Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the will of the majority is being thwarted in this House, the people's House. Mr. Boehner, our Speaker, said when he took his office as Speaker that the House worked best when the House was allowed to work its will. Mr. Speaker, let the House work its will. We are about to take a vote on whether this House should move to reopen the Export-Import Bank and save thousands--thousands--of jobs that Speaker Boehner has admitted will be lost without our action. The Export-Import Bank is a critical tool that supports job creation here in America by helping American businesses compete in foreign markets--in other words, making goods here with American workers and selling them abroad. That is what we need to be doing. The Export- Import Bank facilitates that happening. It has over 300 votes out of 435 on this floor, but we cannot vote if it is not brought to the floor. When the Speaker and majority leader allowed the Bank's authorization to expire in June, they did so with the full knowledge that a reauthorization has the votes to pass and will pass with strong, bipartisan support if brought to the floor. Now, we have a chance to defeat the previous question and bring that bill to the floor today. Now, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, to some of my colleagues who may be new, that voting down this rule, defeating the previous question is a vote to open the Export-Import Bank. Now, I know some of you will say: Well, it is a procedural vote. My party makes me do this. Well, if you have that answer, look in the eye those who are losing their jobs and say: I had to do this for my party, not my country, not the competitiveness of America, not for American jobs, not for American businesses, but I voted for the previous question for my party. Sometimes, my friends, party demands too much. When you raise your hand, it is to defend the Constitution and laws thereof, but in a real sense, it is to defend and make America better. Let's refuse to engage in what Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue today called a ``unilateral disarmament in the face of other governments' far more aggressive export credit agencies.'' Let me repeat that. That is Tom Donohue, president of the Chamber of Commerce. The Republican Party used to be a party of business, the party that wanted to grow jobs. We talk about that all the time. Well, my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, you have an opportunity to do that on this upcoming vote. Don't do as Tom Donohue today said you might do, a ``unilateral disarmament in the face of other governments' far more aggressive export credit agencies.'' Last week, General Electric announced it would be moving 500 jobs from New York, Texas, South Carolina, and Maine to Europe and China because of the failure of this Congress to pass the Export-Import Bank reauthorization. There are over 300 votes for that on this floor. The American people think we are dysfunctional. They are right. They don't trust us because they don't think their board of directors is doing the job they sent us here to do. They are right. They are angry. They are anxious. Let us for once, this day--we haven't funded the government yet; hopefully, we will get that done--but at least this day, given the opportunity on this previous question, say that we are going to make America competitive and we are not going to unilaterally disarm. This is something the Business Roundtable wants us to do. It is something the Chamber of Commerce wants us to do. It is something the National Association of Manufacturers wants us to do. It is something that organized labor wants us to do. In the face of unity of purpose, in the face of a majority of votes on this floor, party regularity still says: Tough. Tough. Yes, there may be 300 votes on this bill, but we are not going to allow it to come to the floor. Ladies and gentlemen in your offices or on this floor, America expects you to do better. America expects you to be responsible. America does not want you to be simply partisan. America does not want you to be cowed by a small minority of this House and by radical groups outside this House who threaten Members they will spend a million or $2 million or $3 million to defeat them in a primary. America wants us to do the right thing. America wants us to have the courage of our convictions. America expects this House to reflect the majority opinion, not be dictated to by a small minority. Mr. Speaker, allow your Members to vote against the previous question. If you do so, we will bring to this floor the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank; and, ladies and gentlemen of this House--and all Americans ought to know as well--it will pass. Bring the Export-Import Bank bill reauthorization to this floor so America can continue to be competitive and create jobs here in America. That is what our constituents want us to do. Vote against the previous question. Mr. Speaker, we are about to take a vote on whether this house should move to reopen the Export-Import Bank and save thousands of jobs that even Speaker Boehner has admitted will be lost without our action. The Export-Import Bank is a critical tool that supports job creation here in America by helping American businesses compete in foreign markets. When the speaker and majority leader allowed the bank's authorization to expire in June, they did so with the full knowledge that a reauthorization has the votes to pass--and will pass with strong bipartisan support--if brought to the floor. Now we have a chance to defeat the previous question and bring that bill to the floor today. Let's end the uncertainty that has already caused businesses to hold back investment in job creation and to move American jobs overseas. Let's refuse to engage in what Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue today called a ``unilateral disarmament in the face of other governments' far more aggressive export credit agencies.'' Last week, general electric announced that it would be moving 500 jobs from New York, Texas, South Carolina, and Maine to Europe and China because of the failure to keep the export-import bank open. Congress has a responsibility to help grow jobs here--not send them overseas. It's time to reopen the export-import bank. Defeat this previous question. Bring the export-import bank up for a vote. And let's complete the task that America's workers and their employers have asked us to do for months.