Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to fulfill one of Congress' most basic responsibilities: to fund our government and keep it working for the people. We are not doing that very well. It is the 23rd of December, the day before Christmas Eve. The weather is bad, Members--we will see how many--are here to fulfill their duty. This sweeping package is anything but garbage, as the previous speaker intoned. It is, in fact, the essence of supporting our national security, our domestic security, and the welfare of our people. That is not garbage. This sweeping package secures full-year appropriations for fiscal year 2023. In reality, Mr. Speaker, this bill should have been passed in September of this year. Why? Because the fiscal year ends on September 30, and fiscal year 2023 begins on October 1 of this year. The Senate had not passed a single appropriation bill by the end of the last fiscal year to provide for the fiscal year in which we are now operating. That ought to be unacceptable for the 535 of us who have been sent here to represent the American people in a responsible way and in a way that reflects that we are adults seized with the responsibility that the American people expect us to meet. Today, too late--but never too late to do the right thing--we will meet that responsibility. I thank Chairwoman DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, their colleagues and staff on the House Appropriations Committee, and the staff director, all who have worked round the clock to help us achieve an end which must be achieved every year. This does not come as a surprise to any of us that we have to fund the government of the United States of America. So I thank each and every member of the staff of the House Appropriations Committee. Indeed, I thank Mr. Leahy and Mr. Shelby, the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee in the United States Senate. They wanted to get this job done. They wanted to get this job done in a timely fashion. But unfortunately, the United States Senate has become enamored with doing an omnibus at the last second. That ought to be a disappointment for every Member of this body and every American. As an appropriator myself, I know how much work the committee and the staff perform behind the scenes to keep our government operating, and I commend them all for advancing all 12 of the regular appropriation bills for fiscal year 2023 out of their committee in June of this year--in June--while our colleagues in the Senate had not passed any by September 30. We passed six of those bills through this House, Mr. Speaker. We sent them to the Senate, and they have not been taken up. Indeed, for the last 4 years, our House majority has passed legislation to fund almost all of the government by the end of summer. Only, Mr. Speaker, by fulfilling this most basic duty can Congress start to make progress on its other obligations to the American people. Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know and as my colleagues know, I am stepping down as the majority leader. But I am returning to the Appropriations Committee, and I pray that I will have some ability and can make some contribution to effecting a rational appropriations process which pursues regular order, and which understands that we ought to pass every appropriation bill through this House, every one, all 12, by the end of June, which accepts the premise in the United States Senate they ought to pass their appropriation bills by the end of June. Then we ought to spend July, August, and September in resolving the differences that exist between the Senate and the House on funding priorities. Then by September 30, we will have passed all of those bills and we will have avoided this funding by crisis and avoided this last-minute, Christmas Eve performance of our duties. Only by fulfilling this most basic duty can Congress start to make progress. We have a responsibility to address issues that undermine the strength and prosperity of American workers and families. That is why this omnibus includes measures to lower costs for Americans by expanding nutrition assistance programs, increasing funding for childcare, making a greater investment in reducing monthly utility bills, and enhancing retirement savings. That, Mr. Speaker, is not garbage. That is critical action that this House has a responsibility and a duty to our country and to our constituents to perform, and we should have performed it in a timely fashion. But as I said earlier, it is never too late to do the right thing. This is simply not the right way to do it, but it must, should, and will be done today. From hurricanes to wildfires, natural disasters and the climate crisis are a growing threat to Americans across the country. Fortunately, this bill secures $38 billion in supplemental appropriations to help these communities rebuild after disasters and strengthen themselves against future ones. That is not garbage. That is essential action that this House and that the Senate and the President of the United States ought to perform. We ought to perform it in a timely fashion. But let me again repeat: it is never too late to do the right thing. And we will do that today. This omnibus also advances Congress' sacred obligation to uphold American democracy. I congratulate the Thompson-Cheney committee for the report that it has issued to protect and preserve our Constitution and our democracy and to call attention to the American public that one person--one person, albeit a President of the United States--was the reason that our democracy and our Constitution and the election of our President was put at risk. I congratulate the members of that commission for the extraordinary courage that they have shown standing up, telling the truth, and letting the American people know why January 6 occurred and letting the American people know who was responsible-- one person--for that threat to our democracy, our Constitution, and the election, a peaceful regular order election of the President of the United States. This bill that we are going to consider includes provisions that reform the Electoral Count Act which we saw on that day of January 6 were wanting, were unclear, and were used incorrectly to put at risk our democracy. The Electoral Count Act included in this bill will clarify, once and for all, that the Vice President's role in overseeing the count of electoral votes is purely ceremonial. Let us thank Vice President Pence who had the courage and the intellectual integrity to pursue that premise that his duties were ceremonial only. Indeed, this provision points out that no individual neither can nor ought to be able to overturn the will of the American people. This precaution, I tell my colleagues, will ensure that we never see a repeat of the shameful and malicious attack on our democracy on January 6 last year. Our obligation, Mr. Speaker, to uphold democracy and freedom also extends beyond our borders, especially to the people of Ukraine as they fight courageously and at great cost for their democracy and, indeed, for the democracy that exists in every nation that embraces democracy on this globe. On Wednesday, President Zelenskyy made the perilous journey to speak with us about his country's struggle for freedom and democracy. Winston Churchill, as Speaker Pelosi pointed out, visited this Chamber shortly after that day of infamy in December of 1941. His Nation, like President Zelenskyy's, was under siege from the Nazis, and he came to speak to us of freedom. He came to speak to us of our critical role in helping to defend freedom. As John Kennedy said here and around the world, we are a beacon of freedom, a beacon of light; a city on the hill, a shining city, that Ronald Reagan referred to. We are a Nation to whom other nations look for helping them to protect their freedom, but in a much larger sense, the freedom of all freedom-embracing people of the world. That President Zelenskyy chose to come here to this Capitol on his first visit outside Ukraine since Russia's criminal invasion, risking his own life and safety, says as much about his personal courage as it does about our role in preserving democracy around the world. On 9/11, people who hated freedom, people who hated the symbol of freedom, flew three planes: one into the World Trade Center; one into the Pentagon; and one, Mr. Speaker, that I am convinced was designed to decapitate the dome of the Capitol, that symbol of democracy for all the world, that symbol of our democracy. They failed because of the courage of the passengers on the airliner designed to decapitate the Capitol and took it down and gave their own lives that that mission would not be completed as that plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. This bill invests in freedom. It invests in democracy. It invests in a world order based upon law and not based upon threats and military might. America has the power to provide Ukraine with the tools needed to defend its freedom. This legislation includes nearly $45 billion in additional aid to help Ukrainians in that critical, important, world- saving effort. In his remarks on Wednesday, President Zelenskyy said that he needed our help, that he needed our support. He needed weapons with which to respond to Russia's criminal activities. Today's counteroffensive by those who defend democracy has already liberated the people of Kherson, Kharkiv, Lyman, and other places in the Donbas. Reporters ask me, Mr. Speaker: How much are you willing to spend to defend Ukraine? My response, Mr. Speaker: Whatever it takes. Freedom, as we know, is not free. Our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor against a great power, Great Britain, to give us freedom, to establish, as Lincoln pointed out, on the face of the Earth a ``government of the people, by the people, for the people,'' not a government of force, not a government of intimidation, not a government of military might, but of the people, for the people, and by the people. This bill reflects the American people's will to do just that. American aid allowed the Ukrainians to hold the line and push their invaders back. As President Zelenskyy made clear to us on Wednesday night, his country will need our continued support to bring an end to this war, which must come by way of a strategic defeat for Vladimir Putin, one of the great war criminals in the history of the world. This aid is an investment in the future of democracy and the safety of the free world. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a critically important piece of legislation, not only to keep our government funded and to keep our people being served, but also to show that the United States of America's government works. The vote last night, Mr. Speaker, in the United States Senate was 68- 29. Over two-thirds of the United States Senate stood and said that it is time to do our duty. They did it not because each and every one of those Senators thought that this bill was perfect. It is not. This bill should, as I said earlier, have been passed in one form or another to fund all the objects of our government spending by September 30 of this year, but we must do it today--the earlier, the better. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes,'' showing the world that we will never remain idle in the face of those who believe they can terrorize civilians, devour territory, and commit war crimes with impunity. Vote ``yes'' to fulfill our duty to the American people and our Nation's founding principles. Vote ``yes'' to keep our government open and serving the people. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will return to the Appropriations Committee, and I look forward to working with Ms. DeLauro; with the new chair of the committee; with Mrs. Murray, who is going to chair the committee in the United States Senate, Senator Murray; and with all of my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues to do our duty in a timely, effective fashion. I urge all of my colleagues, as you listen, as you sit in this Chamber, as you reflect upon your service in the Congress of the United States and to our constituents, that you make a pledge to yourself, to your people, and to your country that this coming year, we will do our work in a timely and responsible fashion. Vote for this critically essential piece of legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, the Senate has now passed the omnibus which will fund government. As the Members also know, the government will be shut down at midnight tomorrow if we do not pass additional legislation here. I have been over in the Senate talking to those who will prepare the bill to be sent to this Chamber. Unfortunately, the process takes a long time to do, and it will not be to us for a significant period of time, meaning it will not be to us before midnight tonight. As a result, I will announce to Members that I believe we will have no recorded votes until at the earliest 9 a.m. tomorrow, and Members need to be available at 9 a.m. and thereafter. As soon as we get the documents to process on the floor, we will proceed as quickly as possible, and in addition, the Senate has passed and we will pass, as well, a short-term CR so that the bill can be enrolled and sent to the President for signature so there will be no termination or closing of the government's operations. So, again, we will be having no further votes tonight. We will reconvene at 9 a.m., and votes will be conducted as soon thereafter as we are ready to do so.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as majority leader, there has been no benefit of this job that I have appreciated, very frankly, more than my magic 1 minute. I intend to take it now. My friends on both sides of the aisle may be glad to know that this is the last time, perhaps, that I will be able to avail myself of that privilege. I intend to use this extended minute to reflect on what we have achieved together during recent years and on a principle that I am eager for us to continue to apply in the years ahead. As Democratic Caucus vice chairman and chairman, as cochair of the Democratic Steering Committee, as Democratic whip, and as majority leader, I approach my work in leadership with one principle in mind: the psychology of consensus. What is this psychology of consensus? It means having a greater sense of our being in this work together than apart. It means waking up and saying: I am on the team, the American team, privileged as citizens to serve in this body on behalf of all our fellow citizens. It means setting out with the intention to make progress, not to block it; and it means focusing on what unites us as Americans. Democrats have put this ethos into practice to hold the party line when we needed every vote or nearly every vote. Our Members remind one another: Consider how you can be with us before deciding whether to have to vote the other way. Let me share some examples of this success. In 2008, President Bush asked us to take emergency action to prevent a financial catastrophe. He was joined by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Sadly, in our first effort, upon being asked by President Bush, less than one-third of the President's party was initially willing to take that action. We needed to ensure that we had enough Democratic votes to work with President Bush and the Senate to enact that legislation. And we did. Not long after, in 2009, our economy was in free fall, the American people were struggling, and Congress was divided on how to respond. But despite that challenge, Democrats came together to pass the American Rescue and Recovery Act. That legislation set our economy on a path to recovery, saved and created millions of American jobs, and restored confidence in the American Dream. The psychology of consensus also helped Democrats deliver a major victory for the people in 2010: the Affordable Care Act; for all Americans, irrespective of party, giving access to affordable, quality healthcare. Although there were disagreements on the specifics of how best to reform our healthcare system to make it more accessible and affordable, we all recognized the urgent need to take action. We worked together in good faith to secure the votes for that landmark law which made affordable health coverage attainable for 35 million more Americans, banned discriminatory practices, and dramatically slowed the growth of healthcare costs. Interestingly, the model for that was a bill signed by Mitt Romney, then-Governor of Massachusetts, now a United States Senator representing Utah. Seven years later, consensus among Democrats also proved essential as we defended the Affordable Care Act against a President and congressional Republicans who were determined to repeal it. The psychology of consensus benefits not only our Democratic Caucus, but I would suggest the entire Congress. We are seeking the psychology of consensus as we speak. If we focus on what unites us as Americans who serve in the people's House, then surely, we can carry out better the people's work. Surely, we will not achieve consensus on every issue. If we search, however, for common ground before running to our respective corners, then compromise and progress become far more likely. I learned this lesson early, not only as president of the Maryland State Senate but also working together with Democratic and Republican House colleagues to achieve bipartisan victories. The Americans with Disabilities Act, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in our lifetimes, shines for me as an example of that working together. In 1990, I joined with Tom Harkin, Bob Dole, Ted Kennedy, Steve Bartlett--a Republican who was the mayor of Dallas after he left here--and others as then-President George H.W. Bush signed that law into being. As a result, those with disabilities must now receive reasonable accommodation, have greater access to opportunity, and are treated with greater dignity. All of us in this House can take credit for that on both sides of the aisle. We achieved that by asking ourselves how we could get to ``yes'' on legislation that would benefit literally millions and millions of Americans. We did it again after the 2000 election revealed serious problems with our voting infrastructure. Colleagues from both parties, skilled legislators like Bob Ney, my dear friend; Chris Dodd; my good friend and still to this day one of my best friends, Roy Blunt; and others sat down together. We ultimately secured the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The psychology of consensus--coming together, working together, being together, and making it happen together--made it possible. It has also led many of us to cooperate to promote freedom and human rights around the world. As a former cochair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I have been honored to meet with those who risk everything to promote freedom and democracy in our countries. Democrats and Republicans have worked together successfully to support them in that effort and to ensure that America remains a bright beacon to all those living in darkness. As Reagan pointed out, we are the shining city on the hill. The psychology of consensus is needed to keep that city and that beacon shining. As part of that commitment to democracy and human rights, I have been proud to be a leader of the broad, bipartisan coalition supporting the U.S.