Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would say at the outset, I believe the committee on which he serves with Mr. Clyburn is one of the committees, among many, who ought to be looking at those facts. But let me say this, because in stating the facts, as you just did, the appearance is that substantial progress has not been made. I don't think that premise is correct. Let me read you some statistics. Last year, the first year the President came into office, testing in America was molecular in at-home tests per day. The beginning of last year, 1.7 million per day. Today, 11.7 million tests per day are being conducted. So to imply that somehow there has not been substantial progress, that is a 10-fold increase in the testing available to Americans every day. And when Biden took office, zero at-home rapid tests were available to consumers--zero. Today, 300 million at-home rapid tests are on the market each month. Enough? No. Are more coming? Yes. Has the government used the Defense Production Act to accomplish greater production? They have. The administration started using, as I said, the Defense Production Act. The Biden administration is increasing places people can get free tests, for instance. You talk about a plan. When Biden took office, there were only 2,500 pharmacies offering free testing. Today, there are 20,000 sites, an 8- fold increase. The administration is purchasing 500 million at-home rapid tests to be distributed for free to Americans who want them, with initial delivery starting this month. The administration is distributing up to 50 million free at-home self-tests to community health centers and rural health clinics. In addition to already covering PCR tests, the administration is requiring private insurance plans to cover at-home tests starting on January 15, just a couple of days from today. A lot is happening. Is enough happening? Enough is not happening until everybody has immediate availability. ``Immediate'' may overstate it, but easy access. The fact is that some people are having problems finding the at-home tests now, and we need to work on that. Those statistics show you that extraordinary increases have occurred under the Biden administration, and that is their plan, to make sure that these tests are available, because we know that testing will make a difference. If you find out you are sick, you quarantine. I suggest to the gentleman that the Biden administration has made an extraordinary difference. Is the situation where we want it to be? Absolutely, it is not. Do we have a new variant that apparently came out of South Africa or was first identified in South Africa that spiked up? I talked to Dr. Monahan yesterday, and apparently, just in recent days, we have had a fall-off in disease recognized. I hope that is the case. I hope it keeps going down because we are perhaps now using the KN-95 or N-95 masks and keeping our distance a little more conscientiously. Let's hope all of that works for the people, for the country, and for the globe.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this has been a calm discussion so far. Let me remind the gentleman that the previous President said in February or March of 2020 that this is going to go away in about 30 days: Don't worry about it. It will go away. A lot of your Members said we don't need a mask; we don't need to keep distance; we don't need to wash our hands; this is going to go away. It is here today and gone tomorrow. That was the previous administration's plan. I agree with you. The science community, the private-sector community, and government on Operation Warp Speed did a good job-- extraordinary work in the private sector, extraordinary work around the world. Because of the computer age in which we live, they were able to share information instantaneously, in real time, and say that this alternative doesn't work, which accelerated greatly the ability to get, within a year, an extraordinary accomplishment, largely from our scientific and medical community but facilitated by Warp Speed. No doubt about that. Give credit where credit is due. Very frankly, the leader--unlike President Biden, who said this is a problem; we have to be careful; we have to pursue it; we have to invest--said no problem. The gentleman conveniently forgets that. He also ignores the statistics I just gave where we have had a tenfold, eightfold increase in the availability of testing and pharmaceutical access for literally millions of people. This is per day that we are talking about, 11.7 million people per day. It doesn't take too long at that rate that the whole country, all 330 million people, in about a month and a few days has been taken care of. When you say we have to make progress, we have made extraordinary progress. Our view is--and I know we differ on this--we have made investments in the American Rescue Plan Act to deal with the pandemic crisis; in the infrastructure bill to create jobs, additional manufacturing capacity, and training and apprenticeships for our people; in the Build Back Better bill to make sure that our families can keep their heads above water and can, in fact, have childcare that they can rely on and feel their children are safe so they can take a job, be productive citizens, and add to the growth of our economy. We believe we are doing that. Are we doing it perfectly? None of us do it perfectly. Perhaps we need to do more, as the gentleman implies, and have hearings. The gentleman says he was in a hearing. Private or public, I presume the gentleman had an opportunity to ask questions. I don't know who the witnesses were, so I don't know what expertise they have. I can't believe that if you requested of Mr. Clyburn that you have relevant witnesses to come by and that you want to question about the progress that either has been made or you think ought to be made or further things that could be done, I can't believe that he wouldn't agree to do that. In any event, great progress is being made, but the entire world--not the Biden world, not America--the entire world is confronting a crisis and is having a tough time getting ahold of it. We have done it better than anybody else in terms of growing our economy and keeping our people's heads above water. That is to be applauded. Do we still have a challenge? We do. Are we still working on it? We are. Do we need to continue? Yes.

