Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, is it appropriate on the floor of the House to tell the truth?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, how pleased our friend would be that Nikema Williams is presiding, his successor. He was one of her mentors. Madam Speaker, how proud you must be to preside at this critical time in our history. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Selma, Alabama, Terri Sewell. I have been with Terri and her church, worshipped with her, prayed with John Lewis in her church, walked down the streets of her town and over a bridge called the Edmund Pettus Bridge. And unlike John Lewis, when we walked across it, there were Alabama troopers to protect us rather than prevent us from voting. Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of discussion on the floor today about how there is no problem in America; people have full access. Too many people that I talk to throughout the country have told me that is not the case. The Supreme Court passed a ruling and said, Oh, everything was fine. And as soon as they did, as soon as they took this preclearance off, State after State after State enacted legislation to make it more difficult to vote; like that. Justice Ginsburg made an analogy in Shelby that the Supreme Court was saying, Oh, well, there is no problem left. She said it was like the man with the umbrella who had the umbrella up; wasn't getting wet. It was raining, but he wasn't getting wet. So he gave the umbrella away and said, I'm okay. I am dry. And then immediately, of course, he got all wet. Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my sister, Terri Sewell; John's sister. John called me brother, and he called all of us brothers and sisters, in this, the beloved community that he envisioned. That was King's vision, as John was his disciple. Today, we are honoring the legacy of a historic Member of this House. In my view, I have served with two historic Members of the Congress of the United States and the Senate and the House. There were a lot of famous, but two historic figures: One was John Lewis. And the other is Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker and, in my view, the most effective Speaker with whom I have served in the 40 years that I have been here. John Lewis was my dear friend, and he was your dear friend. I called him the most Christlike person I have ever seen, our dear Saint John, who preached to us the gospel of getting into ``good trouble'' and creating a beloved community; the gospel of John Robert Lewis. He would be proud of us today for bringing this bill to the floor. He worked hard on this bill. I can remember sitting-- Jim Clyburn and I, and John Lewis and others--sitting in my whip's conference room, working on voting rights' legislation. So let us honor his memory today with strong support for its voting rights' protection, for its reversal of the damage wrought by the 2013 Shelby v. Holder ruling, and for its recognition that our democracy is imperfect if it is not open to all eligible to vote. In that ruling, Shelby v. Holder, the Supreme Court erred in its assessment of how necessary the Voting Rights Act's preclearance section was for protecting Americans' right to vote. You are not protecting Americans' right to vote if the relief that you can seek is after the fact, after the governor or the President or the Senator or the House of Delegates or representative, Member has been elected. It is too late. That is why preclearance was so critically important to reform and to protection of voters' rights. In her powerful dissent, as I said, Justice Ginsburg pointed out that throwing out preclearance when it has worked and has continued to work to stop discriminatory changes is like that gentleman giving away his umbrella. Indeed, since 2013, we have seen a veritable downpour of discriminatory and exclusionary voter suppression measures. I hear people arguing--I heard a Texan argue on this floor about how it is so easy to vote in Texas. Yet, we see them fighting for legislation, which half of their body--or not quite half, unfortunately--but a big number of their body who represents minority citizens says, No, you are wrong. You ought to walk in our shoes and find that they are making it more difficult for me to vote. Since 2013, we have seen a veritable downpour, as I said. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, sponsored by Terri Sewell, would confront this tempest head on. We have seen a campaign of voter suppression efforts in Republican-led jurisdictions that have changed their laws and voting rules to make it harder for eligible Americans to vote. Their leader, Donald Trump, says there was fraud, there was theft. The problem is the Republican judges to which they appealed said no. The problem is Attorney General Barr, who covered up almost everything that Donald Trump said, even he couldn't say that there was fraud. And so they justify these laws by somehow there is fraud out there, they are stealing our elections. That is baloney. It is the same kind of lie that Donald Trump continues to parrot. And if you say, like Liz Cheney did, he is lying, you are kicked out of your party. We have seen a campaign of voter suppression over and over and over again, making it harder for eligible Americans to vote, disproportionately targeting African Americans. I am not an African American. It is hard for me to walk in those shoes. I try to empathize, but I know if I am not Black, I can't really be as knowledgeable as I would be if I were Black, and I was every day subjected to discrimination, or if I were another person of color. They have reduced early voting opportunities that help working people cast ballots. They want to eliminate--they haven't in every place--mail balloting, because they feel somehow if I don't see them when they fill out that form and attest that they are who they are under penalties of perjury that somehow---- Now, I can understand, from a party that in the last seven elections, in the last quarter of a century, have elected a number of Presidents, only one got a majority; only one, but they won the electoral college vote. That is why some Republicans said: Are you crazy? You confirm the electoral college, because it is what is protecting us against the majority. They purged voter rolls so that people who believed themselves to be registered because they had registered and voted in the past, showed up to vote but were turned away. I sponsored the Help America Vote Act with a guy named Bob Ney, who was from Ohio and a Republican, and a dear friend of mine. Unfortunately, he got in trouble, but he is a good man, still a good man. And we provided for provisional ballots, which simply said, if you made a mistake and came to the wrong precinct, fill out the ballot, we are going to check it tomorrow or the next day and make sure you are eligible to vote, and if you are, we will count it. That made sense; efforts to eliminate those. These are real and pressing challenges facing our elections and our democracy; not imaginary fraud, but active and visible voter suppression. We have a duty, my