-Israel relationship and Israel's pursuit of security and peace in that region. That effort exemplifies how to build and sustain consensus in this House. This bipartisan approach must continue, and I will keep working next Congress to ensure that both parties stand firmly with Israel. Recently, the pivotal 117th Congress gave us example after example after example of how this philosophy helps cultivate bipartisanship. Both of our parties ought to pursue that. Frankly, we are seeing an example of that being elusive for our friends on the other side of the aisle as they try to elect a Speaker. We came into office facing a cratering economy, a deadly pandemic, and grave threats to American democracy. Halfway through, we also had to respond to the most serious threat to global security since the Second World War: Vladimir Putin's criminal, unjustified, and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The margin of our majority was slim, 222-213. Many predicted the math would make our efforts to govern unworkable. Two weeks after the election in 2020, the Republican leader told reporters: We might not be able to schedule the floor, but we are going to run the floor. On our side, our psychology of consensus, however, made this one of the most productive Congresses in recent history and in which I have served. Not only by striving for consensus among our caucus, which proved the naysayers wrong, but by reaching across the aisle to Republicans--to fellow Americans--when we needed their help to deliver results. Indeed, however, we ran the floor because of the psychology of consensus. Coordinating with the Senate and the Biden administration, our House majority enacted major legislation even against unified Republican opposition. Our Members stuck together on very tough votes. The American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act were the result. These laws arrested the economic free fall, deployed hundreds of millions of lifesaving vaccine doses, reopened businesses and schools, created a historic number of new jobs, and set us up to tackle the climate crisis head-on while enabling American workers and entrepreneurs to Make It In America. Much of our success in the 117th Congress, however, resulted from bipartisanship. We encouraged Republican colleagues to ask themselves how they could get to ``yes.'' And enough did that we enacted a bipartisan infrastructure law, the CHIPS and Science Act, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the Respect for Marriage Act, and other crucial legislation for our country. We also resoundingly expressed Americans' support for the people of Ukraine by providing critical military and humanitarian aid during their hour of danger, our hour of danger, and the world's hour of danger. Last night we welcomed and cheered Ukraine's courageous President who guards the front door of freedom, international order, and a peaceful global community based on the rule of law. We must continue to support the Ukrainian people for however long it takes to ensure that they remain democratic, free, and sovereign. John Kennedy--a great hero of mine and an inspiration for my entering politics--said at an inaugural address that goes down in history as one of the greatest: We will pay any price and bear any burden to defend freedom here and around the world. That psychology of consensus made the 117th Congress a success. The same ethos ought to characterize the next Congress as well, and I will work towards that end with my Republican colleagues. Our majority will soon come to an end--or, as I believe, a 2-year hiatus. The time has come, as President Kennedy said to my generation when we were ready to step up and serve, for the torch to be passed. I will not be in the elected leadership of my party next Congress. I will, however, remain here, serving the country and this institution that I love. I will keep urging bipartisanship wherever possible and work to unite Democrats in opposition whenever circumstances demand. I offer Mr. Jeffries, Ms. Clark, and Mr. Aguilar my strongest support, the counsel of my experience, and whatever assistance they may seek. I am excited for them to take the helm. I know they are ready to lead us back to the majority and help our Members deliver for the people. My colleagues still will see me on the floor regularly as I speak-- albeit more briefly, sadly--on behalf of the people I proudly represent in Maryland's Fifth District. It is because of their support, their encouragement, and their allowance that I have been able to serve in the leadership since 1989 and serve in this body for over four decades. I am so thankful to them and look forward to continuing our work to make Maryland's communities safer, stronger, and more prosperous; to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous; and to make our alliance with the rest of the world and freedom-loving peoples stronger, safer, and more prosperous. We still have much more to do on projects that will benefit our districts and our State, and I look forward to returning to the Appropriations Committee as a senior member to advance those efforts. My work in the House will continue with the same energy, enthusiasm, and dedication as I hope I have demonstrated over the last 42 years. I also thank my Democrat colleagues who have supported me in leadership. I hope that I have kept the faith. I hope that I have done as they would have hoped. I hope they believe I have represented our Congress, this institution, America, and, yes, my party as they would have expected. I am proud to serve with the first woman to be Speaker of this House, the indefatigable Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi. Our journey of service together began as interns more than five decades ago after we heeded President Kennedy's call. We sat together in a small office in the Russell Building, working for Maryland Senator Daniel Brewster. We end two decades of partnership and leading the House Democrats, along with our good friend Jim Clyburn, who I have known for 50 years. I salute Speaker Pelosi and her trailblazing tenure. We, my colleagues, have had the great privilege of serving with two historic Members of this House: John Lewis and Nancy Pelosi. Throughout my years in House leadership, I have had the honor of employing those I believe are the finest, most capable, and most professional staff on Capitol Hill. Nancy said the same of her staff. America--we, yes, but America--is blessed by the extraordinary patriots that serve as staff of this institution and of individual Members. They are extraordinarily able people, and they are great patriots. Whether with me for two decades or just a few months, they have displayed unrivaled dedication, ability, and integrity. I thank each and every one of them. They have my gratitude and my deep affection. If I sang the praises individually of each member of my team, my magic minute would turn into a magic day, so I won't do that. Suffice it to say any praise earned by me belongs equally to them. A number of them were here in the Capitol on January 6, 2021, a day like December 7, 1941, that will live as a day of infamy in the history of this Nation. They were housed in a small, insular office in my office, terrified by those without and in our hallways who called for the death of the Speaker and of the Vice President of the United States of America. They are an extraordinary group of talented public servants. Notwithstanding that terror, they came back the next day to do America's work. I thank them for who they are and for what they have done. Another group of individuals who I have come to know well and who have been at my side deserves recognition. The men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police who have served on my protective detail are among the finest law enforcement professionals in our country. They are my friends. They are part of my family. I will love them always. I have been privileged to get to know them and their families. They are dear, dear friends, and like so many, they are great patriots. They are part of a department that has faced enormous strains over the past 2 years. We must never waver in our support for the U.S. Capitol Police officers, who every day protect all who work in and visit this Capitol complex. They are the frontline defenders of our legislative branch. They are the frontline defenders of our great democracy. We owe them more than gratitude; we owe them support. Most of all, I thank my family, my wife, Judy, who died much too soon; my daughters, Anne, Susan, and Stefany; my son-in-law, Loren; my grandchildren, Judy, James, and Alexa, along with Judy's husband, Chris Gray. They are the parents of my four great-grandchildren, Ava, Braedon, Brooklyn, and Savannah. Your love and support have sustained me throughout these years. I hope the lessons of my time in leadership and the victories we achieved together, Republicans and Democrats, Members of Congress, 435 people sent here by their neighbors and friends to represent them on issues directly affecting them, their families, and their country, I hope that those lessons achieved together under our Democratic majority will guide the House in meeting the challenges still ahead. The psychology of consensus provides us with a blueprint for success. We in this House are, after all, all Americans whose common heritage should drive us to a common purpose. In 2 weeks, there will be a new majority. It will be like ours, a very narrow one--indeed, the same margin we have had, 222-213. The challenge it poses to both our parties and to each of us and to the next Speaker and majority whip is all too familiar. Democrats overcame it through the psychology of consensus. All