Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the 117th Congress, all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material within the permitted limit in that section of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated to me be controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I move that the motion to postpone consideration be tabled.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution.

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I will continue to address my remarks to you notwithstanding the fact that you ruled against me just a little while ago on a vote, which excited some. I am an institutionalist. I believe in this body, I believe in democracy, and for your information, I believe in the free enterprise system. Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the minority leader. I listened to the outrage that he expresses. I share the view of the Rules Committee chairman that he was a principal leader in the most closed Congress in which I have served, which was, of course, presided over by my Republican colleagues. He talked about free speech. Nothing in this rule undermines the free speech of any Member in this House-- nothing. When they had closed rules, I didn't get up and say: You are muzzling my speech. You muzzled my ability to make legislation, but you did not muzzle my speech. The First Amendment is sacrosanct, hopefully for everybody in this body. But I will tell you I have been in this body when Republican Members, Madam Speaker, rose to their feet demanding that people do something in the galleries. Madam Speaker, I am going to show hypocrisy--not from me. The gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, mentioned that the minority leader mentioned hypocrisy. I presume his assertion was that somehow we were being hypocritical. I intend to speak a little bit of time and I intend to show hypocrisy. First of all, the gentleman is wrong in his facts. The motion to recommit was taken from the British Parliament and was present at the first Congress in 1789. Interestingly enough, the motion to recommit was used to correct something that had not been included in the bill and was considered a friendly amendment and remained that way for a very, very long time. In 1934, it was ruled that instructions in a motion which were present from time to time was not necessary, and that is the way the rule maintained essentially for the next 20 years--actually, excuse me, 60 years, until 1995. The gentleman is correct. When the Republicans took office for the first time in a very long time under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, Madam Speaker, they changed the rule. They said that you have to have a motion to instruct, as if they were giving us something, as if they were giving us something. Remember that phrase because I am going to show it meant nothing. It was an illusion. It was a pretense. Madam Speaker, I am going to first go through, of 34 examples, about 10 of the examples of what our Republican friends, Madam Speaker, said about the motion to recommit. First of all, the minority leader--I read from the Wichita Eagle of May 12, 2013: ``The political book on McCarthy is that he does a good job at counting votes, of knowing where the 233 House of Representatives Republicans are at any given time. He points out that Republicans, unlike Democrats in a previous Congress, haven't lost certain procedural votes''--procedural vote. Let me underline procedural vote. Not substance of the First Amendment and not substance of free speech. Procedural vote--``called a motion to recommit, that are a test of floor control.'' That is what the minority leader was bragging about: floor control. He was not in the minority at that point in time. He was in the majority. I believe he was the whip. A subsequent--or previous to the present minority leader, Eric Cantor went on to amplify the Republican perspective on the motion to recommit. Majority Leader Eric Cantor publicly went on the defensive about an MTR, stating that the MTR was simply a gimmick. Eric Cantor, the majority leader of the Republican Party in 2012. Mr. Bishop, one of the ranking members, he is no longer here. He left. He retired last year. Referring to an MTR, he said: ``Mr. Speaker, this is a procedural motion.'' Madam Speaker, Mr. Bishop went on to say that it is just ``another delay tactic.'' Just a delay tactic. He didn't say anything about the First Amendment. He didn't say anything about substantive consequences of the MTR. He said that it was a delaying tactic. Referring to the MTR, Representative Conaway said: ``To come in here now and pull this procedural trick. . . . When we are in the minority, we do it.'' He is correct. When we are in the minority, we do it. Madam Speaker, very frankly, I will tell you--and you can take my words down for the future--if this never came back, ever, it wouldn't bother me because it is a charade of substance. It is a pretense of legislating. Representative Goodlatte, who was then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe, or at some subsequent point chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said: ``This is simply a dilatory tactic. . . . `' That is what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--I am not sure if he was at that point in time in 2015. I think he was. Madam Speaker, a dilatory tactic is what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side of the aisle called the MTR. It ``seeks to distract from the urgent needs. . . . `' Representative Lamborn said: ``Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a procedural motion. . . . `' Madam Speaker, I am sorry the Chamber is not full. It can't be full. I would have liked to speak to all the Members of the Congress, and they can judge on the