Mr. HOYER. For a long time, the former President of the United States--apparently, he changed his view now and criticized DeSantis for not pursuing mask wearing, et cetera, et cetera. The fact of the matter is, of course, the former President discouraged wearing masks early on. He discouraged it: Oh, no, you don't need to wear a mask. He had events that were spreader events, as we call them. The gentleman heard me say that I think the President followed good advice and made a decision on Warp Speed that was helpful. As the gentleman noted, it was the scientists at NIH and scientists in the private sector and scientists throughout the world, but mainly our people, who did an extraordinary thing in an extraordinarily short timeframe--never been done before--to develop this kind of vaccine. You talk about the three vaccines. The three manufacturers, it had never been done before. It was a wonderful event. Unfortunately, too many people are advising: Don't take the vaccine. You don't have to take the vaccine. Don't sweat it. The government tells people they have to vaccinate their children to send them to school. Why? So other children don't get sick. I told you I had those great-grandchildren, three of whom are in school. They have a child that sits in front of them, a child that sits to the right, a child that sits to the left, and a child that sits behind them. I want all of them well because I don't want my great- grandchild getting sick. I don't think there was a very successful effort either by the former President or by many on your side of the aisle to say--you talk about science--do what the scientists tell you to do. Now, I notice most of your Members are doing so now, but still some wear it as a badge of courage and raise money off of it. I think that is harmful to our communities. I think you sort of just set aside no plan. Well, no plan has resulted going from 1.7 million to 11.7 million tests per day. That is the plan. We invested in March, in the American Rescue Plan Act, in making sure that health services could respond properly. A lot of money went into health and testing in the American Rescue Plan. You keep saying there is no plan. We have adopted plans, and we think they are positive plans. We think, hopefully, that we are going to get better soon. Neither President Trump nor President Biden was responsible for this extraordinary virus. Our view is President Trump laid back for a long, long time before he really engaged heavily in this, and now he has changed his tune to a much more positive ``listen to the scientists'' kind of attitude, which we welcome. I disagree with the gentleman that there is not a plan. We adopted together in 2020 five major pieces of legislation to address this challenge, and we have adopted in a partisan way, unfortunately, bills that continue to fight that fight, and I think it is fighting it, not as successfully because we have a new variant, much more transmissible, a different type. It has metastasized into a more communicable disease. That has caused us a challenge, we are addressing that, and we are accelerating the availability of resources to do so.

Mr. HOYER. I just want to say in terms of where we are today, the overwhelming percentage--I am talking about 90 percent--of people who are getting really sick are people who are not vaccinated. And for the government to say: You need to be vaccinated because we don't want you coming to the office, we don't want you coming with other people who are being careful, who have been vaccinated, and who have done the responsible thing and getting them sick. Because what we have seen, unfortunately, even with vaccination, is that people who are vaccinated, of our own Members on both sides of the aisle who have been vaccinated, have gotten--thankfully--mild cases of COVID. But when we talk about the President wanting people to get vaccinated--and my friend indicates that he and I both are advocates of that, and/or requiring them to get vaccinated--the reason you require people to get vaccinated, the more people you have unvaccinated, the more hosts this virus has to metastasize and to grow into a different type of virus that can attack in different ways. That is why you do that. That is why they talk 70 percent. Now we just have about 70 percent in America now. Very frankly, if we had a higher percentage we would be better off. So let's hope that we can work together to make sure that we give encouragement to people to do what the scientists advise. My friend talks about the reason we were so successful in that year under Warp Speed of getting those three vaccines is because the scientists knew what had to be done. They found out and they had quick discoveries and eliminated a lot of dead-ends relatively quickly because of our computer capability and transformation of information around the world and dead-ends. If we listen to them, we would be better off. But an awful lot of people are saying: Don't listen to them. Don't do it. When the gentleman says for health reasons, there are hundreds, probably billions, I don't know what the billions are, people who have been vaccinated with a miniscule and almost undetectable adverse reaction. So I don't know what the gentleman talks about for health reasons. I know Djokovic is saying he is doing it for health reasons. I don't know what those are. Maybe my friend does. I am not an expert enough to know what that is. But all the doctors I talk to--and certainly our own doctor here whom we consult with on a regular basis, I know both of us have done that--say get the vaccine. So I would hope that all of us would ask our constituents to get the vaccine. It is good for you, it saves your lives, it saves your families, and it saves others. Get it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to have grown up and become cognizant of public affairs in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It is ironic that today, I am hearing the language of interposition of States' rights. There were a lot of States' rights in the 1950s and the 1940s and 1960s. And John Lewis will tell you those States' rights kept people from voting, from participating, from playing a role. Now, we have legislation before us that will ensure, as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 assured, that people would not be shut out by States' rights by people who wanted to keep certain other people from voting and participating in their State's elections, in their county's election, in their municipal election, in their city election. I have heard a lot about States' rights. I am old enough to have heard about what States' rights meant. They meant don't butt in to assure that every United States citizen, one nation, under God, indivisible. But we were divisible. We were divisible by color and by other arbitrary and unjustified distinctions. So we are here today to say that is not America. That is not one nation under God, indivisible. So, yes, all the States will be covered because we want all States to comply, and they will not have a thing to worry about under this legislation if they have not had violations within the 20-year period. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, we will mark what would have been Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, 93rd birthday. When he was born in 1929, it had only been 9 years, just 9 years from the date of his birth that women were given the opportunity to vote in America. How sad that it took us so long. When he was born in 1929, it had only been 9 years since the 19th amendment had been passed, and it had only been 64 years since the amendments ending slavery and ostensibly guaranteeing the right to vote for African Americans. But that constitutional amendment was not honored. And ways and means were found to prevent people from voting, from registering. And so, yes, the Supreme Court passed the decision in Shelby v. Holder, Shelby in Alabama, a county that had discriminated greatly and was discriminating at that point in time. And as soon as the Supreme Court said this is no longer necessary, we saw a cascade of new laws to restrict access to the ballot box--a cascade. When Dr. King was born, neither African-American men or African- American women could cast ballots and participate in our democracy in many States and jurisdictions, North and South. Before he was killed, at just 39 years of age, Dr. King led a movement to correct the injustices that had come about because for so long many Americans had no recourse to participate in our democracy or pursue opportunities equally because their States felt they had the right to discriminate. That is what State rights were in my generation. And apparently, the concept still exists, but that is the right. The right to vote is the guarantee to all others. Dr. King joined by other giants of the Civil Rights Movement, including our dear friend and brother. My, my, my, G.K. and I were just saying how sad we are that John Lewis is not on this floor, who gave blood and almost his life but lived his life to assure that every American had the right to vote and was facilitated in that right. Dr. King, joined by other giants of the Civil Rights Movement, including our friend and brother, John Lewis, used the tools of nonviolent, peaceful protest in organizing to expose the hypocrisy of a system that called itself a democracy but did not allow all of its citizens to share in electing leaders. Each year, on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, birthday, Americans reflect on the lessons of his life and on the Civil Rights Movement as though they formed a chapter in America's past. Would that they mirrored simply the past. But if we look around us today, there can be no doubt that the fight for our democracy is very much a part of our present. Now, this is a radical bill that will allow process of the United States Senate that is a failing practice. The majority will rule on debating this bill--the majority. It is not a radical proposal that the majority of the Senate that is for this bill. When people get up and say, Oh, this bill can't pass. The only reason it can't pass is because the minority will stop it, if they can. I hope they can't. I hope they change the rules. I am an opponent of the filibuster. It is undemocratic, and as Hamilton said, it poisons democracy. The right to vote has not been so endangered since Dr. King walked among us. But there is a remedy. It is not perfect but it will go a long way toward turning back the tide of voter suppression in protecting the fundamental right to vote. One nation, under God, indivisible. All of us could vote. The legislation incorporated into this bill represents the boldest and most consequential voting rights reforms in a generation. I was the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act. It was called then a very consequential bill. It was not nearly as consequential as this bill will be in empowering every person eligible to vote. And by the way, every citizen, from my perspective, to vote, so there is no mischaracterization of my view. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler, Representative Sewell, Representative Sarbanes, Chairwoman Beatty, and the entire Congressional Black Caucus, and literally hundreds of Members who through the years have fought to protect this sacred right. In addition to providing for automatic online and same-day voter registration, the Freedom to Vote Act will make Election Day a Federal holiday--a holy day, if you will--in the pursuit of our secular commitment to democracy. It will guarantee at least 15 days of early voting. Isn't that terrible? Well, it must be terrible because many States throughout the country are cutting those days down. Why? I don't know. If you vote on Tuesday as opposed to Thursday, is there more fraud involved? I don't know. It will guarantee those days and two weekends while ending requirements for difficult-to-obtain photo ID. It doesn't eliminate ID. If States have ID, it does not eliminate that. Importantly, this legislation will restore voting rights to those who have paid their debts to society. And it will ensure that those who cast eligible ballots provisionally in the wrong precincts will still have their votes counted. As the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act in 2002, that provision was in the Federal law. This bill would limit partisan gerrymandering and remove the corrosive influence of dark money. My mother used to tell me, consider the source. If the money is dark and you don't know who is paying the bill for the talk that is being given to you, you can't make that judgment. You can't determine who the source is. When it comes to defending the integrity of our elections and our democracy, this legislation is absolutely needed in America. Not only will it prohibit the removal of election officials without cause, which is happening because a President calls up and says, ``Can't you find some more votes?'' That was the asking of some elected official, Secretary of State of Georgia, to commit a crime. Talk about fraud in elections. This will enable the EAC to provide State and local boards of election with grants to upgrade outdated voting equipment and protect against hackers and cyber threats. It wasn't until 2003 that the Federal Government paid part of the election costs incurred in electing Federal officials, also restoring the full force of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was undermined by Shelby v. Holder, applying it to every State--not discrimination. If you break the law in any State, if you preclude people from legitimate voting in any State, you are covered under this legislation. We don't pick out any actor. Every State is included. We apply it to every State. And updating it for the 21st century, the Freedom to Vote Act has the power to restore trust that our elections are fair and that every eligible voter will be able to participate. House Democrats have passed voting rights measures multiple times, this Congress sending both H.R. 1 and