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have only 7 legislative days left until another unnecessary, costly, and entirely preventable government shutdown. We need to negotiate an agreement to replace the sequester with a responsible alternative. Because Republicans have refused to start these negotiations, I have talked to Mrs. Lowey, the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, and I have talked to Mr. Van Hollen, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, and I have talked to Mr. McCarthy, but we have had no discussions on how to keep the government open just 8 legislative days from now. If the government were to shut down, as it did in 2013, it would cost our economy billions of dollars and put our national security at risk. Hundreds of thousands of public service workers would be furloughed, and millions of people would be cut off from critical programs and services. Many Republicans are urging their leadership not to risk a shutdown. Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania said, ``I don't think we need to do a replay of 2013. It would be an enormous tactical and strategic blunder.'' Indiana Senator Dan Coats, a conservative Republican, called a shutdown a failed tactic for political purposes that is not going to succeed. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop threatening a shutdown--not all of them, but some of them--and to, instead, take action to keep the government open as we work to reach an agreement on a budget that replaces the sequester and funds our Nation's priorities responsibly.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center as it celebrates its fiftieth anniversary this year. Since 1965, SERC has been the nation's leading research center for understanding coastal zones and the environmental issues they face. With coastal zones home to more than 70% of the world's people, SERC has been at the forefront of monitoring and studying these zones' unique ecosystems and the different factors that affect their health. While their main research focuses on the areas of climate change, invasive species, biodiversity, land use, and pollution, SERC personnel are also involved in preparing the next generation of environmental scientists. Over the years, SERC has provided learning opportunities for students from kindergarten all the way through the post-doctoral level, partnering with over 150 colleges and universities to conduct professional training and a variety of hands-on experiences in the field. Headquartered on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland's Fifth District, SERC encompasses more than 2,650 acres of land and twelve miles of protected shoreline. The scientists at SERC use this shoreline as a natural laboratory and model for long-term ecological research to study the way terrestrial, aquatic, and atmospheric components interact in complex ecosystems. In 2009, I was a proud cosponsor of legislation that authorized a $41 million expansion and renovation of SERC's Mathias Laboratory, the Smithsonian's first LEED-Platinum building. This sustainable research lab provides a larger space and more flexibility for scientists to explore cutting edge research in an environmentally responsible way. I had the privilege of attending the ribbon cutting ceremony for the lab's reopening last year. I am proud to celebrate this anniversary and ask that my colleagues join me in commending the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center for its contributions to our understanding of coastal environments and climate change--and saluting those who continue to carry out its important mission.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this morning, we had a moment of silence, but we recognize today 14 years of memories. All of us remember where we were when terrorists attacked our Nation 14 years ago, murdering 2,977 of our fellow Americans and shocking the conscience of our country and of the world. None of us will ever forget the tears, the sorrow, and the loss of that day; but neither will we ever forget the extraordinary acts of heroism, the first responders who rushed headlong into burning towers, the passengers who stormed the cockpit, and the Air National Guard pilot who was prepared to ram her fighter into a hijacked airliner to stop the next attack. These, Mr. Speaker, are the stories that our children and grandchildren must hear, along with those of the brave men and women who donned our Nation's uniform in the years since, when they ask us to explain what happened on September 11, 2001. Today, Mr. Speaker, as we mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks and pay tribute to the heroes of that day, we should honor them by renewing the sense of unity we felt that morning and in the weeks and months that followed. America, Mr. Speaker, is strongest when we stand together in defense of our common ideals--individual freedom, tolerance, equality, justice--which the perpetrators of those acts found so objectionable and which were the real objects of their attack. As we gather, Mr. Speaker, to mark this anniversary, let us remember that our greatest rebuttal to those who attacked us, as well as the most fitting tribute to all those we lost, is to keep defending these principles that bind us together as Americans and that will always be the enduring source of our strength. God bless those who we lost, and we commit to their memory and to their cause.