Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. So the gentleman contemplates going beyond reconciliation instructions on the Affordable Care Act to other matters? For instance, in the House budget, we replace seniors' Medicare guarantee with a premium support voucher. Would the majority leader expect a reconciliation instruction on replacing seniors' Medicare guarantee with such a premium support voucher?

Mr. HOYER. I know that you don't want to anticipate, but, obviously, our Members are concerned about what they ought to be considering and planning for and making themselves aware of the facts about. Does the gentleman expect a reconciliation instruction on the part of the budget that was passed by the House that turns Medicare into a capped block grant reducing the funding by approximately one-third? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I hope that is the case. And I would hope that we did not have that. We talked about-- I have talked about and you have talked about--just now, bipartisanship. I would hope that we would pass a budget that then the Appropriations Committee and other committees would be able to work on so that we could have a bipartisan product, as opposed to another confrontation that would go way past October 1 of this year, and we would be back in the position of having to have a continuing resolution on which there would be a confrontation and the threat of shutting down government. Obviously, to the extent that we can, as I suggested with respect to the Consumer Financial Protection Board, to the extent that we can have bipartisan agreement--the gentleman that was just with me was Senator McConnell. Noting the passage of the sustainable growth rate bill which dealt with community health centers and dealt with the children's health insurance program, Senator McConnell said: The American people expect us to do work. He used the SGR example as a way that we did work in a constructive, bipartisan fashion, making compromises on both sides of the aisle, with Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi representing the two parties, came together and worked, and my staff and I think your staff participated as well, and we came to an agreement. I would hope that we would be able to do that with respect to the budget and appropriation process. Obviously, the budget was not that way. All Democrats voted against the budget. We don't like the sequester. We think the sequester undermines the national security and undermines the investments that America needs to make in its infrastructure and its education, its health care, its environment, its basic research, and other items that are of critical importance if we are going to grow the economy and create jobs. I would hope that we could on these issues--while I understand the gentleman is saying that we will be noticed of it, but I would hope we could have some discussions about it so that we could come to, frankly, as we did with SGR, an agreement. That agreement, as you know, passed with 392 votes. You worked hard on it; I worked hard on it; the Speaker worked hard on it; Leader Pelosi worked hard on it--392 votes in this House. That was one of the best days we had this year. As a matter of fact, it might have been the best day we had this year. The items that I raised are of, obviously, great concern. Hopefully, we could have discussions about that before being simply informed that those would be in reconciliation instructions. Let me go, if I can now, the gentleman made a very eloquent statement yesterday. That statement was on the 150th anniversary of the assassination of one of the greatest Americans in history; that, of course, was Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln helped cure one of the blackest blots on America's reputation and America's moral commitment by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. However, Mr. Leader, as you know, subsequent to the adoption of the 13th Amendment, which the gentleman also referenced, we had vicious segregation. We had policies put in place that prevented African Americans from registering, much less voting. The gentlemen and I have had the opportunity to walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge together where Alabama State troopers were sent by Governor Wallace to stop people from simply going to register to vote. Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers and our friend John Lewis, one of the great heroes of the American civil rights movement, have cosponsored a bill--Jim Sensenbrenner being the former Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers being the ranking Democrat--have sponsored a bipartisan bill which would return the protections that were undermined by the Supreme Court decision in the Shelby County v. Holder case. I believe it is important--and I think the gentlemen share this view--that we absolutely protect the rights of every American to register and to vote and to ensure that the policies adopted by any State or any county or any municipality are not such that it undermines the ability of citizens to register and to vote. This is bipartisan legislation. I would ask the majority leader respectfully, and one of the great attributes to Abraham Lincoln who talked about a nation divided against itself, talked about a nation who did not give equality to all of its citizens, talked about a nation that needed to respect the inclusion of all people irrespective of their race, I would ask respectfully that the legislation cosponsored by Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers and John Lewis be brought to this floor so that we can, in fact, ensure that every American--every American--has the right to register, to vote, and is protected by their Federal Government from the discrimination and exclusion that we know historically has happened too often. I urge my friend, the majority leader, to bring that bill, that bipartisan bill, to the floor for debate, open to amendment and discussion and a vote. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. What other employee in America is subject to being fired because they don't pay taxes? Does the gentleman want to include either Members of Congress in this bill or all private sector employees?

Mr. HOYER. I would hope the gentleman would make it very, very clear he is not making an analogy between the two instances that he cited for firing, on which I would agree with him, and a Federal employee, for whatever reason, says: Mr. Meadows may not have paid his taxes. Certainly the gentleman is not making an analogy between the two instances he cited and the latter, I hope; because if he is, he is doing exactly what I think this bill does.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the ranking member said this was a bill to solve a nonexistent problem. Everybody ought to pay their taxes--everybody. Everybody ought to pay their taxes. Now, if you are really rich, you can find an accountant who can find you about every loophole there is that we have given. You want to have a bill on the floor closing loopholes. The chairman admits that Federal employees pay their taxes voluntarily and correctly at a higher percentage than the general public. Should every one of them pay? Should it be 100 percent? The chairman is right; it should be 100 percent. The gentleman from North Carolina talks about our Federal employees, and they ought to be treated correctly. We are their board of directors. I will tell you, folks, if any board of directors of any large corporation in America treated its employees the way we treat them, they would all quit, and the company would go bankrupt, because we treat our Federal employees very poorly--very poorly. The general public, of course, thinks they are loafing and they are not working hard and this, that, and the other, and that is wrong. We have the best civil service in the world. This does convey the message that somehow you are not doing what you are supposed to do. I know the gentleman gets up and says this is a very small percentage. When a Member of Congress doesn't pay his taxes and he gets indicted and he has to quit this body, it besmirches all of us. The gentleman from Maryland is absolutely correct. It has not been mentioned, but there is a provision in law that allows the IRS to go in and take the salary of Federal employees. That is what the gentleman is talking about. Unlike the private sector, where you have to go through a lot of rigmarole--properly so, to protect the taxpayer--the Federal employee is subjected to the IRS having special authority going and taking part of their salary. Now, by the way, this mentions Federal employees. I don't know whether the ranking member knows the answer