of us, all 435 of us, ought to overcome it with that same kind of psychology: One Nation under God, indivisible. Guided by a dynamic new leadership team of shared vision and experience, House Democrats will approach our brief time in the minority the same way, ready to continue standing up for our principles, for our ideals, and for America with a united front-- hopefully, not just a partisan united front but a united front, indivisible. Republicans would be wise, I think, to take the same approach and seek common ground with Democrats. Did we do it often enough? Maybe not. Did we do it successfully? Not always. But together, we must achieve consensus. Democrats may not schedule the floor next year, but I hope that the successful approach we modeled will continue to run the floor. Madam Speaker, as we close this 117th Congress, let us look ahead with determination and dedication to the cause that brought each of us to this Capitol: to serve our constituents, our communities, and our country; to preserve and defend our Constitution and our democracy; to keep faith with those who protect our Nation and the allies who stand alongside us; to represent the American people, to effect their will, to reflect their generous spirit and deep sense of justice to the best of our ability--in short, to work together to create a more perfect Union. With great reluctance, and even greater hesitation for this special privilege I am about to lose, though with great hope that, in the future, I will at least be able to talk, but for all your sakes, not as long, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have been working on this issue almost all of my career in the Congress of the United States. The previous gentleman said: Let's do it right. This does it right. This does it after years and years and years and years and years of consideration. I hesitate because I agree, I think, almost in whole with the remarks that Mr. Westerman has made. Mr. Westerman is a Member of the Congress that I respect. He and I work on things that we think are very important to mankind, here in this country and around the world, in terms of our global environment. America is a great nation. It is a generous nation. I have said throughout the world that America is the least acquisitive great power that has existed in the world. What do I mean by acquisitive? We did not fight wars to take property and to acquire countries, to do what Putin criminally does today. In fact, what we did in those wars in which we have participated in was to build up countries, and they are now democracies: Germany, Japan, Italy, and other nations which we have occupied for a temporary period of time to make sure they were free and help them be free. This bill is about the Puerto Rican people and their island. And to redeem a premise that we have argued to all the world ought to be central to their policies. That is the right of peoples to self- determination. The right of peoples to say: This is who I am, and this is the political environment in which I want to live--by free votes, not arms, not force, but by the choice of the people. That is what this legislation does. Puerto Ricans and people of Puerto Rican descent have had an important place in the American family for over a century. They contribute to American culture. They help protect America's national security. They support the American economy and our shared prosperity. They are American citizens. We made that decision because that was our decision to make whether we were going to allow them to be American citizens or not. Frankly, whether they have any relationship with us or not is our American Congress' decision. They are today American citizens like all of us. For far too long, however, the people of Puerto Rico have been excluded from the full promise of American democracy and self- determination that our Nation has always championed. We owe it to our own values, and we owe it to the Puerto Rican people to bring an end to their island's 124-year-old status as a U.S. territory. Less than us. Less than Maryland. Less than Virginia or Oregon or Texas or Maine or Washington State. Yes, they are citizens but less-- 3\1/2\ million people are less. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all are created equal. Now, not all people ought to be U.S. citizens because of that comment, but all citizens ought to be equal. That is why I am for D.C. statehood--700,000-plus people. Citizens. Our people. They are franchised if they move to Maryland and disenfranchised if they move from Maryland to D.C. That is not right. We passed a bill to say that was not right. This is another opportunity to give the people of Puerto Rico the ability to set it right, and we make that decision. The gentleman is correct. We don't have to give that right to Puerto Ricans, we make that decision, and we ought to make it. That is what this bill is about--making that decision to give our fellow citizens a choice--their choice, not our choice. The gentlewoman from New York, a wonderful, dear, close friend of mine, she and I have disagreed through the years as to what that choice ought to be. But what we agree on is it is not our choice; it is Puerto Rico's choice. That is why I am proud to bring the Puerto Rico Status Act to the floor today. This bipartisan legislation would organize and fund a binding, island-wide plebiscite that would allow the people of Puerto Rico to vote among these three options: Statehood. That would be my option. If I were a Puerto Rican and I were living in Port-au-Prince or wherever I was living, I would vote to be a State. That is not my choice, I don't live there, I am not in Puerto Rico. San Juan--I said Port-au-Prince. San Juan. It ought to be their choice, and that is what this bill does--statehood. Independence. They have a right to do that. They are either going to be a State or they will have a right to determine their own destiny, their own status, or as the bill also gives them an option to do, be a sovereign State with an association with our country. Now, that has to be done through agreement because we have to make that decision as well as the Puerto Ricans. That would have to be an agreement between us, and both sides would have to be willing partners to that agreement. Additionally, it would implement comprehensive, nonpartisan public- education campaigns to help voters understand the implications of each option long before any ballots are cast. The gentlewoman from New York has made it an essential part of her argument that the people of Puerto Rico have to know what they are voting on and what the consequences of that vote will be. Ms. Ocasio- Cortez has made that same point correctly. This bipartisan bill also includes a variety of oversight measures to ensure that the election is secure, transparent, and fair. I have long-believed that Puerto Ricans deserve the right to determine their political destiny. This is not a new concept for me. I don't think it is a new concept for any of us in this Congress. We believe in self-determination of peoples. We believe that dictators cannot impose upon people a government they do not choose. That is bedrock belief for us. That is what this bill is about. A group of House Members and senior Puerto Rican officials--I am honored that my former colleague and my dear friend is on the floor with us today, Pedro Pierluisi. The Governor has been selected by the people of Puerto Rico. I am honored to be the friend of and ally of the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico who is the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, who has worked tirelessly with Nydia Velazquez, with the rest of us, in ensuring that the people of Puerto Rico have an honest, fair choice available to them to affect their status, and to reach the long-sought consensus on a path forward for self-determination. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Grijalva. This has been a long and torturous path because the disagreements about how we get to where we want to get are so difficult. Chairman Grijalva deserves great praise from all of us for his patience, for his knowledge, for his wisdom, for his role that he played in trying to bring this to a head. He has done it, it is here on this floor, and he is responsible for that. Madam Speaker, I thank the members of the Natural Resources Committee on both sides of the aisle, and I thank the staff for the work that they have done--tireless hours and difficult discussions, debates, and so much disharmony from all those, both the diaspora and those in Puerto Rico--strong feelings that had to be brought to bear to reach this consensus. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez; Representative Darren Soto, who is on the floor and perhaps is going to speak after me; Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner that I have spoken of, Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon; and you, Governor. Madam Speaker, the Governor and I have had the opportunity to work together when you were a Member of this House. We passed a bill that this House passed saying that the Puerto Rican people ought to have a choice, so this is not new. The previous gentleman wasn't here in Congress then--I don't know that, but I don't think he was. This is not new. This has not been done haphazardly. This has been done carefully with difficult efforts made by all parties. All of the people that I mentioned, I thank for their efforts to reach this historic consensus and action on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico. We are all in agreement that the decision must belong to the people of Puerto Rico alone. Their destiny ought to be up to them. The Puerto Rican Status Act, of which we will consider in just a few minutes, will give them that choice. They will have that choice only if we vote ``yes.'' If we do not vote ``yes'' today, I fear we may not vote ``yes'' for a very long time. The people of Puerto Rico would be held in a status that I believe the majority of them do not want to be in. Madam Speaker, I, therefore, ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to represent the values of America in this vote. The values that say to us that people have the inherent right to self- determination, not to have it imposed upon them by force or by dictate of the Congress of the United States, but to choose a status of their choosing, of their desire, of their vision. Vote for this status bill, it represents the best of American values. We have a moral responsibility to do so.