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information. I would just observe that we share the view of the--you used the term ``horrific'' videos. As I understand it, these videos are heavily edited. I don't want to get into debate about them; we will have that debate next week, but we are certainly concerned about, as the gentleman knows, 97 percent of the health care delivered by Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with the issues raised in the video, edited or not. We would hope that we could come to an agreement on making sure that those healthcare services that are provided to literally thousands and thousands of women are not interrupted, but I understand that we will have that debate next week. Mr. Leader, you do not include in your schedule a continuing resolution for the funding of government. As the gentleman knows, we have essentially, as I count it, 5 full legislative days left. We have 8 or 9 days left, but there are many partial days. We have 5 full legislative days left before the government runs out of authority and funds to continue. As the gentleman knows, I have been urging the majority leader and your side of the aisle to enter into discussions on levels of funding and funding itself. We suspended the appropriations process approximately in the middle of July when the Interior bill was pulled from the floor. Presumably, it was pulled because there was a possibility of amendments being offered regarding the Confederate battle flag, but notwithstanding that, half the appropriation bills have not been brought to the floor. No appropriation bills have passed the Senate. I have been urging, for at least 2 months now, that we have discussions. I discussed with Mr. Van Hollen today there have been no discussions between Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Price with reference to a resolution of the funding levels for a CR or the length of term of the CR. I had an opportunity to talk to Ranking Member Nita Lowey today of the Appropriations Committee. She informs me that there have been no substantive discussions between herself and Mr. Rogers and that Mr. Rogers, in fact, has no indication of what funding levels will be going forward or what a CR would look like or the length of period of time it would be for. In addition to that, I have discussed with the leader's office, Leader Pelosi's office--and I know that neither my office nor Leader Pelosi's office have been in discussion either with the Speaker's office or your office in a substantive way with how we might be moving forward on a CR. I, frankly, thought that this coming week would be the week for us to consider a continuing resolution so that given the very, very short number of days available in September for us to meet, that there would be time for the Senate to receive a continuing resolution for us to consider that and pass it so that we would not, again, confront a crisis of confidence, a crisis in terms of ongoing government operations, but also a crisis of confidence not only in our country, but around the world that the United States of America could manage its finances in a responsible way. With that said, Mr. Majority Leader, can you share with us some insight? Again, I know that it is not on the schedule, and this is about scheduling, but we have 5 full days and 3 partial days and a ninth day which the Pope is going to be here, and I know we will be having votes on that day, but we have such a minimal time before the government runs out of authority and funding for its operations that it seems to me that it is critical that today or tomorrow or Monday, we decide how we are going to proceed. I will be pleased to yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, there are 5 days--full days--left to go. You are right; we have been discussing this for some period of time, but with all due respect to any strategy that we have, you only brought six bills to the floor and passed six bills through this House, and that is only half of the appropriation bills. The MilCon bill got 255 votes; the Energy and Water, 240; the Legislative Branch, 357; the Commerce, Justice, Science, 242; T-HUD, which we didn't like and, apparently, a lot of your Members didn't like either, 216 votes; and the Defense bill, 278 votes. There was nothing on our side that stopped the appropriations process from going forward. You chose not to bring six of those bills to the floor. I don't take any blame on our side of the aisle, whatever our strategy might be. Our strategy has been consistent with, very frankly, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee strategy, and that is to have funding levels on both the defense and nondefense side of the ledger which were rational and reasonable. I repeat ad nauseam, as you know--and you are tired of hearing me repeat it, I am sure--Mr. Rogers' comments that the sequester levels given to the Appropriations Committee to meet their responsibilities were ill-conceived and unrealistic. That is Mr. Rogers' quote, not mine, not our strategy. That was what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on your side of the aisle characterizes the funding levels that you have provided the committee for--I don't mean you individually--the House has provided the chairman with to write his bills up. As a result of being unable to do that, every time you brought a bill to the floor, it has gotten a majority of the votes. Forget about us. We can't control. We have 188 Members. You can pass anything you want. The appropriations bill process came to a dead halt for two reasons. Number one, it is because there are no negotiations for a well- conceived and realistic alternative to sequester. That is what Hal Rogers says--not me--your chairman. I continue to be extraordinarily disappointed that we have not undertaken any discussions--I mentioned Mrs. Lowey on the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Van Hollen on the Budget Committee, Leader Pelosi's office, my office--any discussions which have allowed us to come to some agreement so that we might in a