Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Does the majority leader intend to, therefore, have the authority of the Export-Import Bank expire, notwithstanding the Speaker's observation and that it will cost thousands of jobs? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for repeating for a third time his answer to me. Mr. Speaker, I would simply observe, sadly, that the representation the House can work its will on an issue of great importance to the United States and to jobs in the United States will not be brought to this floor, notwithstanding the fact that 180 Democrats have signed a discharge petition and 60 Republicans filed a bill to extend the Export-Import Bank. That is 240 votes, Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker well can add himself. Two hundred and forty votes is a majority of this House. They reflect in my view, Mr. Speaker, the will of this House. It is extraordinarily regrettable that, when the Speaker of the House says that, if we don't do something, thousands of American jobs are going to be lost--it is particularly regrettable, just after we had a vote on a bill that many people believe is going to lose us jobs and, therefore, they opposed. How sad it is that we don't bring to the floor a bill which will, like 85 other countries--85 other countries--help us export goods? Those 85 countries, Mr. Speaker, are not going to stop helping their countries export goods, so the loss will be to our exporters and those they employ. I very much regret that that won't be brought to the floor. As the majority has told me, it is not scheduled; I know it is not scheduled. I lament the fact that it is not scheduled. Representative Chris Collins of New York said: I can't figure out for the life of me why my party, the Republican Party, that stands for jobs, and in every conference meeting, it is jobs and the economy. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is on the floor; he talks about jobs and the economy. Here I am, says Chris Collins, in the majority of my own Conference, fighting to defend the Export-Import Bank, which is the best example of creating jobs in America. I regret that that is not being brought to the floor. I won't ask the question again because he has already told me it is not scheduled, and apparently, there is no intent to schedule. I regret that. Now, Mr. Leader, if I can ask you, we passed now six appropriations bills. Yesterday, the Labor, HHS bill was marked up in subcommittee and the Financial Services in full committee. Can the gentleman tell me whether it is the intention, whether they are scheduled right now or not, to bring all 12 appropriations bills to the floor before--well, whenever--all 12 bills to the floor? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that. Let me ask him further as he knows what is happening in the Senate and whether they can take those bills up: Does the gentleman contemplate, as the majority leader, or does he know whether the Speaker contemplates any effort to come to a bipartisan agreement as was done when Mr. Ryan and Senator Murray met and came to grips with a resolution and a compromise on what otherwise would be the sequester 302(a) allocations on discretionary spending, which the chair of the committee, as you know, Chairman Rogers, has called ill-conceived and unrealistic? Does the majority leader know whether there is any plan to try to get us from the gridlock, which we are apparently in one more time on the appropriations process, to a place as Ryan-Murray got us where we moved ahead in a bipartisan way and, in fact, funded the government? Although, it was not until December, and we had a stopgap measure in there. Is there anything scheduled to discuss that or to pursue that compromise? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend. There is no Democrat in this House, in the Senate, or in the White House who wants to shut down this government. As a matter of fact, we have not done that. It was done in '95 and in early '96. It was done last year when many in your party said ``shut it down'' if the President doesn't change his immigration policy. Any suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that Democrats want to shut down the government is simply incorrect. Now, what the minority leader has said in the Senate, I believe, is that, until such time as sequester is changed that it is not useful to waste time on bills that will not become law as we did, of course, many years during the Ryan budgets, which were never implemented, and they were never implemented in the House of Representatives fully--not once. Why? It is because, as Mr. Rogers said, they were ill-conceived and unrealistic. I just want to make it clear to the majority leader that I am prepared to work with him and with others to get us to a compromise on levels of funding that are realistic and well conceived by Mr. Rogers, by Mr. Cochran, and by others. Until we do that, we are going to be in a place where we are going to be, I predict, in late September, on the threshold of giving some fear that the government is going to shut down again, the greatest government on the face of the Earth. I am not sure what people around the world thought when we shut our government down for 16 days. It was not a confidence builder. That is for sure. We have another item that we are losing confidence on, the highway bill. You didn't mention, Mr. Leader, anything about the highway bill being scheduled. I understand it does not expire until July 31, so we have about 6 weeks, maybe a little longer than that. Does the gentleman know whether there is any compromise being achieved so that we can give confidence to States, counties, municipalities, contractors, the business community that they will have a funding stream to invest in building, repairing, and maintaining our infrastructure in this country? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation. I think that is my reputation, that of wanting to work to constructively achieve joint objectives--in this case, the highway bill. Mr. Ryan is on the floor, but I won't ask him to yield for a question as to whether or not the Ways and Means Committee has come up with a way to finance the highway bill. I know he said that there is not going to be a gasoline tax, which, historically, Republican Presidents have been for. I am not suggesting this be it, but maybe tax reform, as my friend has said publicly for that. I will repeat, Mr. Leader, there is no Democrat who wants to shut down the government. I hear what you said. I know the quote. What they have said is they are not going to shut it down indirectly as you want to do. Now, you have done it directly. I do not mean you, personally, but the only two times that I have served in the Congress of the United States over the last 34 years when the government was shut down as a policy was in 1995 under Newt Gingrich and in the last Congress. Those were the only times, and I have been here 34 years. Has it happened inadvertently for a couple of days? Yes, it has, because the legislation was not agreed to or we couldn't get it to the President in time or things of that nature. Let me say something because, on your side of the aisle, you love to say this. You love to place sequestration at the feet of President Obama's. Now, my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, has not been here as long as I have, but sequestration originally started certainly in Gramm-Rudman--or it may have even started before then--with Phil Gramm, a Republican from Texas, and Mr. Rudman, a Republican from New Hampshire. That is when it started. Then we see all the time the across-the-board cuts--the 1 percent, the 2 percent, the 3 percent. Now, we have defeated them, but that is a part of sequestration. More importantly, on 7/15/11, your side, in charge of the Congress, offered a bill that you called Cut, Cap, and Balance. Now, this was 5 days or 6 days before your allegation that Mr. Lew went to the majority leader then, Mr. Reid, and said maybe sequestration will help get this bill through. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we were confronting the failure to reauthorize the payment of America's bills, the debt limit. That was what we were facing. What Mr. Lew was suggesting was that the Republicans liked sequestration, so maybe if we put that in the bill, even though we don't like it, they will vote for not defaulting on the national debt. In fact, that is what happened; but if you look at your Cut, Cap, and Balance bill--your bill I voted against--the fallback that you suggested was sequestration. That was about a week before Mr. Lew said to Mr. Reid that maybe that will get our Republican friends to support paying the national debt. That passed, by the way, on the July 19, 2011. It was 6 days later that Mr. Lew, in trying to get something done to make sure that America did not default, suggested to Mr. Reid maybe putting that in the bill will get the Republicans' votes so that we will pay our debts. The problem is, if you know the facts, you get a little frustrated with hearing this representation, the President was for sequester. Let's just, for the sake of argument, say that nobody here was for sequester. Then let's get rid of sequester. If you are for sequester, I get it. You don't want to change it. There are a lot of your Members who certainly don't want to change it. I tell people all over this country when I talk to them that sequester is a complicated word. It starts with an S. It stands for ``stupid.'' It is a policy unrelated to opportunities, to challenges, and to needs. It was a number pulled out of the air. I would hope, Mr. Leader, that we don't talk about ``you did it'' and ``you did it.'' Let's talk about how we solve the problems confronting our country. Ex-Im is one of them. Appropriations bills that we can agree on is another and highway bill funding to give confidence to our economy and to our entities that have to keep people moving and commerce moving. Let's give them confidence. Let's sit down. Let's get these done. Let's bring it to the floor. As Speaker Boehner said, let this House work its will. The gentleman referred to the 46 Democrats who voted with him and his party on the most recent bill, which was a tax reduction and which is, as are all of the tax reductions that you have brought to the floor, unpaid for. Very frankly, as the father of three daughters, as the grandfather of three grandchildren, and as the great-grandfather of three great- grandchildren, I don't like the fact that the expectation is they will pay the bill. They don't vote, of course, so they can't vote for or against us. My daughters can, notwithstanding the 46 people who voted for it on our side of the aisle because they are for the policy. I will tell you I have talked to a lot of them, and they are not for not paying for it, but they were put in the position of either being for something, therefore, or being against something because it is not paid for and is hurting future generations. The only reason I mention that is the gentleman brought it up, and I will tell him that there is very broad, almost unanimous sentiment on our side that we ought to pay for things, and when that policy was in place, we balanced the budget for 4 years in a row. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman indicated there were 235 people for this bill in this House. I just observed a few minutes ago there are 240 people for Export-Import Bank. We have brought this bill to the floor. I would hope the gentleman would urge his side, when 60 of his folks are for it, all of ours are for it, to bring the Export-Import Bank to the floor because it is about jobs. Having said that--and I want to acknowledge that I am a good friend and have great respect for the sponsor of this bill, Dr. Roe. He and I have worked together on anaphylactic shock and the dangers caused by the eating of peanuts. He is a good doctor. He is a good person. We happen to disagree on this bill, however. This, essentially, will be the 60th vote, over the next 2 days, 4 days, on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. We obviously have a difference of opinion on the Affordable Care Act. I believe it is working. I believe that millions of people are covered by insurance. Because of the Affordable Care Act, millions of children are covered under their parents' policy, and millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs. Millions of people with a preexisting condition have the confidence that they can get insurance. The bill we are debating today and voting on next week would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, as it is referred to. Now, I was disappointed at the reference of ``bureaucrats.'' It is used as an epithet, unfortunately, not as a descriptive term. The fact of the matter is these folks are appointed and they make recommendations. They make recommendations to the Congress of the United States, and the Congress of the United States can reject them; and/or the President of the United States, if the Congress passes legislation to set that aside, can consider it as well. IPAB develops proposals to contain the rate of growth of Medicare spending. The Board hasn't been formed. There are no members appointed yet; yet Republicans are asking taxpayers to spend $7-plus billion over the next 10 years to eliminate it. It is not that it has acted badly. It is not that they are irresponsible. There are no people appointed to this Board yet. The Affordable Care Act has slowed the growth of healthcare costs to its lowest rate in 50 years. That helps every American, whether they are covered by the Affordable Care Act or private employer insurance or self-insured. As a result, CBO predicts that action by the Board would not even be triggered until 2024, but the cuts to the prevention fund would act now. Republicans are paying for this bill by cutting funding for disease prevention and public health now. Even then, CBO reports that this bill still bends the healthcare cost curve in the wrong direction over the long run. Today, as has been observed, we passed another bill. That one was without offsets. That will create an additional $24 billion deficit. Mr. Speaker, the House has a choice. It can continue the same old partisan attacks against affordable health care and add billions to the deficit, undermine prevention and public health, bringing deficit- financed tax cuts passed by this Republican-led Congress up to $610.7 billion since January. Somebody is going to pay that bill because we are not. My generation is not being asked to pay for it, $610.7 billion. It could reject, of course, the politics as usual and, instead, work together in a bipartisan way to focus on creating jobs, lowering the deficit, and investing in a competitive economy. You heard the sponsor of this bill saying, I cannot support it, the gentlewoman from California, because the proponents of this bill would rather attack the Affordable Care Act than they would to pass this bill. Now, they want to pass this bill, but their priority is undermining the Affordable Care Act, which is why they didn't work with Congresswoman Sanchez and others who agree with them on the policy. I have to disagree with them on the policy; but they have even put people who agree with them in a place where they cannot support the undermining of the Affordable Care Act and preventive health in America. Let's choose to work together to do what American people are asking us to do, not undermine the critical healthcare reforms that are containing costs, increasing access, and improving quality. That is why I opposed the medical device tax bill, and that is why I am urging my colleagues to defeat this one as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this week we marked 3 years since President Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. He did this in response to Congress' failure to pass the DREAM Act and help children of undocumented immigrants stay here and help build a better future for America. For children who probably know no language other than English and know no country other than America, for many of these immigrants brought here as children through no fault of their own, America is the only home they have ever known. They love this country, and they deserve a chance to stay and contribute to our Nation's future. President Obama announced an expanded DACA last year, along with the program that deals with parents of such children to help the immigrant parents of American citizens and legal residents. Unfortunately, a partisan lawsuit has held up their implementation, and Republicans have now voted three times to end this opportunity for children of immigrants. They would split families apart. If my Republican friends wish to change our immigration policies, they have a perfect vehicle, Mr. Speaker, for doing so: a comprehensive immigration reform bill supported, in my opinion, by a majority of the House of Representatives. Let's bring such a bill to the floor so that we can fix our broken immigration system and create a pathway to citizenship for these DREAMers and others who have been living and working here for almost all their lives.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I was glad to be here with Jim Walsh. I looked at the list. As I look around--I am not sure this is accurate--but I saw in the list there are about, I would say, 30 names on this list, and I think there are only two on the list, although that may be not accurate, with whom I have not served. Ron, you are one of them, and I think Lou Frey. Where is Lou?