hypocrisy of the arguments that are being made. This motion to recommit is a procedural motion designed to slow down consideration of this important bill. It is purely, purely procedural. Not a little bit procedural and a little bit substantive; it is purely procedural. Representative Olson, in 2019, referring to it, said: ``It fits a pattern of delay and obstruction that we simply can't afford.'' Hypocrisy. He didn't say anything about its having to do with free speech. A motion that we were offering as an MTR that we thought, like you think--excuse me, Madam Speaker, as the Republicans think, is a gotcha amendment. It is politics on both sides. It is not substantive and it is not about free speech. It is about politics and gotcha. Yes, I am an institutionalist and, yes, I think we ought to not be doing gotcha in a nonsubstantive way. Madam Speaker, obviously, we disagree on issues. And when we offer an issue and they don't vote for it, we think that is politically helpful to us because we think it is for the people. They do the same thing and they think it is for the people. So no party is free of its gotcha actions. Mine is not, nor is theirs. Representative Upton, one of the institutionalists in this body, former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Republican from the State of Michigan, being kind, as Fred Upton is kind, said: ``I appreciate the motion to recommit, and I would just say to all my colleagues: Our side certainly views that as a procedural issue, not a real amendment.'' Madam Speaker, I would say to the ladies and gentlemen of the Congress: Who is hypocritical? Who is hypocritical when their Member, a valued senior chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, says that this is a procedural issue, not a real amendment? My goodness gracious, the Rules Committee is taking away not a real amendment. Isn't that horrific? How could they do that, Madam Speaker, when the Republicans say that it is not a real issue, it is not substantive, it is a gimmick, and it is a delaying and obstruction tactic? Now, let me say that the Republicans uniformly vote against the MTR. Mr. Woodall was a member of the Rules Committee. He is no longer here. He is from the State of Georgia. Mr. Woodall said, after being here for about 10 years of the motion to recommit, that he was told by the leadership when he started in this body that it is a procedural motion aimed to obstruct and delay, we always vote ``no.'' Now, let me tell you, Madam Speaker, what they always vote ``no'' on. On April 7, 2011, an MTR was offered, a motion to recommit that would ensure that our troops would get paid. The Republicans defeated that motion overwhelmingly. Only one person on the Republican side voted for it, Walter Jones. He is no longer in the Congress. He was pretty iconoclastic when he was here, and he did what he darn well pleased irrespective of the directions of the leadership who said: Always vote ``no'' on the MTR. So what they are complaining about, Madam Speaker, is the preclusion of doing something they always opposed. And, very frankly, when they won those MTRs from time to time--very few--they then voted against the bill. There was no substance. A little while later, about a month later, the motion to recommit that we offered ensured that our top priority in funding our intelligence services is the campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and affiliated organizations. Raise your hand if you are opposed to that. Madam Speaker, not your hand. But our colleagues ought to reflect on whether they are opposed to that premise. Not a single Republican voted for that MTR--this substantive assertion that our campaign and intelligence services ought to be not disrupted in their fight against al-Qaida and affiliated organizations. A short time later we offered another MTR. The motion to recommit provides our troops with a $100 per month increase in combat pay. As you sit in your chairs in this House, or you are watching these proceedings on television, I want you to say to yourself: Am I against $100 for our troops who are at risk? Because if you are, voting against the MTR was justified. Every Republican save--except--one more time--Walter Jones, voted against that amendment, that substantive amendment that we are stealing away from them, which they say we never vote for. Madam Speaker, if Mr. McCarthy were here, I would ask him: Have you ever voted for an MTR? I ask him rhetorically. Perhaps, at some point in time, he will tell us. Maybe he was against the substance of all of these amendments that I am speaking about. In 2012, the following year, the motion to recommit would prohibit the issuance of leases to any entity that is in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act or the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. Madam Speaker, not a single Republican voted for that amendment. The substantive amendment that they are so aggrieved--and by the way, energizing their party to be more partisan than they ought to be doing. We ought to all praise Don Young, the dean of the House. He served here longer than anybody else. He said yesterday that we ought to come together and reach out our hands to one another and make this place work for the people. Another motion to recommit would prohibit export of helium from the Federal Helium Reserve to Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Madam Speaker, not a single Republican voted for that MTR. Why? Because it is procedural. It is a gimmick. It is obstructing. That is what we are taking away that you are so aggrieved at. Now, I have about 35 or 40 of these. The good news is, I am not going to read them all. But in 2014, the motion to recommit would ensure that the intelligence community continues to protect the United States--hear