bipartisan way move forward. Now, I understand there are a lot of members on your side of the aisle who won't vote for anything if it funds Planned Parenthood. I get that. They don't come close to making the majority of this House. Until such time as we start acting with the majority's will prevailing as opposed to a faction's prevailing, I think we are going to be in this gridlock that is undermining the confidence of our country, of our government, and of our international partners. I would hope that, in the next, perhaps, few days, Mr. Leader--and I am prepared to spend time today, this weekend, Monday, and Tuesday--I know we are not coming back until Wednesday--to try to work with you and with the relevant committees, with the Speaker, and with the leader of my party to try to get us to a point where we can do exactly what you want to do and what we want to do, and that is not have this government by crisis that we have now. This is the third time on an unrelated issue where there has been a problem with funding government as is our responsibility at whatever levels we agree upon. I would hope that we could pursue those discussions. I have been urging that for months now, and we haven't done that. You also did not mention something that I have discussed with you and discussed with the Speaker that I bring up all the time. As a result of our failure to fund the Export-Import Bank and to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, we are losing jobs, and we have lost a substantial number of jobs already. Speaker Boehner indicated in a quote not too long ago that, in fact, there are thousands of jobs on the line that would disappear pretty quickly if the Ex-Im Bank were to disappear. Essentially, in terms of new loans and new products that could be sold abroad, the Ex-Im Bank has disappeared as of July. I have had discussions with the Speaker, and I think he has been quoted publicly as saying he thought the Ex-Im Bank was, in fact, in some form, going to be considered on the floor this month. I ask my friend, the majority leader, as it is not on the schedule, but, again, it is not as if we have months to go--we have 5 days to go--before the end of the fiscal year and that funding for the Ex-Im Bank expires. Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any possibility of that being considered within the next 5 or 8--if you want to count 8--legislative days we have left in this month? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. With that answer, the gentleman can be assured that I will keep asking the question, and I keep asking the question not to vex the majority leader. I keep asking the question because the Speaker and I agree that we are losing jobs. We are putting ourselves in a noncompetitive position with the rest of the world. By not bringing this up to the floor, Mr. Leader--I haven't counted specifically, but I will bet you, however, that there are over 275 votes on this floor to pass a reauthorization and extension of the Export-Import Bank. The failure to bring it to the floor is not because it doesn't enjoy a majority of support--it does. When it last came to the floor--when Mr. Cantor and I worked on the legislation and brought it to this floor--it got well over 300 votes. Now, I understand there are some in your party who don't like it; but, very frankly, we have got to get over, because some in your party don't like things, that we gridlock the Congress of the United States and make America uncompetitive and undermine confidence in this country. Yes, Mr. Leader, you are very tolerant, and I will keep asking the question because I think it is critical for our economy, and it is critical to get us off this gridlock where a small minority of the Congress of the United States is holding good policy hostage. Now, let me also ask you: On October 29, the highway bill will lose its authorization, which we have been extending in very short periods of time. The gentleman knows no Governor, no mayor, no county commissioner, no contractor can possibly plan infrastructure improvements--highways, bridges, sewer systems, whatever--on the basis of 90-day or 60-day extensions of authority and funding. The gentleman didn't mention it. It is not coming up next week. I understand that we have a longer time--but not a long time--between now and October 29 when the highway bill will expire. As the gentleman, I am sure, knows and agrees, the failure to do that will have a significant adverse effect on jobs for Americans and a significant adverse effect on the infrastructure of this country. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not he expects a highway bill to come to the floor anytime within the timeframe prior to October 29? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. That is good news that the highway bill, at least, will be done before the deadline. I will tell my friend, like the majority leader, I had a discussion today with Mr. DeFazio, who is the ranking Democrat on the relevant committee, Mr. Shuster being the chairman. I know they have had some discussions, but I also know that they are not very close to an agreement. I know that neither one of them likes the Senate bill that was sent to us. The majority leader and I had discussions on that. We didn't take that up. I thought that was probably the right thing for the majority leader to do, to not take it up. Again, the majority leader says he is engaged. I would hope he uses his good office to get us to a place where we can pass a bill in a bipartisan fashion as, during my 34 years, has normally been the case. That extends for a significant period of time--no less than 5 years--at levels that are necessary to meet the infrastructure needs of this country, both from an economic standpoint and a national security standpoint. I yield to my friend if he wants to say anything further. If not, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise regretting that I was unable to be here when Marcy Kaptur, the gentlewoman from Ohio, was