Mr. HOYER. The two of you, I think, are the only two former Members with whom I have not served. And, unfortunately, I never served with Speaker Michel. I served with Minority Leader Michel, but I wish I had served with Speaker Michel, one of the great Americans with whom I have served. I think Bob Michel is the quintessential example of what a Member of Congress ought to be: civil, committed to his party and to his principles, but committed above all to his country and to his family. Bob, it was an honor to serve with you, and it is an honor to be your friend. Thank you very much for your service. To all of you who made this institution what it is today and those of us who are continuing to make it what it ought to be, we are not doing that job very well, for the most part. Although, I will say this, that Speaker Boehner is trying to make that happen and, to the extent that we work together, we do. But it is harder and harder, as you know, because the ideological differences between the parties have become more substantial than they were, certainly when I came here in 1981. Jim Blanchard and I served on the Financial Services Committee together. It was then the Banking Committee. But we are trying to work together to do what is best for our country. I think the country believes its board of directors is not working nearly as well as it ought to. I want to thank all of you for staying engaged and for continuing to send the message to your colleagues, your friends, your neighbors who have great respect for you. And you have something that very few people have. You know, there are only about a little short of 11,000 of us who have served in this House of Representatives since the founding of the Republic, which is an amazingly small number in a country that is now 320 million, give or take, people. So it was a wonderful, wonderful honor for us to be elected here. As you know, we can't be appointed to the House of Representatives. And as I look around this room on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, so many people with whom I worked very, very closely, positively and productively in the Congress of the United States, it is always a privilege to welcome you back. And, of course, so many of you--Ron Sarasin is a permanent fixture, of course. We see Ron through his activity on the historic society working here on a very regular basis to make sure that Americans understand the history and the importance of their Capitol. Ron, thank you very much for that service and that leadership. Mr. Chris Shays is coming into the Chamber. Hi, Chris. Good to see you.

Mr. HOYER. Now, there are some of you I need--and I am not sure that I would get all of you--but we haven't voted yet. I want to thank all of you for staying involved, staying true to the responsibility the people gave you; and when you no longer had that responsibility, in terms of being an elected Member of this body, you continued your fidelity to what this body means, particularly this body. I think all of us are very proud that we served, as we all say, in the people's House. This was the House that was designed to be most responsive to the passions and the fears and the aspirations and the hopes, the good and the bad, of the American people, where every 2 years we had to re-up. And I think that will never change. It will never change, first of all, because it was a good theory. And, secondly, it will never change because the Senators don't want to give us a free shot at them. So, you know, you have got the principle and then the practical combined in that way. But I always enjoy being with you, saying hello to you. Certainly my office, which is, as you know, just one floor down here in the Capitol, if we can do anything for any of you at any point of time, if you need a place to hang your jacket or make a telephone call or we have got a conference room that is vacant from time to time, you can use that. It was a privilege and an honor to serve with all of you and to continue to be your friends. God bless you. Thank you very much. Let me pay special honor to my Maryland colleague, Bev Byron. Jim Moran, I think, and John may be the most recent new Members of the former Members. Maybe some of the rest of you, I think. But Bev Byron and Mike McIntyre. Bev Byron and I started out--well, she may have been there 1 or 2 years before I was there. But in 1962, we started in the Young Democrats together. Now, she wants me to sit down. She is saying ``now you are going to meddling.'' We love you, Bev. I love you. Thank you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to precede them. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida. Of course, I am always glad to hear her speak on the floor. I wanted her to know that. Mr. Speaker, we are now less than a month from the deadline for Congress to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. In 2012, this House came together under the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cantor, who worked with my office, and we put a bill on the floor that reauthorized the Bank and increased its lending authority with a bipartisan vote of 330-93. This should not be and is not a partisan issue. Helping small- and medium-sized American businesses access new overseas markets and compete on a level playing field is something that Democrats and Republicans have long agreed that Congress ought to do. That is why it is deeply concerning to read comments from Majority Leader McCarthy that Congress should ``wind down'' the Bank and allow its charter to expire. That, in my view, is a minority opinion on the floor of this House, and that would be a profound mistake. The Export-Import Bank is a critical tool that helps our businesses compete successfully in global markets. We are going to talk about trade, apparently, next week, but what we need to make sure is that we can export goods that are made in America, that we will make in America, and that we will sell abroad. The Export-Import Bank facilitates that effort. It is a critical tool that helps businesses compete successfully in global markets. Last year alone, it supported $27.5 billion in export activity. About 90 percent of its transactions support thousands of small businesses that otherwise would have difficulty accessing markets. The Ex-Im Bank has supported 1.3 million private sector jobs since our economic recovery began, including 164,000 jobs just last year, and it does all this without costing the taxpayers a single cent. In fact, it brought $675 million in profits to the Treasury last year and more than $2 billion over the past two decades. We cannot afford, Mr. Speaker, to let the bank expire. Even more than just preventing a lapse, we ought to be providing exporters and potential exporters with certainty by enacting a multiyear reauthorization. With the Export-Import Bank's future uncertain, businesses that could be reaching new customers abroad have been holding back making investments in growth that would create more jobs here at home. We are going to hear a lot about jobs here at home next week as we debate the fast-track authority. This deals with jobs here in America. With the Export-Import Bank's future uncertain, we are seeing uncertainty in the marketplace. A multiyear extension and an increase in the bank's lending authority would give a green light to these businesses that it is time to invest and expand. We all talk about investing. We all talk about expanding jobs. I want to quote: ``There are thousands of jobs on the line that would disappear pretty quickly if the Ex-Im Bank were to disappear.'' Let me repeat that for my colleagues. ``There are thousands of jobs on the line that would disappear pretty quickly if the Ex-Im Bank were to disappear.'' Those are not my words. That is a quote. They are the words of Speaker John Boehner on April 30 of this year, just a few weeks ago. He is not the only Republican who wants to save the bank. Representative Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, has said that ``a majority of RSC members support the bank's reauthorization.'' RSC members are amongst the most conservative members of their party in this House. In fact, there are 59 cosponsors on Mr. Fincher's bill. They are Republicans. All of my party, the last time we reauthorized it and this time, will vote to create jobs in America by voting for the Export-Import Bank. Now, we have 188 members. You don't have to be much of a mathematician to know if you have 188 and 60, that is 248. All you need is 218 to pass the bill. The Speaker has said he wants to let the House work its will. He said that in 2011 when he became Speaker. And he said the House works best when the House can work its will. If we bring the Export-Import Bank bill to the floor, it will pass. Together with 180 Democrats, or 188-- 180 who have sponsored the 7-year reauthorization bill introduced by Ms. Waters, Ms. Moore, Mr. Heck, and myself--it is clear that a majority of the House supports a long-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Mr. Speaker, we should act. We should act now before we find ourselves at the eleventh hour, before the June 30 deadline. Now, we have just seen shutting down the security apparatus to protect America for a couple of days. Let's not put at risk the economic security of our country. Governors of both parties from across the country have written in support of taking action. Business leaders, the Chamber of Commerce, and organizations like the National Association of Manufacturers have all asked Congress to reauthorize the bank. There are now just 13 legislative days until the deadline by which we must do so. Mr. Speaker, I ask our Speaker, I ask our majority leader, let the House work its will and vote on a multiyear reauthorization that will restore certainty for thousands of small businesses. Help them compete in new markets. Support the growth of good jobs here in our country, and contribute to deficit reduction. There will be a lot of debate next week about jobs. The Speaker believes that we will lose jobs if we don't pass the Export-Import Bank reauthorization. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Leader, bring the Export-Import Bank reauthorization bill to the floor. It will pass. It will be good for America. It will be good for Americans. It will be good for our economy. Pass this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I am the whip. I wanted to make that perfectly clear. The fact of the matter is, did the gentleman just say if this amendment had been offered previously that you would have accepted it?