me--from Chinese and other state-sponsored computer theft. I am sure all of you will say, ``Well, I am against that. That is an awful thing to do.'' But everyone on that side of the aisle in the Congress today voted against that amendment. Our new Members didn't vote against it, obviously, but people who were here, every Republican that was here, voted ``no'' on protecting ourselves from the Chinese, the theft of our computer technology. Madam Speaker, the next year, 2015--and I am just taking a couple from each year--the motion to recommit would deter terrorist cyberattacks, homegrown terrorist attacks, and strengthen America's cybersecurity by increasing prevention efforts to stop the recruitment and travel of homegrown terrorists by ISIL, al-Qaida, and other terrorist organizations. Now, I know you are going to be shocked because you are probably thinking, ``Oh, of course we voted for that.'' Not one. Not a single Republican voted for that MTR. So, this aggrieved rhetoric that we hear about taking something away, the only thing being taken away is their gotcha opportunities and ours. Now, in the majority, you don't have the motion to recommit. I get that. But we may be in the minority at some point in time. Don't give it back to us because it is a political game that undermines the integrity of this institution, and it is covered as a gotcha game, for the most part, by the press and media that knows what that is--a game. Madam Speaker, in 2015, the motion to recommit would require the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize protection and technical assistance to stop cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, such as the electric power grid and nuclear power plants. By now, you know what I am going to say. Only one Republican voted for that. It won't surprise you that it was Walter Jones because Walter Jones really did treat it as a substantive piece of legislation. But the party that is so aggrieved today instructs their Republican freshmen and all of their Members: Vote ``no'' on the MTR. Madam Speaker, I am available to yield to anybody who is going to tell me that is not the truth. Nobody has propounded that question to me. In 2015, again, a month later, the motion to recommit would protect troop pay, guaranteeing a pay increase of 2.3 percent for our servicemembers and ensuring no lapse in troop pay in the event of a government shutdown. And there was my friend, standing tall--Walter Jones, alone but standing tall. Not a single other Republican voted for that. Just three left. Madam Speaker, in 2017, I am bringing you up to date because this has been a consistent pattern. This is not some ``one person said this; one person said that.'' It is a consistent pattern of Republicans dismissing the motion to recommit as not of substance, only a delay tactic, a gimmick, if you will, according to Mr. Cantor. The motion to recommit, in November 2017, to ensure rural communities have adequate funding for educational services, conservation projects, and fire prevention programs. Madam Speaker, now, Walter Jones got a friend on this one, Rod Blum, who is no longer here. And, tragically, Mr. Jones died too early. They are not here, but they thought that was a good idea. No other Republican thought that was a good idea. In 2018, just 2 years ago, the motion to recommit would amend the underlying bill to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from chartering a private plane or flying any class above coach. That was because a couple of Secretaries clearly did not meet their responsibilities to the American taxpayer in the expenditures of moneys in their Departments. Again, Mr. Blum and Mr. Jones thought that was a good idea, but the Republican leadership had instructed them, you will recall, according to Mr. Woodall, to vote ``no'' because this is just a delaying tactic. This is just a game. Vote ``no.'' It is procedural. It is not substance. Lastly--and people are now saying amen--the motion to recommit would ensure, in this case, that we would: protect students and children from a person who has been convicted of a sex offense against a minor; secondly, prevent domestic violence; thirdly, prevent rape or sexual assault; or four, require criminal background checks for schools or other employment. Rod Blum and Walter Jones stayed true to themselves and did not follow the instruction: This is a game. This is an obstruction. This is a gimmick. This is a way to delay and defeat. Madam Speaker, I have taken some time to discuss this because I don't like hypocrisy. I don't like wasting time. I don't like not respecting one another and playing a gotcha game to see if you guys are afraid of this amendment. And then when we adopt the amendment, if we adopt, a very few--vote against the bill because, after all, it was just a political game. We don't like the bill, no matter what you have in it. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Madam Speaker, the people who are watching this debate may not have the knowledge that all of us have. Almost invariably--almost invariably--this is a partisan vote. The Republicans will vote against our rule, and we will vote against their rule. And, invariably, we will find some problem with it that we can rationalize our vote on. Madam Speaker, I regret that we are starting this Congress--and I am going to look at Mr. Ryan's speech. I am going to look at Mr. Hastert's speech on the opening day. I am going to look at all the Speakers with whom I have served and see what their comments were on the opening day. I regretted the minority leader's opening statement. I regretted it because, as Don Young said, we need to come together. We are at a time of pandemic. We are at a time of economic distress. We ought to be acting not for ourselves, not for our politics, but for our people. Madam Speaker, I would urge every Member to vote for this rule. And as they do so, be assured they are not denigrating or denying anybody's free speech any more than the Republicans denied free speech in the most closed Congress in our history just a few years ago.