to this, but are Members of Congress included in that definition? The answer? The gentleman is shaking his head, saying no. Yet the Congress as an institution has a lower rate of paying, some 95 percent as opposed to 97 percent, of Federal employees. What is this all about? This is about, frankly, saying government is bad and the people who work for them aren't so hot either. Now, I don't think the gentleman from Utah thinks that is the message. I understand that. The gentleman is my friend. I like him. He is a bright and able fellow. But that is the message we are sending. It's a bad message. I will tell you, I represent 62,000 Federal employees, and I tell all of them and all the unions, if they are not performing their job, if they are watching television 4 hours a day, they ought to be fired. I will support the gentleman in that effort because we ought to demand performance, and that is why we have, in the IRS Code, you can take the salary if they are not paying their taxes. That is not true of any other employee in America. You have got to go through a legal process, et cetera, et cetera, as you should. So I would urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, as we did in the last Congress on suspension, and yes, tell all of our employees, ``You need to pay your taxes,'' and make sure if they don't, IRS gets their fees; and if they are not performing their task and it undermines their performance, then we ought to subject them, just as every other employee, to being removed, but not simply to say, arbitrarily, this employee, these employees, our employees, America's employees, will be treated more harshly than the American people and the American workers around this country are treated. Treat them the same. That is fair. That is what they hope for. We shut down government for 16 days, sent our employees home. The gentleman from North Carolina talked about there are some bad circumstances for some people: they have got to pay a mortgage payment or a rent payment or a car payment or a college tuition. We sent them home and we said: We are not paying you. We came back later and we said: Oh, no, we are going to pay you. But we caused them a great deal of angst. I will tell you this: that is not the way to treat people. We didn't send them home because we didn't have the money to pay for them. We didn't send them home because America was bankrupt. We sent them home because we disagreed with a policy the President was pursuing or we wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, over which they had no control. But we sent them home without pay. Very frankly, those who were critical employees we kept working, but we didn't pay them. What way is that to run any organization, much less the greatest country on the face of the Earth? I urge my colleagues, show respect and fairness to those who work for our country in the civil service of our country. Reject this legislation. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER. I don't think I got the answer to the private sector employees.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as an aside, I was inclined to get up and ask that the gentleman's words be taken down. Of course, when we do that, we do it in a different context. With those words, we ought to all be happy today. Whether we are for or against, the Congress is working today as the American people would have the Congress work. Speaker Boehner, Leader Pelosi, our extraordinary staffs on both sides of the aisle, and Members have come together and dealt with some difficult issues. As the gentleman, Dr. Burgess indicated--and I have worked with him on SCHIP for a very, very long period of time as I recall--we are making progress. We are not where we all want to be, but we are making progress. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and thank the Democratic leader as well as Speaker Boehner, Ranking Members Pallone and Levin, and the chairman of the committee, Mr. Pitts, and others for getting us to where we are today. This bill will permanently replace the broken Medicare sustainable growth rate formula that, frankly, I have been working to get rid of for almost a decade, if not longer, which has created uncertainty and instability in the Medicare program for over a decade. I am pleased that the parties were able to come together and craft a bipartisan bill that will ensure seniors' access to their doctors and incentivize high- quality, high-value care. I am also glad that this bill includes a robust reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, which has been a bipartisan success story. This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, I worked hard on when I was majority leader, and I am glad that we are moving forward today in a bipartisan way that recognizes how important the CHIP program is for children and for families. Another major component of this bipartisan compromise is the $7.2 billion in funding for community health centers. These centers serve some of our most needy citizens. These centers, in my home State of Maryland and throughout our country, provide essential health services for millions of underserved families. That is good for all of us. This, of course, as I said, is not a perfect bill. No compromise is ever perfect from everybody's perspective. There are some parts I and other Democrats would have liked to see improved, just as there are some parts my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would change, but this compromise will provide much-needed relief and certainty to seniors, children, and families. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this effort. It will be a good day for the Congress of the United States, and it will be a good day for America. I thank all of those whose leadership-- Members and staff--who got us to this point for the work that they have done. Mr PITT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, who has a magic minute that I dearly miss. I forgot to articulate, and I should have articulated, I want to congratulate Fred Upton. Fred Upton is my friend. Fred Upton is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Fred Upton is one of those Members in this House who represents this institution so well because he is committed to working in a bipartisan fashion. We find ourselves sometimes not able to do that. But I want to say thank you to Mr. Upton from Michigan for his leadership and his commitment to making sure this institution works as the American people want it to work. I thank my friend, the majority leader, for yielding.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we just passed a bipartisan bill that addressed an issue, as the previous speaker said, that needed to be addressed. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama which ought to give every Member pause regarding the position that Federal voting protections are no longer needed to ensure that all Americans can register and vote. The Court found that Alabama legislators may have drawn congressional districts after the last census in a manner that diluted the voting strength of African American citizens. The Court raised disturbing questions, Mr. Speaker, about how African Americans are represented in Alabama's congressional districts and returned the case to a lower court for further consideration. Mr. Speaker, we are a nation that prides itself on its unflinching willingness to confront its sins of segregation and voter suppression that kept millions of Americans from participating equally for generations. On the same day the Court ruled, we marked the 50th anniversary of the Selma marchers finally reaching Montgomery. Such anniversaries are reminders of how much--or how little progress--we have made to realize the principles and rights embodied in our Constitution. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I urge us to proceed, as we did today, in a bipartisan fashion to restore the Voting Rights Act to its full force and effect to protect all Americans. And I urge my colleagues to work together to bring the bipartisan Voting Rights Amendment Act to the floor and restore the full power of the Voting Rights Act without delay. We acted in a bipartisan fashion today. Let's do it tomorrow on the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake. These budget alternatives are political documents that are unworkable and unserious when it comes to governing. Like previous Republican budgets that rely on sequestration, I have no doubt that the majority will not be able to enact appropriation bills that adhere to whichever version that you will pass. You have not done so in the past, and you will not do so this year. They will continue to be, as the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, said, ``unrealistic and ill- conceived.'' Budget Committee Democrats, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus have all put forward alternatives that are far better than these dueling Republican budget resolutions. Democrats prioritize replacing the sequester, which Mr. Rogers believes should be done, on both the defense and domestic sides, so that we can make investments in America's future that are fiscally sustainable. I urge my colleagues to reject the two Republican budget alternatives and their strategy of selective sequester.