Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. As I understand it, the DACA legislation is dependent upon this legislation. That was not filed 72 hours ago.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. We are going to have to call some Members back. They already left on the representation that this was the last vote of the day. I would imagine you have some Members that are in that category themselves. Can the gentleman give me any idea of when we will have notice as to whether or not there will be further votes today?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the majority leader for his service to this House and his service to this country. When one of us leaves this body, it ought to remind us that all of us are here for a relatively short time, perhaps some longer than others, but all for a relatively short time. Mr. Cantor and I have had the opportunity to work together. As he pointed out, we have not always agreed, as we do not always agree across the aisle. But we have an extraordinary honor bestowed upon us, as he pointed out. There are less than 11,000 of us in the history of this country who have served in this body. There are 435 of us who have been asked by our fellow citizens to serve on their behalf, on behalf of their families, and on behalf of their country. Eric Cantor has done that well, not because I always agreed with him, but because I always knew that he had the best interest of his country, his State, his community, his family, and our neighbors in mind when he acted. I want to congratulate him and I want to thank him for his service, and I want to thank him for working with me on those areas where we could find agreement. In those areas, we acted in a very productive manner and created a large bipartisan majority on most of those issues in this House. I thank him for doing that. As one who has also had the honor, Mr. Speaker, of serving as the majority leader of this House, it is a special honor that our colleagues have bestowed upon us. I want to wish him well. I know that he will not be leaving the public community, the public square, and his voice will still be a voice of influence and he will make a difference in whatever area he pursues. He will remain always a Member of this body. He will visit us from time to time. We will welcome him back. We wish him well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise to bring up H.R. 851, the Bring Jobs Home Act. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida would want to yield time for that-- to jump-start the middle class--instead of this partisan, pointless lawsuit attacking the President of the United States.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the bill that is before us. It is somewhat ironic that the Republicans want to sue the President for not enforcing a law that they want to repeal. How ironic. But it is, frankly, a demonstration of their frustration that they have been unable politically to attain the objective that they seek. They therefore repair to the wasting of time by this Congress and the wasting of the taxpayers' money on a hypocritical and partisan attack against the President, one that is meant to distract from the pressing issues of the day, like fixing our broken immigration system, raising the minimum wage, or restoring emergency unemployment insurance for those seeking jobs. While the majority of Americans oppose this lawsuit gimmick, House Republicans continue to move ahead with it instead of acting on those policies and other critical legislation which the majority of the American public do support: Make It In America jobs bills, Export- Import Bank reauthorization, terrorism risk insurance, Voting Rights Amendment Act, continuing resolutions and appropriations bills. All of these the American people want to see us do. But in polls, they show they don't want us to be doing this. They think it is frivolous. They think it is without merit. They think it should not be done. All the bills that I referenced they think ought to be done. How sad it is that we come here and do things the American public thinks are a waste of time while not doing things Americans think are very important. I tell my friend from Texas, and he is my friend, none other than Justice Antonin Scalia has made the point that the judiciary traditionally does not hear cases of political disagreement between the other two branches. In fact, in United States v. Windsor, Justice Scalia said, a ``system in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into court, in their institutional capacity, whenever the President implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress' liking.'' Scalia felt that was not justified. We believe this legislation is not justified. We further believe that the American people do not believe this legislation is justified. We do believe that the base of the Republican Party that tried to defeat President Obama in 2012, voted against him in 2008, and disagreed with him on the issues thinks this is what is available to them. It is wrong. It is a waste of time. It is a waste of money. It is a distraction from the issues that are so important to our people. This lawsuit is nothing more than a partisan bill to rally the Republican base, and for some, it doesn't go far enough. Under President Clinton, Republicans' playbook was shut down and then impeach. Under President Obama, Republicans said that if the Affordable Care Act were not repealed--not that they would sue him. They said they would shut down the government if they didn't get their way. They didn't get their way, and they shut down the government.

