Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman to whom I was addressing my question apparently doesn't want to yield and left the floor at the advice, probably, of somebody else. You want to speak the truth? Even if you are new--and I have been here a little longer--there is a way to fund the TSA, to fund Secret Service, and it is no sham. We don't even have to sign the discharge petition. Your Speaker, Mr. Speaker, just needs to bring the bill to the floor. It funds everybody in the Department of Homeland Security, other than ICE and CBP. You know that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of Paul Marchand. With World Down Syndrome Day approaching this Saturday, this seemed an appropriate time to honor a titan in the national disability rights and disability policy community whose work transformed the lives of millions of people with disabilities and their families. I have long admired him and his profound influence across the disability advocacy community--an arena in which I, too, have had the honor to work alongside countless families, advocates, and organizations. Over more than four decades, Paul Marchand helped shape the very foundation of modern federal disability policy. Before coming to Washington, Paul served as a special education teacher and as a leader in Rhode Island's developmental disability community--bringing a deep understanding of families, educators, and individuals on the ground to his national work. Paul joined The Arc of the United States' Public Policy Office in 1973 and became its Director in 1975. At a time when the voices of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities were too often ignored, he fought to ensure that those voices were heard within the halls of Congress and across the federal government. He also helped found what became the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities, and he served as its Chair from 1975 through 2000. During his tenure, the coalition grew from fewer than a dozen organizations to a coalition of more than hundred disability organizations nationwide. The consummate consensus-builder, Paul united a diverse community around common goals of civil rights, inclusion, and opportunity. Paul was deeply involved in the passage of some of the most consequential pieces of disability-rights legislation in our Nation's history. That includes early victories in the movement, including the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act in 1980, and Child Abuse Treatment Amendments of 1984. He played a leading role in securing the enactment of each of these laws. Crucially, he was a champion for the Americans with Disabilities Act, which I was proud to sponsor in the House alongside my friend Tony Coelho. That historic bill didn't just change the law; it changed hearts and minds across America. It changed how Americans perceive and treat the disability community. Paul helped make it happen. He did the same with the ADA Amendments Act in 2008. Additionally, he helped secure nine reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, helping expand early intervention services, preschool programs, family supports, and legal protections for children with disabilities and their families. He was equally influential in strengthening employment opportunities and protections through repeated reauthorizations of the Rehabilitation Act, including the creation of supported employment, and in embedding disability provisions into broader workforce and job training legislation. In addition to his legislative work, Paul served in leadership roles with the Center on Effective Government, SourceAmerica, and the American Association of People with Disabilities, and he was appointed by the Clinton Administration to the National Commission on Childhood Disability. Paul retired in 2011 believing that the disability movement stood on the threshold of full inclusion. His optimism was rooted not in rhetoric but in decades of hard-earned progress shaped by his integrity, perseverance, and unwavering belief in the worth of every person. While we continue to work toward that goal, we get closer to its fulfillment seemingly every day. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is more just, more accessible, and more compassionate because of Paul Marchand's life of service. I am honored to recognize his remarkable legacy and to extend the gratitude of this House to a man who devoted his career to expanding opportunity and protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities. I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking him.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the American people obviously have to be so confused about this debate because one side claims they are bringing us an amendment, the balanced budget amendment, and their history has been-- and I have been here for some time, but Ronald Reagan increased the budget by 189 percent. Why do I say Ronald Reagan did it? Because he could have vetoed any spending bill, and we would not have overridden that veto. In 2001, we cut taxes and were told by our Republican colleagues it would raise additional moneys. It did not. Then some, particularly those who are claiming we made a deal and we are keeping it to get this constitutional amendment on the floor--what was the deal for? The deal was to vote for the big, bad bill, which created $4.7 trillion of additional deficit. That is a tough way to want to balance the budget. We have a paying- for problem. That is the discipline, a paying-for problem, not a spending or revenue problem. What we have is a paying problem. If we would pay for things, which presumably this constitutional amendment would seek, then we would not have this continuing deficit, but you and I both know we are not going to do that, and you haven't done it. We haven't done it. Jodey Arrington is right to that extent. This is a problem where we do not recognize the real problems of why we are so deeply in debt, and we pretend cutting nickels and dimes will make a difference. Now, they are big nickels and dimes. I get that, but the fact of the matter is, it is dishonest in my view for me or anybody else to come to the floor and say: I want to balance the budget and then vote for the largest creation of debt ever on this floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this amendment and defeat of the suspension bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this has been a historic week in many ways. We have significant disagreements in this House. I rose a few days ago to say to