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, Mr. Van Hollen, for yielding, and I thank him for the extraordinary job that he has done as ranking member of the Budget Committee. My friend from South Carolina has left the floor. I regret that. He was the Governor of a State. This budget would not have been tenable during his administration or, frankly, the administration of my own Governor, who happens to be a Republican. We have had Democrats in the past. The gentleman ended with a number of cautions about the path of fiscal irresponsibility and what it would lead to. I agree with him on that, but I will tell him it is indeed unfortunate that, once again, we have a budget that does not put us on a path of fiscal sustainability. We have a budget that is not real. We have a budget that pretends. That is what USA Today said today. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolutions offered by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Price, for whom I have great respect. I say budget resolutions, plural, because there are two of them. One was reported by the committee that channels $36 billion into the overseas contingency operations account, disguising it as emergency war funding as a way of getting around the defense sequester caps while offering token language providing about $20 billion to be offset at a later date. The other budget was unveiled by Republicans yesterday. It includes an additional $2 billion on top of that $36 billion in overseas contingency operations and removes any mention of paying for this effective negation of the defense sequester. The gentleman from South Carolina referred to devices like that. This dueling budget strategy came about because Republicans didn't have the votes for their own proposal yet again. They are offering their Members two options: blow through the defense sequester ceiling by $36 billion or blow through it by $38 billion. Apparently, some are going to mask their either hawkish perspective on the defense or hawkish perspective on the deficit by a vote either for A or for A. Of course, while they blow through the cap on the defense side, they continue the cap on the domestic side for this year, before cutting dramatically below that level in future years, mercilessly gutting priority investments in education, job training, innovation, research, and other priorities of this Nation if it is to remain competitive in world markets, if it is to remain a growing, thriving nation. This budget is a severe disinvestment in America's future and our long-term economic competitiveness. This approach is not a blueprint for growth and opportunity for America's businesses and workers. It is, rather, sadly, a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster in the years to come. Mr. Chairman, if we fail to invest in the next generation or to continue the War on Poverty in this country, we are doing a grave disservice to our children and our grandchildren by not giving them the tools they need to secure the jobs and opportunities that open doors to the middle class. Like the Ryan budgets, which were never implemented by the majority party at any point in time from this House--forget about blaming Senator Reid or the Senate, they were never implemented in this House-- Mr. Price's budgets rely on a magic asterisk, hiding the specifics behind over $1 trillion in cuts in order to appear to balance it in its stated goal of 9 years. No one--no one--knows exactly what programs Republicans would cut or by how much. That is not being honest with the American people. They would turn Medicare into a voucher program and would take access to affordable health care away from millions of Americans by repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I wish he would go back to the drawing board. And I will tell my friend, I will participate with you. Nobody believes, I think, that sequester is going to ultimately rule the day in our appropriation bills because it is, as your chairman said, ill-conceived and unrealistic. I would think it better policy for us to decide that now, and then implement appropriation bills consistent with something that is reasonable and not ill-conceived.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, in parliamentary parlance, what we have before us is termed a ``structured rule.'' However, I would venture to say that this is an unstructured rule. It is a rule put forward by a majority with no clear structure to its strategy of how to govern this country. This rule will allow them to bring two versions of their budget to the floor, as their deficit hawks and defense hawks continue to fight over what budget they should pursue. It is demonstrative of the deep divisions that we have seen displayed on a regular basis in the majority party. We have now seen one example after another of this Republican majority being unable to assemble the votes from within its own ranks to pass important measures on its own. We saw it with funding to keep the Department of Homeland Security open. We also saw it last Congress, when Republicans were forced to withdraw an appropriations bill for Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development when they didn't have the votes to support their sequestration strategy. The gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers, the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said at that time that the bill's removal meant that ``with this action, the House has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted just 3 months ago. Thus, I believe,'' Chairman Rogers went on, ``that the House has made its choice: sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end.'' That was the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee speaking--not Steny Hoyer, not a Democrat, but a Republican leader. So, Mr. Speaker, today is not the first time that we are seeing the majority plagued by dysfunction as it budgets in a partisan way, but today it has gone a step further with a rule that essentially acknowledges that there is no consensus among Republicans as to how they ought to proceed. That is why Republicans are putting forward this convoluted amendment strategy. However, I tell my friends on the other side, the votes exist to pass a budget in this House but only if it is one that replaces both the defense and nondefense components of the sequester with a commonsense and fiscally responsible alternative. And I predict today that this budget will not be followed, as previous budgets passed by the Republican majority have never been followed and were not followed by them. Democrats would partner, I would tell my Republican friends, to pass a budget that invests in the future and does not stifle the growth of jobs and opportunity. I urge my colleagues we can do better. Reject this rule. Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's get it right.