Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on my motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Tomorrow will mark, as I said a little earlier, 100 days since the United States Senate approved its bipartisan compromise highway bill in the United States Senate. There were 74 Senators who voted for that. Essentially half of the Republican Conference in the United States Senate voted for that bill.

There has been a bill in the House committee. That bill has languished in the House committee for many, many months--in fact, for about 4 months after the Speaker said he wanted to bring it to the floor. It has not come to the floor, apparently, because the Republican Party is divided on that bill, and they don't have the votes for that bill.

That measure passed the Senate 74-22, and it would have been, by the way, 75-22 had Frank Lautenberg been there. He made that statement on the floor. That's three-quarters of the Senate, with the support of 22 Senate Republicans.

Americans are wishing that we would come together, reason together, and act together to give certainty to them, to the economy, and to their country. Unfortunately, the House bill that was passed was effectively a bill simply to go to conference. I know my friend--and he is my friend--Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania will say that in the article that was written, that it was simply ``that House bill'' to which he was referring. I take him at his word that he was referring to that. But very frankly, others have said that there were items in the bill in committee that were critically important to them that ought to be in the conference committee report, and obviously the Senate would not agree to those.

This bill, to which I refer and which this motion to instruct refers, is supported by chambers of commerce in cities and counties across this Nation.

This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation in the great tradition of transportation bills passed since the Eisenhower era. The gentleman who is managing the time on the Republican side, his father was a great proponent of infrastructure investment, a great leader in this Congress on infrastructure, and, in fact, participated--every time that I think he brought a bill out as ranking member, it was passed in a bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten to that point at this point of time.

Instead of taking up that bill, the Senate bill, and allowing us to have a vote on it here in the House--in my opinion, if the Republican leadership let its Members vote free of influence by the leadership, that bill would have

the majority of votes on this House floor. Speaker Boehner has said he wants this House to work its will. In my point of view, in my estimation, that bill has a majority support on the floor of this House. It would have, I think, every Democratic vote, just as the Export-Import Bank had every vote on our side of the aisle. That's why it passed overwhelmingly, not withstanding Republican opposition.

The caucus on the other side of the aisle, in my opinion, remains divided over how to proceed. House Republicans have, once again, turned an opportunity to invest in job creation into a partisan exercise in saying ``no'' to any legislation that might strengthen our recovery and lower our unemployment rate.

I'm not unmindful, and I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania will observe, that apparently there has been some progress made. The progress that has been made is unknown to the Democratic side of this aisle. Neither the ranking member knows what progress has been made, nor the ranking member of the subcommittee knows what progress has been made. But we're going to be told, apparently, there is some progress that has been made. I hope that's the case. But, very frankly, if that progress is not made, we ought to pass the Senate bill.

When presented with a real chance to lead, frankly, Republicans in my view too often have walked away. Whether it was keeping government going on continuing resolutions, whether it was on making sure that the most reliable and creditworthy Nation in the world did not default on its debt, whether it was on passing an Export-Import Bank to make sure that we created jobs and were competitive in this country, too often our Republican friends have decided not to go there.

Republicans are unwilling to act on must-pass bills, and in several cases played a dangerous game by holding bills hostage. As I said, this includes the debt limit crisis last summer and the debate over extending the middle class payroll tax last December. Over and over again, our Republican colleagues have proven themselves to be the ``Walk-Away Caucus.''

This Congress has been in session for only 60 days so far this year. Between now and the election, we're scheduled to be in session for 38 days, but only 30 of those are full work days. Between now and the election--that's 4 months from now. Thirty days between today--June 21--and the election in November.

With one wasted opportunity after another, they've earned the 112th a place in history as truly another ``Do-Nothing Congress,'' a phrase made famous by Harry Truman.

Mr. Speaker, my motion is simple. It instructs the House conferees to agree to the Senate's version that is based on bipartisanship and doing what's right for our economy. What does that bill mean?

The Senate bill leverages Federal funding to protect 1.9 million jobs. Why is that important? Because we lost 28,000 construction jobs last month alone. Why? Because we failed to pass this bill. In addition to the 1.9 million jobs that this bill would provide, it would provide another 1 million jobs as we expand transportation opportunities.

In my home State of Maryland, nearly 29,000 jobs are supported by Federal transportation investments. Those are jobs of families who are paying taxes, sending their kids to school, buying groceries, buying goods and services, and supporting our economy.

In Speaker Boehner's home State of Ohio, over 55,000 jobs are supported by this bill. And in Virginia, Republican leader Cantor's home State, almost 40,000 jobs are on the line. That highway funding expires July 1, just a few days from now.

For the sake of all these workers, for the sake of all these families who rely on these jobs, and for the sake of all those workers and families who would be advantaged by the passage of this bill and the jobs that it will create--not only save, but create--in Maryland and Ohio, in Virginia--my colleague Mr. Moran is here--and across our country, let's pass this bill.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, let's pass a transportation bill that isn't simply another short-term extension. Such extensions provide no certainty to the businesses that rely on sound infrastructure to move goods to market. Let's pass the long-term reauthorization we need that will help put our economy back in drive--not in neutral and not in reverse.

Don't take my word for it why this is so important and so urgent. Listen to President Ronald Reagan, who said in 1982--and I'm sure, frankly, the gentleman's dad would have supported these statements:

The time has come to preserve what past Americans spent so much time and effort to create, and that means a nationwide conservation effort in the best sense of the word. America can't afford throwaway roads or disposable transit systems.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's not too late for this Do-Nothing Congress to make a U-turn and get back to work. It's not too late to heed President Reagan's wise words. It's not too late to provide our businesses with the certainty they're asking for.

I urge my Republican friends to start working with Democrats to make the investments we need to grow jobs and strengthen our competitiveness before it's too late. Frankly, that's what the American people expect. Let's for once not disappoint them. Let's pass this motion, and work together to move this country forward.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to say to the gentleman, the items that he mentioned--some of which we may agree on, some of which we may not agree on--frankly, could have been included in the bill that the House could have reported out of committee and brought to the floor. That didn't happen. What we did was, with the inability to pass a bill that came out of your committee on the floor of the House, we then repaired to what was essentially a shell of a bill to go to conference.