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, to my colleagues, based upon the present information on the Senate timeline for passing the omnibus, the earliest the House is expected to meet is Wednesday with votes at 6:30 p.m.--that is the earliest--with the votes of the week postponed until 6:30 p.m. The House is also expected to meet on Thursday, December 22, and will stay in session until the omnibus is completed. If the Senate acts on the omnibus earlier in the week, Members will be given 24 hours--not the normal 72 hours--24 hours' notice to return to D.C. Members should expect the House to be in session for at least 2 legislative days next week. The House will consider bills under suspension of the rules, and additional legislative items are possible. We all understand Christmas is Sunday and none of us want to be here, but all of us have a responsibility, obviously, to complete the business of funding the government of the United States of America, so we will be here. We will not be here unless the Senate acts more quickly than we anticipate before Wednesday at 6:30 p.m., which will be the first votes. If it is later than that, you will also get notice. If it is earlier than that, you will get notice.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 1518, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 1082; H.R. 5349; H.R. 6218; H.R. 6220; H.R. 6221; H.R. 6611; H.R. 6630; H.R. 6725; H.R. 7832; H.R. 8665; S. 558; and S. 789; and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 7077.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank the ranking member, Mr. Davis, for his support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Capitol Building is the wellspring of American democracy, freedom, and equality. We don't always live that out as perfectly as we would like, but it is that simple. Every time I walk to the floor, Mr. Speaker, I pass sandstone blocks quarried and hewn centuries ago by enslaved Black Americans. It is a tragic irony that the people's House was built by Americans who were originally excluded from those extraordinary first three words of our Constitution, ``We the People.'' While we cannot remove the stones and bricks that were placed here in bondage, we can ensure that the movable pieces of art we display here celebrate freedom; not slavery, not sedition, not segregation. That is why I sponsored legislation, which the House passed earlier this Congress, that would have removed the statues of those who supported slavery and segregation from the Capitol as well as the bust of Chief Justice Roger Brook Taney from the Old Senate Chamber. That bill was cosponsored by Mr. Clyburn, the Democratic whip; by Joyce Beatty, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus; and Karen Bass, who was then the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and is about to be the mayor of Los Angeles. That bill regarding whether ``all men are created equal,'' in his disgraceful Dred Scott ruling, Roger Brook Taney argued this: The general words above quoted, that is, all men are created equal, would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day--which was 1858--would be so understood. I want you to think about that for a second. He said that when they acted in 1787, they said that all men were created equal. Today, of course, we would say all people are created equal. But Taney observed in 1858 that those words said some 70 years prior to that would lock them into the bigotry and division. And so he interpreted not in terms of what they would believe in 1858 but what they believed in 1787. He went on to say: But the enslaved African-American race were not intended to be included and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this Declaration. His narrow-minded, orginalist philosophy failed to acknowledge America's capacity for moral growth and for progress. Indeed, the genius of our Constitution is that it did have moral growth. It did have expanded vision. It did have greater wisdom. Taney's ruling denied Black American citizenship, upheld slavery, and contributed, frankly, to the outbreak of the Civil War. That is why I and so many others advocated for his statue's removal from the Maryland State House. When I was sworn into the Maryland Senate in January of 1967, Roger Brook Taney's statue stood on the east front of the Capitol of Maryland in Annapolis. It has since been removed. Governor Hogan, a Republican, led that effort to remove it. The Maryland legislature led by Democrats supported that effort. And the irony is if you are on the east Capitol front, prior to his removal, you would have gone from Roger Brook Taney; if you had walked through the Annapolis State House, some 500 feet, come out on the west side, walked down the steps, you would have walked into the Thurgood Marshall Park. What a historic vision of the growth of America, of the change of America, of the opening up and more equal America. I advocated for this statue being removed in Maryland and for this bust to be removed from the entrance to the Old Senate Chamber. I am glad that this is passing in a bipartisan fashion. I am disappointed the Senate isn't ready to remove all the statues in the original bill. I am glad that we agree that Taney's bust needs to go immediately. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with my colleagues next Congress to remove the other statues. I look forward to advancing that mission with Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, Chairwoman Barbara Lee, who I did fail to mention--she was the principal sponsor of this bill--and Chairwoman Joyce Beatty; all of them, along with former Representative Karen Bass. They happen to be all Democrats, but there were Republicans, many, many Republicans, supporting this effort because they, too, stand for equality and justice. They played an important part in developing the prior versions of this bill and its reality. Our legislation, as has been observed, would also commission a new bust for Justice Thurgood Marshall, not to be put outside of the Old Senate Chamber, because the historian rightly observed, he was not a member of the Old Senate Chamber, but it will be placed at some appropriate place in the Capitol as the first African American to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. As a towering civil rights leader, a defender of our founding principles, and the first Black Supreme Court Justice, Marshall is a Marylander worthy of a place of honor in these historic halls. In removing Taney's bust, I am not asking that we would hold Taney to today's moral standards. On the contrary, let us hold him to the standard of his contemporaries: Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, whom the gentleman mentioned, and all of those of their time who understood that the enslavement of others has always been an immoral act. Figures like Taney belong in history textbooks and classroom discussions, not in marble and bronze on public displays of honor. Yes, we ought to know who the Roger Brook Taney is, a man who was greatly admired in his time in the State of Maryland, but he was wrong. Over 3 million people visit our Capitol each year. The people we choose to honor in our Halls signal to those visitors which principles we cherish as a Nation. For Black Americans who have grown up in segregation, faced racial violence, and still confront institutional racism, today, seeing figures like Taney honored here is a searing reminder that the past is present. It need not be, however, our future. Just last year, the January 6 insurrectionists carried Confederate flags through the Capitol's corridors, desecrated the poster outside my office honoring my friend John Lewis, and screamed racial slurs at police officers as they protected the lives and defended our Capitol. That was a modern manifestation of the hatred of our past. As our friend Elijah Cummings used to say, ``We are better than this.'' And it need not be our future. Taney represents that which holds our country back: Exclusion, injustice, complacency, and prejudice. Thurgood Marshall conveys that which drives America forward: Inclusion, equality, perseverance, and justice. Every Member of this body, all 435, talk in those terms. Such a change would show visitors that America does not shy away from our past; we rise above it to seize a better future. It would show them that only in America could a man use the same court that wrongly upheld the enslavement of his own ancestors to expand the Constitution's promise of the blessings of liberty. It would show them that ``We the People'' means all the people. Vote ``yes'' to celebrate freedom and democracy and justice in this Capitol. Vote ``yes'' to declare that the hatred of our past need not and must not define our future.