all the House Members on both sides of the aisle that we ought to move on behalf of the American people legislation and policies on which we agree and not allow them to be lost or unaddressed because of the fact that we have other matters on which we disagree. That is a successful strategy for families, for human beings, for business, and for life, to not allow the things on which we disagree be an impediment to moving us forward on things we can agree on. I rise this morning because we are going to have two items about which I am greatly concerned on the floor today. Actually, one of them will be on the floor and one will not. I am concerned about the one that will be, and I am concerned about the one that will not. I want to speak briefly about them. We will be considering a bill on the floor today that will fund the Department of Homeland Security. There is within that bill two items on which the parties disagree. There are also within that bill literally a score, twoscore, perhaps threescore on which we agree. Those items will affect whether or not we pay people who are working for the Federal Government and for the American people. A number of them are very important items. One is the TSA, the Transportation Security Agency, which we all see at airports. As far as I can tell, everybody in this House, all 435, believe they ought to be paid. We will have on the sea surrounding our country and perhaps in other places, the Coast Guard patrolling for the sanctity of our borders, for the safety of our mariners, and for the safety both of commercial and noncommercial vessels. There is also an agency within the Department of Homeland Security called the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which responds to jurisdictions and to people when disasters occur causing great damage to communities and to people. As far as I can tell, everybody is for funding that agency. The Secret Service, particularly at a time of war but at all times, has a very difficult job. They are called essential employees. They are working now, but they are not being paid. As far as I can tell, everybody in the House believes they ought to be paid. Now we have a disagreement over the way that the ICE, otherwise known as the immigration service, is handling its work, its duties. Some of us believe that they are doing things that are outside the boundary of the Constitution, the laws of our country and our States, and the norms of police activity. It is a significant, important difference of opinion that ought to be argued, that ought to be resolved, and we resolve things through a vote on this floor. The Border Patrol is also involved not at the border but in the interior of our country. That is not usual and it has resulted, in the opinion of some of us, in the taking of American lives inconsistent with the safety of American citizens and inconsistent with the norms of police work in America in our counties and in our cities and in our States. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I hope that we will vote on a motion to recommit which funds all of the Federal employees in question and represents honestly to the American people that the customs agency and ICE are already funded and were funded at the beginning of this year.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, ICE agents are being paid. Border Patrol agents are being paid. The representation to the American people that somehow we have shut down the agents of ICE is not true. You can correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I am told. The weeping and gnashing of teeth that I hear from some of my colleagues--Republicans can fund right now through a unanimous consent all the people who they are lamenting are not being paid. You have it in your power, or the Speaker has it in his power, to agree to a unanimous consent to pass the gentlewoman's bill. Everybody that you are wringing your hands about--not you, sir. Mr. Speaker, I speak to you. The hands that are being wrung are totally without merit. We will vote for--and by the way, we did not vote for the Department of Homeland Security on our side. There were seven of us. The rest of us voted ``no'' because we didn't agree with what the Department of Homeland Security and ICE were doing--not TSA, not Coast Guard, not the other agencies, but ICE and CBP. We don't agree with what they are doing. What you are doing, Mr. Speaker, on that side of the aisle is to hold everybody else hostage for a bill that we did not vote for. Stop saying we made some deal. Our deal was to separate it out, and we were against it. That was the deal. That is what I did. I voted for all the rest of the bills, as my side did, and I voted against the Department of Homeland Security because we want what they are doing stopped to protect the American people.

Mr. HOYER. I say to my friends who keep wringing their hands like Pontius Pilate that somebody is not paying them, the people who are not paying everybody other than CBP and ICE, who are being paid out of a huge fund that they have available to them, are the people that you will not let go. We are for funding everybody but the two agencies we have mentioned and have a difference of opinion on. Pontius Pilate could not rid himself of the responsibility.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the American people through you, so I address the Speaker and the American people. You must be confused by this debate. We have two relatively new Members of the Congress who have spoken. I came in as Mr. Jack was speaking and he said that we need to open DHS. We certainly have agreement on about 80 percent of that, but the Republicans are saying unless you agree to 100 percent, we are not going to agree to opening DHS that ought to be opened during this time of war. The Secret Service could be funded this afternoon. The Speaker just has to say the word because our side will vote to open up the agencies, but we have a difference of opinion with respect to two components of DHS that we believe are violating the Constitution of the United States. We agree that we ought to open Secret Service. We agree that we ought to open FEMA. We agree that we ought to open cybersecurity, but what is your answer to saying: But if you don't do it all, we will not open those agencies and have the employees paid, who, of course, are critical employees. You don't have an answer to that other than you want to muscle through something that has been questioned by many courts in this land. Now let me read you a statement that was made by the border czar.

