Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. It must address potentially military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program and bring about Iran's full cooperation with the U.N. Security Council resolutions. The United States must never permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in defense of its security, which is very tied to our own security. That means ensuring Israel maintains its Qualitative Military Edge, including through robust support for antimissile systems and antitunneling defense programs. It also means supporting our gulf partners from Iran's destabilizing activities. Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is directly in America's national security interest. A nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to us all. This bill will ensure that Congress can review any final nuclear agreement with Iran to make certain that it meets the goals we and the President share and which he has articulated emphatically and repeatedly. I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both Mr. Smith, the ranking member, and Mr. Thornberry, the chairman of this committee, for working very hard on this bill. Both of them are responsible leaders in this House and work well together to make sure that our national security is well served. I regret, therefore, that I will be opposing this bill for reasons that I will discuss. Both have been fighting tirelessly for the defense authorization bill that gives our troops the tools they need to achieve their mission's objectives, enhance our national security, and bolster key U.S. partners. These are, of course, positive aspects of this bill. I particularly commend my friend Gwen Graham for authoring an amendment that will help develop a joint U.S.-Israeli anti-tunneling system, which is included in this bill. Representative Marc Veasey had an amendment adopted in committee that asked the Pentagon to explore the effects of the DACA program on military recruitment. Congressman Gallego worked hard to get language included in the bill expressing the sense of Congress that DREAMers, undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children, ought to be able to serve the country they love in our military and be rewarded for that service with a chance to stay here legally. I think that is common sense. Some across the aisle have made it their mission to remove that language from the bill. I urge my colleagues to defeat that amendment, given how important these issues are and that the language in the bill does not force the Defense Department to take any action it does not deem to be in the best interests of the national security. The amendment striking this provision, as I said, ought to be defeated. The bill contains provisions that continue to prevent President Obama, however, from finally closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Not only does that facility cost taxpayers $2.4 million per detainee. I know my budget hawks think, well, $2.4 million to keep one person in jail for a year, that makes sense. I disagree with you on that if you think that. But not only does it cost way too much, it is a blot against our country in the eyes of the world and in the hearts of so many of our own citizens here at home. Furthermore, in his budget request, the President laid out a path to lift the sequester level, which is undermining our national security. Hear me. The sequester that this bill honors by exception is undermining the national security of America. This bill, however, perpetuates the sequester for everything except that which some think is important. I share their view that national security is critically important. For 34 years in the authorization bills and on the appropriation bills, I have been a strong supporter of a robust national security, whether it was President Reagan or President Bush or President Clinton or President Bush or, yes, President Obama. I do not yield to anybody on this floor in my support of national security over those three-and-a-half decades, but our national security is being put at risk because we are honoring sequester in this bill. Not only are we honoring sequester in this bill, we are, in fact--for the investments in education, in infrastructure, in the environment-- undermining our country's well-being. For that reason alone, I will vote against this bill until we fix the sequester and take care of America's national security.

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 public, nonsectarian boarding school for girls at the elementary through secondary levels, 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 a public honors college in 1992. Today, it continues to graduate some of Maryland's best and brightest students from thirty-one academic programs. 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. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. Written by House and Senate Republicans alone, it reaffirms their commitment to a severe and unworkable policy agenda that would harm the economy and that stands little chance of being implemented. This budget conference report draws heavily on the House Republicans' budget framework by eliminating the Medicare guarantee, turning Medicaid into a capped block grant, limiting Pell grants for college students, and cutting nutrition assistance while hiding $1 trillion in additional cuts behind a magic asterisk to be filled in at some time in the future. These proposals, if implemented, would be disastrous for our country, and I suspect even most Republicans wouldn't vote to make them law, and I predict they will not vote to make them law. Still, many of its proposals must be taken very seriously. The Republican budget conference report includes reconciliation instructions to fast-track yet another vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, jeopardizing affordable coverage for millions of Americans with no alternative in sight. It continues the Republican policy of sequester for nondefense priorities this year--a disinvestment suggestion, an undermining of America's economy and its quality of life--and further limits