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the first session of the 117th Congress: (1) on legislative days of Monday or Tuesday when the House convenes pursuant to House Resolution 11, the House shall convene 2 hours earlier than the time otherwise established by the resolution for the purpose of conducting morning-hour debate; (2) on legislative days of Wednesday or Thursday when the House convenes pursuant to House Resolution 11, the House shall convene 2 hours earlier than the time otherwise established by the resolution for the purpose of conducting morning-hour debate; (3) when the House convenes pursuant to an order other than House Resolution 11, the House shall convene for the purpose of conducting morning-hour debate only as prescribed by such order; (4) the time for morning-hour debate shall be allocated equally between the parties and may not continue beyond 10 minutes before the hour appointed for the resumption of the session of the House; and (5) the form of proceeding for morning-hour debate shall be as follows: (a) the prayer by the Chaplain, the approval of the Journal, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag shall be postponed until resumption of the session of the House; (b) initial and subsequent recognitions for debate shall alternate between the parties; (c) recognition shall be conferred by the Speaker only pursuant to lists submitted by the majority leader and by the minority leader; (d) no Member may address the House for longer than 5 minutes, except the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip; (e) no legislative business shall be in order except the filing of privileged reports; and (f) following morning-hour debate, the Chair shall declare a recess pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I until the time appointed for the resumption of the session of the House; and (6) the Speaker may dispense with morning-hour debate upon receipt of a notification described in clause 12(c) of rule I, or upon a change in reconvening pursuant to clause 12(e) of rule I, and notify Members accordingly.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and myself, and consistent with the request of the President of the United States, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget be discharged from further consideration of the bill, H.R. 9047, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Can the Speaker inform us as to what that committee consists of?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for the clarification.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Madam Chair for yielding, and I thank Ranking Member Kay Granger for her work. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to do a video, as we all are communicating with one another virtually, about my colleague and friend with whom I have served for over three decades, Nita Lowey. I went to school in Nita Lowey's district many, many years ago. When she came here, we became friends. Shortly thereafter, she came on the Appropriations Committee, and we served together, as Speaker Pelosi said, on the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. I served on that committee for 23 years. I have great affection for that committee. We served under a gentleman named Bill Natcher from the State of Kentucky. He used to stand when he presented that bill to the floor and say: ``This is the people's bill.'' Mr. Speaker, this is the people's bill. This is a bill that must pass. They say that good things come to those who wait. They have waited too long, had too much pain, physically; too many deaths; too much psychological damage; too many lost jobs. This is, however, a good thing that will come to those who need it so badly. I want to thank Chairwoman Lowey, who has performed such extraordinary service on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies for a long time; and the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs for a long time; and for the Appropriations Committee. I want to thank my friend, Kay Granger. We are perceived as being awfully partisan, and this has been a partisan project as well. It took us from May 15 until today to get this done. We passed, in the interim, October 1, another bill of substantially lesser sum than the one we passed in May, and a little more than what we are passing--actually, twice what we are passing today. All of it was needed. The American people have been waiting and watching and hoping that Congress would not only be able to avert a shutdown but also to provide much-needed COVID-19 relief. Mr. Speaker, we now have a bipartisan agreement, and the legislation will achieve both of those aims. Kay Granger, as I said, is somebody who was a mayor in Texas, and mayors know they have to get things done, and Congresswoman Granger has been somebody who wants to get things done. She and Nita Lowey have been a team in getting things done. I thank both of them. This bill completes the appropriations process by investing in the American people, in our national defense, in economic opportunity, in strengthening safety net programs that keep Americans out of poverty. As I said, I thank both Nita Lowey and Kay Granger. I particularly want to thank an extraordinary Member of this body. She is not called a Congresswoman. She is not a Member of this body, but she is a person without whom we would not be nearly as successful as we have been over this last year. She has made this year less painful for millions and millions and millions of