colleagues, Democrat and Republican colleagues, we have a duty, a responsibility, a moral responsibility to make sure that people can vote and that we facilitate their vote, not impede it. Not make it more difficult. Facilitate it. Encourage them. Lift them up and let them vote. And we owe it to John Lewis and the other heroes of Selma, and all the other small towns and byways and big cities and big States, where people fought, demonstrated, were bruised, battered, beaten, and yes, some died, so that their brothers and sisters could have the vote. My colleagues, it falls to us now, today, to continue their march forward, and to carry on their work. There are no Alabama troopers waiting on the other side that are going to beat us or batter us or prevent us. We are not at risk. Whatever way we vote, we are going to walk out of there today and we are going to be fine. But we have a moral responsibility to those who fought here and around the world to protect the vote, to protect democracy. I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to join you, to join me, to join our fellow colleagues in voting for H.R. 4, and for the protection of voting rights in our country. H.R. 4 the people. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the U.S. Naval Academy's Class of 1970 on the fiftieth reunion that it celebrated over the past year. It has been an honor to support the U.S. Naval Academy as the Representative from Maryland's Fifth Congressional District and to nominate outstanding candidates for admission each year from our communities. With the Academy located in our neighboring district, bright and talented students from Fifth District high schools have long been drawn to Annapolis for the next step in their education and service to country and community. The Naval Academy has a proud history of developing excellence in education and shaping the character of its past and present graduates, and it continues to train future leaders of the Navy and of our country. The Class of 1970 exemplifies the high- quality standards of the Academy and of the Navy, and I know that many of its alumni had been looking forward to celebrating its fiftieth reunion in 2020. Because of the pandemic, however, they could not gather in person last year; thankfully, they are planning to convene this Labor Day weekend. The U.S. Naval Academy Class of 1970 began its journey as midshipmen in 1966, during the height of the Vietnam War. They stepped up, knowing that after graduation many would be sent into combat as Navy and Marine Corps officers. That it was such a challenging time for our nation and for our military did not deter them; instead, it made them more determined to graduate with honor and serve with distinction. From their graduation day onward, this class has set a very high standard, with impressive accomplishments and careers. Members of this class fought valiantly in the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and other conflicts over the past half-century. They served in the air, on land, at sea, and beneath the sea. Members of this class have served at the very highest level of our military, including twenty-seven flag officers--one of whom was Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The class includes six who were appointed as deputy assistant secretaries or above in the federal government. Members have served their local communities as elected officials, and the class also boasts chief executive officers for major corporations, many of which we are all very familiar--such as Pepsico, General Motors, and Amgen. The class also produced a Member of this House, former Rep. Ronald Machtley, and a Member of Congress in the Philippines who later served that country as its National Security Advisor. The Class of 1970 also produced five Academy Distinguished Graduates, tied for the most from any single graduating class. The U.S. Naval Academy Class of 1970 exemplifies the Navy ethos of ``Honor, Courage, and Commitment.'' These values have defined its graduates' contributions to our country and their dedication to public service. Like many others before and who have followed, they sacrificed through long deployments, separation from loved ones, challenging trials, and tests that most Americans cannot fathom. Some even sacrificed their lives carrying out their missions. I know that new generations of midshipmen and future Navy and Marine Corps officers will be inspired by the rich heritage of service passed down to them by the Class of 1970. As the U.S. Naval Academy Class of 1970 gathers to mark fifty-one years of service to our nation and to the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Army, and Naval Academy, it is with great pride and pleasure that I offer my congratulations and my thanks for their contributions to the safety and well-being of our country. I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing continued fair winds and following seas to the U.S. Naval Academy Class of 1970.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4791) to extend the moratorium on residential evictions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for making that point, although I am somewhat sorry because I was going to make the same point. But I am going to make another point. First of all, let me say to those who may be watching, the gentleman who just spoke from Arkansas is one of my best friends in the Congress. He is a wonderful, wonderful person. He is dead flat wrong, however, in this assertion. His motion will not give a single cent to the National Guard, not a single cent to the police, not a single cent to anybody. All it will do is send the bill back to committee. It will delay this bill to do all the other things that it does from being enacted. It is sad that the Republicans in the Senate haven't passed a single appropriation bill. And, golly day, it took a long time to get them to some agreement on the supplemental, and then, when they agreed on the supplemental, they left the money for the National Guard out. So, I say to my friend from Arkansas, who is my dear, dear friend and a wonderful person, your amendment, with all due respect, first of all, as you know, is not going to go anywhere. All you will do is return the bill to committee and slow this process down and not give a single cent to the National Guard or policemen, either Capitol Police or any other police. That is the reality. Now, I wanted to rise and speak on behalf of this bill. I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Ryan, and I want to thank my good friend, who is also another dear friend of mine. Unfortunately, sometimes people think everybody dislikes one another. I happen to like the gentlewoman who is the ranking member, who is, I think, one of our best Members in the House on your side of the aisle. I know that this is a difficult bill in some cases for your side of the aisle. I have been here a long time. We just honored Jerry Lewis, who was the gentleman from California who had your position and had the chairman's position. He was back and forth. They came to this House in a bipartisan way to say, let's build this