Mr. HOYER. They threatened to shut down the government, and they shut down the government. And the American people said, that is not what we want done. Again, they come to this floor because they cannot achieve, through their political process, the ends they seek. They have voted over 50 times to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act. They do not want it implemented. Now they want to sue the President because he is not implementing it fully, and now they are suing and refusing to say that impeachment is off the table. In fact, their newly elected whip, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) declined the opportunity to rule out impeachment on four separate occasions last weekend. My friends, instead of wasting time and money on the lawsuit and what might follow, Congress ought to do what our constituents sent us here to do: create jobs, grow the middle class, invest in an economy where all of our people can work hard, and make it in America. Reject this waste of time. Vote ``no'' on this unjustified, impractical, losing proposition for the suit against the President of the United States.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I congratulate Mr. Miller, the chairman of the committee, and Mr. Michaud, the ranking member, for working together to get this done. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of a bipartisan agreement. And while I have some serious concerns about a number of provisions of which I will speak, I am supporting it because it assigns resources to help cut down the waiting times for veterans to get the care they need and that we owe them. That must be our number one goal. I remain deeply outraged, as so many of us are, by what transpired in Phoenix and at other VA facilities, where our wounded warriors were made to wait weeks, months to get an appointment and receive treatment, including for serious postdeployment mental health issues. That is not acceptable. This is more than unacceptable, however. It is unconscionable. I think there is wide agreement on both sides of the aisle that any VA personnel who facilitated this wrongdoing or undermined veterans' health care must be held accountable. However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned with provisions in this bill regarding the removal of senior executive personnel. While this bill does improve on the House version by adding a 21-day period for appeals, it still undermines civil service protections that had been in place for decades to ensure a merit service, not a politicized, patronage service. There are already strict rules in place that facilitate the swift removal of SES officials who do not perform their jobs responsibly, as there should be. Those protections strike the right balance between giving agencies the authority to remove personnel without trampling on the due process rights of SES employees, who need to do their job without fear of political reprisal or arbitrary removal. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses major challenges at the VA. It provides resources to ensure that our veterans can access health care at private facilities if they face a very long wait or live in rural areas far from VA doctors.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And it makes health care services more available and accessible to veterans through additional resources for medical and other VA personnel. This, of course, is not a perfect bill. But then again, I don't think I have ever voted for a perfect bill. But this is a good bill that moves in the right direction. Again, I congratulate Mr. Miller and Mr. Michaud on their work on this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an individual who, at great risk to her own life and safety, has been standing up for democracy and freedom in Venezuela. Maria Corina Machado, a Member of the National Assembly and a leader of the opposition, has taken a courageous stand against the repressive regime of President Nicolas Maduro, speaking out on behalf of those whose voices have been silenced by fear of arrest or violence. Since the death of former President Hugo Chavez, the Maduro regime has maintained Venezuela on the path of suppressing democracy, silencing protest, preventing press freedom, and intimidating political opponents like Ms. Machado. In one instance, Maduro supporters physically assaulted opposition Members in the National Assembly chamber, and Ms. Machado was beaten and had her nose broken. None of the perpetrators were brought to justice. Over the past several months, Venezuela has seen a number of mass protests by those seeking greater democracy. These are not part of a `coup d'etat,' as President Maduro has alleged, but a result of his oppressive regime. The Venezuelan people deserve the chance to build a free and democratic nation and choose their own future course, free from fear. As democracy continues to come under assault by the Maduro regime, Americans will continue to look to Venezuela with a deep concern for the safety of its people and solidarity with those seeking to restore their freedom. Maria Corina Machado has helped draw international attention to the ongoing repression in her country, and for her work she will be honored by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems with its annual Charles T. Manatt Democracy Award on October 1. This annual award recognizes individuals who have demonstrated a commitment to advancing freedom and democratic values in their nations and around the world. I will continue to monitor the situation in Venezuela closely, and I will continue to highlight the work of courageous pro-democracy activists like Ms. Machado, who have faced death threats and been accused of treason by the ruling regime. The United States is watching what takes place in Venezuela with great interest, and Congress will be paying particular attention to the safety and security of Ms. Machado and other opposition figures who have dared to speak out for the rights of the Venezuelan people. I congratulate Ms. Machado on being chosen for the Charles T. Manatt Democracy Award, and I stand with her and other peaceful supporters of democratic reform as they seek to build a brighter future for all Venezuelans.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the debate. I wonder if the gentlewoman believes the analogy she made in terms of the cost of living applies to the minimum wage as well, and if she does, I would ask her to urge her leadership to bring the minimum wage bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which takes from those who have little in order to give to those who have more. For many working families, the child tax credit helps parents keep their children and themselves out of poverty. It is a program that Ronald Reagan liked, it is a program that works, and it is a program that we ought to reform and expand. Sadly, this Republican bill would allow provisions that most directly support low-income working parents to expire, while expanding the credit to families making up to three times what an average household brings home--how perverse, how predictable. It will do so by adding $115 billion to our deficit. In a time of economic recovery, Mr. Speaker, we should be doing the opposite, providing a leg up for struggling families while paying for what we buy. Members on both sides of the aisle agree that the right way to do this is comprehensive tax reform. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp--again, I commend him for putting on the floor--or putting on the table at least--a comprehensive tax reform bill. He showed courage and good sense. That was done just a few months ago. It showed the difficult choices that are necessary. This bill makes no choices. It just borrows more and puts us more in debt while hurting families. I don't agree with all of what was in Mr. Camp's bill, but it was a starting point that, through a bipartisan process of amendment, could provide a path to where we all know we need to go. This bill shirks that responsibility.