our ability to invest in priorities like education, research, and infrastructure by $496 billion below sequester levels over the ensuing decade. This is the same sequester policy that the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee called ``unrealistic and ill- conceived.'' Let me repeat that. He is the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Hal Rogers of Kentucky, and he said that the policies being pursued in this budget are ``unrealistic and ill- conceived.'' He is right. Shamelessly, they propose to do all of this while exempting defense spending from the sequester caps. Defense spending needs to be raised. It ought to be raised honestly and not pretend that some slush fund will pay for, not contingencies, which it is intended to do, but for regular defense investments, which we need to do. This budget conference report is, essentially, a work of fiction, promulgated as a message to the Republican base. I urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. HOYER. Instead, let us work together in a bipartisan way to replace the unrealistic and ill-conceived--not my words but Hal Rogers' words--and, I would add, completely unworkable sequester caps with an alternative that enables Congress to invest in America's future growth and prosperity. That is what our constituents want. That is what we owe them--honesty and responsibility. I hope this resolution is defeated.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, when the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 to invalidate the preclearance formula in the original Voting Rights Act, it issued a challenge to Congress to pass an updated one. That is a challenge Congress must accept. Until Congress acts, millions will continue to face barriers at the ballot box. On April 18, The New York Times editorial board highlighted the disturbing and flawed argument that preclearance is no longer necessary. Obviously, the Congress of the United States found otherwise. The editorial stated: ``This process . . . stopped hundreds of discriminatory new laws from taking effect, and deterred lawmakers from introducing countless more.'' The process to which they were referring was the preclearance process that the Supreme Court threw out. The editors cited a new study that analyzed more than 4,000 rights cases. They write again: ``The study provides the most wide-ranging empirical evidence yet that Congress was amply justified in finding that voting discrimination remains concentrated in the covered States and regions.'' When we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006, Mr. Speaker, we did so with an overwhelming vote of 390-33 in the House. In the Senate, Mr. Speaker, it was 98-0. There was no confusion, there was no doubt in the minds of the Congress of the United States, and that bill was signed by President George Bush. It was an overwhelmingly bipartisan conclusion that preclearance was still necessary some 45 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act. This has traditionally been an issue that brings Democrats and Republicans together, and I am proud to have cosponsored a bipartisan compromise bill sponsored by Republican former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Jim Sensenbrenner, who was the sponsor and chairman of the committee when the reauthorization was effected in 2006. The bill that we have introduced, called the Voting Rights Amendments Act, with Republican former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member John Conyers, as well as John Lewis--great hero of the civil rights movement--that would answer the Supreme Court with an updated preclearance formula, as they suggested. In fact, in the past 2 years since the Court's ruling, we have seen a resurgence of efforts to limit when and where minorities can vote. The editorial goes on to say, Mr. Speaker: ``Voting discrimination no longer takes the form of literacy tests and poll taxes. Instead, it is embodied in voter-ID laws, the closing of polling places in minority neighborhoods, the elimination of early-voting days and hours, and much more.'' Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will take up a bill to restore the Voting Rights Act without delay and crack down on these discriminatory practices that only serve to weaken our democracy by excluding millions of voices that deserve to be heard. 2015 is the 50-year anniversary of the passing and signing of the Voting Rights Act. That act was achieved only after some died, many bled, and a large number participated in the march from Selma to Montgomery. That galvanized American public opinion and led the Congress to pass one of the most significant civil rights and democratic rights bills of its history. Congress has the responsibility to act and act now. As I close, Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Members of the Congress that I discussed this with the majority leader. The majority leader indicated that we would have discussions about bringing Voting Rights Act to the floor, as did I and Mr. Cantor, his predecessor as majority leader. I look forward to those discussions to facilitate and to speed the bringing to the floor of the bipartisan restoration of the protections in the Voting Rights Act amendments. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record the editorial reference. [From the New York Times, Apr. 18, 2015] Voting Rights, by the Numbers When the Supreme Court struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, its main argument was that the law was outdated. Discrimination against minority voters may have been pervasive in the 1960s when the law was passed, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote, but ``nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically.'' In this simplistic account, the law was still punishing states and local governments for sins they supposedly stopped committing years ago. The chief justice's destructive cure for this was to throw out the formula Congress devised in 1965 that required all or parts of 16 states with long histories of overt racial discrimination in voting, most in the South, to get approval from the federal government for any proposed change to their voting laws. This process, known as preclearance, stopped hundreds of discriminatory new laws from taking effect, and deterred lawmakers from introducing countless more. But Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a 5-4 majority, invalidated the formula because ``today's statistics tell an entirely different story.'' Well, do they? A comprehensive new study by a historian of the Voting Rights Act provides a fresh trove of empirical evidence to refute that assertion. The study by J. Morgan Kousser, a professor of history and social science at the California Institute of Technology, examines more than 4,100 voting-rights cases, Justice Department inquiries, settlements and changes to laws in response to the threat of lawsuits around the country where the final result favored minority voters. It found that from 1957 until 2013, more than 90 percent of these legal ``events'' occurred in jurisdictions that were required to preclear their voting changes. The study also provides evidence that the number of successful voting-rights suits has gone down in recent years, not because there is less discrimination, but because several Supreme Court decisions have made them harder to win. Mr. Kousser acknowledges that the law's formula, created without the benefit of years of data, was a ``blunt tool'' that focused on voter turnout and clearly discriminatory practices like literacy tests. Still, he says, the statistics show that for almost a half century it ``succeeded in accurately homing in on the counties where the vast majority of violations would take place.'' Members of Congress had seen some of this data in 2006 when, by a near-unanimous vote, they reauthorized the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. In fact, the legislative record contained more than 15,000 pages of evidence documenting the continuation of ever-evolving racially discriminatory voting practices, particularly in the areas covered by the preclearance requirement. But the Roberts opinion showed no interest in actual data. Nor did it seem to matter that the law was already adapting to current conditions: Every one of the more than 200 jurisdictions that asked to be removed from the preclearance list was successful, because each showed it was not discriminating. Instead, the court said the coverage formula had to be struck down because it failed to target precisely all areas with voting rights violations in the country. Mr. Kousser's study does not solve this problem, in part because there is no easy way to compare discrimination in places that are under a federal microscope with those that are not. But the study provides the most wide-ranging empirical evidence yet that Congress was amply justified in finding that voting discrimination remains concentrated in the covered states and regions. In other words, the tactics may have changed, but the story remains largely the same. Voting discrimination no longer takes the form of literacy tests and poll taxes. Instead, it is embodied in voter-ID laws, the closing of polling places in minority neighborhoods, the elimination of early-voting days and hours, and much more. The Supreme Court suggested that Congress could fix the law by updating the coverage formula to more closely reflect where violations are occurring today--and a bipartisan bill introduced in 2014 and reintroduced this year has done just that. So far it has gone nowhere because most Republicans oppose it. Even if it were to pass, there is no guarantee it would survive before a Supreme Court that is highly skeptical of any race-conscious efforts to reduce discrimination. Meanwhile, the Justice Department and private groups are doing what they can to combat the flood of new discriminatory laws with the surviving provisions of the Voting Rights Act. But without preclearance requirements for places with the worst records on racial discrimination, they will always be a few steps behind.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a friend and a great Marylander, Earl Christian Hargrove Jr., who passed away on April 6 at the age of eighty-six. I've known Earl for many years, and I am certain that he will be missed by a great many people throughout the Greater Washington area. Earl was a larger than life presence in Harwood, Maryland. His estate--Holly Springs Farm--attracts thousands of neighbors and residents from throughout the region each Christmas with a captivating display of holiday lights and decorations. A graduate of Bladensburg High School in 1946, Earl served in the U.S. Marine Corps that same year and was honorably discharged in 1948. When the Korean War broke out, however, Earl re-enlisted and served his country in uniform until 1954. Following his military service, he returned to Maryland and to the business he had launched with his father, Earl Hargrove Sr., in the late 1940s creating parade floats and specialty decorations. Known affectionately as ``the President's prop-man,'' Earl provided event staging for every presidential inauguration since Harry Truman's in 1949. In January 2013, his company, Hargrove Inc., did so once again for the second inauguration of President Barack Obama. Earl Jr. became president of the company after his father's sudden death in 1971, and today the business is run by Earl's daughter, Carla Hargrove McGill, and son-in-law, Timothy McGill. Hargrove Inc. continues to employ talented artists and craftspeople who design and plan some of Washington's largest events and conferences, including the National Walk for Epilepsy, the annual AIPAC Policy Conference, and the White House Correspondents Dinner. My thoughts and prayers are with his beloved wife of sixty years, Gloria Love Hargrove, his children Earl ``Chris'' Hargrove III, Kathleen Hargrove Kelly and her husband Clyde, Carla Hargrove McGill and her husband Timothy, Cynthia Diane Hargrove and her husband Michael Busada, and Carey Martin Hargrove and his wife Wendy Miller, and his seven grandchildren. May his memory continue to bring strength and comfort to them and to all of us who were fortunate to know and cherish Earl Hargrove Jr.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will place a statement into the Congressional Record paying tribute to the memory of my dear friend, Earl Hargrove, who passed earlier this month. Earl was a very respected figure in Maryland's Fifth District; in Maryland; and, indeed, nationally. He built a successful specialty decorations and event planning business and served our Nation in the Marine Corps. Everyone has seen Earl Hargrove's work in America because he did many of the inaugural floats for our Presidents; so when you watched television, you were watching the work of Earl Hargrove, his family, and coworkers. I am honored to celebrate his life and legacy today, and I hope my colleagues will join me in offering condolences to Earl's wife of six decades, Gloria Love Hargrove, and to his children and grandchildren.

