Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Jim Wright would have been proud of Marc Veasey. He would have said Marc Veasey is in the Jim Wright tradition. I am going to speak a bit about that. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about a Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to the life and legacy of a man who served this House and our country with distinction as a Member, as majority leader, and as Speaker. Jim Wright was a man of principle and great political skill, and he relied on both during his 34 years in Congress. I have now served 34 years in Congress, and for part of that 34 years, I had the honor of serving with Jim Wright. Just 2 years after he was first elected to represent Texas' 12th Congressional District, Jim stuck to his principles and refused to sign the Southern Manifesto, opposing desegregation, as so many of his southern colleagues did. It was a risk, of course, Mr. Speaker, politically, but he put his belief in equal opportunity ahead of what was politically popular among his constituents at the time. When he voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957, it was a further sign of his courage, of his conviction, and of his adherence to the principles that have made our country so great and so respected. In spite of breaking with many of his southern conservative Democratic colleagues on that issue, he forged friendships with them based on mutual respect and good old-fashioned camaraderie, just as he did with Members from other parts of the country and across party lines. Jim was elected majority leader in 1976, and he was serving in that capacity when I came to Congress in 1981. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am honored to sit in the same office, H-148 in the Capitol Building, just a few feet from this floor, where Jim Wright sat as the majority leader. If you look up toward the ceiling in one corner of our office suite, you can still see the great seal of the State of Texas painted on the wall. Emblazoned in the center of that seal is the proud lone star of Texas. Sam Rayburn may have been one of those stars, Lyndon Johnson may have been one of those stars, and many other Texans may have been one of those stars. But in our office, that lone star stands for Speaker Jim Wright. In many ways, Jim was that lone star who stood out at the center of our party in this House, a leader who knew how to bring Members together by inspiring them to follow his example. He never wavered in his mission to bring Democrats and Republicans together and replace partisan divisions with cooperation, comity, and-- yes--compromise, which is in such little supply on this floor right now. Jim was an extraordinary person. He was someone who refused to take ``no'' for an answer and seemed destined to serve his community and his country. Mr. Speaker, at age 10, he tried hard to join the Boy Scouts, even though he was 2 years shy of the minimum age to participate. At 13, Jim lied and said he was 16 in order to enter a boxing tournament. Now, there are some 13-year-olds who can empathize with that. And, Mr. Speaker, he almost won that competition. In high school, his classmates wrote in his class of 1939 yearbook that Jim would likely be serving in Congress by 1955. How prescient his classmates were, for he won his first congressional election in 1954. While in college at the University of Texas, Jim learned that the attack on Pearl Harbor had occurred. Without hesitation, he decided to drop out the next day and join the Army Air Corps. Jim flew more than 300 combat hours over the South Pacific. He flew, as my stepfather did, in the battles that were fought in the Pacific to combat those who had attacked Pearl Harbor. He was decorated for his distinguished service. Those of us who served with Jim in the House saw the same determined spirit he demonstrated in the Army as he applied himself to serving the people of Texas' 12th District. I had the opportunity to be at Jim Wright's funeral on May 11 of this year. On the day of his assassination, in the last speech of his life, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy visited what he called ``Jim Wright's city'' and praised the Congressman by saying, ``I don't know of any city that is better represented in the Congress of the United States than Fort Worth,'' Texas. I can remember the year after Jim Wright was elected Speaker of the House that I had the opportunity of chairing and emceeing a dinner that was held in Fort Worth, one of the biggest ever held there. I will echo, therefore, that sentiment. I can think of few who served in the Congress who will be remembered as fondly by those they served with than Jim Wright, by his constituents, by his colleagues, and by his family. He loved this institution dearly. His family and those who served with him, like me, will miss him. A grateful Nation thanks him for a lifetime of service to us all. And I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to the legislation for next week. As the gentleman knows, we have now passed six appropriation bills. Last week, consideration of the Interior bill was postponed. The gentleman and Mr. Rogers have both made representations that they hope to do all 12 appropriations bills. You did not announce any appropriations bills on the schedule for next week. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not he expects to bring additional appropriations bills to the floor prior to the August break? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment, particularly in terms of the willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion. As the majority leader knows, there is, on his side of the aisle and on our side of the aisle, a great concern that the 302 allocations to the Appropriations Committee are insufficient to meet their responsibilities. Mr. Rogers, as you know, your chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a Member of your side of the aisle from Kentucky, has characterized the sequestration numbers as unrealistic and ill-advised. The Senate has not passed any appropriations bills, as the gentleman knows. It is my hope, and I would like to ask the majority leader whether he contemplates any bipartisan discussions with reference to how we might come to an agreement so that appropriations bills could, in fact, be enacted, sent to the President, and signed by the President. The President, as you know, sent down a budget which was paid for, which had Defense numbers at the numbers that your side of the aisle used by utilizing Overseas Contingency Operation funds to bridge the gap between the sequester number and the President's number. My question to you is: Is there any contemplation, either before we break or shortly after we come back--because October 1 will be on us very, very quickly--to have bipartisan discussions, a la Ryan-Murray, to get to a number that we can agree on and that we can pass appropriations bills, have conferences, and send them to the President and be signed, hopefully, before October 1, but if not before October 1, certainly before December 18? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. The majority leader, Mr. Speaker, regularly brings up that sequester started in the White House. He knows I very severely disagree with that. And he voted for a Cut, Cap, and Balance Act which had in that bill--which no Democrat, I think, voted for--sequester. And it was passed 5 days before our Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, alleged that Mr. Lew suggested that to Mr. Reid as a way we could get by the House's refusal, up to that point in time, to extend the debt limit, which meant we couldn't pay our bills. But I don't think that is very useful in discussing how we get by this loggerhead that we have met on the appropriations process. I served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years before I became a leader, and we did pass bills--not always on time, but we had an ability, Republicans and Democrats working on the Appropriations Committee, working in the Congress, to get our bills done. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you recall. I presume you will recall that when we got to a similar impasse, Mr. Ryan, the then- chairman of the Budget Committee, Ms. Murray, the then-chairwoman of the Budget Committee in the Senate, got together and came up with some figures that we could agree on on a bipartisan basis. Until that time, we had the same kind of scenario that we are now confronted with. Mr. Speaker, it is my view that, unless we have such a meeting of the minds, we are going to put this country in another crisis of our own making. We, Democrats, are prepared to enter into some sort of an agreement, consistent with Hal Rogers' belief, that we can get to a realistic and advised compromise, not this unrealistic and ill-advised--Mr. Rogers' words, Republican chair of the Appropriations Committee, not mine. And if we don't do so, when we get to September 30, or we get to December 18, let's not wring our hands and say, How did this happen? We will know exactly how it happened, and it will have happened because we refused to sit down, as the majority leader just said a few minutes ago, in a bipartisan way to do the people's business in a responsible, collegial way in which we can get to an agreement so the bills can be passed. I think this argument about who is responsible for sequestration-- clearly, we have a different point of view--and a bill that passed before the suggestion was made by Jack Lew so we could get by the impasse and America pay its bills is really not very useful. Mr. Leader, let me go to another subject. The gentleman moved, on two occasions, to refer to the House Administration Committee legislation which related to the use of the Confederate battle flag. Both of those issues are now pending in the House Administration Committee. One of them has been there for some 3 weeks now. Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any suggested action by the committee, whether there have been any hearings scheduled, and whether or not we may see that legislation brought to the floor at any time in the foreseeable future? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the fact that we might be bringing something to the floor so that we can express the opinion of this House. As the house and senate in South Carolina expressed its opinion, it surely is appropriate for this House of Representatives, representing the values of our country, sworn to uphold our Constitution that stands for equality of all, that we can express ourselves and take appropriate action. I appreciate the gentleman's view. I have great respect for Mr. Woodward. Mr. Woodward, shortly after that book came out, I called him. He came into my office. We had a discussion about that representation. I will tell the gentleman that I believe Mr. Woodward was incorrect. He did not have information I gave him. I don't mean that he necessarily says he is incorrect. But there is no doubt, when you want to talk about history, you passed a bill 5 days before the suggestion was made by Jack Lew, which was, presumably, coming out of the White House, to Mr. Reid, the majority leader. Five days before that, you passed, on this floor, a bill which was called Cut, Cap, and Balance, which had sequester as your fallback policy. So you are right. You can't change history. That is history. I have said that a number of times. The gentleman has not corrected me. I presume that, therefore, he believes that I am accurate in that representation of the timing. But very frankly, that history is irrelevant. What is relevant, as the gentleman and I, I think, both agree, if we don't get to an agreement on a number that is as we did in Ryan-Murray--we have