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I would say that we are going to miss my friend who has been a person willing to work across the aisle on principles that this bill reflects, and I thank him for that. We will miss him. I will remain here. I will not be majority leader, but I will remain working on behalf of the principles that are the best in our country. They are not Republican principles or Democratic principles; they are American principles. And that, I think, is what we all should, and most of the time, do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on November 17 of this year, we lost a dedicated public servant and crucial advocate for disability rights: Bobby Silverstein. He served in the House of Representatives as counsel to the Education and Labor Committee's Select Education Subcommittee and later in the Senate as staff director and chief counsel for the Disability Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. I worked with him most closely when I was the lead House sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act and he was working as Senator Tom Harkin's chief aide. In that role, he helped craft the ADA and fought tirelessly to secure its enactment. Like so many others. I admired Bobby's intellect, strong character, and commitment to public service. I believe that my friends Katy and Ralph Neas articulated that admiration we all feel for Bobby perfectly in their remarks at his funeral service, and in honor of Bobby, I include in the Record their speeches. [Nov. 22, 2022] Remarks for Bobby Silverstein's Memorial Service (By Katy Neas) In 1987, Bobby was my boss. When I left the Hill in 1991, he was my friend, and somewhere along the way over these 35 years, he and Lynne became family. There are three things you need to know about Bobby. No one was better prepared. Yes, he really did have a binder for everything. No one wanted to get to ``YES'' more than Bobby. No one was more genuine, thoughtful, loving, respectful, and patient, and he was fun. I worked for Bobby on the original Americans with Disabilities Act. One of his many gifts was his devotion to bringing people together--the disability community, the business community, Republicans and Democrats. He had endless patience and wanted to learn from each individual's perspective so that the ADA could be the strongest LAW possible. One of the best parts of this time was a certain individual from the Leadership Conference, Ralph Neas, who was in our office almost daily to coordinate with Bobby. Ralph and I were married in November of 1988 and spent the next 20 months engulfed in the ADA. During those months, I had many conversations with Lynne, asking her about ``Bobby time''--meaning, what time did Bobby come into the office. Her typical response was ``don't ask.'' What most people didn't know is that he would be in the office around 3:00 a.m. every day so that he could leave by 6:00 p.m. to have dinner with Lynne and the boys. That was his schedule for months. Bobby at his ``Bobby-est'' when in conversation with Senator Orrin Hatch. There were amendments that sought to discriminate against people with HIV that Senator Hatch was considering supporting. Bobby tracked him down in the hallway to share with him an anecdote about a zoo in Ohio that had requested a group of students with down syndrome leave because their presence was upsetting to the animals. Bobby explained to Senator Hatch that the fundamental discrimination these children faced was the same discrimination that people with HIV faced. In his sincere Bobby way, he was the perfect messenger and Senator Hatch ended up doing the right thing. So on to the fun Bobby. Bobby and Lynne joined the Lowes Island County Club as it was a club without gender-based restrictions where Lynne could be the primary member and play golf anytime she wanted. The club was purchased by the Trump organization sometime later. Several times in that first year of the Trump presidency, Bobby would call, using that golf-tv announcer voice--to let me know that the President was on the 17th hole with a gazillion secret service agents--because I was in desperate need of this important information. So, while I won't ever pick up the phone to ``Hi, it's Bobby'' again, I will carry him in my heart for all the days of my life. And I will always ask myself in a tough situation, what would Bobby do? And I would ask you do to the same. When someone treats you with disrespect or anger, think-- What would Bobby do? He would try to find out why they are upset and to see if there is a way to reach consensus. When life throws you a curve ball, think--What would Bobby do? He would analyze the problem from every angle, go back to his fundamental principles of right and wrong, and come up with a solution. And finally, when you are having a really bad day, think-- What would Bobby do? Know that he would envelop you in his love, patience, and generosity and move heaven and earth to support you. And if you do that for someone else, Bobby will be on your shoulder cheering you on. I am the most grateful person on the planet to have had this incredibly intimate personal and professional relationship with Bobby Silverstein. Every day since his death last week, I've woken up crushed by sadness but overwhelmed with the joy that comes with being Bobby's friend. How can you think about Bobby and not smile? As I put one foot in front of the other, I will think about what would Bobby do, what would Bobby expect me to do, and how can I advance his legacy. It won't be easy, but Bobby showed us what's possible. [Nov. 22, 2022] Eulogy for Bobby Silverstein (By Ralph Neas) For 35 years, I have been in awe of Bobby Silverstein. The reasons are many. High on my list, of course, are his notable and numerous professional accomplishments, especially his leadership role in the enactment of the historic Americans with Disabilities Act. But my role today is to discuss primarily the personal and not the professional. I would like to share with you two episodes in my life that demonstrate why no one could have a better friend than Bobby Silverstein. In early November of 2018, I was laying paralyzed on an I.C.U. bed at Johns Hopkins University Hospital. For the second time in my life, I had contracted Guillain Barre Syndrome, a rare and usually reversible auto-immune disorder that can sometimes lead to total paralysis and death. After confining me to more than 100 days in hospital beds, the syndrome had struck most of my body, but not my lungs. However, it had become increasingly apparent, as breathing and talking became more difficult, that my lungs were its next target and a ventilator might be necessary to increase my chances of survival. At this critical moment, in walks Bobby, with his perpetual grin, his sense of humor, and his trademark optimism. He had learned from Katy that I was in really bad shape. Bobby correctly figured out that I probably needed a close friend to help Katy keep me company and my sanity. And very importantly be my advocate when necessary. He sure got that one right. And no one was better qualified. Bobby understood how vital it was for a patient in my condition to communicate needs and participate in important decisionmaking. He realized that without augmentative and alternative communication devices, those goals would be impossible to achieve. Bobby and the hospital's alphabet chart became an incredible team. Thanks to them, my anxiety level dropped considerably. But soon it was clear that if I were to live, I had to be put on a ventilator. Bobby was the last nonmedical person I saw before the medical procedure and the first one I saw as I regained consciousness. And Bobby and the alphabet chart remained my constant companions until I was out of the woods. Bobby had been the indispensable friend we all need when the stakes are the highest. Fast forward four years: Bobby is battling cancer and my communications with him are by email or phone calls. I told Katy that I forever will owe Bobby ``big time'' for what he did for me in 2018. It was time for me to return the favor. I would visit him in person on a regular basis for as long as it took to get him better. On November 5, I was on my way to the Silverstein home, armed with three bowls of chicken soup (of course) for Lynne, Bobby, and myself. While we waited for Lynne to return from an errand, Bobby and I sat on the porch, basking in the early fall sunlight and talking about everything: families, politics, sports, friends, and his tenacious battle to defeat pancreatic cancer. An hour into our conversation, Bobby pivoted suddenly and dramatically to the strong possibility that pancreatic cancer might win. He made it abundantly clear that he would continue to fight the cancer with all his might, but he knew the odds were not in his favor. He just wanted me and everyone else to know that he was not afraid of dying. Indeed, if he died, he would die a happy man. He explained that he had lived a full life, experiencing all its joys, especially the love of his family and friends and his enormous love for them. Bobby first talked about how wonderful it was to have been married to Lynne, the love of his life, for 51 years. Then he turned to Mark and Evan and how fabulous and loving they had been as sons and how they had married Steph and Christie, two remarkable and loving women. And to the surprise of no one in this room, Bobby shared with me for the millionth time, how spectacular it was to be the grandfather of Cyrus, Chloe, Jacob, and Bailey. And yes, he did mention his professional career with a sense of pride in his accomplishments and the opportunities he had to help better the lives of countless Americans. While Bobby talked, I realized that once again I was the one receiving another friendship gift. In his