The problem that I have with the gentleman's statement is I hope that the statement that ``we may be getting there'' is correct.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

But if we ``may be'' getting there, we're getting there because we've constantly done motions like this to get us to the issue. We are talking about some 2-plus million jobs. That's why the Chamber of Commerce is involved. That's why counties, States, and local municipalities are involved, saying, Come to an agreement.

Very frankly, the bill that we passed here had some things that didn't relate to transportation. What the gentleman has mentioned are items that dealt with transportation. Your bill, as you well know, had items in it which were clearly not acceptable to the President of the United States because they were unrelated to transportation.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

The gentleman hasn't mentioned any of those. I am pleased that he hasn't mentioned those.

I hope that the House Republicans have now decided that's not going to be the litmus test for whether or not we create jobs and save jobs in the transportation field and give certainty to contractors and to public entities.

At this point in time, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee, Ms. Johnson from Texas.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of this institution. I am a supporter, as Mr. Shuster pointed out, of regular order. I do believe that the House has a right and a duty and a responsibility to maintain its positions--when it can get to a position.

Let me reiterate so the American people understand. Speaker Boehner said that the highway bill was very important to him. He wanted to see it reported out. The committee acted on a bill and never brought it to the floor.

I pause so the American people can understand, the House has been unable to take a position. Now my friend will say, oh, no, we did pass a bill, and that's correct. Admittedly, however, from everybody's perspective, it was not a full bill; it was a shell bill. It was a shell bill to go to conference. Did it have some provisions in there? Yes, it did. It had Keystone in there, which was clearly unacceptable to the President in the form that it was offered and unacceptable to the Senate in the form that it was offered.

Very frankly, my friend from Pennsylvania talks about his dad, who I know is very much alive and was a very good Member of this body. I will say that we did pass some extensions, all on a bipartisan fashion, as you well know. All on a bipartisan fashion. This was not done in a bipartisan fashion.

We could have forged a bill that would have had overwhelming support in this House, in my opinion. The Republican side of the aisle chose not to do that. And I've got a hunch that my friend sitting in the chair, Mr. Shuster, regrets that. He doesn't have to say anything about that, but I just have a hunch he regrets that. I regret it. I regret that we are not able to come together and reason together, but we take hard-line positions that if you don't agree with me, it's my way or no highway. That's regrettable. The American people know it's regrettable.

And I want to tell my friend from Pennsylvania, if it weren't 100 days ago, as of tomorrow, that a bipartisan--overwhelmingly bipartisan--bill was passed, and if this House had been able to pass a real highway bill, but we didn't have that opportunity. That bill was not brought to the floor. The gentleman knows that bill was not brought to the floor. It still languishes in his committee. Or perhaps it's been reported out and may be sitting someplace else.

The fact of the matter is that this motion is designed to say to 1.9 million people who may lose their job if we don't pass a bill next Friday, in a Congress that has been mired in confrontation and unwilling to compromise, and another million people who will have job opportunities if that bill passes, it is to say, let us act. And we have a vehicle on which to act, a vehicle that enjoyed the support of all Democrats and half of the Republican Conference in the United States Senate, a bill that had agreement between Senator Boxer from California, correctly I think described as a liberal Democrat from the State of California, and Jim Inhofe, correctly described I believe as a conservative Republican from Oklahoma. They came together. They reached agreement.

I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania is probably absolutely correct; it's not a perfect bill. I don't know that I've ever voted for a perfect bill on the floor of this House, at least one that I thought was perfect. That's the nature of this body, that we come together and we compromise and everybody doesn't get what they want because maybe their region or their people or their businesses or their consumers don't see it the same way mine do. We compromise.

But the Senate bill, while it may not be perfect, enjoyed broad bipartisan compromise and support. Therefore, I think it is our best opportunity, because we've shown in this House that we have, for the last 6 months, been unable to come to agreement, and the Republican majority in this House has been unable to agree among itself to bring a full bill to the floor.

So, Mr. Speaker, that does not give much confidence not only to my side of the aisle but to those contractors, those construction workers, those States, those counties, those municipalities who know that they have to address the transportation challenges of their areas. It doesn't give them much confidence, and I've heard a lot about building confidence.

I believe that if we passed the Senate bill, we would create those jobs, retain the 1.9 million jobs, and give confidence to our economy and grow jobs. I hope that's what the other side wants to do. They talk a lot about it. And if the economy improved, of course, the administration might be advantaged as well. I hope that's not a consideration of anybody who considers these pieces of legislation. America expects us to come together and reach agreement. The Senate has done that. On this side of the Capitol, we have not. We ought to do it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4348.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Hoyer moves that the managers on the part of the House

at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses

on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed

to recede from disagreement to the amendment of the Senate.

I thank my friend, and I would have come up here just for that introduction. I thank him so much.

I am pleased to follow my friend, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor. I'm going to have some remarks. But before I get to those remarks, I want to give you some statistics that I know you'll find very interesting. I want you to take them to heart.

The Energy Information Administration reports that oil production from Federal lands and waters was higher the first 3 years of the Obama administration than the last 3 years of President Bush's administration.

In addition, oil imports are at the lowest they have been since 1997. In 2011, U.S. crude oil production reached its highest level in 8 years, increasing by an estimated 110,000 barrels per day over 2010 levels to 5.59 million barrels per day. We now produce more than 50 percent of the crude oil we use domestically.

The U.S., by the way, has 1,971 rigs in operation. The rest of the world has 1,471.

The U.S. natural gas production is record breaking. In 2011, 28.5 million cubic feet. In 1973, which was the previous record, it was 24 million cubic feet. But hear this: In 2005, during the Bush administration, it was 5 million less.

Net imports as a share of total consumption has declined from 2005, where it was 60 percent in the Bush administration, to 2011, where it is 47 percent.