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.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. He indicates that the appropriations process has started. First I want to say, as a Member who served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, I always thought we ought to start the appropriations process early, i.e., in May, but starting it, I think, is good news. We have had trouble on both sides getting all 12 appropriations bills--it used to be 13--12 appropriations bills done. So I congratulate the committee for initiating its work in a timely fashion. Hopefully, Mr. Leader, that will lead to, hopefully, passing 12 bills in the regular order, which, as I pointed out last week with respect to some other legislation, will require the kind of bipartisanship that we saw displayed ultimately on the DHS bill, but certainly on the SGR bill, and then this week we had two bills pass with a bipartisan--both sides--majority voting for it. Hopefully, we will be able to do that on the appropriations bill. I ask my friend on the MILCON, Military Construction bill, VA funding bill and on the Energy and Water bill, does the gentleman expect to follow what the gentleman and his party have indicated would be the process for appropriation bills under an open rule? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I congratulate the gentleman and his party on bringing these bills to the floor early. He also says we are going to be considering a conference report. I don't obviously know what that conference report is. The budget itself, though--which of course sets the parameters for the appropriations bills in terms of caps on spending--was, as the gentleman knows, not a bipartisan bill. There were party differences on that bill. I would hope that in the conference report we can reach an agreement. My own view is, Mr. Majority Leader, that if we stay at sequester levels we will not be able to pass bills and the President will not sign them. The reason being that our side, and I think the President, perceives, and many in your party perceive at least as it relates to some aspects of the sequester, that the sequester numbers are not workable. As you know, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has called the sequester numbers, which are reflected in the budget that passed the House, ill-conceived, unworkable, and unrealistic. In that context it will be difficult for us to get, no matter how early we start, these bills completed. I would hope that we could come together at some point in time as was done in Ryan-Murray. I know there are Members on your side, including I think the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who believe that if we don't come together on an agreed figure that will allow the Appropriations Committee to meet its responsibilities, then we will have great difficulty getting appropriations bills done. I don't know whether the gentleman has any thoughts on that, but if he does, I would be glad to yield to him on that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I don't know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to read an article--it may have been an op-ed, I have got the clip--but I am not sure where it appeared in the paper. But the former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, wrote an article that essentially stood for the proposition that Republicans and Democrats about a decade or a little over a decade ago were able to come together and to take advantage of the research opportunities that Speaker Gingrich, former Speaker Gingrich, said were apparent and possible in today's day. I share that view. Many people, including your predecessor, Mr. Cantor, were concerned and have recently said that we need to increase substantially the investments and the resources that we have at NIH. Unfortunately, as the gentleman may know, in the allocations to subcommittees that were adopted yesterday in the Appropriations Committee, as I understand it, there was $3 billion cut from the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, which covers NIH, which will make it very difficult to do what Speaker Gingrich, former Speaker Gingrich, suggested we do in The New York Times today. The gentleman, if he hasn't read the article, doesn't need to comment on it, but I want to call to his attention that we are very concerned, but people on your side and your former Speaker are very concerned that we are not investing sufficient sums to take advantage of the opportunities, and it is costing us. He particularly mentioned Alzheimer's and the extraordinary costs related to Alzheimer's disease and that, if we can either delay the onset of Alzheimer's or prevent Alzheimer's, that we will, in effect, save tens of billions of dollars. I bring that up simply in the context of we really do need to get the resources into the Appropriations Committee that Mr. Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a senior Republican in this House, says are necessary to meet our responsibility. I would hope that the majority leader would be looking at that and would, hopefully, work towards that end. Let me ask you two more questions, Mr. Leader. The highway bill, as the gentleman knows, expires in terms of its authorization for funding on the 31st of May. It is not on the schedule, obviously, this month, but can the gentleman tell me--we are very concerned, and, as you know, every Governor, every county executive, every mayor--you have talked to them; I have talked to them--are very concerned about the resources that they are going to have available to do bridges and highways maintenance, infrastructure investment. Can the gentleman tell me when we might, in the 2 weeks that we will have in May, be able to consider the highway bill? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the fact that we can work on a bipartisan manner. I look forward to doing that. I know that Mr. DeFazio looks forward to doing that; I know Mr. Shuster looks forward to doing it-- both very, very positive Members of this body. I will tell the gentleman, I am somewhat concerned, however, about rumors that I have heard that we are looking at, perhaps, a short-term patch. The problem, as the gentleman so well knows, with a short-term patch is it does not allow for the kind of planning that is necessary in terms of significant infrastructure projects, which require some significant lead time. Does the gentleman know whether or not we might be considering at least a 5-year or at least a longer term, maybe even as long as a 7- year authorization? Or are you contemplating that we, in May, would do another short-term patch? As you know, we Democrats opposed May 31. We wanted a longer extension. The House and the Senate agreed on a short-term patch--or short-term May 31 deadline. Does the gentleman have any expectations that we have the possibility of doing a 5-year or longer, so that the States and communities can plan on a long-term basis, as opposed to a very short-term basis? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I thank the gentleman for that comment. I think it is a very positive comment. I will tell the gentleman, next week, perhaps you and I can talk about this towards that end because I think, if we talk about creation of jobs, we talk about giving confidence and stability to the economy, I think that is one way we could do it, and, hopefully, we can work together. The last issue I would bring up, Mr. Leader, as you know, I worked with your predecessor, Mr. Cantor, very successfully on the reauthorization of Export-Import Bank. That issue is coming up, and it will be expiring at the end of June, on June 30. We need to reauthorize that. I am someone who believes that that is critical in terms of our exports. I know there is some disagreement on that issue, maybe between the two of us and between our caucuses; but, as you know, there are 60 Members in your caucus who have written a letter to the Speaker indicating their support and urging that that be brought to the floor. Very frankly, with 185-plus Members, I think we will be unanimous on it, as we were last time. That makes somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 to 250 votes on this floor for the reauthorization of Export-Import Bank. Does the gentleman see any prospect of that bill coming to the floor any time in the near future? As I say, as you know, the authorization expires on June 30. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I will just say this: we know that the chairman of the authorizing committee is opposed to Export-Import Bank. He was opposed to TRIA as well. He is opposed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As the gentleman knows, those, nevertheless, enjoy broad-based support in this House to a greater or lesser degree. TRIA, we passed, notwithstanding the chairman's opposition to TRIA, on a bipartisan basis with overwhelming big numbers. I think that was the right thing to do. I would urge the majority leader to urge the chairman, who I think does not enjoy the support of the majority of this House, on his position. I know you may share that position, but I really do believe the House has a position that we ought to pass the Export-Import Bank, and we need to do it sooner rather than later, to make sure that we continue the confidence that purchasers of U.S. goods, whether they be airplanes or widgets, will continue to keep doing so with the thought that we have in place what almost every country in the world has in place, a facilitating of that export ability of our country. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I have no disrespect for Mr. Hensarling. I think he is a very able Member of this body, and I have great respect for him. I disagree with him both on the Export-Import Bank, and I think I correctly characterize his view on whether we ought to do TRIA, but I do respect the fact, yes, he did bring it to the floor, and when he brought it to the floor, it passed overwhelmingly. I won't pursue that further, but I don't expect Mr. Hensarling-- because I think he honestly believes that we ought not to have an Export-Import Bank involvement, but having said that, I think that is not the position of the majority of this House. When we last voted on it, it wasn't the position of the majority of your party or of mine. Now, that may have changed; I agree with that, but I think I am pretty confident in saying the majority of this House believes, in order to make sure that we stay competitive with worldwide competitors, that the Export-Import Bank is a critical component of that competitive ability. I simply hope that we will be considering it. If it fails, it fails, but I think the American public, on this and so many other issues, deserves a vote on this floor. As the Speaker, and I have repeated this time and again, said at the beginning in the last election that his objective was to let the House work its will on this matter, as well as some others that I will discuss in the future, I would hope we could do that. Unless the gentleman wants any more time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank Congresswoman Coleman for yielding time, and I thank her for organizing this Special Order and for her leadership on this issue. She is a new Member, but not a new person to public service, not a new person to leadership, not a new person to fighting