H.R. 4 to the Senate. The majority is for it, but the filibuster stops it. The minority controls the majority. Madison said that was not democracy. Now, the Senate must act. Mr. Speaker, I urge Senators to come together on Monday and approve this historic voting rights legislation for our time. We have the opportunity. I share G. K. Butterfield's sadness that John Lewis is not on this floor to cast his vote. Very frankly, I would have yielded all the time I have taken to John Lewis to talk to us about how important this legislation is and how many people gave their lives and their blood and their time and their talent to accomplish an America where no person would be shut out of the ballot box. In future years, I hope Americans will be able to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day by reflecting not only on how our country overcame Jim Crow in the 20th century but how we prevented its return in 2022. I know we have heard, ``Oh, this is not Jim Crow.'' No matter how subtle the discrimination may be, it is discrimination. I ask Members to cast your vote for this bill today, so our citizens can cast their votes without hindrance and share equally in the making of our laws and in the shaping of our future. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, first let me say that I respect the gentleman's service in the United States Navy as I respect all of our men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States. Let me end as I began. All of us ought to vote for this motion to hold somebody in contempt who refuses to come forth, who is clearly and, obviously, in contempt of the Congress of the United States. I urge every Member on behalf of this institution, not on behalf of any political party; on behalf of our democracy, not on behalf of Democrats; on behalf of the Constitution of the United States to vote ``yea'' on this resolution.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, every Member of the House ought to vote for this resolution--every one of you. I see one shaking their head vigorously ``no.'' For those of us who have been here for some time, we have seen extraordinary energy exercised by the other side of the aisle in conducting oversight. Mr. Burton from Indiana summoned tens and tens more and ten thereafter, on and on and on, to hold accountable an administration with whom he did not agree and thought was not doing the right thing. And he issued subpoena after subpoena after subpoena. The reason I say every one of us ought to vote for this is because this institution needs this power. This institution is charged under the Constitution with protecting the welfare of the American people and expanding the opportunities of our people. To do so, as the gentlewoman from Wyoming has observed, we need to gather information, and in the conduct of gathering that information, it must be our ability to compel people to testify, to come before the Congress of the United States and tell us facts that we need. Now, my Republican friends, when they were in charge, thought there was some type of wrongdoing, which resulted in the loss of four lives, tragically, in Benghazi, Libya. They had eight separate hearings on that issue, the last of which was the select committee led by Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. Every one of those committees reached the same conclusion, but there were eight of them. Madam Speaker, perhaps some of my Republican friends will recall that Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State during that time, appeared for 11 hours before one of these committees, the select committee. Madam Speaker, I have a speech here that deals with what the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, has done. I have chosen not to give this speech because the issue, in my view, is not what Meadows has done, but clearly in contempt, as the gentlewoman from Wyoming pointed out so factually, but it is about this institution, about whether or not a President or anybody else can simply say, ``I will not testify,'' and then take months and months and months. Now, the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Indiana, laments the fact that we have this committee. But the gentleman from Indiana voted against forming an equally numbered committee to be set up to adjudge this issue. He voted against that, as did his Republican colleagues, save a few. And now he comes and says, Oh, my goodness, this is not what I wanted. But like so many of his colleagues, he voted against what he says he wanted. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana who just spoke voted against holding in contempt Steve Bannon not because of any executive privilege. He was a private citizen, not a member of the President's Cabinet. And the gentleman from Indiana voted against having him honor a subpoena of the Congress of the United States. Yes, it ought to be noted that, at the time of the insurrection, we had a vote on whether to confirm what court after court after court had said was a legitimate election. He voted against certifying the election of the President of the United States. So I am not surprised that the gentleman from Indiana does not want to see this subpoena honored because, Madam Speaker, I believe that he fears the information that would be brought forward. Fearing the truth is not an excuse for not honoring a subpoena of this Congress. So, again, it is not just simply the actions of Mr. Meadows that are at issue here. What is at issue here is what power does the Congress have to get the information it needs--in this case, the most important information it needs to achieve one of its most important objectives, which the gentlewoman from Wyoming has not only talked about but has shown extraordinary courage in standing up to her party. She is, after all, the former chair of the Republican Conference, the daughter of a Vice President of the United States and former Secretary of Defense and former minority whip of this House, who has shown extraordinary courage in the face of almost united opposition on her side of the aisle, leading to her removal from the position she held. Would that all of us all the time have the courage of our convictions that the gentlewoman from Wyoming has shown. So I say to my colleagues, all 434 or 433 of us here----