institution into the kind of institution that Americans want. That is what this bill does. This bill gives us the opportunity to hire, retain, and pay competitively our staff, who are extraordinary people. The American people are getting more than their money's worth with our staff, because they are extraordinarily able people, well- educated people, experienced people, who make a difference for America. This bill seeks to compensate them, not as much as they get in the private sector, but competitively, at least with the executive departments, so the executive departments are not taking all of our people. That is reason enough to be for this bill. Now, there is something in this bill I don't like, and no other Member probably will come to this floor and say it. Members of the Congress of the United States have not received a cost of living adjustment--forget about a raise--a cost of living adjustment since, I believe, 2009, for 11 or 12 years. And this bill says, oh, we are not going to take one this year either. Now, let me tell you something. The result of this irresponsible demagogic action--and I don't say any personal aspersions on anybody-- is that only rich people will be able to serve in the House of Representatives. Now, very frankly, I live alone. My wife died. I am in good shape. I don't need the COLA. It will make no difference in my life. But there are a lot of people who come to this Congress with three or four children, and they have got to open a second residence, either rent or buy here, and keep a residence at home, and they are struggling. I know it doesn't sound like you are going to struggle at $174,000. I don't blame people who are making $60,000, $80,000 who say: What do you mean you are struggling? But the fact of the matter is, all I ask is, keep us even. Don't give us a raise. Just keep us even. As the cost of living goes up, just keep us even in terms of our purchasing power. I am going to vote for this bill, but I sure don't like that provision. Now, we Democrats have put it in; the Republicans have put it in. I get it. I get the politics of it. But I will tell you, for a long period of time I worked with Trent Lott, with Tom DeLay, with Roy Blunt, and with other Republican leaders--I seem to be the one that has been here consistently working on this--to make sure that at least 50 percent of us on each side voted to give us a COLA, to keep us even, so that we did not expect people who had their housing costs go up, their healthcare costs go up, their educational costs for children go up, to be frozen. It is tough on families. It is not tough on me, so I am not arguing from a personal standpoint. Very frankly, I am just fine. But I say this because I want the public to know that there is at least someone who is saying: Look, the job is worth it. You may not think we are worth it, but the job is worth at least keeping even. But this is a good bill. I am going to vote for it. There are provisions in other bills that I don't like, but I vote for them, because on the whole, I think this is an excellent bill for this institution and for the American people. I urge everybody to vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I repeat my admiration for the chair and the work that she has done and the staff has done. I thank them very much. I might say that the ranking member, who is speaking on this bill, is, A, a dear friend of mine, and, very frankly, a gentleman who has added real quality to this institution and real collegiality to this institution. And I want you to know, Mr. Simpson, how much I appreciate your service in the House of Representatives. You are my friend and a great Member of the Congress. Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I have offered is a result of my sponsorship of the Help America Vote Act, in which I created a program that we called the Help America Vote Act. However, when we got to the end of the write-up of the bill, Bob Ney, who was the chairman of the House Administration Committee, at that point in time I was the ranking member, suggested that we use that phrase for the bill itself. However, originally, the Help America Vote Act was a program which would encourage colleges to have programs for their students so that they would work on election day in polling places. No generation knows these new electronic devices for voting better than the younger generation. And my thought was then, and is now, that we ought to encourage young people, knowing not only the partisan politics that go on, but how America runs its elections. So that is what I am trying to do here. I have been encouraging, and we have appropriated money in the past for this program. I want to thank my friend from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), who is not on the floor, but a good friend of mine for his leadership on this subcommittee. I thank him and the rest of the subcommittee members for ensuring that the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act contains robust funding for the Election Assistance Commission. Bob Ney and I worked on creating that commission. It has relatively limited powers, but it is a very important ally of local election officials. This funding for the EAC is critical to ensuring secure elections for the American people. My amendment would take a portion of that funding, some $4 million, and use it for the purpose of supporting the Help America Vote Act College Poll Worker. This program has been a top priority for me for two decades. At a time when our elections are under stress from record turnout, the deployment of new technologies, and the realities of the pandemic, we need to recruit more young Americans to volunteer as nonpartisan poll workers. I think any of us who go to the polls--of course, all of us in this room go to polls on a regular basis--we see an aging coterie of poll workers. This would add, I think, a real component to the volunteers that are available to our local election boards. I know my election board has a tough time recruiting sometimes. You are there a 14-, 15-hour day, and it is not necessarily the most glamorous job in the world. Traditionally, many poll workers in this country are older Americans. We continue to benefit from their experience and expertise, of course. They have much to teach younger Americans about how best to staff polling places and oversee ballot counting. But with COVID-19, many have taken a step back and are looking to train the next generation in these skills. The HAVA College Poll Worker Program is a critical tool, in my view, in helping communities bring more young Americans into this public service. Very frankly, I expect them to go to their dorm or their neighborhood with their peers and say: Hey, I am going to work the polls. You ought to come down and see me. That would be a way to encourage younger people to get out and vote. As poll workers, young Americans will bring their energy, their enthusiasm, and their technology know-how to help our elections run smoothly. It will also instill a love of democracy and voting in a new generation of Americans who will see firsthand--and I am a big