Mr. HOYER. After a court said you must do this, the border czar, Tom Homan, who was in Minneapolis, who--by the way, Border Patrol killed Alex Pretti. Here is what the border czar said. Perhaps you don't care, but he said this: ``I don't care what the judges think.'' ``I don't care . . . '' Yes, we here on this floor, and the Democrats on the floor in the United States Senate believe that is improper policy for law enforcement to say, to do, to act, to threaten people with: I don't care what the judges say. Bring Ms. DeLauro's bill to the floor. It will pass. It will pass this afternoon, and all of those agents you have mentioned will be funded.

Mr. HOYER. In addition to that, I don't know that I have heard it mentioned, but in the bill that was passed earlier this year, DHS was funded. ICE was funded with $150 billion, so don't get on this floor and pretend that somehow it is not funded because that is not true. Bring this bill to the floor. We agree on it overwhelmingly. Do not allow the disagreement to undermine the agreement we have, particularly at a time of war when we ought to be united.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, frankly, these new Members of Congress apparently don't know what I am saying. We will vote to open DHS, including the Secretary's office, this afternoon, 1 hour from now, 2 hours from now. Bring it to the floor. Do not put in it what we all call a poison pill, and that is two components that are already funded--already funded. Democrats and Republicans together can start paying the others today, but for the objection to the unanimous consent.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, March is National Kidney Month--a fitting time to pay tribute to an organization that has not only changed lives but saved them by expanding access to kidney transplants from living donors: Kidneys for Communities. With a special focus on aiding first responders, children, and people in agricultural communities, Kidneys for Communities developed the first-ever national community-directed donation program. It helps educate and connect donors and recipients by leveraging its massive network of communities, employers, municipalities, and first responder organizations. At a time when we face a national kidney shortage, with some 100,000 Americans needing a kidney at any given moment but only an average of 6,500 living kidney donations made each year, this type or proactive outreach has never been more important. As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am particularly grateful for the organization's Kidneys for First Responders initiative. I thank the entire team at Kidneys for Communities for their work not only this month but year-round. They have done a terrific job supporting this effort to ensure our firefighters and other first responders receive the support they need. Kidney disease affects tens of millions of Americans in every neighborhood, town, city, district, and state in the Nation. It demands the attention of every Member of this Congress. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Kidneys for Communities for making America a healthier, stronger Nation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to say that the chairman, who is on the floor, is a good friend of mine and one of, I think, our best leaders in the Congress. I thank him for his continuing efforts and his willing to work together across the aisle. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to address the American public, of course, through the Speaker. We are at war, Mr. Speaker. When I rise in support of this bill, which is a bill on which we all agree, I want to suggest that we also, at this time of crisis, pass something that we all agree on, that we have already voted on, that passed the House. It is legislation which funds Homeland Security. Within that bill are things critically important to the security of our country, particularly at a time like this. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, has a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that funds all the items on which we agree. That ought to be easy. It particularly ought to be easy at a time of crisis when we are at war and homeland security is so important. The bill that Ms. DeLauro has put on the floor would fund the Office of the Secretary and the executive management. It would fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would fund the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It would fund the Coast Guard of the United States. It would fund the Secret Service, charged with the responsibility of defending the President of the United States and other officials. It would fund the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, as it is called. It would fund the Transportation Security Administration. It would fund the Science and Technology Directorate. It would not fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement nor Customs and Border Protection. Now, they are tied in one bill, but surely, I hoped, Mr. Speaker, my remarks would be compelling without us being at war, which we have been now for, I suppose, almost 96 hours. However, certainly at this point in time, we ought to come together at a time when we are at war on things on which we agree. All of the ones I listed we have already voted for. They need to be funded. They are critical to our national security, and surely men and women of goodwill and patriotism should stand for funding things on which we agree. Now, there are two things on which we do not agree, and, frankly, our disagreement is not relevant to our national security today or tomorrow or perhaps for at least 24 months. Why? It is because ICE and CBP, the Border Patrol, were funded in another bill that has already passed and been signed by the President, and approximately $74.8 billion has been set aside for those two agencies already, so they are operating. Presumably their people are getting paid because we have already appropriated money for those two. However, we have a substantial disagreement