for the rights of every American, and I thank her very much for her leadership, her commitment, and her courage. I also want to thank, Mr. Speaker, the LGBT Equality Caucus for its powerful advocacy on this issue. The Supreme Court next week is hearing more than just an argument about same sex marriage. It is considering a question fundamental to what it means to be an American. Our Nation, as we say so proudly, was founded on the premise that all people are created equal--not the same, but equal--irrespective of the differences. Our Declaration of Independence, as all of us quote so often, says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men''--of course, if Jefferson were writing today, it would be either all people or all humankind--``are created equal, that they are endowed by''--not a Congress, not by a Constitution, not by a will of the majority--``their Creator''--by God--``with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' That, of course, has not always been America's performance, notwithstanding it has been its promise. Next week, the highest Court in our land will be asked to consider whether these words apply to same-sex couples who love one another. Many courts have already said that it does. Marriage equality provides same-sex households vital legal protections and economic security that we would ask for ourselves. Marriage equality would mean that approximately 250,000 children in America who are being raised in same-sex households will see their parents receive equal treatment. One of those families is led by--or perhaps his partner would say he leads it--Sean Patrick Maloney, with three beautiful, loving and loved children. I have seen them all together. They are a happy, healthy family. Study after study has shown that children of same-sex households are doing as well as their peers from opposite sex households academically, psychologically, and socially. Marriage equality also means spousal benefits for those who share their lives with and care for their same-sex partners. Marriage equality will mean that same-sex couples, Mr. Speaker, can make medical and end-of-life decisions for their loved one. These are tangible benefits. These, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, are the pursuit of happiness. They are tangible benefits and ought to be treated equally under the law in every State of our Union-- not in 28, not in 48, but in all 50 and the District of Columbia. Thanks to the extraordinary courage of millions who have come out to their friends and families, which took a lot of courage, and spoken with their neighbors and coworkers, a majority of Americans now agree that every loving couple ought to be treated equally and have their right to marry recognized. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have three daughters. I have three grandchildren. One of my grandchildren is an adult. All four of those women would say to me: Dad, why is it any of our business who somebody else loves, who somebody else wants to commit to? Why is that our business? Why does it make a difference to us? What makes a difference to us is how they treat us, whether they obey the law, whether, as Dr. Martin Luther King would say, the content of their character is such that we ought to respect them, not because of the difference of the color of their skin, their gender, their nationality, their religion, or their choice of whom they want to love. Born equal, endowed by God with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is there a happier time in one's life than when one pledges themselves to another? We all gather, we all celebrate, we all wish them well. LGBT Americans now have the right to marry and have their families treated equally in 37 States and the District of Columbia. In the remaining States, however, LGBT residents are watching the Supreme Court with great anticipation. Hopefully, the Court will do as Earl Warren's Court did in Brown v. Board of Education, saying that separate is not equal. Treating people here differently than people here--who love one another--is not equal. Tens of millions of Americans stand with our friends in the LGBT community in support of marriage equality and believe, as I do, in a ruling in support of the lower courts that have again and again sided with same-sex couples and have said that the law requires, the Constitution requires, that we do in fact live out our promise of treatment on an equal basis. We need to bring those words of the Declaration of Independence closer to their full realization, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, the Court will do that. Mr. Speaker, I am from the State of Maryland. I was proud to join in sending an amicus brief to the Court in March, arguing that the State bans are unconstitutional. In my State of Maryland, our legislature carried out what Mrs. Coleman and I have said: equality means equality. We passed marriage equality. Mr. Speaker, some folks didn't agree with that and petitioned it to a referendum. I am very proud of the citizens of Maryland. They were the first State to say in a referendum at the polls, We believe equality means equality, and passed this resolution and confirmed that law. I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey, a leader in that State, a leader in our Nation, for leading this Special Order hour. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will be able to return to this floor over the summer to praise a ruling by the Court that I anticipate will be historic and accurate and one that our Nation can be proud of for generations, indeed, centuries to come. Our Nation made a promise in our Declaration of Independence. Our Nation has not always met that promise. Indeed, we have struggled to realize the reality of that promise. In my lifetime, Martin Luther King, Jr., brought that compellingly to America's attention. In his lifetime, the President whom the majority leader in this House just last week heralded as one of the great figures, great giants in American history, Abraham Lincoln, called the attention of his generation to the gulf between the promise and the practice in America. It resulted in a war in which we lost more lives in America than any other war in which we have been involved: the Civil War. It is sad that we had to fight. It is sad that we lost lives. But we have redeemed, to some degree, the promise of treating people based upon the content of their character.