proponent of in-person voting. I am a big proponent of mail ballots as well, but I think going to the polls, seeing others there, seeing them exercise their democratic franchise is an exciting and, frankly, enriching experience. Last year, I met with the presidents of colleges throughout the University of Maryland system and worked with them to encourage students to sign up as poll workers and to have programs which may be either a half of a credit or part of a democracy course or a history course or some sort of social studies course saying: This is how we technically run elections, not partisan. This is how we just do it technically, how Mike Simpson, Steny Hoyer, and Rosa DeLauro actually vote on election day. We don't know exactly how many more students volunteered in 2020 because there isn't funding for tracking that data and coordinating these efforts. So, my concept is a college may get a $20,000 grant to run a program for students on how to run an election. It may be 3 hours in 1 week or something, not a long course. With this program, more college students will have an opportunity to learn how to get involved as nonpartisan poll workers so they can step up and help make our country and our democracy stronger for years to come. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Quigley, Chair DeLauro, and Ranking Member Simpson for their help in this effort.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as everybody knows, I had the delightful opportunity of serving on the Appropriations Committee as an active member for 23 years. I am on leave, and I may be on leave forever, who knows, but I care a lot about these bills. These are the only bills that have to pass. They are the only bills that if they don't pass, the government shuts down. They are the bills that used to bring us together. It is relatively easy to compromise on figures, but it is difficult to compromise on other issues. Although, I will say, as I begin my remarks--and I am not going to be that long, but as I begin my remarks, I voted for, in the 1980s and 1990s and over the last 20 years, for appropriations bills in which there were contained issues that I severely disagreed with, and I know Ms. DeLauro has as well. But I know that overall we had to pass the bills, and that I thought then, and I think now, that the bills were largely dealing with what the American people wanted us to deal with. So I rise today, Madam Speaker, in support of these bills, the seven in this package, and hopefully, three to come, and the two thereafter, whenever we bring them to the floor. Last Congress, after Democrats took control of the House majority, we passed legislation to fund nearly all of government before the end of the summer. I was very proud of that. We passed it in June of 2019, and we passed it in July of 2020. We have done that 2 years in a row now. What we haven't accomplished, however, is the passage of these bills prior to September 30. That is what we should be doing. I know the chair feels that way, and I think the ranking member feels that way. I haven't talked to her specifically about that, but I think she does. Moving the appropriations process along on time made it easier to forestall shutdowns and fund the government for the American people. Now we are doing so again and with a Democratic-controlled Senate and White House, we are passing bills of which every Member of this body can be proud. And I predict that every Member of this body will go home and claim credit for something in these appropriations bills, whether you voted for or against. The appropriations bills we are bringing to the floor in this minibus package deliver for all of our constituents. They invest in economic growth; they expand infrastructure; they care for our veterans; they make college more affordable; advance research into combatting the next pandemic and curing rare diseases; protect America's public lands and keeping our air and water clean. They help farmers, small business, and large business. They help farmers and invest in rural communities, and combat hunger and provide housing, among other things. These investments in the American people will help us build back better from the pandemic and enable our businesses, workers, students, and farmers to get ahead in the global economy. One of the provisions I want to highlight in particular, of which I am very proud, is the major increase in funding for full-service community schools. I have been proud to advocate for this program since we first launched it in 2008. Full-service community schools help the youngest Americans and their families--that is the key, ``and their families,'' the whole family. Critical services are accessible all in one place, not only early childhood education but also nutrition assistance, dental exams, financial literacy courses, and more. When children and their families have easy access to these resources, it means greater success for students throughout their later years in school, better preparing them for college and careers and helping us close the achievement gap. In my State of Maryland, we have had tremendous success with our network of Judy Centers. Judy Centers are named after Judith P. Hoyer, my wife, and in her memory. She was an early childhood educator in Prince George's County and a pioneer in the development of this type of program. Like full-service community schools, Judy Centers are proving their worth by narrowing achievement gaps and preparing more and more students for success in kindergarten and later grades. The minibus on the floor today would invest $443 million for this critical initiative. Now, that is not a lot per child, but it is a lot of effect per child, which will help States launch and expand their full-service community school programs and serve many more children and their families. I thank Chairwoman DeLauro, not only for her strong support and her leadership in making sure that funding was included, but also for her leadership of this committee. She has been a very faithful steward, and a steward who has acted in a very transparent, inclusive way so that every Member knew what they could have and honor their initiatives and their priorities. All the members and staff of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work should be thanked as well by all of us. These are tough bills to put together, tough bills to move forward. I thank them for their efforts together to ensure that the House is doing its job for the people. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this package of appropriations bills. Now, some may say, ``Well, the Senate hasn't acted,'' and that is a lamentable fact. The Senate has not passed a single appropriations bill out of committee, nor had they passed a single bill out of committee by the end of the fiscal year last year. I would hope that our colleagues in the United States Senate would not keep treating the appropriations process as a backwater because where we put our money is where our heart is, where our priorities are. This bill, these bills--this bill, but these bills, all 10 of the ones that we are going to consider hopefully this week--show where our priorities are. I hope that the Senate will begin its own appropriations process so that we can complete our work together, perhaps not before the end of the fiscal year but certainly before the end of the year, so we do not have some either CR or omnibus, which is the product of just a few as opposed to the many in this House and in the Senate. I urge support of this minibus. I urge support of the three bills to come, the State-Foreign Operations bill, the Commerce-Justice bill, and the Legislative Branch bill. I thank all the cardinals and the ranking members for their help and their work.