done this before. We have done this before. Now, my view is we did it because you didn't want to have your Members vote on legislation that had numbers that were draconian before the election, but that may be only my personal perspective. But the fact of the matter is the American people expect us to get their work done. Getting their work done, at minimum, means funding the government at appropriate levels. And, again, I would say that Mr. Rogers does not believe the sequester--I agree with you. It is the law of the land. I think it is wrong. I think it is a bad law. It was not a law that was intended to go into effect. It went into effect simply because the supercommittee that was established in that same legislation couldn't come out with a solution. In 13 months, the Congress couldn't come out with a solution, and, therefore, on January 1, 2014, we were confronted with these draconian, ill-conceived numbers, according to Mr. Rogers. Let's not be confronted with those numbers 60 days from now on October 1 where we are unable to do our business. So I would urge my friend, and I would be glad to work with him toward that end. We just passed a bill, Mr. Leader, which I voted for. We passed it on a bipartisan basis--the majority of my Members voted for it; the majority of your Members voted for it--a highway bill. It was, however, I know on our side, and I know that in discussions with you, your feeling as well, that it is not what we ought to be doing. What we ought to be doing is passing a long-term, at least 6-year reauthorization bill for the highway program so that Governors, mayors, county executives, local officials, contractors, and construction workers would all have some confidence that there would be a revenue stream to fix our roads, repair our bridges, and build roads where they are needed. Can the gentleman tell me whether he believes that there is a plan to get to the--and I know he and I have discussed it--but a plan to get to, before the December 18 date that the present bill calls for, a long-term highway reauthorization? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I hope we do that. In the short term, however, we have done another item which we have not reauthorized, and that is the Export-Import Bank. Senator McConnell believes that that has the votes in the Senate, and he believes that the highway bill that we have just sent them is a vehicle to add that Export-Import Bank proposal to. And my presumption is it will be in that bill when it comes back to us. Hopefully, it will come back within the next few days because, of course, the highway authorization ends at the end of this month, in which case there will be no authorization to spend money on the highway program. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not, if that comes back, it will be on the floor? I have heard some discussion about the fact that the Speaker says it will be on the floor, but the Export-Import Bank would be open to amendment. Would the gentleman tell me whether or not there are any plans along those lines. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I understand that that is the gentleman's desire. I know he is opposed to the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization. As you know, we passed it in a bipartisan fashion when the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) was the majority leader, and the gentleman voted for it. He has changed his mind. Certainly many of us do that from time to time. But my question to him is: If they don't do what the gentleman suggests--i.e., a clean highway bill--and they send it back, as, apparently, Leader McConnell thought that they would do, consistent with his representation to the Senator from Washington State and others--if they add the Ex-Im Bank to that bill and it comes back--I know the gentleman is reluctant to speculate. But we have a very, very short period of time left in this session before the August break. Does the gentleman believe that, if it comes back and is in the highway bill, that we would make the Export-Import Bank portion of that bill at least open to amendment? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, the problem with the suggestion the majority leader makes is the Export-Import Bank will be out of business. If that happens, Speaker Boehner has said it is going to adversely affect jobs in America. It will adversely affect the ability of small, medium, and large businesses to sell our goods overseas by people working here in America. The Export-Import Bank is about jobs, and to simply let it twist in the wind and let it be unauthorized simply because of inattention, when it has the majority of votes on this floor? Mr. Speaker, I have said that over and over again and have not been contradicted. There are 60 Republicans who have sponsored the Export-Import Bank's reauthorization. There are 188 Democrats--or at least 185 Democrats who will vote for it. That is 249 votes. All you need is 218. There is no doubt that the Export-Import Bank has the votes to pass this House and the Senate, and, yet, we fiddle while jobs are being burned. Mr. Speaker, that is not good policy for our country. It is not good policy for our workers. It is not good policy for our businesses, for our exporters. It makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Sixty countries have a similar facility. I know in a perfect world perhaps that wouldn't exist. But 60 of our competitors around the world have such a facility that make their goods cheaper than we will be making ours. That is not good sense. It is not good policy. It is not the expectation, I think, of the American people. And it is not the will of this House. I regret that we have not addressed this already. But I certainly hope when the Senate--as I expect them to do--adds it to the House highway bill--and I am not sure whether it will be our bill or their bill or our bill amended--we may have to go to conference or we may have to get to an agreement. But one way or the other, we ought to adopt the will of this House and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank so that we will protect jobs. It was Speaker Boehner who said that it was shortly after we took the action we took on June 30 and allowed the Export-Import Bank to expire that we would lose jobs. In fact, that is happening. So I would hope that that would not be the case. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the majority leader this: I get a lot of rumors on my side. I know you get a lot of rumors on your side. And I sort of smile at them and I say, ``I think not.'' But I have had 20 Members today ask me, Mr. Speaker, are we not going to be here the last week of July that is presently scheduled. And I would like to clear that up. I yield to my friend for a definitive answer on the schedule for-- this is a scheduling question, by the way, as to whether or not, in fact, we are going to be here the last week of July.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the majority leader's clarification. My Members will not necessarily appreciate it, but I understand it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, last week I was profoundly disappointed to learn just how large the recent data breach was in which personal information was accessed in the files of the Office of Personnel Management. That breach and the one before it were unacceptable, and it is a problem that requires an all-hands-on-deck approach to prevent future cyber attacks to protect those whose information has been accessed. Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent 62,000 Federal employees in Maryland's Fifth District. They deserve to know--and all our hard- working Federal employees do--that the personal information they submit when they serve our country is safe and secure and that they will be protected against identity theft if their information was accessed. The resignation of Director Archuleta does not solve the underlying problems that made OPM vulnerable to these kinds of attacks. I intend to work closely with interim Director Beth Cobert to make sure OPM has the resources it needs to upgrade its systems and prevent a reoccurrence of this event. But this breach and the one that preceded it underscore the larger issue of cybersecurity and how we must do more to make America's networks the safest in the world.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank you very much, Mr. Garamendi. You do such an extraordinary job for California--and have for a long period of time-- but you are doing an extraordinary job here in Washington on behalf of America, on behalf of America's workers, on behalf of manufacturers, and on behalf of making sure that we make it here and sell it here and everywhere. That is what Make It In America is about. Nobody, including myself, has been any more tenacious in informing people about this agenda, and I thank you for that. I want to thank Ann Kuster. Congresswoman Kuster and I had an opportunity to visit a really neat manufacturing facility in her district not too long ago. They were excited about what they were doing, and they were excited, as she has pointed out, about making their business more technology focused and making it more efficient and more productive and, yes, more profitable; but the good news is they were retaining jobs in that effort. I thank Congresswoman Kuster. I want to thank Don Norcross, who is a new Member of the Congress, but not new to supporting Make It In America--he may not have called it Make It In America in New Jersey--but Make It In America legislation and policies. Don Norcross comes from a background of a working family, and he has made them proud and made us proud, and we welcome him to this effort. I noticed also that Sheila Jackson Lee from Houston is also on the floor, who has been a tenacious and very, very faithful spokesperson and worker on behalf of Make It In America. I am proud to share with my colleagues that House Democrats held a hearing, as has been mentioned, this past Thursday to begin exploring how to improve, expand, and adapt the Make It In America plan to meet the needs and challenges of 2015 and beyond. As a matter of fact, one of the things we want to find out is how we can better create an environment for new technologies, for new ways of doing business, for new ways of making it in America. Representative Garamendi was one of 34 Members who participated at last week's hearing. For the past 5 years, we have worked together in a bipartisan way to enact already 16 Make It In America bills into law. These bills included measures to clear the backlog of patent applications, reauthorize the America COMPETES Act, and expand investments in workforce development, which is what Mr. Garamendi was talking about and Ms. Kuster was talking about in terms of training people for the new technologies. If we are going to compete worldwide in this global marketplace in which we now find ourselves, America is going to be the high value end of the global marketplace. As a result, we need to make sure that we educate and train people to effectively participate and compete and succeed in that high-tech environment. For the past 5 years, Make It In America has been focused on creating the conditions that encourage, as I said, business to innovate, manufacture, and create jobs here in the United States of America. Now, with the rise of new technologies with the potential of transforming our economy, it is now time to update the Make It In America plan to address today's challenges and build on past successes. That is why, Madam Speaker, the hearing that House Democrats held on Thursday was the first in what will be a series of hearings to solicit feedback from Members, entrepreneurs, job creators, in other