Mr. HOYER. But you are now urging----

Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Now, Bush did better after 2001 and 2003. He only increased the deficit 87 percent, or almost three times that increased under President Clinton; and none of the tax cuts ended up paying for themselves, and Greenspan said so. Since the beginning of this Congress, Republicans have brought to the floor and passed nine tax cuts. It is so easy to vote for tax cuts. It is so hard to pay for what we are buying. And that is why we have a deficit, because we do not pay for what we buy. Today the House is being asked to vote on another unpaid-for tax extender that, on its own, would increase the deficit by $182 billion. That is a total of $586 billion--over half a trillion dollars--that Republicans are proposing to add to the deficit this year. We have heard Republicans argue that making the R&D tax credit permanent would benefit the economy.

Mr. HOYER. They are right about that, and I support the R&D being made permanent--if we pay for it. That is a principle the American public expects us to pursue. Many Democrats agree as well. However, what will be an even greater benefit to the economy is for Congress to set aside the misguided mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves and, instead, put America's fiscal house in order. Let's start a real conversation about fixing our broken Tax Code in a fiscally sustainable way. Passing this R&D tax credit will undermine that effort. I am urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care deeply about fiscal sustainability, about tax reform, and about economic competitiveness to oppose these bills.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which is an attempt to disinvest, in my view, in research, innovation, and education at a time when we ought to be investing in those areas even more greatly. This bill places our competitiveness at a serious risk over the long term. The public must be awfully confused, I understand, by both sides claiming that they are enhancing research. Many interest groups, however, disagree with our Republican friends. I had hoped that this year's COMPETES legislation would have been written so that we could continue the tradition of the strong bipartisan support that it received in 2007 and 2010. Overwhelmingly, Republicans voted for these bills initially and the reauthorization. Unfortunately, the severe cuts and partisan policy changes it makes preclude that from happening. The Republicans who wrote this legislation have decided that they know better than America's scientists and innovators. They arbitrarily pick and choose research programs they like at the expense of those they ideologically oppose-- in other words, not peer review but political review. And they cut key areas of research far below the levels appropriated for fiscal year 2015, including the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and R&D for renewable energy technologies. How ironic that we have an R&D bill on the floor and they are cutting R&D technology here. Furthermore, this bill would slash our investments in the cutting edge ARPA-E program by 50 percent, which funds high-risk and high- reward research in energy technologies that might not otherwise be pursued. Now, of course, if global warming is not an issue, who cares. This bill, though called the America COMPETES Act, really ought to be titled the Everyone Else Competes Act because it will cause us to fall farther and farther behind our overseas competitors, who are already far outpacing us in how much they invest in science and technology research. Alongside this bill today, the House also is considering a bill that tries to do something many of us agree ought to be done but it does it in a fiscally irresponsible way. I am opposing and urge my colleagues to oppose making the R&D tax credit permanent because we ought to pay for it, Mr. Chairman--not make our children and grandchildren pay for it. Over and over and over again, the Republicans claim that the tax cuts that they are passing will pay for themselves. I came here in 1981. That was the claim. Under President Reagan, we increased the debt 189 percent.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. DeFazio for yielding and for the work that he does on this committee. Let me also say to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Shuster, how pleased I am with the kind of work that he does on the committee. Very frankly, Mr. Shuster is committed to getting things done and to working in a bipartisan fashion. That is good for this House, and it is good for his State, and it is good for the country. I thank him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 60-day extension because it is essential that we do this. The consequences of not doing it would be very, very negative. I rise to lament the fact that we have gone 10 months in our having known full well that this date was upon us and that theoretically, we thought, that funding as well as authorization would end on the 31st of this month. We have now found that funding will not end. This bill is necessary to authorize, not to fund, because funding is available for the next 60 days from the 31st. I also rise to urge this House, under Mr. Shuster's and Mr. DeFazio's leadership, to do the work we were sent here to do--to invest in America, to invest in the growth of our economy, to invest in the creation of jobs--in fact, what the board of directors of the greatest country on the face of the Earth ought to have done many years and, certainly, months ago. I am absolutely convinced that this House has the capacity, the intellect, and the ability within 60 days to come to this floor with a bill that will invest in our infrastructure and provide sufficient funds to make America competitive and to pay for it, not to pass the expense along to future generations--my children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren. They are going to have to buy for themselves the infrastructure of their generations, and they ought not to have to pay the bills of our generation.