Mr. HOYER. I do not yield.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Doreen Dotzler, the Deputy Chief of the Office of Official Reporters, as she retires after twenty-three years of service to the House in the Office of the Clerk. A Minnesota native, Doreen first came to Congress in 1998, working as a House stenographer covering committee assignments for the Clerk's Office. From 2001 to 2014, she served as a stenographer on the House Floor, and then transitioned to a Senior Official Reporter Position before taking on her current role in 2019. Among a great many other responsibilities, over the last seven years, Doreen has read every single word spoken on the House Floor, and over her career she has borne witness to countless historic moments in this chamber. It is in no small part because of her dedication, her knowledge of Congressional procedure, and her attention to detail that the daily Congressional Record over her tenure has been consistently accurate and reliable. After previously delaying her retirement to extend her public service, Doreen leaves her post this year after a distinguished tenure in support of the House and its work. This institution and the American people it serves have greatly benefitted from her work, and I hope all of my colleagues will join me in extending my heartfelt thanks to Doreen and wishing her and her husband Terry and their family the very best as she retires.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chair of the Appropriations Committee for yielding me 1 minute. I rise to say, of course, everybody is going to vote for this bill. I wish I believed that. Madam Speaker, this bill is a demonstration of the failure of 535 adults elected by their fellow citizens to act responsibly. Obviously, of those 535, a number have acted responsibly, have worked to get the job done. There are really only 12 bills that need to pass the Congress. There are many other bills that are important bills and should pass the Congress that I voted for and make life better for America.

Mr. HOYER. How is that?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, who is my friend, and I thank him for that. As I was saying, this is a failure. We knew that these 12 bills have to pass. Why? Because if they do not, government shuts down. It stops serving the American people. It stops maintaining security and health and welfare of our people. So we know these bills have to pass. But notwithstanding that, year after year after year, we come to this point where we are adopting a CR. It is really a CI, congressional irresponsibility. Now let me say that I generally speak of the Congress, but very frankly, Madam Speaker, we have exercised our responsibility in this House. We passed 9 of the 12 appropriation bills and sent them to the Senate. The Senate, Madam Speaker, has not sent a single bill to the House, not passed a single appropriations bill through the United States Senate. They have passed through some in committee. I heard my friend Tom Cole speaking earlier on the rule. He is my friend, and he is a Member I respect. He is a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Rules Committee. He is a Member who respects this institution. But I disagree with him very much about why we are at a CR. We passed overwhelmingly 75 percent of the appropriation bills before August 1 and sent them to the Senate. They have neither acted on those bills nor have they acted on their own bills and asked to go to conference. So we find ourselves at the 11th hour, as we did on September 30-- although we passed the CR a little before September 30--without having funded the government. The gentleman referred to the fact that we control both Houses. Frankly, nobody controls the United States Senate. We are in the majority by one. But, unfortunately, in the United States Senate, you need not a majority; you need a supermajority. So the minority can defeat the majority. The minority can defeat the majority in the United States Senate. That is an appalling place for our democracy to be. I have written an op-ed in Time magazine on that issue, and it has been distributed to many Members. Mr. Cole made an assessment about why the CR is coming to the floor today with just hours to go before it expires. His assessment was not correct. The reason we have not gotten, as the gentlewoman has pointed out, to even the opportunity to discuss a resolution of the differences between the House and the Senate on spending levels and the objects of that spending is because Senate Republicans have refused to negotiate and made as a condition precedent--as we lawyers say, something that has to happen before you do something else--that we resolve all the riders. Now, for any of us who have been involved in the appropriation process for any period of time, the riders are almost always the last items to be resolved, invariably. I served as an active member of the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, and for the last 16 years, I have been very much involved in working with the Appropriations Committee to get these bills passed. Because of the refusal to even sit down and determine how much money we will spend overall, which is called in our jargon 302(a) numbers, the chairman has been unable to get to a discussion of the differences so that they could be resolved. If you can't discuss, you can't resolve. So for Mr. Cole, frankly, to have intimated that somehow it was the Democrats that couldn't do it, it takes two to tango, and frankly, one of the partners in the Senate doesn't want to tango until something happens that almost always happens at the end. The timing for the consideration of this CR resulted not from the majority's focus on passing critical legislation to help the American people get ahead, the Build Back Better Act, the infrastructure bill which, by the way, only 13 Republicans voted for, but my speculation is at least half of them are going to take credit for what was done in that bill, maybe all of them. It is as a result, this failure, of the minority's determination to slow down the work of Congress so that such legislation is delayed. As a matter of fact, the minority leader of the United States Senate said exactly that. He said that he would not consider negotiating on the CR until Build Back Better was done, which means he is prepared to shut down the government. I think that is probably not true. I don't think he wants to shut down the government. I hope he doesn't want to shut down the government. He wants to gum up the works on Build Back Better. I get that. He is opposed to it. He doesn't like it. He thinks it is the wrong priorities. That is an honest position to take. I think it is incorrect, but it is honest. But don't do it by playing games with the appropriation process. In my view, the Senate treats the appropriation process as a back- burner issue. When we get to it, we will get to it, but we have a lot of other things we want to do first. For the last 10, 11 months, that is what the case has been. To dissemble and derail the legislative process using every tool available to them to prohibit Congress from doing exactly what the American people are looking for us to do is not responsible. How sad. How shameful that reality is. I agree that it is unfortunate that we have to take up another stopgap measure this week to keep this government operating. If it were based upon whether this is the right thing to do in terms of substance, I would vote ``no.'' But it absolutely is the right thing to do in terms of process. But the chair is absolutely right; we need to pass an omnibus. I would hope that every Republican after, hopefully, passing this piece of legislation today or tomorrow will then address how we are going to