on the operations and activities being conducted by those two agencies, and therefore we don't have agreement on that. It is irrelevant to their present operations because we have already appropriated money which, by the way, none of us voted for on this side of the aisle. We have a very substantial difference, based upon our constitutional concerns, that those two agencies are not acting within the strictures of the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States, or the norms of police activity in the United States of America. That is a legitimate and honest difference of opinion, and we ought not to hoist on the petard of the differences we have on these two agencies to preclude funding the Office of the Secretary, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Secret Service, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Transportation Security Agency, and the Science and Technology Directorate. What person of common sense sitting around their kitchen table would say: Yes, we agree on those, but at a time of war, we will not give unanimous consent to fund all of these agencies I just mentioned. Why? It is because we have a legitimate difference. By the way, that legitimate difference is supported by more than 50 percent of the American people. As a matter of fact, it is somewhere in the sixties. I rise on this bill which is not about this because I would not get time to speak about it otherwise, and I think it ought to be compelling to each one of us in this body and every American citizen to be concerned at a time of war when we are allowing a difference on one segment of a bill to preclude us from agreeing to the segment so critical to our domestic and international security. I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues, and as I said, Mr. Westerman is not involved in this other than I am speaking on his bill, but I hope the logic of what I am saying appeals to the patriotism in every one of us that we ought not to allow these agencies I have read and on which we have already voted, on which we already agree, and which the President ought to sign, because we are holding hostage all of them to the legitimate disagreement that we have on two of the agencies within this bill. Surely, I don't believe the American citizens would say that that is a commonsense thing to do, nor do I think they would say that it was within the best interests of this country to do. Surely, as a democracy, we should not take the position that if we can't agree on one of the issues, then we won't agree on any of the issues. I suggest that would be irrational. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the DeLauro bill, of which I am a cosponsor, and there are some 50 others of us who are cosponsors, to ask that the Republicans who are in charge, who are in the majority, and who can make this decision, I ask them to give consent, unanimous consent, to the passage of the DeLauro bill so that, and I will mention once again, we can fund within the Department of Homeland Security a Secretary in the executive management of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and we have big snows, big winds, big storms, and crises around this country that require action for domestic security as we require international security. There is not one of us who wants to defund the Coast Guard. There is not one of us who wants Coast Guard personnel going to work and not getting paid. There is not one of us who wants the U.S. Secret Service to be working and not getting paid. They have got to work because we deem them essential employees, as the Coast Guard are essential employees. Under the present circumstances, where we can't get unanimous consent, and I hope we can, I urge that we do, I urge my Republican colleagues to say: On this we agree, and, therefore, we will move it forward. We will send it to the President for signature, and we will pay the members of the Coast Guard, we will pay the members of the U.S. Secret Service, we will give emergency relief around this country from FEMA, we will pay those who are working in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and we will pay the people at TSA whom all of us rely on to make sure that skies are safe. I don't think there is a Member among us who wants to say: I don't want to pay them. I don't want that agency to be operating. Now they are operating because they are essential, but we are not paying them. That is not right. In any event, we all know we are going to pay them at some point in time when, hopefully sooner rather than later, we open up the authority and the funding for those agencies. We are considering suspension bills now. We expect them to get over 290 votes, and I will be one of those 290 votes on suspension bills. Why? It is because we agree, and it makes sense. I welcome anybody who wants to come to the floor and say: I don't think the Coast Guard ought to be paid. I don't think FEMA ought to be paid, and I don't think Secret Service ought to be paid. I welcome them to come to the floor. I don't think they are there. I think they do agree. Mr. Speaker, do not take hostage those employees because we have a fundamental constitutional difference. Now, by the way, you may think that, oh, well, we don't have a difference. Yes, we do. We don't believe that the two agencies we want to exempt are following the law. Now, let me quote the border czar. His name is Tom Homan. The President of the United States sent him to Minneapolis to work at bringing the confrontation in Minneapolis to a close. They knew the public was for that. However, when a court ruled that what Border Patrol was doing was inconsistent with law and the Constitution, what was his response? Tom Homan said: I don't care what the judges think. I don't care. I tell my friends in the House--through you, Mr. Speaker, of course-- that we all ought to care that we have a law enforcement officer, the czar of our border, who says: I don't care what the judges say. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation of laws, and the laws are determined, finally, by the courts of our Nation and ultimately by the Supreme Court. That is why we are not prepared to vote for a bill that includes those two agencies. Why opposition to that is so hard to believe is because they are already funded, notwithstanding our disagreement. We are going to continue to make the point, unlike the Vice President of the United States who said the officers who killed two people in Minneapolis had total immunity. The Vice President of the United States said that. We don't agree with that. We want to debate that, and we want to change that. We want to offer amendments. We want to have the House consider it because I would be appalled if the whole House on either side of the aisle wants to have law enforcement officers who say: I don't care what the judges say. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends: When Ms. DeLauro asks for unanimous consent to fund the agencies--I will not read them again, but they are critical--I will ask them to give their consent and pass those bills for which we have agreement. America deserves that. Frankly, our men and women in uniform in the Middle East deserve that. Our men and women in uniform who are here and who may be deployed deserve that. More importantly, every citizen in this country and every person who is in this country deserves to know that we follow our Constitution and laws of our Nation. We take an oath to that. Our citizens expect us to do that. I hope that as of no later than tomorrow we will pass a unanimous consent request to fund the personnel who are protecting this country in a way on which we all agree and then move at some point in time to a legitimate discussion in this body about what CBP and ICE are doing within or without the law.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I adopt the comments of my distinguished colleague from Florida. I also wish to speak on behalf of the unanimous consent that we will request. The President last night spoke to the Nation. One of the things he said was that TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA are not operating. That is accurate. They are not operating because we have a disagreement in this House between Republicans and Democrats on whether those agencies ought to be funded. We do have a deep and severe disagreement with the administration with respect to how ICE and CBP are operating, contrary to the Constitution, contrary to the laws of our country, and contrary to the norms of police departments all over this country, which have resulted in the deaths of a number of American citizens egregiously and, in my view, illegally. That unanimous consent request will simply say that we will fund all of those agencies that are within the Department of Homeland Security that are not controversial, not because we absolutely agree with every expenditure, but we have come together on a consensus. The American people, Mr. Speaker, ought to know that Democrats are prepared to vote for the funding of TSA, of FEMA, of the Secret Service, of the Coast Guard, and every other agency that is acting within the bounds of the Constitution and acting legally within the bounds of the Constitution. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this hand-wringing about TSA perhaps shutting down or employees of TSA working without pay, they should not be doing that. We ought to open up TSA. We ought to open up the Coast Guard. They are critical employees, so they are working but without pay. We ought to pay them. We ought to have FEMA open, as the President said last night, so that it can serve the American people, particularly at a time when we just had a gargantuan storm in the northeast. I rise in strong support of a unanimous consent that the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations (Ms. DeLauro) will be asking for. This is a unanimous consent that makes sense. It makes common sense and on which we have agreement. What we disagree with is the unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, and death-causing activities of an out-of-control agency at the instance of the President of the United States. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's make sense. Let's say yes to what we agree on. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the leader on our side of the aisle on the Committee on Appropriations, for initiating this effort. I took this time because I am not sure we are going to have time on the other bill. I urge Members on the Republican side of the aisle, do not object to this unanimous consent because it does what Republicans say we ought to be doing: Funding those agencies, those operations, those very critical activities for the American people on which we agree. What the American people are so frustrated about is we seem to not even be able to move on that on which we agree. Let's show them that yes, we can agree. And let's also recognize and admit that we have a difference of opinion on a very critical issue, an issue at the heart of our Constitution of how we treat individuals in this country: that we don't go around arresting people with masks on and putting them in unmarked cars and disappearing them, that we don't have heavily armed troops coming out of cars into the streets of our cities to confront a woman who is driving her car alongside and heckling the police. We may not agree with that, but it is certainly within the bounds of our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason that we ought to have TSA shut down, FEMA shut down, the Coast Guard shut down, and the Secret Service shut down. They are really not shut down because we are making them work, but we are saying, by the way, we can't pay you. If Republicans get up and say Democrats are shutting down those agencies, they are not telling the truth because Democrats are prepared right now to pass legislation which will be offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to fund everything but that on which we disagree. Isn't that reasonable? Isn't that what we ought to be doing as legislators, as Americans, as people who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of this country? I urge my colleagues, particularly my Republican colleagues, do not object because your objection will be to continue to hamper the agencies on which we agree that are serving the American people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, am I to take from the definition that you gave as to why you could not accept the gentlewoman's unanimous-consent request that the majority has not agreed to funding the balance of the DHS bill other than CBP and ICE?