Americans. Her name is Shalanda Young. She sits right behind me, an extraordinary talent whose leadership makes seminal contributions to all the sections of this bill and to previous bills dealing with appropriations and the COVID-19 pandemic. She is, in many ways, an indispensable person when we come to dealing with bills of this magnitude. She works for Mrs. Lowey, as does Chris Bigelow. Both have done extraordinary service. Shalanda Young, Mr. Speaker, represents the best of us. I say that because she represents a lot of the staff we have here. She is extraordinarily talented, extraordinarily patriotic, and extraordinarily dedicated to the work of the American people, and extraordinarily underpaid. Members are going to be underpaid in this bill, too. We beat our chest, and we have money in there that says we don't get a COLA one more time. Aren't we so courageous. I am disgusted by that, Mr. Speaker, and I want all of America to know; I want all of my constituents to know. Every Member in this place, whether I agree with them or not, is worth a COLA, at least trying to keep them even with the cost of living in this country. We struck it one more time, as we pretend that we think the COLA is unjust. However, that is de minimis to this bill, but, certainly, will not dissuade me or ought not to dissuade anybody from voting enthusiastically, energetically, and proudly for this bill. As a result of this omnibus, the next President will be able to start his administration focusing on immediate challenges instead of trying to finish the previous year's work. I want to say something on that one more time. I have talked to Ms. Granger, who is going to be here. There is no reason, Mr. Speaker, why we can't pass appropriation bills by September 30, the ending of the fiscal year, October 1 being the beginning of the new fiscal year. I am frustrated, as the majority leader who is supposed to be able to make things work here, with my colleagues. We did make it work here, but our Senate colleagues did not pass a single bill prior to the election, so here we are. In addition, this end-of-the-year package includes critical clean- energy legislation passed by the House earlier this year that makes important progress toward addressing the climate crisis while ensuring that America can create good jobs by leading the clean-energy economy. We were also able, in this bill, Mr. Speaker, to include legislation that protects patients from surprise bills by removing them from the fight between insurers and providers and implementing a fairer process for resolving disputes. On COVID-19 relief, while we were unable to secure agreement on every priority that Democrats and some Republicans wanted--we don't always get everything we want. So be it. That is the process. We were able, however, to include many of the provisions we included in previous bills on May 15 and October 1, which I referred to earlier, for which Democrats have been fighting for months and that Americans desperately need. These include resumption of expanded unemployment benefits, another round of direct payments, relief for renters, and assistance to make sure that Americans can put food on the table. In the richest country on the face of the Earth, we have people in food lines who can't feed themselves. That is not only wrong, but it is immoral and inconsistent with my faith and, I think, the faith of most. There is additional help for small business--appropriate--and resources to help schools reopen safely. In addition, we secured another $3.36 billion for GAVI, and I thank the chair. It is a small program, relatively speaking, but it is about keeping people healthy around the world. We are a shrinking globe, and this COVID crisis came from abroad-- wherever it came from, Europe, contrary to the President saying it came only from China. It came from Europe; it came from China. We have a moral responsibility to make sure that it doesn't keep coming and that we help our brothers and sisters abroad as well so that we, too, can be healthy. In the new year, we will continue to work to ensure that our country can meet the challenges of COVID-19, including help for State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments that are on the front line. Who is delivering the shot in the arm? States and local governments. No compromise is perfect, of course, and this is not perfect. So many people have said that, but that goes without saying. We don't do perfect. We are human beings. If we do the right thing, we do the best we can. It is essential that we move forward and do our jobs for the American people. That is why the House did its job by passing the Heroes Act in May and again in October and why we passed appropriation bills to fund nearly all of government by July 26. It is disappointing, as I have said, that the Senate waited until November to begin serious consideration of appropriation bills. I don't mean the subcommittees didn't work; they just didn't report anything out. Thankfully, though, we are taking action together. America, we are taking action together. And you can be pleased when you see the board light up, mostly overwhelmingly green. I urge the President to sign this legislation without delay, just, Mr. Speaker, as I urge him to sign the National Defense Authorization Act in which you played such a critical role, Mr. Speaker, and we passed earlier this month. I fear that he will veto this bill for an unrelated, totally nongermane issue, and we may be back here on the 28th. If we are not here on the 28th, again, Nita Lowey, I want to say to you: Thank you. How much we appreciate your contribution, and how much we appreciate the contribution of all of those who might be leaving either voluntarily or involuntarily. We thank them for their service. Mr. Speaker, let's finish the work of the 116th Congress.