have an omnibus, how we are going to deal with the problems, how we are going to give the government agencies that which they need to meet new challenges that were not available to us a year ago and so they could not be addressed. It is extremely disappointing that Senate Republicans are blocking progress toward full-year appropriations that will enable our government to serve the American people. I happen to believe that the ranking member, Senator Shelby, wants to see an omnibus passed. I believe that. But I believe the tactics of the Republican leadership in the Senate are not to do so until they get what they want. That is dangerous for our country, and it is extraordinarily inefficient for the 2 million people who are waiting to see what we are doing. That is what they are focused on, not the job, not the priorities, not the dangers, but what is happening: Is the government going to fund us on Saturday? On Saturday, are we going to be able to operate? There are few certainties in Washington, Madam Speaker, but one of them has now become that Congress will not complete the appropriation process by the start of the fiscal year. I have tried to make that happen every year that I have been majority leader. The chair of this committee, Rosa DeLauro, did everything she could to pass 12 appropriation bills by the August 1 deadline. If we had had any help on the Republican side, we would have done it--any help. Now, we have only a four-vote margin over here, so on some of the bills that were more controversial for one reason or another, we needed some help. I will remind my friend--and I dearly thank him for yielding me the time. He knew it was going to be a somewhat extended discussion, but I thank him for that. It reflects back to how this institution used to operate, frankly, and I appreciate it. But he knows that when the Republican side was in the majority, and they could not get the majority of votes on fiscal issues, they looked to this side of the aisle. We always helped and made it happen; maybe not 100 percent of us, but a large enough amount so that the important fiscal issues would be dealt with and passed. Only six times over the past 20 years has Congress come within 3 months of this deadline, the end of the fiscal year. Now, I could go on for some period of time talking about Mr. Cole. He said the majority wasn't serious. We are very serious. We have been the ones that opened up government after it was shut down for some 35 days when we took over from the Republican leadership two Congresses ago. We can do better. For Mr. Cole to say that we were spending time pandering to the American people by passing the Build Back Better Act or passing the bipartisan infrastructure act, I hope he reflects upon that statement and says, no, that was wrong. Yes, we focused on Build Back Better because we think it is important for the American people, but we had already passed the appropriation bills. They were already in the Senate ready to be acted upon, and we were ready to act in response. Madam Speaker, this is the result of the inability of the Congress to work. The House worked. Republicans and Democrats, this House can work. Maybe sometimes I don't agree with what it does, and maybe sometimes my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't agree with what it does, but it works. It can pass legislation. The Senate is not working, and it is hurting our country. We should all resolve, however we vote on this CR, we should all resolve, hopefully, all of us--and I am a good friend of the ranking member, Ms. Granger. I think she wants to get this bill done. By ``this bill,'' I am talking about omnibus, all 12 appropriation bills. I think she wants to get that done. But I am not sure that she has been empowered by her leadership to do so. We can have differences, and we have a way of resolving those differences. Ultimately, we vote. But if we keep putting it off, putting it off, putting it off, it undermines the credibility of the United States, the confidence that people have in our country, the confidence that our workers have in our stewardship of the leadership of this country, and the people's confidence. So we ought to resolve that we stop this. The Republicans, through Mr. Cole, have talked about a motion to recommit. It mirrors the unserious nature of their opposition. Why do I say that? Because their motion to recommit has nothing to do with the funding of government. It has nothing to do with our responsibility to ensure that government continues to work on behalf of the American people. Rather, it would send this bill back to committee and would not possibly be able to act in a timely fashion that some 30 hours from now, I guess 31\1/2\ hours from now, government would shut down. I would have understood perhaps a motion that would have said we are going to fund government at this level, or we are going to fund this objective and not that objective, but that is not what it did, totally irrelevant to the appropriations process bill. They may think it is an important issue. I get that. But it doesn't have anything to do with this issue. Very frankly, that is exactly what the Senate has been doing on the Republican side, irrelevant issues, not the appropriations process. So we find ourselves now at a time when we must pass this CR. I am not in love with this CR, but in a world of alternatives, there should be none for any of us. All of us should have the courage to be responsible. Madam Speaker, all of us should have the courage to say there is no alternative, and after we pass this bill and the Senate passes this bill, get down to the work between now and February 18. I would hope we could pass an omnibus appropriation bill including the work of the gentleman from California, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and all the rest of us on the priorities that we want to pursue as an American people and the investments that we want to make in achieving those objectives. I hope we do that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, pending Senate passage of the CR tonight without amendment, the House will not be in session tomorrow--I want to reiterate, pending passage of the CR tonight. If the CR is not passed, we will be in session tomorrow at 9. If the Senate fails to act, as I just said, we will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business and expect to vote on some of the postponed suspensions. Members are encouraged to keep their schedules flexible as we work to fully fund government and prevent a shutdown at 12 midnight tomorrow night. Next week, on Monday, pending Senate action on full government funding and H.R. 6119, the Further Extending Government Act, being signed into law, the House is no longer expected to meet. This is a change from our previously announced schedule. We will not be in session Monday, assuming we have funded the government. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, as was previously scheduled. The House will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Additionally, the House will pass H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act, again, a second time, to provide our troops with the pay they deserve and our military with the tools it needs to carry out its missions safely and effectively, keep America safe, and keep the peace. Again, I will reiterate that is the second time we will pass this version. As I understand it, it will be the conference-agreed version of the defense bill. This has been a discussion between the House and the Senate. The House will also consider H.R. 8363, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, to reassert Congress' role as a coequal branch of government by addressing the vulnerabilities exploited by the former President and his enablers to weaken our democracy, undermine the rule of law, and subvert the systems of checks and balances enshrined by the Framers in our Constitution. The House may also consider legislation to address the debt limit and prevent a manufactured economic catastrophe that would derail our recovery from the pandemic and cause needless suffering to millions of American families. I would reiterate that while we don't know the exact date at which America will be unable to pay its bills, we will address this next week, hopefully, in a bipartisan fashion. Moreover, the House will be ready to act on H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act, should the Senate amend it and send it back to the House. Lastly, of course, additional legislative items are possible.

Mr. HOYER. We have a list of suspension bills, which has been announced and has been on our calendar for consideration. Those would be the pieces of legislation with which we would deal, pending action by the Senate.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I think we will probably have to wait to see exactly what is going to happen. As the gentleman knows, we have passed a debt limit twice through this House. There has been a problem in the Senate, and I would expect Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell will be discussing that in the next few days. Senator McConnell has made it very clear that he thinks that failing to protect the full faith and credit of the United States of America would have dire adverse consequences, so he has made it very clear he thinks we ought not to do that. Senator Schumer has done the same. Essentially, my answer to the gentleman is, we have passed it twice in one form or another, so we can pass it and will pass it once the Senate agrees on a version. The two leaders are discussing that, I am sure. Now, I haven't talked to either one of them, but that is my premise.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I agree with his comments. It is my understanding, although I haven't talked personally, but it is my understanding that introducing the conference-agreed bill in the House, and passing it through the House will, under Senate procedures, facilitate them resolving this issue, hopefully, in a positive way next week.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. We have talked to the sponsor, and we have talked to others. I expect this bill to be on the floor next week.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. HOYER. With respect to the issues that I think we have broad agreement on, the cliffs that were created on Medicare and sequester are not good policy, and we ought to act on those. We are very seized of that issue, and hopefully, we can resolve something next week. The gentleman mentions doing it in a bipartisan fashion. The good news is, and I know the gentleman will agree, that earlier this year, we delayed to January 1 of this coming year these items, particularly the 2 percent sequester by a vote of 90-2 in the Senate, meaning only two people voted against it, and in the House, 384. We were unanimous on our side, but you had the overwhelming majority on your side as well. So by 384-38, we extended that. I am hopeful that we will do that again in a bipartisan way because not to do so, I think, would be very harmful to the medical community, to the country, and, obviously, to patients that are served by the medical community. I am hopeful that we can resolve that as early as next week.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. Let me read through this so I reach every point that I think each Member needs to know. Following the next vote, the House will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. As all Members know, we are waiting for some technical pursuits of the budget and reconciliation process to be completed. The House has completed, as I think all of you know, 1 hour and 40 minutes of the 2 hours of debate on the Build Back Better Act, so there will remain 10 minutes on each side prior to the passage of the Build Back Better Act. We are waiting, as the gentleman indicated, for the completion of a privileged scrub from the Senate Parliamentarians necessary for the reconciliation process. Once we have received that information, the Rules Committee and Mr. McGovern will meet to report a rule with an additional manager's amendment to make technical corrections to the bill, which will be considered on the floor so that the Parliamentarian's concerns will be met in that technical amendment. We are also awaiting the final two committee estimates from CBO. We expect CBO to have estimates--and I want to make it clear that this may not be the CBO score of the overall piece of legislation. We have just heard from those who are going to be reading that through the night, I know. We are also waiting for the final two committee estimates. As I said, I want to thank the Senate Parliamentarian, who has been working around the clock--their office has been working around the clock to get us to where I think we are now. I want to also thank CBO, who has been working extraordinarily hard. This is a large piece of legislation, which I guess is an understatement, and it is also complex. Having said that, obviously, CBO has been working for months-- literally August, September, October, and November--on this legislation. We appreciate the hard work of the Parliamentarian and the Director of CBO and their staffs. We are working toward completing the Build Back Better Act today, and more information on the schedule will be provided as soon as it becomes available. Let me add, if I can, Mr. Whip, it is my hope that we will complete this legislation today so that this would be the last legislative day prior to the Thanksgiving work period. I want to make sure everybody understands, however, we will complete Build Back Better before we go home. I am hopeful and believe--I think most Members are hopeful--that we can do that tonight, whether you are for it or against it, that we can do it tonight, and that is my effort to achieve that objective. I know it is the Speaker's effort as well. I yield to my friend, the whip.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip, for the purpose of an inquiry as to the balance of the day.