The administration has announced that the 2012 2017 5-year leasing plan will open up more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. The U.S. production for Federal lands on shore is similar to and has surpassed the Bush administration. In 2005, it was 649 million barrels; in 2010, it was 739 million barrels, otherwise known as almost 100 million more barrels.

Ladies and gentlemen, we understand that we need to produce and use energy in America. Mr. Chairman, we should be working, however, together to find real solutions to meet our pressing challenges. We ought to pass a long-term highway bill to create thousands of construction jobs. We ought to address the looming deadline when student loan interest rates are set to go up on July 1. We ought to get to work on taxes so we can keep low rates in place for middle class families. And we ought to get serious about comprehensive deficit reduction before we find ourselves on the edge of a fiscal cliff this year.

Instead, Mr. Chairman, once again, we have a solution looking for a problem. Our Republican friends have called up two bills on the floor this week that make this very clear.

While gas prices have thankfully retreated, the first bill would enact an extreme drill-only energy strategy that won't lower gasoline prices. That bill is notable for what it doesn't do: invest in diverse energy sources that create jobs, reduce our oil dependence, and enhance energy security; nor does it make our Nation a global leader in energy technology.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The second bill, which we considered yesterday, would impose a radical policy on our border areas that would undermine security coordination and bring polluting industries to some of our most pristine parks and historic sites, even though our border enforcement officials have said such legislation is unnecessary. That's what we worked on yesterday. Not jobs, not student loans, not transportation, but a piece of legislation that they said wasn't necessary.

These are not what Congress ought to be focusing on this week or next week. Let's turn our attention to our most pressing issues--student loans, construction jobs, keeping middle class taxes low, and reducing deficits--instead of wasting the American people's time on partisan bills that won't solve any of our real problems.

Mr. Chairman, I'm hopeful that either in the next 24 hours or in the next 9 days we will, in fact, pass a jobs bill that will create jobs, and everybody knows that that's the highway bill.

The Senate has passed a highway bill in a bipartisan fashion with half of the Republicans in the United States Senate voting for it, and with a very conservative Republican ranking member, Jim Inhofe, and a very liberal chairwoman, Barbara Boxer, who came together and had the ability to compromise and come to agreement.

I tell my friends on the Republican side, that's what the American people want us to do. If we do that, it will raise the confidence of our people, of our business community, of our country. That will be the best thing we can do for our country, to come together in a bipartisan fashion, as the United States Senate did, and act.

Mr. Speaker, some of the most pressing legislative items were nowhere to be found on the floor this week. We had an opportunity to make headway on critical legislation. Unfortunately, the leadership provided no action, not solutions, not action, only obstruction and delay.

First, student loan interest rates will double on July 1 if we do nothing, and we have done nothing.

Secondly, after losing 28,000 construction jobs last month, Congress still has not passed a highway bill, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate passed a bill with 75 percent of its Members in support, half of the Republican Conference in support, but it's nowhere on this floor as construction jobs languish and people look for work.

Speaker Boehner is now saying we might have to wait until November, even though it would create thousands of construction jobs. It seems to be ``my way or no highway.''

Third, we're headed for a fiscal cliff if Congress can't achieve a serious deficit reduction this year, and we've seen appropriations bills this week that break the budget agreement.

This has been another wasted week by a do-nothing Congress, and we're about to begin a weeklong recess once again. Congress could do better. Congress must do better. Americans expect Congress to do better. It ought to take action now, not delay until it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the twenty-fifth Patuxent River Wade-In, begun by former Maryland State Senator Bernie Fowler in 1988. This year's wade-in will take place on June 10 at Jefferson Patterson Park in St. Leonard.

We rely on a multitude of measurements to take stock of our economic health, such as the Industrial Production Index, the Consumer Price Index, and the S&P 500 index. However, to take stock of the health of the Patuxent River--and, indeed, of our stewardship of the

Chesapeake Bay--there is no index more important than Bernie's annual ``Sneaker Index.'' Bernie's sneakers have now been the leading non- scientific measure of the river's health for a quarter century.

Each year, in order to gauge the health and water quality of the Patuxent River, Bernie has waded into its water to measure its clarity, stopping at the point at which he can no longer see his sneakers. As a young man, he recalled being able to see them clearly when the water was already up to his chest--through as much as sixty inches of river water. When Bernie first waded in the river to measure in 1988, he could only get as far as his shins, recording only eight inches of water before his sneakers disappeared beneath the polluted waters. In 2011, Bernie measured this level at 31.25 inches--slightly lower than the previous year and much lower than the over 42 inch record in 2004. This is a sign that we still have much work to do.

I have had the honor of joining him, along with other Maryland elected officials, at the banks of the Patuxent for many years at this annual event. Throughout his career, Bernie has done much to draw attention to the health of the river and the Chesapeake Bay into which it flows. The Patuxent is the Chesapeake's only tributary to flow entirely through our State, and Marylanders feel a special responsibility to protect it for future generations.

Let us continue to follow in Bernie Fowler's footsteps and heed his call to conserve and protect the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay, and let us leave our children and grandchildren a cleaner and clearer Patuxent and Chesapeake to enjoy and treasure.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, all of us through our lives meet people, particularly when we were young--and I'm sure this happened to people who were with leaders of our country. Thomas Jefferson, a young man, I'm sure there were people who met Thomas Jefferson when he was 25 and they said to themselves, boy, this guy's really got his head in the clouds. And then he became one of the great people of democracies in our world.

When I was 23 years of age, in 1962, I was working for a United States Senator whose name was Daniel Brewster from our State of Maryland. That summer, he hired as an intern a young woman--younger than me, but about my age--close--and we had the opportunity to get to know one another. We sat approximately 12 feet from one another as a young college graduate and a young law school student. That was 1962.

Through the years, I stayed in Maryland, and that young woman got married and moved to California. Just a few years later, I came to the Congress of the United States, and 6 years later she came to the Congress of the United States, after having been the chairman of her party in the largest State in the Union, having been very much involved with the United States Senate, having been a leader in our country, not as a Member of Congress, but in her role as a significant party leader and a member of the Democratic National Committee.