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that my colleague from Maryland, the distinguished Anthony Brown, is presiding, having served in Iraq and served in the U.S. Army for a 30-year stint. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Representative Crow, for his leadership on this issue and in offering this legislation. Representative Crow, like Congressman Brown, is one of the Members of this House from a new generation of service who wore the uniform of our country in the post-9/11 conflicts. These veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, like Representative Crow, understand what we must do to support our friends who stood with us, who risked their lives and the lives of their families with their American partners. The mission of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan over the past 20 years has been clear, although very extended: destroy the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and deny al-Qaida a safe haven from which to threaten global security in our country. Today, Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaida has been routed. Terrorism, however, has not gone away. Our troops are now coming home. The fate of the Afghan people will surely be determined by them, with our help, with us standing by. America will continue to support the Afghan Government and its security forces, but it is up to them to show the Taliban that there is no military solution and that their resolve is evident by their defense of their Nation. As American personnel return from Afghanistan, that country's civil war will continue, and we cannot leave our Afghan partners behind. We talk about leaving no American behind. That is an absolutely essential premise as we send our men and women into harm's way. Nor should we leave behind any of those who facilitated our efforts, who stood with us, who risked their own lives and put themselves in jeopardy. No one has any illusions about what the Taliban would do if they had their way and what they will do in those places they already control. They will take it out, and they will, in fact, literally take out those who stood with us and facilitated our efforts. There can be no doubt the punishment they would inflict on Afghans who stood alongside the United States and our allies. We can only imagine the horrors that would befall their families in retribution. This legislation recognizes that these Afghan allies have earned safety in our country for themselves and for their loved ones. It would expand the visa program and expedite processing to help ensure there is a path to America for Afghans who worked side by side with our troops, our diplomats, our development professionals, and our partner forces in carrying out our missions there. While President Biden is already taking executive action to bring some of these allies here, legislation is needed to ensure that all of them can make it safely out of harm's way. It should be said, of course, that they will all be vetted to ensure that, in fact, they are coming to the United States and will be consistent with the security of our country and our people. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill today in a very bipartisan way. This is not about Democrats. It is not about Republicans. It is about an effort that Republican and Democratic administrations pursued and received help in doing so. Each vote is not only an assent for this sound policy, but a gesture of our deep appreciation for the service of our allies. Let this vote remind the world that our country's steadfast foundation, our highest ideal remains our bonds of friendship, loyalty, and trust. Let us remind our friends and foes alike that Americans keep faith with our allies, and let us practice that in this body and at the White House. I ask my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike: Vote for this bill. We can argue about differences of opinion on our effort in Afghanistan, but when we do something, whether we argue one side or the other, when we ask people to help us in that effort, help us, America, our men and women in uniform in harm's way, when we ask those to help us, it is important for us to keep the faith with those who do. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 10:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. I want to make that clear. That is an acceleration from 12 p.m. We have a lot of business to do next week. We have a lot of appropriations bills, so we want to make sure that we are not meeting late, late into the night. So on Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House is expected to meet at 11 a.m. for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will expect to meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet, as usual, at 9 a.m. for legislative business. The House will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by close of business tomorrow. In addition, the House will consider at least 7 of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2022. Recognizing the importance of completing our work well in advance of the deadline at the end of September, I would let the Members know that, unfortunately--well, first of all, let me say, we have marked up all 12 bills, and they have been reported out of committee. The Senate has not reported out, nor considered a single appropriation bill. And we have 60 days before the end of the fiscal year, approximately, give or take. The House will consider a seven-bill minibus, H.R. 4502. That bill will include seven appropriations bills: the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill; and Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies; Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. There will be additional bills on the appropriations. There are, obviously, after the seven, five additional appropriation bills that will be available for consideration. Three of those bills, as I understand it, have been noticed by the Committee on Rules for amendments to be filed. So they will be ready to go next week, and I am hopeful that we will be able to move some of those bills next week. They will be the Legislative Branch appropriation bill; the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriation bill; and the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation bill. That will leave the Department of Defense bill and the Department of Homeland Security bill. Lastly, additional legislative items are possible. And that will be our schedule for the week to come. I expect it to be long days, which is why we are going in at 11 a.m. on one day and at 10 a.m. on two of the days, which we usually go in at 12. I would hope that that would preclude us from going very late at night, but I think everybody ought to expect that we will be here into the evening.