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman from Georgia yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. The fact of the matter is, I oppose this rule. I think my Republican friends' budget will pass. I understand that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution offered by my friend, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and supported strongly by the chairman of the committee and the former chair of the committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. This resolution is bipartisan and reflects the will of Congress that the nation of Ukraine deserves every opportunity to chart a future based on democracy, territorial integrity, and freedom from Russian aggression. I am the former chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki in August of 1975. In that agreement, the then-Soviet Union and 34 other nations signed a document which said that you could not change borders by other than peaceful means. Vladimir Putin has broken that agreement, but he has also broken the agreement that, in 1994, we entered into with Ukraine in consideration of their giving up their nuclear weapons. Vladimir Putin has sent Russian troops into another nation. He has tried to mask it. He has tried the pretense that this is simply separatists who are active; but, very frankly, those troops in Ukraine have admitted to the press that they are from Russia. Vladimir Putin's support for violent separatists has destabilized a large region in eastern Ukraine and has led to the illegal--illegal-- Russian occupation of Crimea. And the world hasn't done much to discourage not only the actions of Mr. Putin, but others who would learn the lessons of his actions. The sanctions that the United States and its allies have imposed against Putin and his closest supporters, as well as measures to isolate Russian businesses that have enabled this aggression, are having serious effects, but not yet the effect that we want. I believe that our Nation also has a responsibility to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of Ukraine and their democratically elected government by sending them the tools they need to defend themselves. This is not a new position for me. When the Serbs effected a genocide in Bosnia Herzegovina, we had an arms embargo on the people of Bosnia while arms were flowing in from other parts of the world to Serbia. I thought that was wrong. I think today the unwillingness or inability to create a consensus for giving to a people the ability to defend themselves is not good policy. If we continue to do so, there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Putin will continue on his path of aggression and acquisition. Mr. Speaker, we must continue to support Ukraine on its march towards greater democracy, stronger human rights, and a brighter future for its people. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank John Wright for over thirty- three years of outstanding service to this House in a number of administrative and support roles. He lives in Maryland's Fifth District, and I am proud to represent him here in Congress. John--or ``Turk,'' as he is known among his friends and colleagues-- is retiring after having lent his skills and talents to the House of Representatives for over three decades. He began his career in January 1982 under House Clerk Benjamin Guthrie as an Office Equipment Attendant for Office Equipment Services. After working in the labor room and the House drapery shop, John was promoted to Inventory Control Clerk in 1987, where he was responsible for the delivery, movement, and pickup of equipment for House offices. He also assisted with Congressional transitions, an arduous process entailing the physical movement of inventory and systems for hundreds of Member offices within a one-month timeframe. Eager to learn and to help with other duties, John was promoted in 2000, to the position of Vendor Management Counselor for Office Systems Management under the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). His assignments included the payment of purchase orders for equipment, supplies, and furniture for Members, Committees, Officers, and support offices of the House of Representatives. He processed a large volume of payments swiftly and formed long-lasting friendships with his customers and coworkers. He offered his services and expertise during each Congressional transition by volunteering extra time to assist with office moves. John's enthusiasm, experience, and resources made him an invaluable asset to the CAO organization, providing excellent customer service to Members and staff. His outgoing personality, positive attitude, and sense of humor have endeared him to many colleagues and friends. John greeted everyone with a big smile and referred to his coworkers as family. He shares his pride in serving the House just as his late mother, Tillie Wright, did during her illustrious forty-one year career in the catering division of the House Restaurant system. I congratulate John and I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him for his distinguished service to the House and the nation it serves. I wish him and his family all the best as John begins this new chapter in his life.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise in very strong opposition to this resolution, and I urge every one of my Members to oppose this resolution. We considered a Paycheck Fairness Act, a card check bill which said that if the unions got the signatures of a certain percentage, that they could move ahead and be organized, subject to an election. There was a hue and cry about, that was undemocratic, that there ought to be a requirement for an election. A number of people came into my office, and I said, Well, I think we can accommodate that. We will make sure there is a requirement that--as every one of us can do--you can get the names of the voters, you can get their addresses, you can even get their history of voting, and you can perhaps call them on the phone. We can all do that in elections. But the fact of the matter is--and everybody on this House floor knows it--procedurally, so many employers who do not believe that they are going to prevail take the steps of delaying and delaying and delaying. They want elections tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, what the NLRB is trying to do with this rule is to make sure that there is an election, that it is fair, and that it will be held in a timely fashion. I hope this House defeats this resolution. This resolution would prevent the National Labor Relations Board from implementing the rule it promulgated in December to modernize worker representation elections. But there is a fear of elections, and the fear of elections is that the majority of employees will say, yes, I want to have a better voice. This is a case, once again, of the Republican majority seeking to roll back the hard-earned rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively for better wages and benefits. And that is not an assertion. That is demonstrably proved in State after State after State over the last few years in which Republicans have taken control, and their first item of the agenda has been to undermine workers' rights. When workers organize for higher wages and benefits--like health insurance, retirement savings, and affordable child care--it opens the doors of opportunity for workers and their families to secure a place in our middle class. We know our middle class is shrinking. We know the middle class is having a very tough time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. According to a 2013 report by the Center for American Progress, the decline of union membership between the 1960s and today correlates to a decline of the middle class. When we have strong unions and workers' rights protections, the middle class does better. And workers who are not unionized benefit from the ripple effect of rising wages. Let's defeat this bill. I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of this committee, has said that he would sit down with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) to come up with a bipartisan bill--which this is not--which will do what all of us say we think is fair, to have elections, to have elections where both sides--and of course the employer always has access to the voter in this case--and do something for the American worker and for business which will put us on a steady path to growing the middle class and making sure that workers are treated as they ought to be, with the dignity and respect and the ability to support their families that they need.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of our Nation's greatest higher education leaders and a great advocate for accessible quality higher education. He is a dear friend and a colleague of mine for the last 40 years. On June 30, Dr. William E. ``Brit'' Kirwan will retire after 12 years as chancellor of the University System of Maryland. Under his leadership, the University System has transformed from being a national leader in public higher education into a national model in several areas; these include campus diversity, academic innovation, and efforts to close the achievement gap. There is, of course, a lot I could say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues about Dr. Kirwan's distinguished career and commitment to improving higher education across the country. Mr. Speaker, on June 30, Dr. William E. ``Brit'' Kirwan, who has served as chancellor of the University System of Maryland (USM) for more than twelve years, will retire after a career dedicated to advancing higher education. Dr. Kirwan has left his mark on academia and the State of Maryland in a way few others have. After a quarter-century as an educator and administrator at the University of Maryland, he was President of the University of Maryland, College Park, before serving as President of The Ohio State University. Later, he returned to Maryland to assume the position of USM Chancellor. Common threads throughout his fifty-one-year career in public higher education include an unwavering commitment to affordability, a passion for excellence, and a drive to increase access, especially for underrepresented minorities and low-income students. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Kirwan's leadership has helped move the USM from a national leader in public higher education to a national model in several areas. The USM's groundbreaking Effectiveness and Efficiency (E&E) initiative--a reengineering of administrative and academic processes to cut costs and improve quality--has been profiled in national publications and specifically cited by President Obama. The ``Closing the Achievement Gap'' Initiative, which USM launched in 2007, targets the gap in college participation, retention, and graduation rates between low-income students, first-generation college students, and underrepresented minorities, on one hand, and the general student population on the other. With this enhanced focus, these gaps in diversity have been narrowed--and even eliminated--on some USM campuses. As President of the University of Maryland, College Park, Dr. Kirwan helped make that institution one of the most diverse public research universities in the United States. As President of The Ohio State University, he made diversity a centerpiece of the University's Academic Plan. When he left Ohio State in 2002, the University added his name to its interdisciplinary research institute dedicated to understanding racial and ethnic disparities worldwide, now known as the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. Dr. Kirwan's effort to establish a productive working relationship with Maryland's elected officials is another testament to his leadership. By aligning higher education goals with state priorities, the USM has ushered in an era of academic and research excellence, targeted workforce development, greater economic impact, and improved affordability. In fact, the average tuition for undergraduate in-state students at USM institutions, once the nation's seventh highest, has now dropped to twenty-sixth. With the launch of its Course Redesign Initiative in 2006, the USM became the first university system in the nation to use innovative new technology to redesign entire courses. To facilitate academic transformation and excellence even further, in 2012 the USM established the Center for Academic Innovation (CAI) to develop, apply, and evaluate more ways to deliver high-quality courses optimizing technology and other resources system-wide. Today the USM is recognized as a national leader in the burgeoning academic innovation movement. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Kirwan's impact has also been felt beyond Maryland's borders. He currently serves or has served as Co- Chair of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics; Chair of the College Board's Commission on Access, Admissions, and Success in Higher Education; a member of the Business-Higher Education Forum, and Chair of the National Research Council Board of Higher Education and the Workforce. Dr. Kirwan has also been called upon by U.S. Presidents from both parties to advise on national higher education efforts. His impact on higher education has been honored with two of the most prestigious awards in the field: the TIAA-CREF Theodore M. Hesburgh Award for Leadership (2010) and the Carnegie Corporation Leadership Award (2009). Under Dr. Kirwan's leadership the USM has flourished, and his lifetime of achievement and service will be celebrated on April 18 at a special retirement gala that will raise endowment funds for the Center for Academic Innovation, which promises to continue exploring the themes of access, affordability, and excellence in higher education that have been hallmarks of his career. I hope my colleagues in the House will join me in thanking Dr. Kirwan for fifty-one years of service to higher education in our country and congratulating him on his retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join many Members of this House in Birmingham, Selma, and Montgomery, Alabama, from March 6 to 8 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, which led inexorably to the signing of the Voting Rights Act in August of that same year, 1965. It was my 10th visit to Selma to mark the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, and each one is more powerful than the last. The visit was organized by The Faith & Politics Institute and was led by John Lewis, our colleague, such a giant in our history and in this body. While there, Members heard powerful and moving remarks from President Obama, who made history as the first African American to hold the highest office in our land. We also heard, Mr. Speaker, from the late Governor Wallace's daughter, Peggy Wallace Kennedy, who spoke eloquently and movingly about living in the shadow of her father's actions 50 years ago. Governor Wallace later recanted his support for segregation and asked forgiveness from the African American community, and his daughter has worked hard to build bridges and promote dialogue and understanding. Mr. Speaker, I include the remarks of the President into the Congressional Record so that all Members can read them and be inspired and uplifted, as I was in hearing them delivered. Remarks by President Obama at the 50th Anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery Marches Edmund Pettus Bridge--Selma, Alabama It is a rare honor in this life to follow one of your heroes. And John Lewis is one of my heroes. Now, I have to imagine that when a younger John Lewis woke up that morning 50 years ago and made his way to Brown Chapel, heroics were not on his mind. A day like this was not on his mind. Young folks with bedrolls and backpacks were milling about. Veterans of the movement trained newcomers in the tactics of nonviolence; the right way to protect yourself when attacked. A doctor described what tear gas does to the body, while marchers scribbled down instructions for contacting their loved ones. The air was thick with doubt, anticipation and fear. And they comforted themselves with the final verse of the final hymn they sung: ``No matter what may be the test, God will take care of you; Lean, weary one, upon His breast, God will take care of you.'' And then, his knapsack stocked with an apple, a toothbrush, and a book on government--all you need for a night behind bars--John Lewis led them out of the church on a mission to change America. President and Mrs. Bush, Governor Bentley, Mayor Evans, Sewell, Reverend Strong, members of Congress, elected officials, foot soldiers, friends, fellow Americans: As John noted, there are places and moments in America where this nation's destiny has been decided. Many are sites of war--Concord and Lexington, Appomattox, Gettysburg. Others are sites that symbolize the daring of America's character-- Independence Hall and Seneca Falls, Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral. Selma is such a place. In one afternoon 50 years ago, so much of our turbulent history--the stain of slavery and anguish of civil war; the yoke of segregation and tyranny of Jim Crow; the death of four little girls in Birmingham; and the dream of a Baptist preacher--all that history met on this bridge. It was not a clash of armies, but a clash of wills; a contest to determine the true meaning of America. And because of men and women like John Lewis, Joseph Lowery, Hosea Williams, Amelia Boynton, Diane Nash, Ralph Abernathy, C.T. Vivian, Andrew Young, Fred Shuttlesworth, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many others, the idea of a just America and a fair America, an inclusive America, and a generous America--that idea ultimately triumphed. As is true across the landscape of American history, we cannot examine this moment in isolation. The march on Selma was part of a broader campaign that spanned generations; the leaders that day part of a long line of heroes. We gather here to celebrate them. We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching towards justice. They did as Scripture instructed: ``Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.'' And in the days to come, they went back again and again. When the trumpet call sounded for more to join, the people came--black and white, young and old, Christian and Jew, waving the American flag and singing the same anthems full of faith and hope. A white newsman, Bill Plante, who covered the marches then and who is with us here today, quipped that the growing number of white people lowered the quality of the singing. To those who marched, though, those old gospel songs must have never sounded so sweet. In time, their chorus would well up and reach President Johnson And he would send them protection, and speak to the nation, echoing their call for America and the world to hear: ``We shall overcome.'' What enormous faith these men and women had. Faith in God, but also faith in America. The Americans who crossed this bridge, they were not physically imposing. But they gave courage to millions. They held no elected office. But they led a nation. They marched as Americans who had endured hundreds of years of brutal violence, countless daily indignities--but they didn't seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before. What they did here will reverberate through the ages. Not because the change they won was preordained; not because their victory was complete; but because they proved that nonviolent change is possible, that love and hope can conquer hate. As we commemorate their achievement, we are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them. Back then, they were called Communists, or half-breeds, or outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse--they were called everything but the name their parents gave them. Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism challenged. And yet, what could be more American than what happened in this place? What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people--unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many, coming together to shape their country's course? What greater expression of faith in the American experiment than this, what greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals? That's why Selma is not some outlier in the American experience. That's why it's not a museum or a static monument to behold from a distance. It is instead the manifestation of a creed written into our founding documents: ``We the People . . . in order to form a more perfect union.'' ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'' These are not just words. They're a living thing, a call to action, a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny. For founders like Franklin and Jefferson, for leaders like Lincoln and FDR, the success of our experiment in self- government rested on engaging all of our citizens in this work. And that's what we celebrate here in Selma. That's what this movement was all about, one leg in our long journey toward freedom. The American instinct that led these young men and women to pick up the torch and cross this bridge, that's the same instinct that moved patriots to choose revolution over tyranny It's the same instinct that drew immigrants from across oceans and the Rio Grande; the same instinct that led women to reach for the ballot, workers to organize against an unjust status quo; the same instinct that led us to plant a flag at Iwo Jima and on the surface of the Moon. It's the idea held by generations of citizens who believed that America is a constant work in progress; who believed that loving this country requires more than singing its praises or avoiding uncomfortable truths. It requires the occasional disruption, the willingness to speak out for what is right, to shake up the status quo. That's America. That's what makes us unique. That's what cements our reputation as a beacon of opportunity. Young people behind the Iron Curtain would see Selma and eventually tear down that wall. Young people in Soweto would hear Bobby Kennedy talk about ripples of hope and eventually banish the scourge of apartheid. Young people in Burma went to prison rather than submit to military rule. They saw what John Lewis had done. From the streets of Tunis to the Maidan in Ukraine, this generation of young people can draw strength from this place, where the powerless could change the world's greatest power and push their leaders to expand the boundaries of freedom. They saw that idea made real right here in Selma, Alabama. They saw that idea manifest itself here in America. Because of campaigns like this, a Voting Rights Act was passed. Political and economic and social barriers came down. And the change these men and women wrought is visible here today in the presence of African Americans who run boardrooms, who sit on the bench, who serve in elected office from small towns to big cities; from the Congressional Black Caucus all the way to the Oval Office. Because of what they did, the doors of opportunity swung open not just for black folks, but for every American. Women marched through those doors. Latinos marched through those doors. Asian Americans, gay Americans, Americans with disabilities--they all came through those doors. Their endeavors gave the entire South the chance to rise again, not by reasserting the past, but by transcending the past. What a glorious thing, Dr. King might say. And what a solemn debt we owe. Which leads us to ask, just how might we repay that debt? First and foremost, we have to recognize that one day's commemoration, no matter how special, is not enough. If Selma taught us anything, it's that our work is never done. The American experiment in self-government gives work and purpose to each generation. Selma teaches us, as well, that action requires that we shed our cynicism. For when it comes to the pursuit of justice, we can afford neither complacency nor despair. Just this week, I was asked whether I thought the Department of Justice's Ferguson report shows that, with respect to race, little has changed in this country. And I understood the question; the report's narrative was sadly familiar. It evoked the kind of abuse and disregard for citizens that spawned the Civil Rights Movement. But I rejected the notion that nothing's changed. What happened in Ferguson may not be unique, but it's no longer endemic. It's no longer sanctioned by law or by custom. And before the Civil Rights Movement, it most surely was. We do a disservice to the cause of justice by intimating that bias and discrimination are immutable, that racial division is inherent to America. If you think nothing's changed in the past 50 years, ask somebody who lived through the Selma or Chicago or Los Angeles of the 1950s. Ask the female CEO who once might have been assigned to the secretarial pool if nothing's changed. Ask your gay friend if it's easier to be out and proud in America now than it was thirty years ago. To deny this progress, this hard-won progress--our progress--would be to rob us of our own agency, our own capacity, our responsibility to do what we can to make America better. Of course, a more common mistake is to suggest that Ferguson is an isolated incident; that racism is banished; that the work that drew men and women to Selma is now complete, and that whatever racial tensions remain are a consequence of those seeking to play the `race card' for their own purposes. We don't need the Ferguson report to know that's not true. We just need to open our eyes, and our ears, and our hearts to know that this nation's racial history still casts its long shadow upon us. We know the march is not yet over. We know the race is not yet won. We know that reaching that blessed destination where we are judged, all of us, by the content of our character requires admitting as much, facing up to the truth. ``We are capable of bearing a great burden,'' James Baldwin once wrote, ``once we discover that the burden is reality and arrive where reality is.'' There's nothing America can't handle if we actually look squarely at the problem. And this is work for all Americans, not just some. Not just whites. Not just blacks. If we want to honor the courage of those who marched that day, then all of us are called to possess their moral imagination. All of us will need to feel as they did the fierce urgency of now. All of us need to recognize as they did that change depends on our actions, on our attitudes, the things we teach our children. And if we make such an effort, no matter how hard it may sometimes seem, laws can be passed, and consciences can be stirred, and consensus can be built. With such an effort, we can make sure our criminal justice system serves all and not just some. Together, we can raise the level of mutual trust that policing is built on--the idea that police officers are members of the community they risk their lives to protect, and citizens in Ferguson and New York and Cleveland, they just want the same thing young people here marched for 50 years ago--the protection of the law. Together, we can address unfair sentencing and overcrowded prisons, and the stunted circumstances that rob too many boys of the chance to become men, and rob the nation of too many men who could be good dads, and good workers, and good neighbors. With effort, we can roll back poverty and the roadblocks to opportunity. Americans don't accept a free ride for anybody, nor do we believe in equality of outcomes. But we do expect equal opportunity. And if we really mean it, if we're not just giving lip service to it, but if we really mean it and are willing to sacrifice for it, then, yes, we can make sure every child gets an education suitable to this new century, one that expands imaginations and lifts sights and gives those children the skills they need. We can make sure every person willing to work has the dignity of a job, and a fair wage, and a real voice, and sturdier rungs on that ladder into the middle class. And with effort, we can protect the foundation stone of our democracy for which so many marched across this bridge--and that is the right to vote. Right now, in 2015, 50 years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote. As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed. Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act, the culmination of so much blood, so much sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence, the Voting Rights Act stands weakened, its future subject to political rancor. How can that be? The Voting Rights Act was one of the crowning achievements of our democracy, the result of Republican and Democratic efforts. President Reagan signed its renewal when he was in office. President George W. Bush signed its renewal when he was in office. One hundred members of Congress have come here today to honor people who were willing to die for the right to protect it. If we want to honor this day, let that hundred go back to Washington and gather four hundred more, and together, pledge to make it their mission to restore that law this year. That's how we honor those on this bridge. Of course, our democracy is not the task of Congress alone, or the courts alone, or even the President alone. If every new voter-suppression law was struck down today, we would still have, here in America, one of the lowest voting rates among free peoples. Fifty years ago, registering to vote here in Selma and much of the South meant guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar, the number of bubbles on a bar of soap. It meant risking your dignity, and sometimes, your life. What's our excuse today for not voting? How do we so casually discard the right for which so many fought? How do we so fully give away our power, our voice, in shaping America's future? Why are we pointing to somebody else when we could take the time just to go to the polling places? We give away our power. Fellow marchers, so much has changed in 50 years. We have endured war and we've fashioned peace. We've seen technological wonders that touch every aspect of our lives. We take for granted conveniences that our parents could have scarcely imagined. But what has not changed is the imperative of citizenship; that willingness of a 26-year- old deacon, or a Unitarian minister, or a young mother of five to decide they loved this country so much that they'd risk everything to realize its promise. That's what it means to love America. That's what it means to believe in America. That's what it means when we say America is exceptional. For we were born of change. We broke the old aristocracies, declaring ourselves entitled not by bloodline, but endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. We secure our rights and responsibilities through a system of self- government, of and by and for the people. That's why we argue and fight with so much passion and conviction--because we know our efforts matter. We know America is what we make of it. Look at our history. We are Lewis and Clark and Sacajawea, pioneers who braved the unfamiliar, followed by a stampede of farmers and miners, and entrepreneurs and hucksters. That's our spirit. That's who we are. We are Sojourner Truth and Fannie Lou Hamer, women who could do as much as any man and then some. And we're Susan B. Anthony, who shook the system until the law reflected that truth. That is our character. We're the immigrants who stowed away on ships to reach these shores, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free-- Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, the Lost Boys of Sudan. We're the hopeful strivers who cross the Rio Grande because we want our kids to know a better life. That's how we came to be. We're the slaves who built the White House and the economy of the South. We're the ranch hands and cowboys who opened up the West, and countless laborers who laid rail, and raised skyscrapers, and organized for workers' rights. We're the fresh-faced GIs who fought to liberate a continent. And we're the Tuskeegee Airmen, and the Navajo code-talkers, and the Japanese Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied. We're the firefighters who rushed into those buildings on 9/11, the volunteers who signed up to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. We're the gay Americans whose blood ran in the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge. We are storytellers, writers, poets, artists who abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy, and give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told. We're the inventors of gospel and jazz and blues, bluegrass and country, and hip-hop and rock and roll, and our very own sound with all the sweet sorrow and reckless joy of freedom. We are Jackie Robinson, enduring scorn and spiked cleats and pitches coming straight to his head, and stealing home in the World Series anyway. We are the people Langston Hughes wrote of who ``build our temples for tomorrow, strong as we know how.'' We are the people Emerson wrote of, ``who for truth and honor's sake stand fast and suffer long;'' who are ``never tired, so long as we can see far enough.'' That's what America is. Not stock photos or airbrushed history, or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American than others. We respect the past, but we don't pine for the past. We don't fear the future; we grab for it. America is not some fragile thing. We are large, in the words of Whitman, containing multitudes. We are boisterous and diverse and full of energy, perpetually young in spirit. That's why someone like John Lewis at the ripe old age of 25 could lead a mighty march. And that's what the young people here today and listening all across the country must take away from this day. You are America. Unconstrained by habit and convention. Unencumbered by what is, because you're ready to seize what ought to be. For everywhere in this country, there are first steps to be taken, there's new ground to cover, there are more bridges to be crossed. And it is you, the young and fearless at heart, the most diverse and educated generation in our history, who the nation is waiting to follow. Because Selma shows us that America is not the project of any one person. Because the single-most powerful word in our democracy is the word ``We.'' ``We The People.'' ``We Shall Overcome.'' ``Yes We Can.'' That word is owned by no one. It belongs to everyone. Oh, what a glorious task we are given, to continually try to improve this great nation of ours. Fifty years from Bloody Sunday, our march is not yet finished, but we're getting closer. Two hundred and thirty- nine years after this nation's founding our union is not yet perfect, but we are getting closer. Our job's easier because somebody already got us through that first mile. Somebody already got us over that bridge. When it feels the road is too hard, when the torch we've been passed feels too heavy, we will remember these early travelers, and draw strength from their example, and hold firmly the words of the prophet Isaiah: ``Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on [the] wings like eagles. They will run and not grow weary. They will walk and not be faint.'' We honor those who walked so we could run. We must run so our children soar. And we will not grow weary. For we believe in the power of an awesome God, and we believe in this country's sacred promise. May He bless those warriors of justice no longer with us, and bless the United States of America. Thank you, everybody.