Mr. HOYER. There would be debate on the rule, and then the 20 minutes of remaining debate on the bill itself; 10 minutes on your side and 10 minutes on our side. I want to say, we do expect to have a full table of the score. As those of you who have pored over CBO scores, you know there is a number of pages--sometimes shorter, 15, it can be longer than that--of prose in explanation of the score. What we will have is the score itself, as I understand it, a summary table of the score. We may not have the prose by that time. I want to make it clear to you that that is not necessary for us to pass it. It is necessary, and it will be in place, before it goes to the Senate under the reconciliation rules.

Mr. HOYER. The Energy and Commerce has been done, so we do have that. But the other two will be in the table, correct.

Mr. HOYER. Yes, that is my understanding. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is November 18, 2021. Those of us who serve in the Congress of the United States on this date will be able to tell our children and our children's children that we were there when the United States Congress passed one of the most transformational bills in the history of the Congress for the people. Tonight, House Democrats will vote on the Build Back Better Act as will House Republicans, legislation to transform our country by making opportunities available and equitable for all Americans. Its name, of course, refers to the broad recognition that too many Americans are just barely getting by in our economy, and we simply cannot go back to the way things were before the pandemic. We have to ensure our people can access the tools and resources they need, not just to survive, but to succeed. This bill does so by making investments in four key areas. First, it will invest in childcare, universal pre-K, and home care so that more Americans can get back to the workforce and grow our economy. Secondly, it further expands the Affordable Care Act coverage, reduces out-of-pocket costs, caps insulin at $35 for everyone, and finally gives Medicare the tools and authority to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors just as we do for veterans. Thirdly, it will bring down the everyday costs for housing and higher education that make it harder for Americans to secure a place in our middle class. And fourth, the Build Back Better Act makes the largest commitment toward addressing the climate crisis ever considered by any Nation in history. Mr. Speaker, in all four of these critical areas, the Build Back Better Act will make transformational investments that will help more Americans access opportunities and achieve greater economic security. This bill is truly for the people, not just those who have much, but those who have too little. Many Americans are looking at the investments this bill would make in America's workers and families and asking: How are we going to afford it? My friends on the other side of the aisle have raised that and I am sure will raise it again. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not raise taxes from households or small businesses earning less than $400,000 a year. In fact, the Build Back Better Act would provide a tax cut--contrary to the rhetoric I have heard on the other side of the aisle--to 80 percent of American households next year. Not only that, but it will raise revenue, according to the Treasury Department and outside analyses. My Republican friends should be excited that we give a tax cut essentially to 80 percent of Americans, not just 1 percent. By most estimates, this bill reduces the deficit. This bill reduces the deficit. It also ensures that all of us will pay our fair share to support our democracy. The impacts of this historic legislation will be reflected in the greater economic security of millions of families and in the growth and competitiveness of a robust American economy. President Biden said, in fact, very truthfully, this will be transformational, and it will be measured in the deeper sense of hope that Americans will have when they see their economy working for them instead of holding them back. I am hopeful that the Senate acts quickly to pass this bill under reconciliation even while Republicans all sit on the sidelines on this historic moment, just as all but 13 of them did when we passed a transformational infrastructure investment bill, which will make America competitive in the 21st century and make businesses in America grow and succeed. Democrats will not rest until all Americans have the tools to build back better, to access opportunities to get ahead, to achieve real economic security, and to reach for the American Dream that has been this country's promise for generations. This bill, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, is for the people, all the people, the little people, the big people, all the people. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be able to say on November 18, 2021, I voted for that legislation which made America, as John Kennedy said, a great country even greater.