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He is certainly accurate that the Hyde amendment has been in our bills for a very long period of time. What I think is not completely accurate is that it has been a bipartisan support, has enjoyed bipartisan support, and that there were Democrats who obviously supported the Hyde amendment. And I realize that this has made it controversial, having been left out of the bill. I don't know what the Committee on Rules is going to do; we will have to see what they do. But in any event, I want to tell you that a large number on our side of the aisle believe that a constitutionally protected healthcare matter for women ought not to be determined by their financial ability. So there is controversy with respect to Hyde. There is also controversy with respect to Federal employees as well, that I know well, because I chaired that subcommittee. We give to Federal employees the healthcare benefit, but then we say they can't use it for some things. Actually, that money is their money; it is not our money. It is given in compensation for their services. But in any event, so there are controversies, I would tell the gentleman, and I am not sure exactly what the Committee on Rules is going to do and, therefore, don't want to speak for it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman can explain it. I think, frankly, your party is hoist on its own petard. We brought to this floor, with Mr. Katko and Mr. Thompson agreeing on the process, offering to the House an equally divided five-and-five commission; the five Republicans being totally in the ambit of the minority leader. We brought it to the floor; the subpoena power being equally divided between the parties and having to cooperate in accomplishing the issuance of the subpoena. And very frankly, although there was some discussion of it, there was no doubt that the staff would have been resolved. The question of being equal staff on the Republican and Democratic side would have been resolved in the Senate. I see the gentleman shaking his head. I can tell him, I know it would have been resolved; period. And the Republican Party objected to that commission, equally divided, five and five, with the minority leader strenuously lobbying against it being passed in the United States Senate. It was not passed in the United States Senate. Press asked me, If it is defeated in the Senate, what are you going to do? I said, We are going to move forward, of course. And that is what we are doing. We are moving forward. Now, the makeup of that committee, three of the persons who were appointed by the--excuse me--were recommended by the minority leader were accepted by the Speaker. And I am not going to spend a long time going into the quotes of the two or their premise, but all I can say is when asked the question, Ms. Cheney, who I know you folks have kicked out of leadership because she tells the truth.

Mr. HOYER. Well, that is certainly one of the statements, however.

Mr. HOYER. That is one opinion.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I clearly know we don't share that view, but it was referenced that, well she may have told the truth but she ought to stop telling the truth. And that was one of the references that were made as you replaced her as your third in line because she--from our perspective--and I think from a large perspective of the American people--told the truth, and she continues to tell the truth. And she was asked the question: What do you think about this nonpartisan investigation? She said, I am absolutely confident that we will have a nonpartisan investigation that will look at the facts; that it will go wherever the facts may lead. There are three members from the minority leader proposed that the Speaker did not object to. She has objected to two members. And the rhetoric around this from minority leader and from those two members has been disgraceful. Thus, this must be an investigation that is focused on facts. And the idea that any of this has become politicized is really unworthy of the office that we all hold and unworthy of our Republic. So I don't blame you, and I probably would have taken the same reaction as you have taken. But very frankly, from the Speaker's perspective, and from others, this needs to be a commission that does in fact commit itself to going where the facts lead and determining the who, what, where, when, and why. I have some very strong feelings as to why the insurrection, or as some say, the tourist visit--on your side of the aisle, Mr. Whip--the tourist visit that resulted in the death of a number of people, terrorizing Members of this House who thought their lives were in danger because people were trying to break into the House Chamber. The rationalization of that activity has been rampant by many on your side of the aisle. We have some strong feelings on this, and we are going to get to the facts. And the American people will make the ultimate judgment, obviously. And we want to see that commission, again, hoist on your own petard, the overwhelming majority of you voted against a commission. Five Republicans appointed by the minority leader--appointed by, not recommended by--and five Democrats; subpoena power shared, and notwithstanding the fact that some of you, apparently, don't agree. I guarantee you, it would have been equal staffing. That would have been resolved. That was not a really big issue. It was a make-up issue to vote ``no'' in the United States Senate because, in our view--so you understand--Donald Trump didn't want the commission. So, Donald Trump was saluted, and we didn't get a commission, which was a commission that almost exactly to the jot and tittle, as Mr. Katko said, what the minority leader asked for. So, you don't like the result now. I get it. But I believe, as Ms. Cheney said, this is going to be a factfinding select committee. Witnesses will say what they are going to say. By the way, one of the people that was rejected by the Speaker may well be, and maybe both, witnesses before the select committee. I don't know that. Nobody has told me that. But that may be the case. So, we are going to proceed. I know there is disagreement. That is not surprising. But you looked the opportunity that you asked for in the eye and rejected it, so here we are.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is that a quote about Mrs. Greene?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we passed said the Speaker would appoint all the members. These Members were not kicked off; they never got on. Liz Cheney was asked whether that was the appropriate thing to do, and her response was--you had her quote: ``I agree with what the Speaker has done.'' Now, the reason she agreed--yes, they have raised questions, and on your side, you wanted to raise questions. You wanted to look at everything but January 6. Maybe January 6 as well, but you wanted to look at this incident, that incident, the other incident, the incident over here. Are they relevant incidents? Sure, they are; but not to January 6.