When Sala Burton died, herself a member of a distinguished political family, this young woman ran for Congress of the United States. Her father had served in the Congress of the United States, been a member of the Appropriations Committee, been mayor of Baltimore city, and been the father of a mayor of Baltimore city. How proud he would be of this young daughter he raised at his knee, not, frankly, as somewhat caricatured as a San Francisco, but as a Baltimore City pol--I say that with great affection--who knew how to put neighborhoods together, who knew how to take care of citizens in that city. That's where she learned her politics.

As Thomas Jefferson had people who attacked him bitterly, she has had the same. We all have that in this game that we participate in that we care deeply about. That young woman that I first worked with in 1962 became the highest-ranking woman in the history of our country in our government. And now we note--some celebrate, others note--her attaining of a quarter of a century of service in this body.

And all of us will be able to tell our grandchildren. I have my grandchildren now. Maybe I'll have more, but I have a number of them now, and a number of them are young women, and I tell them how proud they can be of the leadership and the trail that has been blazed by this extraordinary woman.

I've talked to a number of you on the Republican side of the aisle, my good friend Roy Blunt, and he says to me, he said, Boy, that woman has a spine of steel. And that she does. Those of us who have dealt with her know that she's one of the strongest leaders any of us have served with, whether you agree with her or don't agree with her.

So I rise, Mr. Speaker, to note this anniversary of 25 years of service of Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi, from the State of Maryland, the very proud State of Maryland, to have a daughter like Nancy, and a State that is proud of its citizen servant, Nancy Pelosi.

Ladies and gentlemen, I now have the great honor of yielding to my friend. He's of a different party, but we're both Americans. We both love this institution, and he is now, himself, not quite as historic a figure because there have been many men who have been Speaker of the House of Representatives, but my friend, John Boehner, Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, the gentlelady from California would like me to yield, and I do so.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Runyan and Mr. Kissell and others, which seeks to ensure that our Nation's fire stations are adequately staffed and that firefighters have the tools they need to protect our communities safely and effectively. Specifically, this amendment will restore the successful FIRE and SAFER grant programs to last year's funding level of $337.5 million each.

Independent observers have found that FIRE and SAFER work: an independent study from the U.S. Fire Administration found that grants like these are making our fire departments more prepared and better equipped to protect our communities. Cutting FIRE and SAFER makes it more difficult for our communities to recruit, train, and retain skilled firefighters. And, it makes it far more difficult for our departments to equip themselves with the up-to-date tools critical to protecting property and saving lives.

I want to make clear that I am not pleased with the offset being used to restore this funding. However, I recognize that my colleagues were left with very few options, given the cuts made to the overall bill. I am hopeful that this will be addressed in conference with the Senate.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, fund FIRE and SAFER at the Fiscal Year 2012 level, and protect these vital investments in public safety.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate an extraordinary team of young women from Maryland's fifth congressional district. The Northern High School Patriots won the 3A Maryland ``state softball finals on May 26, 2012. This is their fifth consecutive softball state championship and ninth softball championship overall. This incredible achievement was made all the more significant given the caliber of their competition.

After an undefeated season, the Patriots emerged victorious over Thomas Stone High School, Chopticon High School, Huntingtown High School, and Reservoir High School to ultimately meet Linganore High School in the state championship game at Robert E. Taylor Stadium at the University of Maryland. The Patriots prevailed, overcoming the Linganore Lancers with a final score of 10 0.

This victory demonstrates that with determination, willpower, and discipline we can work to overcome any obstacle in the path of achieving success. The Northern High School Softball team has gone above and beyond expectations. The Patriots end their 2012 season not only with a state championship, but also a perfect record of 25 0. Additionally, Northern High School has become the first softball program in state history to win five consecutive state titles.

Eighteen student-athletes contributed to this triumphant season, remaining focused and determined to continue the streak of Northern High School softball state championships.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my heartiest congratulations to the members of the championship team--Jessie Clemons, Kierstie Schaefer, Jess Cummings, Sarah Bennett, Sam Gatton, Caroline Clarry, Marleigh Smith, Lindsey Schmeiser, Madison Marinaccio, Baylee Hutchinson, Erin Adams, Julie Keleti, Carleigh Ruleman, Kristina Lozupone, Kailin Case, Allison Garzone, Kayla Grantham, and Sabrina Beil--on their victory. And, I also want to applaud Head Coach Robert Earl Radford and his coaching staff--Devin Hall, Beth Radford, and Qyntia Parks-Lewis--for their dedication and commitment while guiding these talented student- athletes.

Like all Southern Marylanders, I am very proud of these young women and I congratulate all of those involved in bringing home a state title. I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this great accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Chopticon High School Marching Band on earning the title of United States Scholastic Band Association Group IIIA Maryland State Champions. ``The Showband of Southern Maryland'' from Morganza, Maryland, has earned this title for the past three consecutive years.

This momentous victory was made all the more significant given the caliber of their competition. After competing previously at three regional competitions, the band took first place at the State Championship, hosted by Towson University on October 15, 2011 with their performance titled ``The Heart of Madness.'' The

band went on to compete and place fourth at the National Championship in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

This victory demonstrates that with hard work, determination, and discipline, we can reach our goals. The band also received awards for best music, effect, visual, performance, and guard. Fifty-three musicians qualified for the performance, and they remained focused and determined to achieve their dream of victory at the statewide competition.

I want to applaud the band's staff--Todd Burroughs, Christina Burroughs, Bobby Jones, Mark Lortz, Megan Howell, Briscoe Thompson, and Kevin Burroughs for their dedication and commitment to training these superb musicians. I also send my hardiest congratulations to the members of the marching band on their victory--Carrie Barrett, Alexis Badovski, Samantha Lockard, Breanna Thorne, Brendan Utt, Bailie Anthony, Elizabeth Barnes, William Husk, Kacey Roberts, Jennifer Russnogle, Paula Wills, Robert Konen, Chris Mitchell, Marlena Krauth, Jennifer Thalman, Sam Prettyman, Dakota Sparks, Josh Wetherald, Geoffrey Westbrook, Joey Coleman, Kelsie Gill, Philip Hayden, Garret Ordille, Matt Ordille, Megan Mosier, Nick Nelson, Ryan Nelson, Kelly Purdy, Jacob Thorne, Kayla Bean, Kolleen Dare, Jake Flowers, Jennafer Harris, Rachel Kaper, Kayla Morris, Taylor McQueeney, Nicole Sadecki, Hunter Sparks, Madison Bateman, Rachel Escolopio, Amber Griffith, Sabrina Hill, Danielle Hilton, Carly Keating, Hannah Kozlowski, Emily McKoy, Rachel Nussberger, Darby Powell, Layne Thompson, Melanie Thompson, Kristen Wetzel, Mackenize Wood, Meredith Wood, and Gina Zanelotti.