Mr. HOYER. It is a moral responsibility that this generation pays for the investments that it needs to make in the infrastructure that will be used today and tomorrow. Mr. Shuster, I know, wants to do that. Mr. Shuster and Mr. DeFazio have the courage to do that. The issue is going to be whether this body, on both sides of the aisle, comes forward with a responsible, paid-for infrastructure bill, particularly for highways and roads and bridges, but for other investments as well. I want to tell Mr. Shuster and Mr. DeFazio that I will work closely with them and that I will urge the Members on my side of the aisle to work closely with the Members on Mr. Shuster's side of the aisle to effect this end. But let us not pretend on July 30 that we can extend until December 31 or until a year from then. Today, let us commit ourselves to using the next 70 days, approximately, to come up with a paid-for, 6-year reauthorization that will make America stronger, grow our economy, and be a pride of the American people, whom we serve.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this. This is a mindless but easy cut. Tough words. By the way, this is sequester, which is a Republican proposal. It started in about 2011 but, really, before that with all of these across-the-board cuts because you don't have to make any choices, and you don't have to make priorities. You just say, Oh, let's save money. Frankly, so many of the people in this country want this Congress to have vigorous oversight of the executive department, which has expanded very substantially while the legislature has continued to undermine its ability to function as an effective oversight agency of the American people. The legislative branch is underfunded. We do not have the capacity to do the effective oversight as we ought to be doing. The Department of Veterans Affairs is a perfect example of that where we were not vigorous enough in oversight to ensure that money was being applied properly. If you want to cut and if you want to say something--this is not good; that is not good; we are wasting money there--then specify it. Debate that issue up or down. That is why sequester is so abysmally wrong and why the chairman of the committee called it unrealistic and ill-conceived. This is not Obama's proposal of a sequester. I am not talking about this amendment, but to say, as you repeatedly say on your side of the aisle, that this is Obama's proposal is baloney. In fact, the only reason Jack Lew suggested that to Reid as an option was because you--and I refer to the Republican friends on the other side of the aisle--were threatening not to honor the Nation's debt.

Mr. HOYER. That is the only reason we passed sequester, and nobody intended sequester to go into effect. It was always a backup. Because we have failed to come to an agreement on a fiscally responsible, sustainable path, we have repaired to this ill-conceived, unrealistic concept of sequester. This 1 percent across the board is exactly that. It puts intellect on hold and judgment on hold. That is not why the American people sent us here. Reject this amendment. Respect this institution, and respect our responsibility to the American people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Andrew Straughan from Maryland's Fifth District who will be retiring in June after more than thirty-three years of outstanding service to this House in a number of administrative and support roles. I am proud to represent him in Congress. Andrew began his career with the House in 1982 as a laborer, delivering furniture to Members' offices and Committee rooms for the Office of the Clerk. By the following year, he was appointed as an inventory control clerk, conducting inventory of office furnishings, assisting in storeroom management, and helping to create a report for the General Services Administration. When the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer was created, Mr. Straughan was named Assistant Supervisor of the Asset Management Division, requiring him to act as a liaison between the Department of Office Furnishings and the House Information Systems. His abilities caught the attention of management, and in 1994 he was named Manager of Logistics and Central Receiving and Warehousing, where he oversaw the Office Supply Warehouse. From 2008 to 2010, Andrew was detailed as the manager of the Logistics Department, where he developed policies and oversaw a staff of more than forty employees. He then returned to his role as Manager of Central Receiving and Warehousing, the position he currently holds. Among his proudest accomplishments are being a member of the Source Selection Team for FAIMS, a governmental computer program, and choosing the vendors for purchasing. He was named the Contracting Office Representative for both the Warehousing Contract and the Temporary Labor Contract for temporary staff hired during Congressional transitions. Andrew's father, Walter Straughan, also spent his career with the House as an electrician, and his brother, Danny Straughan, currently works for the Senate's Electrical Department. I congratulate Andrew, and I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him for his distinguished service to the House and to our country. I wish him and his family all the best as Andrew begins a new chapter in his life.