Mr. HOYER. Clearly, when you were in charge, you didn't look at some of the incidents that happened while you were in charge that were similar in nature. Very frankly, I think those incidents ought to be looked at, but not by this commission because they were incidents that did not involve insurrection; did not involve stopping the work of the Congress of the United States; did not terrorize Members of this House. Now, I know that some of you have had pictures taken of you in this House. You looked pretty terrified to me. You thought there was something serious happening. This stuff that this was a tourist visit is absurd. The issue of dissembling is not new. President Trump put that in an art form. If he didn't like what was going on here, he created something over here with a tweet or a comment or an action that he took. That is the shell game. The issue is: What happened on January 6? What was the insurrection about? Why were people coming into the Capitol saying: Let's hang the Vice President of the United States--not of our party. People shake their heads. I am not sure why they are shaking their heads. They saw it on television. They see it on the tapes over and over and over. They see people being convicted. I happen to think the sentences are too short. It was treason. It was treason based upon a lie. We need to get to the bottom of it. What the Speaker has done is make sure that we are going to get to the bottom of it, notwithstanding the fact, and I will repeat again, all of you had the opportunity to vote five--five--shared subpoena, and the leader was empowered to appoint anybody he would want. The legislation that passed this House said the Speaker would appoint--the Speaker. Did she consult with the minority leader? She did. Did she disagree with two that he appointed? She did, and she did not appoint them. That was in her power. And I agreed with her, and Liz Cheney agreed with her. Why? Because that would have been dissembling, not looking for facts. Mr. Jordan has said over and over again that he believes the election was stolen. Court after court after court after court said no proof. No proof. So, we are where we are, and we are going to proceed. We are going to proceed, and if the Speaker decides to retain the three and name two others, so be it. We are going to proceed. We are going to proceed, and we are going to get the facts, and we are going to get those facts known to the American people. It is going to be widely covered. There are going to be a lot of witnesses. We are going to find out the who. Maybe that is the problem: the who, the what, the where, and the why. For the first time in history, Americans, Trump signs waving, stopped the business of the Congress of the United States--an insurrection and, from my view, a treasonous act. So, we are going to proceed.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman believe that the three Members that the Speaker accepted and was willing to appoint would not have asked those questions?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Your side had an opportunity to support the Capitol Police. Your side had an opportunity to support law enforcement. Your side had the opportunity to increase the capability of the Capitol Police to respond to insurrectionist, violent, and criminal agents. Your side had that opportunity, and what did it do, to a person? It voted ``no,'' and we passed it. We passed support of the Capitol Police. We passed support to strengthen our defenses. We passed legislation to try to make the Capitol more secure and our Capitol Police safer. We passed that legislation with not a single one of your votes. It went to the Senate, and it sits. You read what that is doing to the morale of the Capitol Police along with some of your comments about the Capitol Police. So you had that opportunity. I will say to the Speaker, Republicans had that opportunity. Just as they rejected the five and five, they rejected support of the Capitol Police. Seventeen of them voted against giving them a Gold Medal. Why? Because the insurrection was mentioned in the resolution, and, of course, there was no insurrection. It was a tourist visit, as they ambled politely through the Halls of the Congress saying how appreciative they were of the efforts being made by their Democratic Representatives. If you saw it that way, if you believe that, it is impossible for me to understand why. So I tell the whip, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican Party has had two opportunities to have an even, fair commission. They rejected them, apparently, according to what the whip says, because we didn't want to look at Seattle, we didn't want to look at this city or that city or the other city or this, that, and the other. By the way, President Biden made it very clear that those who committed criminal activities were not demonstrators, they were criminals. Biden said that, and I agree with him. What they didn't want to look at is who recruited the crowd that came in here, who riled that crowd up, and who deployed them to the Capitol of the United States for the specific objective of stopping the steal, and what he meant, of course, is our acting. His Vice President, whom he talked to on numerous occasions about stopping the election, concluded that that was not legal, that was not within his authority, and so he acted consistent with the law. That really annoyed Mr. Trump. So here we are. We should have had a bipartisan commission. We should have moved that forward, and, yes, we should support the Capitol Police by adopting the supplemental. By the way, the Senate supplemental is more in terms of dollars than the House supplemental. So it is not a question of we spent too much money to do this to make the Capitol safe, to make the Capitol Police armed, to give them the opportunity to get the intelligence that they need to proceed. But what a distraction that the Capitol Police weren't prepared. The question is not: Were they prepared? The question is: Why did American citizens try to commit insurrection and treason in the Capitol of the United States and stopped our work? Not for very long. We came back, we did our work, and we got it done to the benefit of our country, our democracy, and our image around the world. Our democracy was resilient. Nobody was angrier, I will tell you--and I think Mr. Scalise, you were there--Mr. Speaker, nobody was angrier about what was happening that night than Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Senate, who said he believed subsequent to his voting against impeachment, but notwithstanding that, he believed the President bore responsibility, as the minority leader said, not all responsibility, but bore responsibility. So we are going to look at this. You can talk all you want. Your leader has now decided he is going to withdraw the three and not participate. We regret that. But it is not going to stop us. It is not going to stop our getting at the truth. It is not going to stop our having the American people know the who, what, where, when, and why of the first time since 1812 when a foreign power invaded our Capitol that the Capitol of the United States was invaded by people who were seeking to undermine the democratic processes under our Constitution.