I'm very proud of these young men and women, and I congratulate all those involved in bringing home the championship title. I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this significant accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that information, and I want to make the comment that the gentleman correctly congratulated the appropriations leadership on his side of the aisle.

I also want to observe that on our side of the aisle there has been cooperation, and there's not been an effort to either delay or dissemble. That is why this process works. That's the way it should work. It hasn't always been that way, as the gentleman knows, but I'm pleased that it is working. I think that's best for our institution, and I think it's best for the country. So I'm pleased at that, as well.

I tell my friend--and he knows this--according to the schedule I have, the House is scheduled to be in session a total of 28 days until the August break and 41 days from now until November.

Of the 41 days available, 10 are 6:30 days in which we come in for an abbreviated evening session which usually takes a half hour to an hour to conclude after afternoon debate on suspension bills.

With the limited time we have available, Mr. Leader, I am very concerned, as the gentleman knows, of the extraordinarily large number of very big fiscal questions that will be coming to roost at the end of this year. My view is that we need to address those. Hopefully, we will address them in a bipartisan way. If we do not address them, we will put the economy at continuing risk.

The Bush tax cuts, as you know, expire as of December 31. The payroll tax cut expires December 31. The sustainable growth rate--which we affectionately refer to as the doc fix--the alternative minimum tax, and the debt limit all come to bear at the end of the year.

In addition to that, the sequester--which I think all of us believe is not the appropriate way to go, but is the way we set up to force us to take action on a comprehensive, big, bold, balanced plan. Unfortunately, the supercommittee was unable to reach agreement on that.

I wanted to say to my friend, the majority leader, I would hope that you would be urging all of us and I would join with you in that effort in urging all of us to be ready to make some tough decisions, but decisions which need to be made in order to stabilize our economy and stabilize the fiscal posture of the United States. I am hopeful that we can reach a credible and sustainable fiscal path for our country.

The only way we are going to do that is if we work together in a bipartisan fashion. The gentleman and I were very successful in working on the Export-Import Bank legislation in a bipartisan fashion in which we got over 300 votes for on the House floor. The gentleman was unable to make the signing but it was signed this week, I think a very positive step forward. I appreciated the gentleman's work on that piece of legislation.

I would like to urge the gentleman that because of the extraordinarily short number of days that we have left to meet, to focus on what I think is going to be what some people call a fiscal train wreck, some people call it a fiscal perfect storm, some people call it a fiscal perfect cliff. Whatever you call it, it clearly will have a great impact on not only the confidence that Americans have in this body and the Senate to work and to make effective plans for meeting that challenge, but also for getting our country on a fiscally sustainable path. I don't know whether the gentleman has any comments on that.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. I was not trying to make political points or rhetoric in raising the issues that I did. I frankly think that it doesn't get us very far, I would suggest to the majority leader, and we need to get someplace. America expects us to get someplace.

Many of your members have indicated that revenues need to be on the table. The gentleman knows that every bipartisan commission that has dealt with this says revenues need to be on the table. The same entitlements need to be on the table. Neither are easy to deal with, but they must be dealt with if we're going to be responsible stewards of this Nation's finances and this Nation's future.

Political rhetoric is not going to get us there. We all want to help small business, and we believe we have helped small business very substantially. Frankly, if you get into the analysis, small businesses did very well during the Clinton administration under policies that were in place at that point in time.

That aside, we need to deal with this, and I think a number of members on your side have, in fact, indicated that they understand that everything needs to be on the table, and that is what I think as well. I think both sides have things that they don't want to deal with, but Americans expect us to deal with tough things and make tough decisions on behalf of them, on behalf of their children and on behalf of their families.

On small business and economic growth, this leads me to the highway bill. We continue to be very concerned, Mr. Majority Leader, that we have not reached agreement on the highway bill. The Senate was able to reach an overwhelmingly bipartisan agreement on the highway bill, which is a jobs bill.

I was disappointed, and I hope the gentleman was disappointed at the jobs numbers that came out today: 82,000 in the private sector, lost 13,000 in the public sector, net: 69,000 jobs. That does not get us to where we want to be after losing millions and millions of jobs in the previous administration and losing a substantial number of jobs in the administration before. Over the last 26 months, we have grown 4 million jobs, but the hole was very deep, and we're not out of it. If you don't have a job, you know we're not out of it. I would hope that we could at least, with certainly our side believing, that the highway bill is a jobs bill.

Ray LaHood, as I pointed out in the past, a former leader in your party and chairman of a subcommittee in the Appropriations Committee, says that it's a jobs bill but unfortunately concludes that bill is not passing, he believes, for largely political reasons. I hope that's not the case and don't assert it to be the case.

Do you have any idea what kind of progress we're making on the highway bill so that bill can come to the floor before the June 30 expiration of the highway authorization?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

I appreciate his observation. Clearly we don't want to have the authority for the highway bill to expire without action, but I will reiterate my offer to my friend, the majority leader, and say that given the bipartisan, the overwhelming bipartisan, support of the bill that came from the other party, that if we brought that bill to the floor, I would tell the gentleman that we will have the overwhelming, perhaps unanimous support, which would be 190 votes on our side of the aisle for that bill because we believe it is a jobs bill. We believe it will grow the economy, it will put people back to work.

It will give confidence to the American people, as we did with the Export-Import Bank in my view, give confidence to the American people that we can come together and move forward through reaching agreement.