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for using some of the time so I could get up to the floor. I appreciate that very much. I also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which I have sponsored for many Congresses, to permit the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to hold its annual race on the grounds of the United States Capitol. I am sure that both the chairman and the ranking member, Ms. Edwards, have already said that. This year will be the 74th soapbox derby, held on June 20. On that day, young people from around Washington, D.C., will gather at the Capitol for an event that is both fun, educational, and a teacher of responsibility and making things in America. The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby began in 1938 with Norman Rocca outmaneuvering 223 other racers to win the inaugural race. Each year since, dozens of boys and girls, ranging in age from 8 to 17, have competed in three divisions: stock, super stock, and masters. The winner in each will qualify to compete with racers from across the country in the All-American Soap Box Derby in Akron, Ohio. Called ``the greatest amateur racing event in the world,'' America's soapbox derbies bring parents, children, and friends and neighbors together. They teach hard work, leadership, sportsmanship, and pride of achievement. These values not only make great soapbox racers, but great American innovators and leaders in business, government, science, and the arts. Participants are often sponsored by community groups, police departments, fire departments, service organizations, and others who see future great promise in these children and teenagers. Mr. Speaker, I have been sponsoring this resolution for 24 years because I am so proud of America's soapbox derby tradition and proud of those from Maryland's Fifth District who participate. My district has celebrated a number of derby champions, including the winners from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, and 2014. My district is sort of like John Wooden's UCLA or the Duke Blue Devils, maybe, or the Maryland Terrapins. The young Marylanders who won the Greater Washington race in 2007 and 2008 went on to win the national championship. I want to thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this resolution: Representatives Chris Van Hollen; Gerry Connolly; Don Beyer; John Delaney; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Donna Edwards, who has brought this to the floor with the chair; and Barbara Comstock. I hope all Members of this House will join in supporting our resolution, and they will come to watch the soapbox derby in action on June 20. Again, I thank my colleague from Maryland (Ms. Edwards), for making sure that I got here so that I could, once again, say how proud I am of those who participate in the soapbox derby. Good luck to all of them.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Before I yield to my friend, the majority leader, for the purpose of informing us of the schedule, I would like to note the presence of the longest-serving Member of this House in history, one of the best legislators in the history of this House, and one of the most decent human beings I know. We are so proud to have him on the floor with us once again. His successor, whom he knows very well, Debbie Dingell, is here with him as well. John Dingell, Mr. Chairman, we welcome you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, back to the House of Representatives. We are so glad to see you. Mr. Chairman, the beautiful Deborah is doing a wonderful job representing your district. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, for the purpose of informing us of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information. Initially, I would like to just bring up a question with reference to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act. The gentleman talked about bipartisan legislation. This, as the gentleman may know, was a very bipartisan bill, with one of your Members and one of my Members, Mr. Heck, on my side, joining together in committee overwhelmingly in favor of setting up an advisory board so that there would be input from small business. Unfortunately, as the gentleman knows, there has subsequently been added a funding source which undermines, from our perspective, at the same time that we are trying to add an advisory board, the operations of the Consumer Financial Protection advisory board. Mr. Leader, it is somewhat ironic that we just passed $300 billion in reduced revenues without paying for them and are now worried about $9 million. The Bible has something to say about the mote in one's eye being the object of attention. But it seems somewhat ironic, and I would hope that we could return this bill, which is a very admirable bill, to a bipartisan condition and not undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at the same time that we are trying to give it some additional advice and counsel. I would be glad to yield to my friend with, hopefully, perhaps a suggestion where we might return this bill to its bipartisan and overwhelmingly supported-on-both-sides-of-the-aisle condition.