careful, diplomatic, and effective way, Bobby was making it clear that it is possible to achieve balance in one's personal and professional lives--with a lot of hard work, the willingness to compromise, and love. As I drove home that day, I promised myself that no matter what life still had to offer, I would try to be more like Bobby. Once again, thank you, my dear friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I wish to honor a distinguished public servant and an inspiring resident of Maryland's Fifth District: Mary Ann Ullrich, Manager of the Office of Congressional Publishing of the Government Publishing Office (GPO). After spending 37 years in public service, Mary will begin her well-deserved retirement at the end of this year. Equipped with typing skills, a high school diploma, and a good work ethic, Mary started as a Clerk Typist in the GPO's Personnel Office in 1980. Through her determination, talent, and dedication to GPO's mission, she will retire as the GPO's second shift Manager in Congressional Publishing. As she advanced through the ranks, Mary helped the GPO navigate a period of great change and modernization as computers and digitization became increasingly common. She played an important role in the GPOAccess initiative, which made the Congressional Record, the Federal Register, and other key government publications accessible to the public online. Mary even received a prestigious Hammer Award in recognition of her crucial contributions to this project to ensure the transparency and accessibility of government information. Similarly, during her time in the Typography and Design division, she typeset many prestigious products, including the card and program for President Ronald Reagan's lying-in-state ceremony, Colin Powell's Joint Force Quarterly magazine, and fine-art books such as the Senate Catalogue of Fine Art and Glenn Brown's History of the Capitol. Perhaps the most important project she worked on, however, was the 9/11 Memorial Ceremony Program. Upon learning of the attacks on the morning September 11, 2001, Mary worked for nearly thirty-two hours straight to ensure that all the programs were ready for the memorial service at the National Cathedral the following morning. First Lady Laura Bush was so grateful for Mary's work on that solemn day that she sent her a personally signed thank-you note. In the following years, Mary brought her same diligent and dedicated work ethic to leadership roles with GPO's Congressional Publishing team. If you ask Mary, she will tell you how fortunate she felt every day to work at the GPO and how proud she is to be a career federal employee. Mary looked up at the Capitol every day from the front door of the GPO building and was proud to be a small part of the daily congressional legislative process and GPO's mission to `Keep America Informed.' Similarly, her district, state, country, and Congress take pride in her and in all those federal employees like her who work behind the scenes to make our government function For the People. That's why I ask that all my colleagues join me in congratulating Mary Ann Ullrich on starting her well-earned retirement after decades of loyal service.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, you represented that the Justices were unprotected. That is not accurate, sir.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am going to miss this 1 minute, let me tell you that. This bill was passed with a very bipartisan vote in this House this past July. I rise in strong support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which this bill has been slightly amended and sent to us. Like many Americans across the country, I was sickened and deeply sorry by the violent attack on an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs just a few weeks ago. It was a manifestation of hate, a manifestation of prejudice, a manifestation of bigotry, a manifestation of thinking one is better than the other, that somehow we are not all equal in the eyes of our Constitution and in the eyes of God. It was a somber reminder of how safe spaces still are not safe for so many. One of the Club Q survivors, a young man named Anthony, said that as he lay wounded on the floor his first thought--not surprisingly, which he believed may be his last thought--was of his husband of 14 years, Jeremy. What the Justices said some years ago and what we have said in our legislation is that who you love is your choice. One of the first votes I cast in the Maryland State Senate in 1967 was the repeal of the miscegenation statute. The Supreme Court, that same year, had ruled that unconstitutional. That because a Black male wanted to marry a White woman or a White woman wanted to marry a Black male or an Asian or of some other ethnicity or race, that somehow we would interpose our own judgment denying that all people are created equal, endowed by their creator--not by us, not by the Constitution--by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the pursuit of happiness means that you can love whom you chose. The love that Anthony felt for his husband in that moment reflected a basic emotional instinct that makes us all human. Madam Speaker, I rise today for the millions of people like Anthony and Jeremy who deserve to continue living proudly and happily and safely in same-sex and interracial marriages. In doing so, I stand for all Americans who cherish the liberty, equality, and justice promised to them under our Constitution. Last summer, the Supreme Court, largely the Republican faction of the Supreme Court--they will resent that phrase, I am sure--violated that sacred promise with their radical ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, breaking nearly 50 years of precedent, contrary to what some of those Justices said to the United States Senate their premise would be. They deprived women of their constitutional right to reproductive healthcare, to control their own bodies, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the process, they also opened the door for future challenges to Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with you couldn't marry a person of another color. The Obergefell and Windsor precedents protecting same-sex marriage have stood for 7 and 9 years respectively, not the half a century that the others had, but the same proposition. It is not your business. I am shocked that conservatives who have a libertarian bent believe that somehow we ought to get involved in this. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this. I remember the most conservative member of the State Senate, in which I served for 12 years, got up in talking about a woman's right to choose, and said: It is not my business. It is not government's business. It is not the legislators' business. It is my business. It is her business. The Loving precedent protecting interracial marriage has stood for 55 years. Justice Thomas perhaps would opine that it is not a right that is found in the Constitution. After the Supreme Court disregarded decades of precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade, we have no reason to expect it won't do the same to marriage equality. We believe that all men are created equal and all women, and men and women together. Americans have grown accustomed to knowing that they have a constitutional right to equal marriage. Those living in same-sex and interracial marriages should not have to live with the fear that their government could rescind legal recognition of their families at any moment. That is not America. That is not content of character, as Martin Luther King urged us to pursue--character. They must be able to live confidently, knowing that their marriages will be recognized wherever they go in America--no matter the city, county, or State. Our Democratic House majority knows that no State ought to be able to deny full faith and credit to legal marriage between consenting American adults, and a lot of Republicans agree with us. This is not a partisan issue. I hope it is not a partisan issue in this vote. It certainly was not a partisan issue when we passed it to the Senate. It was not a partisan vote in the United States Senate. We know the best way to protect that most basic right to marriage equality is to enshrine it in Federal statute. That is why we took swift action last summer to pass the Respect for Marriage Act through the House and why I am proud to bring it to the floor again today. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler and the staff of the committee. I thank Representative Cicilline and all the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. This is not a caucus issue; this is a country issue. This is a constitutional issue. This is a fairness issue. This is justice for all. I thank Chairman Ruiz and the Democratic Caucus chairman, Mr. Jeffries, who has been very involved in this bill, and Chairwoman Beatty, they all have worked hard on this bill. Similarly, I appreciate the House Republicans who joined us in supporting this bill--a significant number of House Republicans. I would hope that all Republicans would do it on the theory that this is not our business, that people are free to make their own decisions, not the government making these decisions. I also thank the 62 Senators, including 12 Republicans that came together to advance this critical legislation. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, all 435 of us, to stand up and say this is a free country. It is a country that believes in equality for all. This is a country that the representatives of our Constitution, our Declaration, and of our laws would stand up united in saying: You are free to love who you choose. It is not our choice. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I just want to make clear, the gentleman indicated that we did nothing. The Justices of the Supreme Court had full protection. The issue was the families and the families of Members, but it ought to be on the public record that the Supreme Court Members were protected.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 1508, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 8844, S. 198, and S. 1687.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his remarks. I will say some other words at a later time, so we don't prolong this colloquy. I will say to the gentleman, I have enjoyed being majority leader. I have enjoyed working with the gentleman, and I look forward to working in the next Congress in a constructive way to try to solve the challenges confronting our country and giving our people the opportunities that we want them to have. I know the gentleman is going to be the majority leader. I will tell him, I have been the minority whip, and being majority leader is a lot better. So he is going to enjoy this job. I look forward to working with him.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let's hope we have just one more colloquy, maybe not three more colloquies. On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Members are advised that no votes are expected in the House on Monday. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Votes will occur as early as 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. The House will recess for the Congressional Gold Medal ceremony to honor the extraordinary courage and fidelity of the U.S. Capitol Police and others who protected the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and allowed us to return to this Chamber to confirm the constitutional duty of electing the President of the United States. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business. The 2 p.m. convening time, I want to remind people, is because of the funeral of our beloved Don McEachin from Virginia, who sadly died after a long illness. His funeral will be at 11 a.m. in Virginia, and there will be arrangements for those who want to leave from here to go to the funeral in Virginia. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Next week, the House will consider the Senate amendments to H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act, which will allow millions of interracial and same-sex couples to be able to live with greater certainty knowing their right to equal marriage is enshrined in Federal law. The House will also consider Senate amendments to H.R. 7776, the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for 2023. Additionally, the House will consider two important immigration bills: H.R. 3648, the EAGLE Act, sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren, to phase out the per country cap on employment-based immigrant visas, with no increase in the total number, and Representative Takano's H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act. The House will consider bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman raises an important point, how much time do people have to read the final product of a negotiation. I was hopeful, frankly, that the bill would have been filed today. It is not ready for filing today because there are still some outstanding issues. But I have talked to Mr. Smith, the chairman of the committee, who indicates they are making progress and they are hopeful they can get this done. So the Committee on Rules notice is subject obviously to the completion of negotiations and the filing. It is not done, not filed today. We need to have it filed as soon as possible. The conferees are working on getting that. As the gentleman points out, this bill tends to be, historically on both sides of the aisle, where we add a lot of things to it, which are not necessarily directly related but are because this bill is something that we want to pass and that we do pass--and we will pass this one. It garners riders, if you will, on the bill. That is still going on, but I am cognizant, and the gentleman is correct, we want to have sufficient time for Members to see the bill. We would like to do this bill next week, if we can, because, as the gentleman points out, this is about the national security of our country and our participation in international stabilization efforts around the world, not the least, of course, is the unprovoked, illegal war initiated by Mr. Putin in Ukraine. So we are hopeful we can get this done as soon as possible.

Mr. HOYER. Yes, I think that is a good point, and we will try to make sure that happens.

Mr. HOYER. My expectation is that there would be four-corners discussion, as we have referred to it, with the Republican and Democrat House and Senate leaders included in those discussions. Unfortunately, as you know, the Senate has not passed any appropriations bills, and there was no agreement on a top line. That has been the discussion. The difference, as the gentleman probably knows, is discussions about what is the top line for defense discretionary and what is the top line for nondefense discretionary. As I understand it, the parties have started talking in the Senate on that issue. We are waiting for, I think, agreement, and hopefully that agreement will be reached soon, hopefully as soon as perhaps the beginning of next week because the gentleman is absolutely correct, on December 16, the authority to fund the government ends, and we are either going to have to pass a short-term CR, a longer-term CR or, more preferably, the omnibus. I will say, as the gentleman knows--he indicated I was returning to the Appropriations Committee--we talk about a CR adversely affects the defense, and it does. You can't plan if you are a manager of any of the programs in the Defense Department. But I would also bring to the attention of Members, it harms every agency and department of government because it makes them unable to plan on what resources they have available to do the work we have asked them to do by law. A CR is a very clumsy, frankly, admission of failure to get our job done on time, which I have been very unhappy about for a very, very long period of time. It is an affliction that affects both sides in terms of delay. As I say, the Senate, when the Republicans were in charge, and when the Democrats were in charge, haven't really gotten a bill to the floor and gotten it passed. But we are not going to shut down the government, so we will propose some action which will preclude shutting down the government at whatever time that action is needed, but I am very, very hopeful that we will do an omnibus because an omnibus at least gives the government and its agencies a year's worth of notice as to what resources they have to use to accomplish the objectives we have asked them to. I wish I had a more specific answer for you, but, as you know, the negotiations are going on about the top line, and hopefully that will be resolved relatively soon.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is absolutely correct. There is a shot clock. It is September 30 at midnight. That is the shot clock. That is when government no longer is funded if we do not take some additional action. I said to somebody this morning, there are 535 of us. Presumably we are all adults, presumably we are all rational people. Neither side would agree that everybody is that. But the fact of the matter is, we don't do what we know we have to do. You may want to do a lot of things, and we passed from our perspective very good legislation through this Congress, but the only thing you have to do is pass the 12 appropriations bills so you can fund the operations of government or make a decision that you are not going to fund a department, a program, an activity, whatever. But we don't do that. We have, unfortunately, the sense that the delay is an acceptable process, as the gentleman points out. Then you get to the last minute, a crisis, and then you get a big bill we call the omnibus bill, that really it is so large and so few people have been participating in the formulation of that bill that it is unfair to the Members of Congress, and it is unfair to the American people. I couldn't agree with the gentleman more that the appropriation process should be done, my own view is each bill should be considered individually. The Republicans started the practice, we followed the same practice of bundling them so we could save time. I look forward to working with the gentleman. I am going back to the Appropriations Committee, working with Chair DeLauro and Ranking Member DeLauro on doing that. But to her credit, all 12 bills were reported out of committee in a timely fashion, and this is gratuitous--you didn't ask for this advice--but what I would suggest we should have done if we could have done it is start the markups in May, pass the bills in June, send them to the Senate, and have July and August and September to resolve differences between the two, and pass the bills by September 30. That is what we ought to do, I agree with the gentleman. It is an objective that we ought to try to attain.

Mr. HOYER. One of the things--I have been on the Appropriations Committee; I was on it for 23 years before I took leave--we had actual conferences, Senators and House Members on the two subcommittees came together, discussed differences, tried to resolve those differences. That essentially does not exist any longer, and it is not healthy, I think, for the institution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 1499, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 4601, H.R. 4772, H.R. 5943, H.R. 7158, and agree to H. Res. 744 and H. Res. 922.