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: remarks by peggy wallace kennedy Montgomery, Alabama, a city that bears the scars of struggle and the nobility of change. A city that sits on the soil of shared sorrows for those that suffered and died for equality. A place of repose. Monuments of stone that connect us to each other. A place of hope and promise. A place to lay our grief down and shoulder the burden of moving beyond the sunset of despair to the place we call home. All of us come to this moment and to this place on the road of our own life's personal journey. We are diverse, both in our experiences and our aspirations and our dreams. But we are united in the common belief that a vision for a Just America is worth the saving. Stepping away from a painful past has not always been easy, but it has always been right. None of us can be held responsible for the circumstances of our birth, but each one of us will be held responsible for who we have become. When my son Burns was young, my husband and I took him to the Martin Luther King Historic Site in Atlanta. As we moved through the exhibits we came across the photographs of fire hoses in Birmingham, the 16th Street Baptist Church, Governor Wallace standing in the Schoolhouse Door and the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Burns stood still as the truth of his family's past washed over him. He turned to me and asked, `Why did Paw Paw' do those things to other people? I realized that at that moment I was at a crossroad in my life and the life of my son. The mantle had passed, and it was now up to me to do for Burns what my father never did for me. It was the first step in my journey of building a legacy of my own. I knelt down beside my son, drew him close and said, `Paw Paw never told me why he did those things, but I know that he was wrong. So maybe it will just have to be up to me and you to help make things right.' Standing here before you today is yet another day for the fulfillment of the promise that I made to my son. For today and for all the tomorrows to come there are opportunities for all of us to raise the call for justice in our lifetime. Montgomery, Alabama, Dexter Avenue and the State Capitol are enshrined in the annals of American history. A historic place for historic times. But for me, it is much more personal, for it brings to mind the events that shaped my life. It was here that I attended four inaugurations of my father and one of my mother. It was here that I heard my father say the words ``segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.'' It was here that my father fought to support a culture of exclusion, riding on the wings of fear rather than seeking justice on the wings of eagles. It was here that my mother Governor Lurleen Wallace lay in state following her death at the age of 41 while thousands of Alabamians both white and African American stood in line for hours to pay their last respects. It was here that my father met Vivian Malone for the second time and told her that she was an icon of the civil right movement. It was at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church that my father went to ask for forgiveness for his racist past. A moment that could not rewrite his personal history but an opportunity brought about by my father's own suffering that allowed him to see the hurt of history in the eyes of African American men and women who had been denied the right to live the American Dream. But on March the 25th of 1965, as Ralph Abernathy, Juanita Abernathy, Martin Luther King and thousands more gathered in the shadow of this Capitol, there was never an opportunity to address their concerns or state their grievances to the one person who could have changed the course of American History then and there. For Governor Wallace watched through a window in the privacy of his office, while others persevered and changed the history of America without him. Today, we must not allow others to make the right choices for us. We must have courage each day to stand up for equality and the rights of all Americans. We must lead by example and live our lives with inspiration, always aspiring to make the choices that lead us to higher ground, that guides us to understanding and purpose of not just who we are but who we can become. An opportunity for each of you, an obligation for all of us, to see others, feel others and celebrate others, respecting their humanity for who they are. Working each day to inspire the nobility that lies in the heart of each of us, Martin Luther King taught that there is power in all of us to reach out, to support and stand firm in the belief that all of our lives count for something. There is no better time than now for Americans to hold hands, rather than holding down, the inherent rights of the common man. One can never measure the true worth of a mended heart that beats again because someone cared. How many more anniversaries of the struggle for civil rights can we celebrate by looking over our shoulder rather than standing shoulder to shoulder to face the challenges that lay ahead? How can Americans reach for higher ground if we do not inspire others with what we do? We cannot expect the next generation of Americans to do something to change the world, if we aspire to do nothing to protect liberty and recognize our individual obligations to service. How can we teach future generations about positive social change if we see injustice and turn our backs? For injustice knows no death. It rises like a dark mist on the horizon, laying low in the hearts of those that are unwilling to accept the notion of unconditional love. We must promise that when we say all men are created equal, it means something, protects something and encourages us to embrace the belief that the diversity among us has nothing to do with equality, but has everything to do with strength. Tolerance must be more than what we believe, it must be what we live and leading by example is what we must do. Tolerance does not always mean agreement, but tolerance always requires understanding and compassion for others. Very few of us will have monuments built to honor us after we are gone, but ALL OF US can do monumental things each day to help America be better. Those moments in Selma yesterday will stand as a testament to all of our lives. For there is power in moving forward, there is joy in an unburdened heart and there is strength in stepping away from beneath the shadows of your lives. I sometimes wonder what my mother and father would think of their daughter that stands here today, and my mind's eye returns to a wood framed house on Eufaula Street in Clayton, Alabama, when life was uncomplicated and happiness was something you lived not something you just hoped for. And my father would smile at me and say ``little girl, you're doing just fine, I sure am proud of you.'' But for today, I am most thankful for the life and inspiration of Congressman John Lewis. Congressman Lewis, in March of 2009 you held my hand and walked with me across the Edmund Pettus Bridge; the very bridge where, as a young man, you were beaten by Alabama State Troopers. That walk with you helped me understand the power of forgiveness and gave me the courage to speak with my own voice. Since that time I have looked for an opportunity to return, in some small measure, the gift of love and understanding you gave to me. Fifty years ago, you stood here in front of your State Capitol and sought an opportunity as a citizen of Alabama to be recognized and heard by your Governor and he refused. But today, as his daughter and as a person of my own, I want to do for you what my father should have done and recognize you for your humanity and for your dignity as a child of God, as a person of goodwill and character and as a fellow Alabamian and say ``Welcome Home.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the assassination of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov last Friday in front of the Kremlin was a reprehensible act that demands a thorough and independent investigation. Mr. Nemtsov was a political leader who had fought for democracy inside the system. His murder took place against the backdrop of Putin's continued suppression of the rule of law, political debate, and human rights in Russia. His murder follows the murder of other critics of Putin's tyranny, Anna Politkovskaya and Sergei Magnitsky. Today, Putin is rebuilding many of the barriers to individual freedom, democracy, and self-determination that were thought relegated to what President Reagan called the ash heap of history. As a former chairman of the Helsinki Commission in the final years of the cold war, I witnessed the yearnings of the Russian people not to be bullied through fear and control by their leaders. Vladimir Putin and his henchmen have created a culture of terror for those who oppose his rule and have increasingly isolated Russia from the world. Congress and the American people must keep speaking out against the erosion of the basic freedoms the Russian people achieved in the 1990s. This week, Mr. Speaker, the thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the family of Mr. Nemtsov and millions whose hopes and dreams he fought for throughout his life.