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information. I think the gentleman knows that I am one of the biggest proponents of paying for things, which is why I voted against your two tax bills on the floor today. They are not paid for, and $300 billion of revenue will be reduced. That will exacerbate the deficit. That is why we have PAYGO. So I am supportive of PAYGO, but I would like to see if we can reach a bipartisan agreement on a pay-for which does not undermine the operations of the consumer financial protection board. I know your side, with all due respect, Mr. Leader, does not like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and would like to repeal it and reduce its funding greatly. We disagree with that. We have a great disagreement on that proposition. So all I am saying is we have a bill on which there is bipartisan support. I see my friend, Mr. Lucas, on the floor on the ag bill. We had that on his bill, and he gave one of the most eloquent statements on the floor that I have heard about, Look, we have a bipartisan agreement; don't look bipartisanship in the eye and say ``no.'' So we are turning a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill not because we are against paying for it--we are for paying for it. But we are against undermining the ability of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers, as it was designed to, and we need to adequately fund it without adding responsibilities and reducing its resources to protect the public. If the gentleman wants to say anything further, I will yield to him. If not, I will go on to another subject.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I think what I hear is we are not going to reach bipartisan agreement on that, and that is unfortunate. The cybersecurity bill, as the gentleman mentioned, will we consider the two cybersecurity-related bills together or separately? We have heard some information over here about whether they may be joined together or whether we are to consider them discretely, each one of them. I think they are relatively noncontroversial in some respects. But would the gentleman tell us how they might be considered?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. The gentleman also has brought up the issue of--well, I don't think you brought it up, but let me talk about it. As we know, April 15 occurred yesterday. The budget was supposed to be adopted as of yesterday. As the gentleman and I both know, when my party was in charge, as when your party is in charge, we haven't met that April 15 deadline. But I know the gentleman has talked about reconciliation instructions. The Senate bill, of course, does have reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee and to the HELP Committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, but none others. The House apparently has left itself room to have instructions to every committee. Can the gentleman tell us, A, when he expects the budget conference to report back and when we might consider that conference on the floor? Then, secondly, whether or not he believes that there will be reconciliation instructions beyond the Affordable Care Act. We understand that that is contemplated. But beyond the Affordable Care Act, does the gentleman expect reconciliation instructions on other matters? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark an important milestone in the history of my home state of Maryland. On April 15, 2015, the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Bowie State University will celebrate the school's 150th anniversary at its annual Founders Day. In the final months of the Civil War, the Baltimore Normal School began serving emancipated African-Americans by offering training for teachers. In 1910, it outgrew its facilities and moved to a 187-acre lot in Bowie, Maryland, and in 1914 it became the Maryland Normal and Industrial School at Bowie. Over the course of the twentieth century, the institution evolved into a four-year degree-granting college and eventually became a liberal arts college whose mission extended well beyond training educators. Renamed Bowie State College in 1963, it provided access to higher education for African American students, many of whom were barred from other institutions as a result of segregation. In 1988, in recognition of the school's important role in higher education for Marylanders and its expansion into graduate studies, it was elevated to University status and welcomed into the University System of Maryland. Since then, Bowie State University has been one of Maryland's top institutions of higher education and has continued to rank as one of our nation's leading historically black colleges and universities, preparing not only some of the brightest young minds in Maryland but also training a new generation of leaders for our nation's African American community. Mr. Speaker, I have been proud to represent Bowie State University in Congress and to help secure federal grants that help the school expand its cutting-edge programs, including in the high-demand areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or ``STEM'' education. In recent years, Bowie State University has become a national leader in what many are calling ``STEAM'' education, which brings traditional ``STEM'' fields together with art and design in order to prepare students for careers in digital technologies. At the same time, Bowie State University has become a national center for training in cybersecurity, drawing on its proximity to Ft. Meade and defense institutions in the Greater Washington area. It continues to build on a groundbreaking $27 million award from NASA and the National Science Foundation in 1995 that recognized Bowie State University as a national Model Institution for Excellence in STEM education. Last year, I joined President Obama in Prince George's County, Maryland, to highlight a $7 million Youth Career Connect grant that was made possible through an innovative partnership between the County's public schools, Lockheed Martin, and Bowie State University's Maryland Center to grow the pipeline of students pursuing college degrees and STEM-related careers. The University is playing a major role in growing Maryland's high-skill workforce for the twenty-first century, and I am excited for what the future holds. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Bowie State University's proud history as it marks its sesquicentennial. I look forward to continuing to work closely with President Mickey Burnim and the Administration to ensure that Bowie State University can continue to carry out its mission of providing high-quality higher education and research that supports learning and careers in Maryland and across the United States.