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. You had an opportunity to support the police and you voted with those who wanted to defund the police. All of you had an opportunity, just a few weeks ago while we had a bill on the floor, to support, to fund the Capitol Police to make them safer, more effective, and better able to enforce the law, and you all, to a person, voted ``no.'' You had the opportunity, and you voted with those who you say on our aisle didn't want to do that. But it passed. Why did it pass? Because the overwhelming, overwhelming, overwhelming majority of Democrats--it is the only reason it passed--voted to support the police, our Capitol Police. I will tell you that is also true of our Members in terms of supporting law enforcement at the Federal, State, and local levels. Are there some who say some things? Yes. There are some people who say some things on your side--I have quoted a couple of them--that I am sure you don't support. But having said that, the proof is in the eating of the pudding. We had a bill on the floor that supported the police. You voted against it, every one of you. Mr. Speaker, you can talk all you want about supporting them, but, very frankly, the bills you are going to be voting on next week support the police. They are not defunding. Unlike the Trump budgets. If you look at the Trump budgets, who cut law enforcement funding? Trump budgets. Check me on that, and then come to the floor and say: Hoyer is not telling the truth. Check me. You had an opportunity. Mr. Speaker, the minority had an opportunity to support the police. They all voted ``no.'' The Senate is doing the same. It is a shame because it is undermining the morale of the Capitol Police. You have seen that reported in the newspapers. This is not me saying it. They don't understand why. Mr. Scalise is absolutely right. The Capitol Police have kept him, in particular, and others who were attacked by a crazed, apparently left- wing, but crazed bad person, he may be mentally defective, but he did a very bad act, and he was targeting Republicans. We all stood up when Mr. Scalise was in the hospital and thanked the Capitol Police for protecting him and others on that site. That was a terrible, terrible, venal criminal act. The guy was probably a Democrat. I don't know. We have called him out for being that. That is what we ought to all do. On January 6, some very bad criminal people acted in this Congress and in this Capitol against our democracy and against our Constitution, and we want to study it. We want to get the facts so it doesn't happen again and so we know who is fomenting this insurrectionist psychology and who rationalizes it on this floor now.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have brought them to the floor. We are going to continue to bring them to the floor, and we hope Republicans support them. We created 3 million new jobs; more jobs in our first 5 months than any administration in history--the gentleman forgot to mention that figure--double the monthly rates of the 5 months prior to that under the Trump administration. The average number of new unemployment insurance claims has been cut in half. Last week, that number was about 400,000. The same week last year, it was 1.5 million under the Trump administration. Small business optimism has returned to its 2019 average. The economy grew at 6.4 percent in the first quarter. Independent projections from CBO, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, OECD, and many others all forecast America this year reaching the highest level of growth in nearly four decades. Furthermore, as the gentleman knows, the Director of the Federal Reserve has opined that he thinks, yes, there is a surge in inflation. Yes, we are concerned about it. The Federal Reserve is watching it. We are watching it. We want to keep inflation in check. The gentleman referenced that we are paying people not to work. Let me remind the gentleman, we had four bills which did similar things which were passed in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion last year, overwhelming bipartisan fashion, and none of them would have become law without the signature of President Donald Trump. Now what happened? Donald Trump left, and bipartisanship left with him; not because he was so bipartisan, but he thought that what we were doing was good for the people, and therefore, I think he thought, good politics. I think that is accurate. The fact is that this economy is now doing exactly what we want it to do. It is growing. Now it surged. There is no doubt about that, and that surge has resulted in inflation hiking at a higher rate than we would like, including the products that the whip mentioned, Mr. Speaker. We need to contain inflation because it does rob those particularly on fixed incomes. But the multitrillions that were spent last year, one of which, the CARES Act spent--was almost a unanimous vote in this House--$2 trillion. So we did that because we believed that the magnitude of the challenge confronting us by COVID-19, both to the health of our people and the health of our economy, demanded such a robust response. One of our Members who had been vaccinated--some Members hadn't been vaccinated--has come down with it. Now, hopefully, the vaccinations that he has will moderate any adverse impact of this delta virus. But I would say to the gentleman, it is a little bit like the commission, that we want to focus on the bad news, not focus on the good news. The gentleman wants to focus on other news, not the central news of the insurrection, and I understand that strategy. But there is a lot of good news happening in America. There is some bad news, too. Part of it is because people haven't gotten vaccinated. The gentleman's State has that problem; Mississippi has that problem; South Carolina and some other States have that problem; my State has that problem. Not to the extent of some other States, but all 50 States are seeing a surge. So giving up and getting off the field at this point in time is not appropriate. I think that we are going to find that the President's program that he suggests, as he says, and I agree, will have a generational impact for decades to come in making sure that our economy continues to grow; that our people are educated; that we expand the middle class; lift people out of poverty, as we did with children who are now 50 percent of them are going to be lifted out of poverty. That is good news for America. It is good news for all of us. Those kids are going to be better educated and make more productive contributions to our society. So I hope a number of Members will support pieces of legislation that will carry that vision of the President into fruition, and we will work toward that end.