words, economists, innovators, and others who have insights to share how we can be more successful in creating jobs and competing. These hearings are entitled: ``Make It In America: What's Next?'' Five years have gone by. Circumstances have changed. Challenges have changed. Opportunities have changed. We need to be making sure that we are in a position to seize those opportunities on behalf of all of our people. This is a process of listening, learning, and then implementing the best ideas that emerge. Thursday's hearings--Mr. Garamendi, you participated in them; you were one of the leaders there, which highlighted Members' ideas and feedback they have received from speaking and meeting with constituents back home--was a great success. I want to emphasize that. We take, from time to time, breaks, and we call them district work periods, and some people call them vacations. Almost every Member on both sides of the aisle use a district work period to go among their constituents, go to businesses, go to schools, go to construction sites, go to offices, and talk to people about what they think. That is what our Founding Fathers had in mind: House Members, close to the people, listen to the people, bring their views here. That is what we did at this hearing. We heard about the economic impact of the so-called Internet of things, which--in my generation, what language are you speaking, Internet of things--which uses wireless technology to connect everyday objects, your home, your refrigerator, your air conditioner, your television, everyday objects; we are all connected now. We also heard about maker faires and fab labs, where students and professionals alike can transform tinkering into innovation. I sometimes say, Mr. Garamendi, that one of the policies that we ought to do is we ought to--a previous President talked about a chicken in every pot. We ought to give a garage to every graduating high school student. It seems everything is generated in a garage in America. Although, as Bill Foster pointed out, these fab labs and maker faires were perhaps the new garages of our time. Representative Garamendi, as I said, was among those who spoke about new ways to help traditional manufacturing, when he discussed the role our shipbuilding industry plays in helping American businesses move natural gas and other goods to market at home and abroad. That shipbuilding industry was critically important to us winning in World War II. Now, as Mr. Garamendi pointed out, it is a shadow of its former self, and we need to rebuild it, and we need to be shipping goods on American fleets. These were just some of the things that came up in the hearing, and I encourage all of my colleagues and all Americans to go online to democraticwhip.gov and read Members' testimonies. Ms. Kuster's testimony is on that, Mr. Garamendi's, and Mr. Norcross' testimony is on the Web; and you can see their perspective, add them all together, and we come up with a powerful agenda to create jobs in America. That is what we are focused on; that is what the people want us focused on, and that is what we are going to work on. That is what Make It In America is all about. I want to express my gratitude, again, to all the Members who participated in the first hearing, including, of course, the leader of this Special Order, Mr. Garamendi from California, and I thank him for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. The last item on there is infrastructure. When you build infrastructure in America, you don't create jobs any place other than America. We are hopefully going to have a highway bill; and we need a permanent highway bill, a long-term, 6-year minimum highway bill, so that we lend confidence to the marketplace that the infrastructure is going to be in place because, if we are going to Make It In America, a good, solid competitive infrastructure is absolutely essential. I thank the gentleman for that list. I thank him for his work. I thank him for the--I will say a few things while the gentleman is restoring Make It In America to its rightful place.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there are days in this House when morality and the values of our country, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of our country, summon us to vote as Americans, as moral representatives, and as representatives of the values of our country. Today is such a day, my colleagues. Three Democratic amendments were adopted earlier in the consideration of the Interior bill that would end the practice of displaying or selling Confederate battle flags and flag merchandise in national parks and National Park Service cemeteries. Those amendments were adopted by voice vote. They reflect the strong consensus in this country and, hopefully, in this Congress, that a symbol of slavery, sedition, segregation, and secession has no place in our national parks or in the cemeteries whose grounds have been hallowed by the veterans who rest there after having served and given their lives in defense of freedom and justice and the values of our country. Unbelievably, however, Mr. Speaker, several hours ago, in the dark of night, the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee offered an amendment on this floor that would effectively strike those amendments which surely reflect the values to which all of us have risen our hand and sworn to protect. Today, on the anniversary of the ratification of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution--how ironic that we would meet this vote on this day--which enshrined the principle of equality for all Americans, we have this shameful Confederate battle flag amendment on our floor. This amendment would keep in place a policy that allows Confederate battle flags in our national parks and National Park Service cemeteries, a symbol, as my colleague Jim Clyburn, the assistant leader and