty, there is no schedule, Mr. Speaker. I regret that we do not have a colloquy today. I regret that the Export-Import Bank was not moved yesterday, today, or is not on the schedule for next week. Mr. Speaker, it is time that the majority party sets forth a schedule to make sure America succeeds.