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and we are not objecting.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for yielding. Madam Speaker, there are five of these bills which are not controversial. I urge my colleagues to vote for them to keep the government operating, to make sure that our Federal employees come to work and do their job for the American people and get paid for it. There is one bill in this package that is very controversial. There is one bill in this package that the overwhelming majority of our side thinks should not be in the bill, but I remind my colleagues that bill is funded for the next 10 days or 6 legislative days. During that period of time, we intend to raise very substantial concerns about the operations that are being carried out not only in Minneapolis but in other parts of our country by the Immigration Customs and Border Patrol agents. The Constitution calls upon us to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. Many of my colleagues I know believe that voting against this bill will make a strong statement about the conduct that we see being carried out by the agencies I just mentioned. Let me suggest to them, we need to focus on that issue because the other five issues that we face, the five appropriations bills that have yet to have been signed by the President of the United States and will fund about 76 percent of the government, are things that we have agreed upon. After they pass, after they are signed by the President, there will be a lot of time to debate the operations of Homeland Security and, in my view, the laws that they are breaking, the Constitution that they are not respecting, and the human rights that they are undermining. There will be time for that debate. There will be time for that action. Today, is a time to fund the majority of government for the American people. Minneapolis has shocked the conscience of America. We ought to be shocked, angry, and disgusted by the taking of life of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. We the people want to end this violent occupation of our cities. We the people deserve answers. The Congress needs to rein in the Department of Homeland Security. That is why I and so many of my colleagues voted against funding the Department of Homeland Security--not because we don't need Homeland Security; we do--but we need it done within the context of the Constitution and the laws of this country and of our States. This Congress needs to ensure the Federal Government can continue to provide vital services to the American people.

Mr. HOYER. Voting for this bill does that, and voting for this bill also gives us the opportunity to constrain 6 days, essentially, of funding with the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, out of the regular order, they are funded for the balance of the year in many respects. This compromise bill serves the interest of funding our government for the American people and giving us the opportunity to constrain and to ensure that there are meaningful, substantive, substantial reforms and restraints placed upon the operations of the Department of Homeland Security as it must be. It is essential that we unmask Trump's Federal immigration agents, force them to abide by the local law enforcement standards for use of force and use warrants.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, throughout this year's appropriations process, we have seen Donald Trump and Russell Vought trample on this Congress' power of the purse. Some will admit that. Some will say it silently. If there were ever a time for this Congress to exercise that power, it is now. Let us pass five bills on which we have agreement and substantially restrain and stop the funding of DHS a week from this Friday. Then, let us come to an agreement on honoring the Constitution, the laws of this country, and the conduct of law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill and then focus on that which the country wants us to focus on, like a laser, for them, for the people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the founders of the Tobacco Barn Distillery in my district: Dan Dawson, Sean Coogan, and Scott Sanders. Their Maryland Bourbon Cream recently placed first in the Nation in the American Craft Spirits Association's 2025 ``Beyond Bourbon'' category. Since its founding as the first licensed distillery in St. Mary's County back in 2014, the Tobacco Barn Distillery has been an institution in our community. Dan, Sean, and Scott transformed their former tobacco farm into a true ``dirt to bottle'' distillery, growing the corn that goes into their bourbons themselves. From the start, three principles have guided their enterprise. First, they maintain a high standard of excellence for their product, ensuring that every bottle of their spirits exceeds expectations. Second, they are committed to caring for the land and the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Accordingly, they practice ``no till'' farming, applying minimal fertilizer, and recycle 100 percent of their cooling water. They are even members of the Maryland Green Registry. Third, they pride themselves on being community oriented and community driven, believing that their success is linked to the success of the people and local businesses around them. I also ought to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Tobacco Barn Distillery is a Veteran-owned business and a strong supporter of numerous