the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and an extraordinary Representative in South Carolina, said yesterday was so offensive and hurtful to so many millions of our fellow citizens and our fellow colleagues in this body. Even in South Carolina today, where the Confederacy was born, that flag is being taken down from the State capitol grounds after both Republican-controlled houses of that State's assembly voted to remove it. Certainly--certainly--on this day we ought not to see a Republican- led Congress move in the opposite direction. My colleagues, together, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans deeply committed to the values of equality and justice and opportunity for all, we ought to remove that flag from our national parks, the cemeteries where our veterans rest and, I would say further, all public places. That includes the United States Capitol. And I support my friend Representative Thompson's resolution that sits now in the House Administration Committee that would remove the flag of Mississippi, which contains the Confederate battle flag, until such time as Mississippians, as South Carolinians did yesterday, make a statement and remove that from their flag. I urge my colleagues, my fellow Americans, the 434 of my colleagues that have raised their hand and sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, I urge my colleagues, let us do the right thing and reject this amendment and send a powerful message about what America truly represents: equality, justice, respect for one another, freedom for all. Let us make America--every American--proud of us this day and reject the amendment adopted in the dead of night.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Allen King, a resident of Maryland's Fifth Congressional District, for his service to this House. He retired on June 30, 2015, after more than thirty years in various positions with the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. For the past twelve years, Allen has served as the Supervisor for the Central Receiving and Warehousing, Logistics, and Support Department. He began his career with the House with the Labor Department and Property Supply under the Clerk's office, and for many years he worked directly under Cosmo Quattrone and Tom Van Dyke in the Furnishings Department. Following a reorganization of the CAO, the Department was renamed Logistics and Support, where Allen worked with former Deputy CAO Walt Edwards and former Chief Logistics Officer Jerry Bennett. Some of his most memorable experiences during his time working for the CAO include contributing to the setup for the Congressional Iran- Contra hearings in 1987 as well as the 2001 anthrax scare, when the House of Representatives had to convene in a temporary location. Allen and his team, along with other CAO staff, set up an alternate House chamber as well as temporary offices and provisions for Members and staff off campus. One of Allen's favorite moments on the job occurred in 1981 when he witnessed a marching band performing through the halls of the Cannon House Office Building, in town for the Inauguration of President Ronald Reagan. Allen was also on hand to witness the lying-in-state of President Reagan's casket in the Capitol Rotunda years later. In retirement, Allen intends to enjoy more fishing and visits with old friends and co-workers. I congratulate him on his years of service, and I wish him and his family all the best as Allen begins a new chapter in his life. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Allen King for his distinguished service, contributions, and commitment to this House and to our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I express my deep disappointment that the House will adjourn without having concluded its business. Charter authority for the Export-Import Bank is set to expire this coming Tuesday should Congress fail to reauthorize it, which apparently we are going to fail to do. Shutting down the Bank puts at risk tens of thousands of jobs at American businesses whose exports are supported by the Bank's financing mechanisms. Everybody knows that a bill to reauthorize the Bank has the votes to pass in this House. Everybody has known that the charter authority to back up loans by those who would buy goods from American workers expires at the end of this month. The Speaker of this House has said that jobs will be lost shortly after we fail to do this act, which we apparently are going to fail to do. It is the will of the House and ought to be reflected by a vote of the House that this charter be renewed. And once we send it down the hall, such a bill will pass the Senate. Who said so? Senator Roy Blunt, who used to be the majority whip and majority leader and minority whip in this House. Before leaving to go home to our districts, we ought to reauthorize the Bank and provide certainty, Mr. Speaker, to businesses and their workers who depend on it to level the playing field against foreign competitors. There are 85 such banks located in 60 countries with whom we compete. This will diminish, at least for a short time, our ability to compete in international markets. That will cost, as Speaker Boehner has said, jobs in the short term. At the same time, I want to say that my friend from Mississippi, Representative Thompson, noticed a resolution that was referred to the Committee on House Administration today. Mr. Speaker, I believe that that resolution deserves to be considered in the committee without delay, and I hope it will be. In the aftermath of the horrific and racially motivated murders of nine innocent people in Charleston last week, Americans across the country are taking a long overdue, critical look at the practice of allowing confederate symbols of hatred, slavery, and segregation to remain on prominent display in our public places. There is no public space more visible and more important than