Obviously, the Senate was able to do that. And they did it overwhelmingly, with over half of the Republican caucus voting for it in the Senate and three-quarters of the Senate voting for it.

I would say to my friend, I think that would be a real shot in the arm for the economy. And I agree with the gentleman, certainty is important. Confidence building is important. And if we did that, in my view, and if you could bring half of your caucus to that vote, we would pass that bill overwhelmingly. And I think it would be a very positive step for the economy, very positive step for the confidence of the American people and our economy and put people back to work.

I don't know whether the gentleman wants to comment on that further, but if he does, I will yield to him.

Lastly, if I might, the student loan interest rate, as you know, will go up at the end of this month from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. That will add substantially additional cost to literally millions of students, some thousand dollars of additional cost to most students at a time when we want to make higher education, so necessary for success in our country, available to as many people as we possibly can so we can be competitive worldwide and, from our perspective further, a Make it in America agenda of growing our economy and getting jobs for our people.

I know that there was opposition to that reduction when it was originally on the floor in 2007. I know there was some opposition to it earlier this year. But I also know that I think both you and the Speaker have indicated now that they support that. We passed legislation on this floor which brought that down when there was, obviously, very substantial disagreement and controversy with reference to the funding source, given the preventive health fund that was used to fund the student aid.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not he believes there's a possibility for us to reach agreement on how to do this? I know the Speaker said this was a ``phony'' fight, but it is a real fight and it will have real consequences if we don't resolve our differences. Can the gentleman comment on what he believes to be the possibility of reaching agreement with the Senate on the student loan bill?

I thank the gentleman.

Just for his information, I would be a very strong opponent of your first option, which continues to want to reduce the take-home pay of Federal employees. Federal employees, under the plans that you have passed through this House, will have already been asked to pay $105 billion in reduction in pay and benefits over 10 years. That's $10 billion per year you're suggesting that our employees have their net take-home pay reduced.

In addition, the additional proposal in your reconciliation bill would add another $78 billion to that, $183 billion in total, or $18.3 billion per year reduction in pay and benefits for Federal employees. The gentleman, in his State, has a lot of those Federal employees. They happen to be civilian employees.

I know the gentleman supported the pay raise for the military personnel, which I supported as well. The gentleman is aware that largely, through my tenure in the Congress, we've treated our civilian employees and our military employees with parity. I would hope that the gentleman would not think of continuing to go to the Federal employee, as we go to no other employees, and the gentleman is not interested in asking anybody else to participate more in paying for this in terms of revenues. But your side has been continuing to propose reducing the pay and benefits of the Federal employees.

My view is, and I have said this publicly, that if we can reach a big, bold, balanced deal and it's balanced--but just going to one pocket, one group of people, who studies show, depending upon the level you're working at, many are not paid comparably to their private sector, some others are, is not a fair, balanced way to proceed. I would hope that that option would be not on the table. I know the administration put it on the table for a larger deal, but I'm going to urge that that not be an option.

I know that I have talked to some of your side from your State who believe that's not an option that ought to be pursued. As a matter of fact, one of them voted against the MilCon bill yesterday because of a provision dealing with further reducing the net take-home pay for Federal employees.

So I would hope that would not be an option, and I would hope that we can reach an option so we can contain the cost of college for young people, because that's not only good for them, it's good for the competitive stature of the United States of America.

With respect to the reconciliation bill that you mentioned, you mentioned the fact that you were dealing with the deficit. In fact, as the gentleman knows, in terms of your health care provisions, they do not, within the next 20 years, get the Federal budget to balance in the Ryan budget. So although you deal with that in some respects, it doesn't get us to balance and therefore does not, in my opinion, give the confidence and certainty that the American economy needs and that American citizens need.

I want to ask the gentleman, lastly, if he expects all 12 appropriations bills--I know we're going to do Energy and Water; we've now already done two of our bills--whether or not he expects all 12 appropriations bills to be on the floor, considered, and completed prior to the August break.

I don't want to interrupt, other than to clarify.

As I understand the two options, one was the option of making additional--in the letter I read. Maybe I'm incorrect. If you can correct me.

I thank the gentleman for his clarification.

I thank the gentleman for that information, and I want to say to the gentleman that I disagree that there is no plan. Mr. Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, did in fact have a plan, presented that plan, and it was voted on on the floor of the House. It did not prevail, but that is a plan which, frankly, was a more balanced plan from our perspective. Obviously, the House did not agree with that. But it is a more balanced plan that would have reached balance in fact more quickly, I believe, than the Ryan plan.

So we do have a plan. We presented that plan. We offered it on the House floor. I voted for that plan. The overwhelming majority of the party on this side of the aisle voted for that plan. So there is a plan, so I think the gentleman is not correct in saying that we haven't offered a plan. We have; the plan has not passed, the gentleman is absolutely correct on that. The Senate and the House have not agreed on a plan. I'm not sure that they will be able to agree on a plan. I think that's unfortunate, but perhaps we can agree on the appropriations bills.

We are hopeful that the appropriations bills will be agreed upon consistent with the agreement that we thought we had at the funding levels of $1.047 trillion for discretionary spending. The bills that have been offered are closer to that number than I think we will find as later bills come, we don't know that, but that is the speculation. The Senate has agreed that we ought to mark up to that figure, but we haven't marked up to that figure in the appropriations bills. But if we complete the appropriations bills, as the gentleman says he wants to do, I think it would be good to do.

Is it the gentleman's perspective that we will mark to $1.047 trillion or $1.028 trillion? That's a $19 billion difference, a substantial difference, we understand that. In the Senate, the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to mark to the higher number. Can the gentleman comment on whether or not at the end of the day we'll be able to get agreement on the agreement that we thought we had in the Budget Control Act?

I don't have a rebuttal to that, so I will yield back my time.

I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding, the acting ranking member of the Rules Committee right now, who is a distinguished Member of this body.