talking about Representative Louis Stokes. Congressman Stokes and I were very good friends. I had the opportunity to serve with him for many years. And I wanted to take this time, Mr. Speaker, to thank Ms. Kaptur for leading the special order. On August 18, we learned of the passing of our friend, former Representative Lou Stokes. He was a reluctant candidate, Mr. Speaker, who went on to serve his constituents for three decades. I have had the honor of serving here for 34 years. But when I first came here, of course, I thought Lou Stokes had been here forever. I don't really think I have been here forever. But he was a friend to all, respected by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and beloved by his constituents. For three decades, he served here and left a lasting imprint on a State, our Nation, and, indeed, the world. Lou Stokes was the first African American to represent Ohio and the first to chair the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He was chairman as well of the Black Caucus and a tireless campaigner for civil rights and equality. Moreover, he was also the first African American to serve on the Appropriations Committee, where he and I were colleagues. I sat just two chairs from him for almost a decade along with Ms. Kaptur for a number of years. He chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee for Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development. That chairmanship reflected Representative Stokes' longstanding mission to address the unmet needs of millions of Americans living in inner city neighborhoods, like many of those in Cleveland who sent him to Congress. Having been raised in a housing project himself along with his brother, former Cleveland Mayor Carl Stokes, he made it his mission to ensure that Congress was paying attention to the important issues of affordable housing, access to jobs, healthcare delivery, and crime prevention. As a veteran, Representative Stokes never wavered from his determination to make certain that Congress was meeting its responsibility to those who had served our Nation in uniform. I was saddened to learn of his passing. In his 90 years, Representative Stokes lived a very rich and full life. He was full of life and a deep and abiding love for his family, this House, the State, and Nation that he served so ably. Lou Stokes was a gentleman and a gentle man. He was a giant in integrity and in intellect, committed to common sense, courage, and seeking the right answers for his people, for his State, and for his country. It is a testament to him that his four children all followed him into careers that helped better their communities and our country. One is an administrator at Howard University. Another is a well- respected journalist and news anchor in New York. The third is a Cleveland municipal court judge. And the fourth is an editor and public affairs director for a television station in Detroit. He was extraordinarily proud of his children and of his grandchildren. They, like all of us in this House who served with him, Mr. Speaker, were and are extraordinarily proud of Congressman Louis Stokes. I join in extending my condolences to them, to their mother, Representative Stokes' wife of 55 years, Angela, and to the seven grandchildren that Representative Stokes so cherished. The House of Representatives was made a better body by having Lou Stokes serve in this hall. A grateful Nation thanks him and his family for sharing his life with all of us who had the honor and privilege and joy of serving by his side in this revered House of the people that he loved and who loved him. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank Mr. Polis from Colorado for yielding. I rise in opposition to this rule. This is our last day in session before we leave for 5 or 6 weeks. We then will have 13 days before the end of the fiscal year. We have a number of things that the American public expects us to do that enjoys almost universal support on this floor, one of which enjoys a significant majority of support on this floor. Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Speaker of this House, John Boehner. ``Above all else,'' he said as he assumed the Speakership, ``we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, engage in it--openly, honestly, and respectfully.'' ``As the Chamber,'' he went on to say, ``closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work its will.'' He then said, ``I ask all Members of this body to join me in recognizing this common truth.'' Al Gore, the former Vice-President of the United States, would observe, however, that is an inconvenient truth. It is an inconvenient truth because the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, representing the minority of this House, is opposed to the Export-Import Bank. He has been opposed to it since we adopted it in 2012, with an overwhelming majority of votes from both sides of the aisle--as a matter of fact, a unanimous vote from the Democratic side of the aisle and over 140 Members from the Republican side of the aisle--just 3 years ago. This rule makes in order, as the gentleman noticed, two bills, one of which I vigorously oppose but won't spend a lot of time on. While the gentleman is probably correct that it is not immediate firing, it is a substantial undermining of the Civil Service Act adopted so that we would not have a patronage, politically ridden system, but a civil service system based on merit. This bill then makes in order an extension of the highway bill, which certainly we ought to do. It is somewhat ironic that we say it is a 3- month extension. We passed a 5-month extension. I voted for the 5-month extension. Everybody ought to know that we fund it for 5 months, of course. We call it a 3-month extension. I hope that will satisfy Senator McConnell so that he can then pass it. We then provide for $3.3 billion so that we will make sure our veterans hospitals and medical care stays in operation. Both of those could have been passed on this House floor by unanimous consent.