Mr. HOYER. This bill, this bill shirks that responsibility, adds $115 billion to the deficit, and will make the children of low-income working parents less economically secure--how sad. Reject this bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I understand the process will come from the Rules Committee. There is no text, Mr. Leader. We have seen no text to apparently amend legislation which was adopted overwhelmingly by this House and signed by President Bush. We need resources today--and we will certainly need them next week-- and we are going to go on a 5-week recess work period, at which point in time we will come back here and meet for a very brief period of time, and we don't have any text in this very substantive, very consequential area of the law, which obviously was adopted overwhelmingly, and we have no text. I understand the process in the Rules Committee. There have been no hearings, no debate in committee, no subcommittee, no full committee hearings on any legislation. As I suggested to you last week, Mr. Majority Leader, if you put legislation out there, you and I both know that inevitably that legislation will not be able to pass within the timeframe necessary to meet the crisis. So the responsible thing, I suggest to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the resources necessary to meet the challenge right now. And then, if hearings show substantive changes in the law are needed or further show what substantive changes ought to be made and can be considered in a thoughtful, effective fashion, we can then move forward at some point in time, perhaps as soon as September, on that legislation. But to do otherwise will put at great risk the ability of the administration and this country to respond consistent with the law that we passed and that was signed by President Bush. I yield to my friend if he wants to comment further.

Mr. HOYER. I thank, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader for that information, and I am glad that he brought up the processes that are going to be followed. I want to quote to him something Speaker Boehner said on January 5, 2011, when he took the gavel: But you will always have the right to robust debate in an open process that allows you to represent your constituents, to make your case, offer alternatives and be heard. The gentleman has told me now three times that the Rules Committee hearing is going to be open and they will decide the process under which a bill is going to be considered. Apparently, I am presuming the gentleman does not know what the substance of that process will be. I don't know the substance. I don't know any language that is being proposed. No Member on our side of the aisle knows what language is being proposed. Maybe Members on your side of the aisle know. So what you are apparently telling me is that we will have the Rules Committee solely for the purpose of learning what substantive changes are suggested in the law. And I suggest to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that if that is the case, we will not be able to thoughtfully debate it, we will not be able to have a process that is open, and we will not have a process which allows us to make our case, offer alternatives, or be heard. I would predict, as has happened 67 times to date, this is going to be a closed rule. One of my staffers, by the way, suggested that perhaps open rules ought to be included in the endangered species bills that we are considering. We are doing so many closed rules, open rules seem to be an endangered species. Mr. Speaker, I ask the leader to please report if we are going to consider, as I think we should, a supplemental next week that gives our country the resources to meet the crisis to which you referred? It is our responsibility to consider it. It is our responsibility to give the resources. We passed the law, which is being implemented by the administration. We passed it overwhelmingly. It was sponsored by a gentleman who just spoke on this floor a short time ago to try to prevent and ameliorate human trafficking. A number of bills we passed this week on human trafficking were passed unanimously. That bill that passed overwhelmingly was also about human trafficking. And I tell my friend, we need the resources. It is the responsibility of the majority party and the minority party to join together to give the administration the necessary resources to respond to carrying out the law that we passed. If we want to change that law, that is also our responsibility. But I tell my friend it cannot be done in the timeframe that is available to us. We have delayed this so long, there is no time. And the gentleman keeps responding to me that the Rules Committee will decide the process. The Rules Committee normally does not decide the substance of legislation. It decides the process under which we will consider the substance. Authorizing committees, as my friend so well knows, decide the substance of that legislation. But we will have no opportunity to see that, apparently, until perhaps this weekend, at the earliest, or next week. That does not give us time to debate it and it certainly, as everybody knows, does not give it time to go to the Senate and be debated. I think they will disagree, perhaps, on the language that is suggested. I don't know what it is, but there is a high probability of disagreement. Conference will have to occur, and then it will have to get to the President. And both the Senate and the House are leaving next week for their district work period. I would urge the majority leader to make every effort with his party to bring what I think ought to be our obligation: a bill which provides the resources necessary--and we may differ on that number--to carry out our responsibilities to implement the law that we passed. If the gentleman wants to respond further, I yield. If not, I will go on. Mr. Speaker, we have five appropriations bills which have not been brought to the floor. The Ag bill was on the floor. It was pulled. It has not been brought back. The Labor, Health and Human Services bill, the Interior bill, the Homeland bill, and the Foreign Ops bill have not been brought to the floor, nor has the gentleman indicated any of those are going to be brought to the floor next week. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is any plan to bring those bills to the floor in the 3 weeks that we will be back in September? I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, but that does not give me any clarity in terms of the five appropriations bills. The supplemental appropriation bill, of course, is not a part of those bills, although, obviously, Health and Human Services is being put under a great deal of pressure by carrying out the terms of the law that we passed in 2008 signed by President Bush. They need resources. The supplemental is to give them the resources. This is a scheduling conference. It is not just now, in my view, limited to next week, because we are not going to be here for 5 weeks thereafter, and Members want to know what they should anticipate as substantively going to be on the agenda in the 3 short weeks that we will have left, essentially, before the election. So I can't tell from the gentleman's answer, Mr. Speaker, whether or not any of those five appropriations bills--I know seven have passed-- are intended to be brought to the floor. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. Maybe I can just print that out and I will just read it, Mr. Speaker. We have an Export-Import Bank that is going to expire very shortly. It is of great concern to many people on both sides of the aisle. Forty-one Republican Members, Mr. Speaker, have signed a letter urging that this be brought to the floor. It is a very timely, critical issue for the competitiveness of our country. It has been twisting in the wind for this entire year. I worked, Mr. Speaker, with the leader's predecessor to see whether or not we could get this bill to the floor. I know what the schedule is for next week, so he doesn't need to repeat that for me--and I thank him very much--but does the majority leader have any idea whether we are going to consider the Export-Import Bank before the election? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask the majority leader any more questions because I am not going to get any answers. The American people have a right to those answers. The American people need to have transparency, which was going to be brought to this body, frankly, by the young guns, and they need a right to debate, right to anticipate, right to participate, but the answer I get is, It's not scheduled for next week. Mr. Speaker, I know it is not scheduled for next week. Critical legislation was not scheduled last week, the week before that, the week before that, the week before that, the week before that, and every week before that--critical legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people. I am simply inquiring of the majority leader: Is there any contemplation of bringing that legislation to the floor before this Congress leaves for the election so the American people who are going to either reelect this Congress or seek new leadership have an opportunity on which to make an informed decision, which, of course, is what the Speaker said we would have? Certainly, we ought to have equal consideration for the American people as well so they have the right to robust debate and an open process and so it allows them to understand what we are doing. I regret that the majority leader in critical issues, like the Export-Import Bank, which relate to the competitiveness of this country, and like Make It In America legislation that we defeated last week on suspension, which we agreed upon--the majority leader voted for it and I voted for it. I presume--I will ask him anyway. I said I wasn't going to ask him: Is there any contemplation of bringing that bill, which got 260 votes on this floor, back to the floor, under a rule which provides again for America's determining whether or not we can find additional rare earth, which is so necessary to be competitive in international markets? I know it is not on the schedule, so he doesn't have to repeat that litany to me, because I get it. I have heard it now four or five or six times. I get it that it is not on the schedule for next week. So the question I ask is: Is there any contemplation of bringing that bill, which has 260 people who voted for it, back to the floor, under a rule, so we can provide for a better opportunity to make it in America and to be competitive internationally? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. When it is available. That was the answer to my question. We don't know when it is going to be available. We don't know what it will be. We don't know, really, whether it will be considered, because the majority leader tells me, Mr. Speaker, that it may be on the floor. We know that it hasn't gone to committee. We know that there is no subcommittee hearing that has been held. We know that there is no committee hearing that has been held. The gentleman talks about thousands of pages. We can get into that debate at some other time. I know which he refers to, a bill that had literally more consideration than any other bill I have seen considered by the Congress of the United States--the Affordable Care Act, which is having, in my view, a very positive effect. We don't need to debate that today. I would tell the majority leader, if the crisis were going to be addressed, the first step is having the resources necessary to carry out the law, then, if the law needs to be changed, deciding how it should be changed, having debate on that, bringing it to this floor out of committee, and considering that legislation. There are differences of opinion on that. I recognize that. The gentleman has pointed that out. That would be the way to do it. That is the regular order of which you spoke and you promised. Mr. Speaker, I hope that that could be followed. There are many of us who believe it is not being followed, and that is to the denigration of not only this body but to the American people's ability to see what we are doing, how we are doing it, when we are doing it. Unless the gentleman has something further to say, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. As the gentleman knows full well, we have 3\1/2\ days next week. We have, I guess, 9 full days and 3 half days scheduled in September and the first couple of weeks in October, assuming that we meet in that last week of September. There have been some rumors. My Members have been asking me about whether or not there is serious consideration being given to not using the last week scheduled in September. Does that have any credence? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. In any event, as the gentleman knows, in the very short period of time that we have left before the election--and there is a lot of very substantive work that, in my view, still needs to be done and that we feel very strongly about on this side of the aisle--the gentleman posits that we have four endangered species bills on the floor. Frankly, they probably could all be done by suspension on Monday, but I understand it is going to be under a rule. In addition to that, we have legislation which is designed to authorize a suit against the President of the United States for trying to do things when we can't get the Congress to act on them, so that there can be some movement forward on behalf of the American people. Does the gentleman believe there is any possibility of bringing up comprehensive immigration reform--either a comprehensive immigration reform bill that the majority supports, individual bills which are passed out of committee, border security which is passed out on a bipartisan way out of your committee here on this side of the House--on this side of the Capitol, or legislation which we believe would have had a direct effect on the crisis to which the gentleman refers may be addressed next week? It is not scheduled. I understand that the majority leader's party is divided on the issue of what ought to be done to meet this crisis, but there is no doubt, Mr. Leader, that there are going to be additional resources necessary to meet the challenge that we are confronting now. The administration has requested, as the gentleman knows, some $3.7 billion. The Senate, as I understand it, is suggesting $2.7 billion. Part of that, of course, is to meet the needs of fighting wildfires. In the Senate bill, there is also money for Iron Dome--to beef up Iron Dome in Israel, but we don't have any language, if language is contemplated. So I am hopeful that language will not be included in any effort that is made next week on meeting this. You referred to it as a crisis. Whether you refer to it as crisis, challenge, whatever, we know that resources are needed. Everybody seems to agree on that. Unfortunately, we have not had that bill on the floor now, so we can get it over to the Senate and get it to the President before we leave. We are at risk, in my view, Mr. Leader, of leaving here without addressing this issue. Furthermore, last week, as the gentleman knows, I suggested that if we included legislative language on that bill, it would be almost impossible to get to the administration the resources it needs to comply with the law and to meet the challenge that has been presented. Does the gentleman have any expectation that we will consider a comprehensive immigration bill that has resources and will be Senate- passed? We have a bill here, as the gentleman knows, that we introduced many, many months ago, which is a bipartisan bill. All the provisions have been supported in a bipartisan fashion--some in the Senate, some here in the House committee--unanimously. Does the gentleman have any belief that we will consider next week a clean funding bill at such level as is necessary, at least until the end of the fiscal year, and/or some comprehensive immigration bills which will meet the issue and establish a process, the lack of which clearly is causing people to take actions which we do not approve of and not agree with, but are manifesting the frustration of a broken system remaining broken? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response. Does the gentleman contemplate that that bill will include substantive changes in law or will it simply be restricted to additional resources necessary to meet the crisis that confronts this country? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader and I have worked together, and we have sat down for lunch. We agree on the bill that I mentioned, Mr. Swalwell's bill, to try to make America more competitive by producing more rare earth here in this country--so essential in the electronics industry and in other places. I can't control the Senate, Mr. Speaker. The majority leader cannot control the Senate. What the majority leader and I can do is control what we do here in this House to which we were elected. We can control either urging or, in the majority leader's case--and as the former majority leader of this House, I can tell you I could put a bill on the floor if I thought it was important for the American people and in the best interests of our country. I think the Export-Import Bank falls in that category. I think minimum wage falls in that category. I think comprehensive immigration falls in that category. I think jobs bills fall in that category. I think make it in America--the Swalwell bill-- fell in that category. We cannot control what the Senate does, but we can control what we do. We can move in a responsible fashion, which the American people, Mr. Speaker, expect us to do and not blame some outside group, whether it is the administration or the United States Senate, for our lack of addressing important issues. TRIA is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. It is not on the schedule. I presume, if I asked the majority leader about TRIA, he would tell me it is not on the schedule next week. That would not come as a news flash to me, Mr. Speaker, because he has told me that now