charities benefiting our Veterans. I don't drink, but I'm told their product is as good as their values. No wonder the Tobacco Barn Distillery has earned national recognition. In addition to its recent award, it was named America's number 1 ``Farmer-Distiller'' by the American Craft Spirits Association in 2023 and 2024. Mr. Speaker, I have long championed my Make It In America agenda. The only thing better than making it in America is making it in Maryland. The Tobacco Barn Distillery is a paragon of that principle. Dan, Sean, and Scott continue a rich, centuries-old tradition of distilling in our state. They carry on the legacy of Hayden, Willett, Mattingly, Dant, and Wathen, who all got their start in Maryland before building up the bourbon industry in Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, Dan, Sean, and Scott do our county and our state proud. I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking them for giving back to their community and in congratulating them on this recent, well- deserved award.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Mac Alsobrooks is one of this region's most legendary pool players and hand dancers. As talented as he has proven to be there, he has had even more of an impact as a mentor to generations of young men and women. As one of the founders of the Alliance of Concerned Men, and a dedicated participant in the Beyond the Walls Ministry at Ebenezer AME Church in Fort Washington, Maryland, Mac has reached many lives and instilled wisdom in so many the way that only he can. In fact, ``beyond the walls'' describes how he sees education, as he's been known to use any possible environment and platform to teach. So many lessons were learned at Dog's Pool Hall over the years, where he would regularly take his elementary school-aged daughters, Angela and Kim, to play pinball while he honed his skills at the pool table. It was at that pool hall that he taught them a lot about people, and a lot more about life. He showed them and many others what it means to be politically active, to be civically engaged, and to be spiritually connected-- lessons that still resonate to this day, even on the floor of the United States Senate, where his daughter Angela represents the great State of Maryland. And even today, he's an example of how to be an uplifting part of the community, and how to have fun while doing it. The hundreds that have been blessed by his mentorship over the years will agree. I ask that you join me, and the residents of Maryland, in offering well wishes and a happy 78th birthday to James McAurthur Alsobrooks--a billiards legend, a renowned hand dancer, and a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. We're grateful for all he's done for Maryland and for the Capital region.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for her support of my amendment. I regret that my amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee, but that is not uncommon. An overwhelming majority of Democratic amendments are rejected, irrespective of merit. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this amendment comports with the debate that I heard in the Rules Committee yesterday. The substance of that debate was that we need oversight. We need to make sure that we know what we are doing. We need to make sure that what the administration or any administration is asking for comports with the policies of the Congress of the United States. If we defeat the previous question, we will offer an amendment to the rule that allows the House to simply consider my amendment concerning the FBI headquarters. I will speak more on that matter later, but I am deeply concerned that moving the FBI to the Reagan Building, as this administration plans to do, would greatly undermine the FBI's security. This is a picture of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma. In 1995, a guy named McVeigh drove a step van up to the street of the Murrah Building and blew it up, killing 168 people and injuring over 800 people. That is a major artery in front of the Murrah Building. The Reagan Building was designed as an open and public-private building with public access, public accommodations, and the public coming into the building for eating. It has a big cafeteria. It has a big parking lot that the public uses and is used by city hall, which is located right in the middle--or not in the middle, but surrounded by the Reagan Building. The amendment that I have simply says: Let's not spend any money on moving the FBI to this building, which the Murrah Building makes very clear, and is why the FBI Director came to me in 2009 to have this facility, the FBI building, moved to a place where you can have security. We have some number of security organizations. They are all located either in the suburbs or at Boeing Air Force base. Boeing Air Force base is a secured piece of much acreage, so they are not subject to that risk. All of these agencies, including the CIA at Langley and other agencies, four of which are in Virginia, are so that those agencies can be as secure as we can possibly make them, so that we will not lose people, FBI agents, CIA agents, NSA agents, or whoever, and that we will have those facilities in a secure place. All this amendment says is: Show us the plan to keep our people secure. The gentlewoman, my friend from North Carolina, said, and I believe she is accurate, that we are all concerned about the lives of people, be they government employees or not. This amendment says: Present us the information, GSA and FBI, that shows us that, in fact, you can make the Reagan Building safe for a security agency. If the motion is defeated for the previous question, we will offer that simple amendment and give everybody in this Congress the ability to stand up and say, yes, we want to know information before we make this critical decision. It is not partisan. It is not ideological. It is simply doing what the Congress is responsible to do, and that is have oversight and make judgments based upon the best information they can receive.