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. We now leave for another month the Export-Import Bank, which is responsible for the creation and retaining of jobs in America. We all talk about jobs in America, but the Speaker has said, again, that the failure to pass this bill is losing jobs right now. And yet my Republican friends, in tipping their hat to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, say we are not going to consider that, as they did last month in July. I know we haven't gotten out of July yet, but we will go through August, and then we will go through September. Mr. Fincher tells me he thinks that bill will be brought to the floor in some form or another in September, but it will have cost us jobs and competitiveness overseas with the 60 countries that have an export- import bank that are making sure that the purchases of their goods made in their countries are cheaper than the goods sold in our country. That costs American jobs. We ought to reject this rule, and we ought to do what the Speaker of the House said we ought to do; treat one another with respect, and let the House work its will. There are 240-plus, maybe 250, maybe 260, maybe 270 votes. You only need 218 to pass the Export-Import Bank on this floor. I will yield to anybody who says: No, Mr. Hoyer, you are wrong; it doesn't have the majority vote.

Mr. HOYER. I will yield to anybody on this floor who will say: Mr. Hoyer, you are wrong. Apparently, there is nobody on the floor who is going to suggest that the will of this House, as represented by a majority that would vote on this bill, would not be for extending the Export-Import Bank, saving American jobs, making sure that America is competitive in the international markets. My colleagues, reject this rule. Exercise our responsibility to the American people and to American workers, and let's pass the Export- Import Bank today before we go home.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, let me mention the extraordinary respect I have for the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). I had the honor of sponsoring the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1989 and 1990. We passed it in 1990, and it was signed by then- President George H.W. Bush. It was called the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mr. Speaker, but in many ways it should have been called the Americans with Abilities Act. It should have been called that because its intent was to focus on what people could do, what people would do, what people wanted to do. Mr. Langevin is a perfect example of an extraordinary person with great ability who has a wheelchair. He has a wheelchair because he has a mobility impairment that others of us don't have. But as we have seen in serving with our colleague Jim Langevin from Rhode Island, he is extraordinarily able and he represents his constituency with great energy, with great intellect, and with great integrity. So I am pleased to join him in this Special Order. We had introduced a resolution, but it is not the practice of the House to bring commemorative resolutions to the floor. So we do this Special Order in addition to what we would have hoped would have been the passage of a resolution, but I understand that is the practice. The Senate did in fact pass a resolution, sponsored by Orrin Hatch, Patricia Murray from Washington State, and Lamar Alexander, commemorating 25 years of progress on the inclusion of those with a challenge that others might not have in our society, all that our society offers and the opportunities that it offers. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on numerous occasions over this last week commemorating the ADA, and I have mentioned a number of names. I would like to do that on the floor of this House, because they were people who were absolutely critical. It is not a comprehensive list. It is, however, a list of people with whom I worked very closely for well over a year on the passage of the ADA. First, I would like to mention President George H.W. Bush. This issue was not a partisan issue. President Bush was a Republican; I was a Democrat--and still am. I worked with an extraordinary Republican Member of the House. His name was Steve Bartlett. He was from Texas. He left the House and became mayor of Dallas. He is now still in Washington, working, and we are partners. Every time something happens with respect to the ADA, Steve Bartlett and I work together on it. Dave Capozzi and Tony Coelho. Tony Coelho, a Member of this body, was a person perceived with the disease of epilepsy, but he is one of the most able people that any of us know. Tony Coelho, along with Lowell Weicker, were the original two sponsors of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Justin Dart. In 1983, Justin Dart visited every State in the Union in his wheelchair, calling attention to State legislatures, Governors, and others of the importance of ensuring the accessibility of places of opportunity for those with disabilities. Yoshiko Dart, his wife, was with him every step of the way and was with us as we worked for the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And then we have an extraordinary legislator--one of the best legislators that I have served with, Mr. Speaker--Bob Dole, a Republican from Kansas, majority and minority leader of the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, when he came to the Senate of the United States, his first speech was about including those with disabilities. He observed that he was an involuntary member of those with disabilities as a result of his extraordinary war wounds in Italy in World War II. We have Chai Feldblum, who is now on the EEOC and a professor at Georgetown Law School. She was counsel to myself and Steve Bartlett as we considered the complex issues and tried to make sure that ADA could be implemented by all in a way that was affordable and reasonable for them. We then have Lex Frieden, who is the executive director of the National Council on Disabilities, who worked so closely with us. Also, Boyden Gray, counsel to George Bush, who was a critical ally in this effort. Then we have a giant in this effort, Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa, who, after Lowell Weicker left, was the principal sponsor of the ADA and fought hard and effectively on its behalf. Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy. Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch were partners in so many different things, but on this they were aligned and made this bipartisan effort a very successful one. Also, Arlene Mayerson; Paul Marchand; former Congressman and now Senator Ed Markey; Senator John McCain; Congressman Norman Mineta; Ralph Neas; Katie Neas; Carolyn Osolinik; Becky Ogle; Lee Page; Liz Savage; Bobby Silverstein. Like Melissa Schulman who was my chief staffer as we considered the Americans with Disabilities Act, Bobby Silverstein was Tom Harkin's chief staffer. Jim Sensenbrenner, our colleague today. Congressman Sensenbrenner was so critical, along with his wife, Cheryl Sensenbrenner, who, herself, suffered from a disability and showed such courage in encouraging all of us to support the Americans with Disabilities Act. I mentioned Lowell Weicker. Lowell Weicker was a Senator from Connecticut and then Governor of Connecticut; Bob Williams, who was an extraordinary individual who worked so hard; John Wodatch; and last, but certainly not least, Patricia Wright. There were literally, Mr. Speaker, thousands of others, many of whom will not be known but who came here to the Congress of the United States, wrote their Members, called them up, and came to town meetings and forums on behalf of those with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act is now used as a sample and has been adopted in some 50 countries throughout the world, perhaps more. There is a disabilities rights convention, which is pending. Only three countries in the world have not signed on to that convention. Unfortunately, we are one. I would hope that the Senate would do that in this Congress. Senator Bob Dole has been an extraordinary proponent of that convention. So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my friend, James Langevin, who has been a beneficiary of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the reasonable accommodations that we ask to be effected so that Jim Langevin could get through the door, could get on the elevator, could get into this Chamber. And, Mr. Speaker, there is a lift on the rostrum on which you now sit so that James Langevin would be able to preside, if that were in order. In fact, he has been up there and has presided. That is called a reasonable accommodation. And because of those reasonable accommodations, this Congress, his State, and our country have been advantaged. Mr. Speaker, I think when we end our careers, most of us who were involved in the adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act will look back on the adoption of it overwhelmingly by this Congress in a bipartisan fashion and the signing of that act by President George Bush as one of our most important contributions and achievements during our service in the Congress of the United States. I thank Mr. Langevin for his extraordinary example for all those in our country to look at the abilities, not the disabilities.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we have an opportunity in the next 48 hours to do three good things: One, keep the highway system going. It is irresponsible, but we have not already done so. Two, make sure that the Veterans Administration has sufficient funds to keep our VA hospitals serving our veterans. Three, make sure that we are competitive with the rest of the world by adopting the Fincher amendment and providing for Ex-Im Bank's ability to create jobs and to make us competitive worldwide. We ought to do all three of those things. Mr. Speaker, you have said that you wanted to allow this House to work its will. Sixty-five Members of the United States Senate voted to keep the Ex-Im Bank in business for America and for American jobs. There are, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, at least 240 votes on this floor to pass the Fincher amendment, which is the Kirk-Heitkamp amendment in the Senate. Let's do it. Let this House work its will. Let's keep America competitive with the rest of the world. Let's adopt the Export-Import Bank, send it to the Senate, have them send it to the President, and help save American jobs. Who says it will save American jobs? Speaker Boehner, the Speaker of this House. Let us do all three of those worthwhile objectives that the American people support.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information with reference to the two bills that will be considered next week. We are coming now to the end of the scheduled work period, and we will be going into the August break. We just passed a bill, Mr. Leader, which dealt with a tragedy--or purportedly dealt with a tragedy--that occurred in San Francisco. Every Member of this House believes, I think, that a mistake was made by the sheriff in San Francisco in releasing this individual who had been convicted of numerous felonies. We also believe, if we had passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill similar to the one the Senate passed in the last Congress, that this problem itself would not be solved--because we believe that the sheriff should not have released this individual irrespective of the status of immigration reform--but we believe this would go a long way towards enhancing the ability of both law enforcement and of communities to deal with the immigration issue as well as giving confidence to people of their status. Does the gentleman believe that there is any possibility of a comprehensive immigration bill being considered in the next work period? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Just to make it clear, the mistake was the sheriff's. He should not have done what he did. It was a tragedy. We all agree on that. Very frankly, we don't think that he was compelled to do so by the sanctuary law that San Francisco had in effect. I will tell the majority leader that we had a difference of opinion in a previous bill, the Violence Against Women Act, where you did not include protection for immigrants when they came forward to law enforcement authorities and complained of domestic violence. We had a disagreement on that, and the disagreement was that we thought they ought to be protected, which is why so many law enforcement officials opposed the bill that was brought forward. I will tell you again, Mr. Leader, that we do not believe that the statute that was in San Francisco compelled or led to the actions of the sheriff in releasing a felon who had committed the numerous felonies and should not have been released. It was a tragedy. Let me go on, Mr. Leader, to the appropriations process. There are no appropriation bills listed on your schedule for next week. We have after next week some, I think, 16 legislative days left between now and the end of the fiscal year. Again, for the next period that we are going to be back and in light of the fact that we know what it is going to be at least--and I will have some questions on some things that may be on, but we know what is scheduled for next week--does the gentleman believe that our Members ought to anticipate the further consideration of appropriation bills prior to the end of the fiscal year? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader. I am pleased to hear that. I know the Speaker observed--and I think he is probably right--that there will have to be a CR. In light of that, I would hope that the majority leader, in league with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, perhaps with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and with the Speaker, would initiate the conversations now in preparation so that we would not have a crisis on September 30, but would, in a logical and, hopefully, a cooperative way, have gotten to what action would be taken with respect to a CR. I would urge my friend to pursue those discussions. I would be glad to participate with him in those discussions with others on our side who will be involved in that process--our ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, our ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, and our ranking member on the Budget Committee. I yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman and I have had discussions about highways. We know that next week the highway authorization ends. We are planning on leaving here, if the schedule is kept, on Thursday of next week. Will the gentleman tell me what he believes is the status of the highway bill? I know the Senate is discussing a longer term highway bill. Neither the majority leader nor I are very enthusiastic about that bill as I have learned in my discussions with you. Will you tell me what your plans are with respect to the highway bill so that we don't leave here without some sort of authorization having been passed? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Lastly, as the gentleman knows, I have been very much involved with the authorization of the Export-Import Bank through the years. As the gentleman knows, Mr. Cantor and I worked together and came up with a bipartisan proposal in 2012 that passed this House overwhelmingly with approximately 140 Republicans and about 185 or more Democrats, so it passed overwhelmingly. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is any possibility of assuring that the majority of this House can work its will and the majority of the Senate--and I say that because Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Senate, is quoted as saying the supporters of the Federal Export-Import Bank have the Senate votes to revive it and will get a chance to do so. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, It looks to me like they have the votes--and I am requesting to give them the opportunity. McConnell, who opposes the Bank, said he expects supporters to try to attach the reauthorization to a highway bill. Assuming that we get a bill from the Senate with the Export-Import Bank attached to it, does the majority leader believe that we will have the opportunity--and I think the majority of the Members of the House would vote in favor of it--will have the opportunity to vote on the Export-Import Bank before we leave here on Thursday? I yield to my friend

Mr. HOYER. I could not possibly stand on this floor long enough to do that. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I keep asking that question, and I keep getting the wrong answer. I will be faithful to asking that question. I say that with humor, but the gentleman knows that I believe this is an extraordinarily serious issue. The gentleman knows I agree with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Boehner, that we are losing jobs right now as a result of our failure to extend the authorization of the Export-Import Bank past June 30. The gentleman knows I believe that 165,000 jobs are at risk. The Indian director of their export-import bank is quoted as saying in the paper, just the other day, that he believes they are going to pick up jobs and orders because of the failure of the Export-Import Bank to be reauthorized. I think this is not something that is not real. It is a loss of jobs and a loss of competitive status for our country if we do not reauthorize this and do so as quickly as possible. I will keep asking the question because I feel it is so very important to our country and to our competitiveness, but I appreciate the gentleman's faithfulness in his answer. I am hopeful that it will change.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I didn't notice that ObamaCare had been repealed. I simply noticed the Supreme Court said it was a constitutional piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.