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on May 16, 2015, students, faculty, and staff will gather in historic St. Mary's City, Maryland, to celebrate the St. Mary's College of Maryland Class of 2015 Commencement. They--along with many others across Maryland and our country--will also be marking the 175th anniversary of the College's founding. Since its humble beginnings in 1840 as a female seminary, St. Mary's College of Maryland has been a center of learning and educational empowerment. Set along the St. Mary's River, where Leonard Calvert and the first English settlers disembarked from the Ark and Dove in 1634 to found the colony of Maryland, it expanded in the early twentieth century to become the State's first junior college and became co- educational. In the 1960's, the school transitioned into a four-year college and granted its first undergraduate degrees in 1971. Recognizing its tradition of excellence in liberal arts education, its high standards, and its unique history, the Maryland General Assembly formalized St. Mary's College of Maryland as the state's only public honors college in 1992. Today, it continues to graduate some of Maryland's best and brightest students from thirty-one academic programs and ranks among the best public liberal arts colleges in the nation. I am proud to represent the students, faculty, and staff of St. Mary's College of Maryland in Congress as well as to have served as a member of its Board of Trustees since 1995. Alumni of the College run businesses, contribute to the arts and athletics, conduct research in marine biology and the environment, report the news through national outlets, and serve in government--including in my Congressional office. They are continuing their alma mater's tradition of preparing graduates to make a difference wherever they live and work throughout Maryland and across our country. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the entire St. Mary's College of Maryland community, led by its dynamic new President, Tuajuanda Jordan, on reaching its 175th year of serving as a living memorial to those first Maryland colonists' commitment to religious freedom, tolerance, and opportunity.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, let me say that I agree with my friend who is, I think, one of our very responsible and able leaders in this Congress, Mr. Ellison. I appreciate his comments. I presume that everybody on this floor, whatever their perspective is, thinks that the objective that the United States seeks and the objective that our P5 partners seek and the objective that the United Nations seeks--and that is a non-nuclear-armed Iran--is best achieved through agreement. I think all of us would agree on that. The question is, however, for us to make it very clear the objective of that agreement and how it is achieved and how we are assured that that objective is, in fact, achieved. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Senator Cardin, my dear friend, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his hard work to reach this compromise with Chairman Corker. I want to congratulate Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel for bringing it to the floor for quick consideration. This compromise bill allows Congress to look carefully at the final agreement. For something of such consequence, that is essential. Not only is it desirable, it is essential that we do so. It will help ensure that our common goal is achieved, a non-nuclear-armed Iran. I will say to my friend from Minnesota, my presumption is the Iranians want to get to this. They say they are not looking for nuclear arms; they want to have relief of the sanctions. It seems to me this is in their best interest, so they ought to be trying to accommodate this. I think, in fact, this can help, not hurt, our negotiating position. I believe this bill reflects the consensus among Members of both the House and Senate that Congress, which authored the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table--I would say, again, to my friend from Minnesota, the reason the sanctions were effective in bringing the Iranians to the table is because our European allies joined in them. I think he is absolutely right. Unilaterally, we couldn't have done that because we don't do that much business with Iran; the Europeans do. He is absolutely right that it was in partnership that we brought the Iranians to the table. I want to also thank, Mr. Speaker, our negotiating team for their tireless efforts to reach a framework agreement. A letter was recently signed by 150. I didn't sign the letter, but I absolutely agreed with the substance of the letter, which said the best way to get there is through agreement, and we ought to support our negotiators who are pursuing that end. As I have said before, any final agreement must prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and include the most intrusive inspections and access regime we have ever seen in order to verify Iran's compliance. There is no reason for us to trust Iran.