I rise in deep disappointment at the treatment he was accorded last night. It was unworthy of this body, unworthy of the Rules Committee, and unworthy of the character and integrity of the gentleman from Massachusetts. I am pleased that there has been an apology for that, but I did not want it to go unmentioned. This body is better than that; although, at times, it is not. We ought to all lament the fact when it is not.

Madam Speaker, the rule to consider this bill is not only unfair but inconsistent with the majority's stated goal of having an open process. I will quote the Speaker in just a couple of minutes.

My friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has put forward a bipartisan amendment--and I want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina, my Republican colleague, and I hope all Americans, Madam Speaker, notice the courage and conviction that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) has. He was sponsoring an amendment with the gentleman from Massachusetts, and they don't always agree. But as the gentleman from North Carolina said: There is no more important issue that confronts a country than sending its young men and women in harm's way at the point of the spear.

Yes, it is to defeat terrorism and to keep America safe, but the decision to do that and the ongoing discussion, particularly after a decade, is certainly something the American people would expect, a full-blown debate and airing of our continuing to keep our young people and not-so-young people in harm's way. It is certainly germane to this bill as it concerns our military operations in Afghanistan.

Mr. McGovern's amendment and Mr. Jones' amendment would reaffirm the strategy laid out by the President and agreed to by the Afghan President to transition security responsibility to Afghan forces so our troops can come home.

Today, Al Qaeda has been forced out of Afghanistan and the Taliban is severely weakened, objectives that I supported. Afghan forces are taking responsibility for more and more of their country's security, and we're making strong gains thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of our troops whom we honor.

With tens of thousands of Americans still deployed in combat, one of our highest priorities in this year's Defense authorization act must be to make sure they have a strategy to complete their mission and return home safely. We owe that to them. We owe that to their parents, their wives, their brothers, their sisters, their nieces, their nephews, and to all their neighbors.

Our men and women in uniform have performed everything asked of them with courage, distinction, and professionalism. We've asked many of them to return for tour of duty after tour of duty to one of the world's most deadly war zones, and we owe it to all of them to have a carefully conceived strategy. Mr. McGovern's amendment would not tie the President's hands and would help place us in the strongest possible position to combat terrorism around the world.

I understand that everybody may not agree on Mr. McGovern's formulation, but that's what this body is for: to debate these issues of great importance to the people and resolve them in a democratic way.

I'm sorely disappointed that this amendment was not made in order. If it had, I would have voted for it.

In September, Speaker Boehner, himself, said something significant. Madam Speaker, it's important what the Speaker said, and I agree with what the Speaker said. He said this:

I have no fear in allowing the House to work its will . . .

I've long believed in it, and I continue to believe in it.

Madam Speaker, the actions of the Rules Committee last night were inconsistent with that conviction. Let the House work its will. Let's have a vote on this amendment. Let us send a message to our troops that we have an exit strategy in Afghanistan, that we'll see them safely home with their mission accomplished.

I want to thank Representative McGovern for his leadership on this issue, commend Ranking Member Adam Smith of the Armed Services Committee for his work on this amendment, and I congratulate Mr. Jones for his courage and for his vision.

While you may disagree, you ought not to shut down alternative opinions.

Mr. Chair, I continue to be disappointed at how Republicans are approaching deficit reduction. Every day, we hear Republicans talking about the need for painful cuts to get our deficits in order. However, time and again, Republicans appear unwilling to exercise fiscal discipline when it affects something they like.

First, the sequester is set to impose difficult and arbitrary spending cuts across both defense and domestic programs unless we replace its deficit savings before the end of the year. Yet, Republicans seek to find these savings only by cutting domestic programs like Social Service Block Grants, food stamps, and preventive health care services. And second, we reached an agreement last August on spending levels, which Republicans have now broken.

This Republican defense bill authorizes $8 billion more than the agreed-upon level. At the same time, Republicans are drastically cutting domestic programs.

This amendment returns defense spending to the level agreed upon in the Budget Control Act. It does so without weakening our military or denying our troops the tools they need to succeed in their mission. This should be something Republicans and Democrats ought to see eye to eye on, because we previously agreed to it in August.

Democrats want to provide our troops with every tool they need to carry out their mission and keep Americans safe. The arbitrary cuts of the sequester will make doing so much more difficult.

That's why we need a solution that balances defense and non-defense spending cuts and includes revenues--a big, bold, and balanced approach.

This, Mr. Chair, is the opposite of a balanced approach, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and send a strong message that we must approach deficit reduction with the seriousness it deserves.

I commend Representative Barbara Lee, Financial Services Ranking Member Barney Frank, Representative Lynn Woolsey, and Representative Earl Blumenauer for their work on this amendment and for standing up for the agreement the parties reached last August.

I thank the distinguished ranking member from Michigan who has been such an extraordinary fighter for the rights of all people in our country, and I rise in opposition to this bill.

I would say, as an aside, the last speaker talked about Native Americans. The National Congress of American Indians of course says this matter does nothing to address the crux of the issue--the lack of local authority to handle misdemeanor-level domestic and dating violence when the perpetrator is non-Indian. It goes on to oppose this legislation.

I rise in sadness, Madam Speaker. I was the cosponsor of the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994. We passed a bipartisan bill that has helped law enforcement significantly reduce domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

While great progress has been made, unfortunately one in three American women still experience violence by a partner, stalking, or sexual assault. That's why this bill is a perfect example of why we need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. I will tell my friends the Senate did this. Why is it that we have to choose disunity and confrontation over consensus? I don't know why that is, particularly on an issue of this great importance to the American people.

The Senate came together, 68 of them--two-thirds of the United States Senate, Republicans and Democrats, overwhelmingly supported this. Every woman in the United States Senate supported the Senate bill--everyone, Republican women and Democratic women, who know firsthand the crisis that confronts our communities.

However, this version was reported by the Judiciary Committee with no bipartisan support--and indeed bipartisan opposition. Why do we have to do that? We could have come together. We should have come together. The Senate came together. There is no reason we can't, other than to make our points on a partisan basis.