this United States Capitol Building. Mr. Thompson's resolution would authorize the Speaker to remove Mississippi's flag--the only one to include the battle flag of the Confederacy--from the Capitol complex until such time as the State of Mississippi selects a new flag, free from a legacy of bigotry, exclusion, and racism. I hope that Mississippians will move swiftly to design a new flag that more accurately reflects their pride in diversity, tolerance, and equality. There is no reason why any Member or staffer, especially those whose ancestors suffered the horrors of slavery and segregation, should have to see that symbol in the temple to liberty that is our Capitol. So, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the House is adjourning without having completed its task for the June work period and without having shown the American people that Congress can do what it has been sent to do: support job growth, promote justice, and achieve results for those it serves. Mr. Speaker, if I thought continuing my objection would lead to the swift enactment today or tomorrow of the Export-Import Bank, I would object. I do not believe that that would be the result; and, therefore, I will shortly withdraw my objection, but with a plea to the majority party that they bring to the floor very shortly after we return the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and that the Committee on House Administration give prompt consideration to the resolution of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has not served here as long as Tim--but for a pretty long time--I have gotten to know him very well when I have wandered across that side of the aisle. He always receives me with a very gracious attitude and is always very, very helpful. He has been a wonderful fellow worker on the floor of this House with all of us on this side of the aisle as well. I certainly join our Speaker in thanking him for the service that he has given to this House and to this country, and I wish him the very best in the future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, my friend, Dr. Burgess, has just made an observation, that this resolution is about the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee Appropriations bill. I will tell Mr. Speaker, as you know--and the American people, I am sure, know--that that Agency is funded through September 30 of this year, which means we have months to go before it will run out of funds. The other bill that he mentions, of course, as you know, is about a proposal, not a rule. It may be a rule at some point in time, but it is a proposal which has no absolute definite need to be done today or next week or next month. However, Mr. Speaker, the Export-Import Bank, if we do not act by tomorrow, loses its authority to loan money or to support--not to loan money, but to support the selling of goods from America by American workers to those abroad. We just went through a trade debate which was about jobs and whether or not it was going to undermine jobs in America. Now, my previous colleague, Ms. Waters, mentioned President Reagan, she mentioned President Bush, and she mentioned President Clinton. But the person who says we are going to lose jobs if we don't pass the Export-Import Bank is the Speaker of this House, Mr. Speaker, John Boehner of Ohio. He says, if we don't pass this, we are immediately going to start losing jobs--John Boehner, Speaker of the House from Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's observations. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that in that spirit, there are 240 people in this House who think the Ex-Im Bank ought to be extended and reauthorized. I hope we will follow that process. I would reiterate, yes, I am willing to work with the gentleman on highways or on anything else which will benefit the American people and our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for repeating his answer. I heard that answer, but my question to the gentleman was: Is it his intention that the Export-Import Bank expire and, therefore, not bring legislation to the floor?

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 his information. I note that the Export-Import Bank, which, of course, expires on June 30, is not among the scheduled pieces of legislation. As the gentleman knows, Speaker Boehner has been quoted as saying that, if we don't pass the Export-Import Bank, that there are thousands of jobs on the line that would disappear pretty quickly if the Ex-Im Bank were to disappear. He then again said, as the Chamber closest to the people, ``The House works best when it is allowed to work its will.'' The majority leader knows that I am absolutely convinced that the Export-Import Bank is supported by a majority of Members of this House, but this House has not been allowed to work its will on the Export- Import Bank. Predecessors of yours and a very dear friend of mine, Senator Blunt, said not too long ago that he believed that, if a bill were brought to the floor of the House, it would have the votes. More importantly, because he is now, of course, in the other body but is among the leadership in the other body, he said that the bill had the votes in the Senate. I believe he is right on both of those observations. I understand the majority leader is not for the bill. It is my understanding that the Speaker is. I would hope that those of us who support it and, frankly, those who oppose it would have the opportunity, as the Speaker indicated, for the House to work its will. Can the gentleman tell me whether there are any plans prior to June 30, when the Export-Import Bank authorization to give loans expires, are there any plans to bring that legislation before this House in a timely fashion so that the authorization would not expire? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I apologize. Could the gentleman repeat himself?