seven times. I believe, if the House is going to act in a collegial manner and in a constructive manner and in a manner that the American people want us to act, that we will exchange information not just on what is on next week--there is not much on next week, Mr. Speaker. I know that. There is, in my opinion, a political bill to sue the President of the United States. The American people don't think that is a very good idea. That is on the calendar. So we are using the few short minutes that we have available to do the people's business on four bills, to send a message, that we could pass in, frankly, a very short period of time on Monday night on endangered species. We are filling time. We are treading water, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude with this. You have put the possibility that we are going to have a bill on the floor next week dealing with the crisis-- your word--at the border. When will we see text of that legislation that might possibly be on the floor? I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think it appropriate that one of us rise to recognize the sacrifice made by Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut. Detective Gibson was in the office of Tom DeLay. Officer Chestnut was at the memorial door allowing visitors to come in. He was shot in the back of the head. Detective Gibson was trying to protect not only the then-Majority Leader DeLay but also other members of the staff and of the public. They did what we expect them to do, and they paid for that with their lives. All of us, I know, express our deep gratitude to the members of the Capitol Police force, who every day get out of bed and strap on a gun, put a badge to their chest or in their wallet or on their person, and come to this Capitol to defend not only the Members and the staff but the millions of people who come to visit the Capitol of the United States regularly. They allow us to have confidence that we can do the people's business in safety and security. So not only is it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we pay tribute to Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut, but also to give thanks to those who serve daily that this Capitol might operate on behalf of the American people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today, alongside my Republican colleague from Illinois, Representative Aaron Schock, who is here to speak about the Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2014, which we will be introducing later today. This is an issue that I have been working on, Madam Speaker, for several years, one that will help us close the achievement gap that too many of our children face. Our bipartisan bill creates a competitive grant program to expand the full-service community schools model across the country. Full-service community schools are an innovative approach to help students and their parents access a full range of critical services all in one place. Let me emphasize these are services that are currently available but that are not as accessible because they are not centralized. We will encourage communities to put together the services that they already provide in an accessible way for children and their families. For low-income parents who are working multiple jobs as they send their kids to school, finding time to provide them with adequate medical checkups and dental screenings is often very difficult. The full-service community schools model locates these services at their children's schools, along with nutritional counseling, financial literacy education, and adult classes--services that in most communities are already offered--to make it easier for both students and parents to access these services under one roof. It also helps ensure parents have the tools they need to support their children's learning--so critically important to the children's success. Studies show that when children are healthy they learn better and have a better chance at academic success. Maryland has been employing this model for several years now in the form of Judy Centers, named for my late wife, Judy Hoyer, who was an early childhood administrator in Prince George's County. The Maryland State Department of Education has found that children accessing services at Judy Centers perform better than their peers who did not when tested for kindergarten readiness. I know the gentleman from Illinois has similar evidence from a full-service community school program in his State. In his district, in fact, his university from which he graduated partners with that full-service school, Bradley University in Peoria. The results are clear that the full-service community schools model has the potential--and in fact, in our own State, we have realized that potential--to help millions of low-income families across the country ensure that their children can do well in school and have a better shot at being college or career ready when they graduate. This is good for America. It is good for the children. It is good for their families. It is good for our competitiveness. This legislation, Madam Speaker, is an example of what is possible when we set differences aside and work together. Now, Aaron Schock is a good friend of mine. He is a Republican and I am a Democrat, and some say, well, that doesn't really happen in Washington--but it does. Outside of the ambit of this bill, Aaron and I have worked on a number of pieces of legislation, and I am proud of the fact that we are working on this legislation together on behalf of children, on behalf of families, on behalf of our country. This legislation is an example of what is possible when we set our differences aside, as I said. We work together across the aisle to make progress for those who are trying to make it in America for themselves and for their families. I want to thank Representative Schock for partnering with me on this effort, and I hope this Congress can come together, as the two of us have done, and work in a bipartisan fashion to pass this bill without delay.