This bill is weaker than existing law, it is regressive, and it sends the wrong message about our values. The Senate's version extends new protections to Native Americans and to all who are targeted, regardless of sexual orientation. Isn't that our value, to protect every individual? ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all individuals are endowed by their Creator.'' Shouldn't we protect all individuals, not exclude some?

Not only does the House version fail to include those protections, it also makes it harder for law enforcement to encourage immigrant victims to come forward to seek help and justice. I met with over 30 members of the law enforcement community on Monday. We sat around and we talked about, generally, gang violence, but we talked about VAWA. We talked about the ability of people to come forward and make complaints, feel comfortable in doing that, and enhance the ability to get domestic defenders out of the cycle of violence against domestic partners or

others. They all agreed that we ought to make it easier, not harder. We make it harder in this bill. This is not the right way to go.

This version is opposed by hundreds of groups. I've got a list here. I'm not going to read it. Leader Pelosi submitted it for the Record. Hundreds of groups are opposed to this legislation, including the American Bar Association, and are urging a ``no'' vote.

I'm going to vote ``no'' on this, and I hope all my colleagues do as well so that we can adopt a bill that has overwhelming bipartisan support and the support of these groups. Why do we confront these groups and say: Nope, you're wrong, we know better; we know better; you've worked on this for years and decades, but we're going to go our own way?

I thank the gentleman.

This version is opposed, as I said, by hundreds of groups representing victims, advocates, faith-based organizations, as well as law enforcement.

Now, almost every one of us, every one of us--or most, I imagine--has had some personal experience with this. In our own families, ourselves, as lawyers, as doctors, as neighbors, as friends, as fellow church members, we all know the cost of this violence. Let us come together and act together.

This should not be a vehicle for partisan confrontation. Instead, we should adopt the Senate's bipartisan version and ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to prevent domestic violence and provide victims with the assistance they need.

Let us vote ``no'' on this legislation, and then let us move forward in a bipartisan, constructive, overwhelmingly supported fashion like our colleagues in the United States Senate did in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, on March 31 my state of Maryland lost a giant in the realm of higher education. Dr. Thomas E. Florestano, who served for fifteen years as President of Anne Arundel Community College, sadly passed away at age 79.

The son of Italian immigrants, Tom was born in Annapolis and graduated from St. Mary's High School in 1952. He matriculated into the University of Maryland but paused his studies to serve in the U.S. Army as a military police officer in Korea and West Germany. Honorably discharged as a sergeant four years later, Tom returned to the University and earned a bachelor's degree in education in 1958.

While an undergraduate, Tom met his future wife of 52 years, Patricia Sherer. Together, they dedicated their careers to improving access to higher education for Maryland students, with Patricia teaching at the University of Baltimore and currently serving as chairwoman of the Board of Regents for the University System of Maryland.

After graduating, Tom worked as an education advisor at the Army Education Center in Fort Meade. Two years later, he joined the University of Maryland as assistant dean of student life and director of student activities. During this period, Tom earned his master's degree in education and later obtained his Ph.D., both from the University of Maryland.

Tom turned his attention to community college administration in 1970, when he took a job as dean of evening and community education and summer school at Prince George's Community College. After nine years there, Tom was appointed President of Anne Arundel Community College.

He took over during a time when the college was facing significant challenges, including tensions between faculty and administration as well as declining enrollment and budget shortfalls. Tom oversaw a program of revitalization that tripled enrollment, instituted new degree programs, expanded the campus, and turned deficits into sound finances by the time he retired in 1994. The legacy of his leadership of Anne Arundel Community College has been its transformation into the third-largest community college in Maryland. Even more so, Tom put the ``community'' back in ``community college.''

All of us who knew Tom recognized him as one who looked at a challenge and saw an opportunity and who looked at a student and saw a future. Those futures were what he worked so hard to make possible for thousands of Maryland students.

Tom will be greatly missed by the Maryland education community and by all of us who called him a friend. I join in celebrating his life and offering my condolences to Patricia, their son Tom Jr., daughter Leslie, son-in-law Kevin, and their extended family.

Mr. Speaker, I doubt there is a single member of this House or the Senate who has never set foot inside the Monocle on D Street. Just steps from the Capitol, the Monocle has been a political institution as much as it has been a warm and welcoming restaurant. Its tables have long been set with a spirit of friendship that transcends party; they have been host to meetings and discussions on nearly every issue of national importance. The Monocle has been a place of agreement, often at times when disagreement divided us in this House.

It was Constantine Valanos who brought that warm and inviting place to Capitol Hill and to all who serve here. Many of us knew Connie well. Connie made a point of knowing and remembering all of us who set foot in his restaurant, even if just once in a while. Sadly, Connie passed away last month at age 93.

Constantine George Valanos was born into a family of Greek immigrants in Albany, New York, as the First World War was drawing to a close. He grew up here in Washington, D.C., and served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Following his discharge, Connie attended the George Washington University and pursued a career in accounting. In 1960, seeing an opportunity to buy and fix up an old restaurant on Capitol Hill, Connie and his wife, Helen--who passed away in 2005 after a fifty-three year marriage--opened the Monocle.

Among their first regular customers were then-Senators John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Over the next fifty years the Monocle would see a steady stream of Senators, Representatives, future Presidents and Vice Presidents, Supreme Court justices, foreign diplomats, and ordinary Americans visiting with their elected officials.

After three decades at the helm, Connie and Helen passed the management of the business to their son, John, and daughter-in-law, Vasiliki, who continue to run the Monocle today and provide the same friendly and welcoming environment to all who step through the door.

The ancient Greek statesman Pericles said: ``What you leave behind is not what is engraved in monuments of stone but what is woven into the lives of others.'' Connie Valanos leaves behind a legacy not only of a restaurant but also of the countless ways in which he made that restaurant a place where leaders come together to hash out the agreements that help make our Nation great and improve lives around the world. The Monocle, as former Vice President and regular patron Walter Mondale once noted, is ``where laws are debated, where policies are set, and where the course of world history is changed.'' That is Connie's lasting legacy.

I join in celebrating Connie's life and in offering my condolences to his wife Judith, his children, John and George, his three grandchildren, and the entire Valanos family.