Mr. HOYER. In closing, let me emphasize that this is consistent with what all of us say and was said in the committee yesterday. Mrs. Houchin said it particularly well, and others on the committee, when saying that they want the information necessary to make solid decisions. If we adopt my amendment, that will accomplish that objective. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and for the Hoyer amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the former chair and ranking member for yielding. I thank her for her work. I thank Mr. Cole for his work. Anybody who knows me knows that I am opposed to CRs, but I am for keeping the government open, if those are the only alternatives. Mr. Chair, this would not be my bill, but I think probably most of the Members on this floor can say that. It is a bill that cooperatively has been made better, I think, as it has passed through the House and Senate in conference. It provides increases for several key programs for the American people. That includes a $13 million increase over the fiscal year 2025 enacted level for entrepreneurial development programs at the Small Business Administration. The ranking member mentioned that program, but it is critically important to our communities and to the small business community. This bill also increases funding for election security grants by $30 million. I created that program, along with Bob Ney from Ohio, when we passed the Help America Vote Act. We all want to make sure our elections are run well. At that point in time, we distributed to the States over $3 billion. This is $45 million for 50 States, not a lot of money, but it is proper for the Federal Government to help pay for the elections that are run by the locals that include United States Senators and Members of Congress. The judiciary, Mr. Chairman, receives $584 million or a 6.2 percent increase over the 2025 enacted, which is what they asked for. The reason we wanted to do that is to make sure that the courts can act efficiently, effectively, and justly. We also included $142 million or a 19 percent increase for court security. Unfortunately, as we see on our streets today, we are living in an era in which violence is too often repaired to. Crucially, the bill fixes the funding hole for Federal Public Defender services, which are constitutionally required, providing an increase of $315 million or 22 percent over the 2025 enacted level to meet constitutional responsibilities. Other programs for the Department of the Treasury, including the community development financial institutions, so critical for small communities and communities of little means, were flat funded in the fiscal year 2025 enacted level, instead of being eliminated. While it is not everything we would want, it is a vast improvement over what was requested. Even still, Mr. Chair, some of my colleagues may notice my lack of enthusiasm for this final bill. This bill's $1 billion or 9 percent cut to the Internal Revenue Service below the fiscal year 2025 enacted is particularly concerning to me. I have made this point I think every time we have considered this bill. I might say that we tried to overcome this deficiency and have not yet done that. It includes a $438 million or an 8 percent cut to IRS enforcement. Now, what does cutting enforcement mean? It means that we have gone from 9 percent in looking at tax returns over a million dollars to 0.6 percent. What incentive is that to people who make a lot of money and who try to avoid taxation? The little guy has to pick up the tab. Mr. Chair, that cut will cost the American people dearly by making it easier for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations to avoid paying the taxes they owe under existing law. Nevertheless, this bill is better than it would have otherwise been. IRS data indicates that every $1 produces $7. A Harvard study shows that for the top 10 percent, every dollar invested in enforcement brings us $12 in additional revenue in taxes owed but not paid. Who will have to pick up the tab? As I said, hardworking Americans who dutifully pay their taxes. If you are serious about fiscal responsibility, as I am and as I think many are----

Mr. HOYER. If you are serious, you have to be serious about collecting revenue that is due and owing. That means funding the IRS, which has been understaffed and underresourced far too long. Now, I am concerned not only by the IRS but also the FBI. For two decades, I have worked to help the FBI move out of the crumbling, unhealthy J. Edgar Hoover Building and into a new consolidated headquarters that meets its security and operational needs. The administration has decided to move the FBI from an inadequate 51-year- old building to an inadequate 28-year-old building, the Reagan Building. Its exposed location and its design as an accessible public- private facility would greatly undermine the FBI security. I will continue to work on that throughout the year that I have remaining to me. There was language in the CJS bill that I wanted the Rules Committee to include the same exact language, saying simply that we would oversee the plans of the GSA and the FBI before we spend money. That was the responsible thing to do. I am sorry, Mr. Chair, that we did not do it, but I am going to support this bill.