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. For the general Membership, I would urge them, however, to keep tonight free, tomorrow free, Sunday free, and such days thereafter as we may need--and I hope we do not need any of those days--so that we can, A, pass funding for the balance of the fiscal year until September 30 of next year, and that we can give the kind of relief that, frankly, Mr. Scalise and I have been talking about for the last 3 weeks, for small businesses, people on unemployment insurance, people who are having trouble putting food on their table, transportation systems that are about to shut down, and other relief that both sides are trying to come to an agreement on. Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to keep their schedule free, essentially, for such days as it takes to accomplish those two objectives. Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican whip and I have been discussing where we are and to bring Members up to speed on what status we have for today and the next few days. Mr. Speaker, as everybody in the House knows, and America knows, as of midnight tonight, the government will run out of authority to operate and run out of funds, authorization, to be spent. As a result, everybody is working very, very hard on both sides, the Senate and the House, to try to come to agreement not only with respect to funding of the government, but also with respect to the response to COVID-19 and the pandemic that afflicts our people and has afflicted our economy in a very negative way. So we are trying to get to an agreement, trying to get paper done. Mr. Speaker, I have told the Republican whip that we intend to ask for a recess until 5 o'clock this afternoon, which would give us 3 more hours to work on both the discussions. And I just got off the phone with the Speaker, who just got off the phone with Senator McConnell, and so we are hoping that, in the next 3 hours, we will have a clearer picture of where we are. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to notify all the Members, and we will certainly do that by email as well, that the negotiators who are trying to come to an agreement between the two parties, and the House and the Senate as well, are still working very hard to reach agreement both on the omnibus so that we will be able to fund the government through September 30 of this coming year and on the response to COVID-19, both from a health standpoint and from an economic standpoint. We are hopeful that they will reach agreement in the near future. They have not reached one yet. There are still some significant issues outstanding. In light of that, I am announcing that there will be no votes tomorrow. Even if an agreement were reached late tonight, the administrative work necessary to memorialize that agreement in a bill would take at least 18 hours or thereabouts, so that the first--next votes that would be anticipated would be at 1 p.m. on Sunday. This is a change. Some people had heard 2, and I had used 2, but we are accelerating that to 1 p.m. on Sunday. Members will receive 2 hours' notice for that vote, so that would mean, if it is at 1 p.m., you will receive a notice at 11 a.m. That ought to give time for Members, obviously, most of whom are going to be staying in town if they don't live close by, to go to worship and then come to the House floor. But no votes before 1 p.m. on Sunday, this coming Sunday, and notice will be given 2 hours prior to 1 p.m., so by 11 a.m.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I don't have the facts, but, obviously, our position is if there are facts being raised that ought to be looked at, they ought to be looked at. But I don't have the facts, and I don't want to comment on the issue itself because I don't know enough about it to do so. But I think all due diligence will be pursued.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I didn't mention one bill that is still percolating. We passed it 335-78. The Senate passed it, I think, 86-14, or something. The National Defense Authorization Act is going to be going to the President soon. I am hopeful the President will sign it. If he does not sign it, that will be another issue that may be considered. On the other hand, I have indications that perhaps there will be a substantial number of Republicans who voted for the bill who may not vote to pass it over the President's veto. So, we will have that to consider as well. I hadn't mentioned that, and I wanted to mention that that is still on the docket.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I hope he will sign it. I know he has concerns about a section that Senator Inhofe said ought not to be in the bill. But whether it should or should not, it is not in the bill, and the conferees determined that it should not be in the bill. As the gentleman knows, this has great consequences for our national security and for our troops. I would hope the gentleman would, and I would, urge the President to sign the bill. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, the Republican whip from the grand State of Louisiana. As the gentleman is aware as a result of his service in previous Congresses, when we get to the last days of the Congress, it is very difficult to predict the schedule because the reason we have not already passed something is because it is controversial, and we are trying to work out an agreement. In that context, Mr. Speaker, I am advising Members that they will not be expected to be back here to vote on any piece of legislation prior to Tuesday next at 6:30 p.m. The reason for that is because an agreement has not been reached on either COVID-19 legislation or the omnibus for the funding of the government for the balance of the year between now and September 30. As a result, even if an agreement were reached tomorrow, the time for the staff to put it in bill language and to file it would take us at least until Tuesday. So, there is no point in having Members here with nothing to do. However, as I know the minority whip agrees with me, we need to get those two bills done in one form or another. I am hopeful that over the next 72, 96 hours, that there will be a lot of work being done. I want to let the public know that in the Senate and in the House, both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side, Members are working hard to resolve the differences that still exist because I think both sides understand the critical nature of passing COVID-19 legislation where we have millions of people, millions of small businesses, millions of healthcare workers waiting for us to resolve these issues so that they can confront the challenges that COVID-19 has created both on the health side and on the economic side. I would say that if we can get that done, that we may vote, as I said, as early as Tuesday at 6:30. But I will say that we will not leave--when I say ``leave,'' we will not adjourn the 116th Congress until we get those two bills done because they have to be done. I thank the gentleman for the question, and that is the answer.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations. In fact, I am for an agreement that is being worked on right now that has $300 billion, a third of the $908 billion, that is set aside for small businesses for exactly the reasons that the whip points out, that we want to make sure that we can keep as many small businesses in business as possible, which is why we ought to pass legislation. But we are not holding small businesses hostage any more than we are holding those on unemployment hostage, any more than we are holding States and localities hostage, any more than we are holding schools hostage, any more than we are holding childcare and CDBG hostage or emergency assistance or farm aid or nutrition aid. None of those are being held hostage. What is happening is, they all need to get resources to meet the challenges they face. That is what we believe needs to happen. All of those need to be addressed. All of those need to be included in a bill that, hopefully, we will pass in the early part of next week.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Ms. DeLauro. She and I have served on the Appropriations Committee together and in the Congress for a very long time. She is one of our most able, energetic, and knowledgeable Members. As someone who is very proud of my relationship to the Appropriations Committee, I know that she will do an excellent job working with the minority and the ranking member, with whom I also served, to make sure that the Appropriations Committee works in a way that benefits the American people and does so in a timely fashion. Normally, I would not speak--well, though I do speak most of the time on the CR, because the CR is a recognition of failure. It is not any one individual's failure. It is not a bad thing. It is just that we have had trouble getting together and coming to an agreement. I want to observe, and maybe it has already been observed, we passed 10 of our 12 appropriations bills by July 26. That was 2 months before the end of the fiscal year. The Senate, unfortunately, didn't pass any of its appropriations bills. It still has not passed any of its appropriations bills. It has a document that they did not pass through committee and has not passed the Senate that is the basis for our negotiations. That has delayed us substantially, not because the House didn't do its work on time, but, because for whatever reasons, the Senate did not address the appropriations process in a timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, I have served on the Appropriations Committee for a long time. I went on in January 1983. I was on the subcommittee that Ms. DeLauro now chairs as well. When we would pass a bill, the Senate would pass a bill, and we would go to conferences. Some of our Members don't know what a conference is. The Members of the House committee and the Members of the Senate committee came together in a room and talked about how we were going to resolve the differences between the two bills. That hardly ever happens now, and we are losing something of the legislative process because it doesn't happen. With all due respect to the four people who now are called the four corners, whether it is the chairs of the committees, or the Speaker and the minority leader in the House, and the minority leader and the majority leader in the Senate, those four people have a lot of work to do. I am the majority leader over here. I know I have a lot of things to watch out for, and I cannot focus the way the members of the subcommittees focus on the substance of the issues. Therefore, we lose something by not having all of the Members included. Now, because that hasn't happened, and they haven't come up with a product, we are here with what we call a continuing resolution. But that really is an admission of failure. We passed one before September 30 so the government didn't shut down. It was the right thing to do. We are going to pass one now. It is the right thing to do. This is something that we have to do to keep the government working. But we ought not believe or pretend or represent this is the way we ought to do business. It is not. It is a function of procrastination, a function of failing to come together and making compromises. That is what this body is about, all of these chairs here. We have to come to an agreement. The Constitution says if we don't come to an agreement and the Senate doesn't come to an agreement and the President doesn't come to an agreement with exactly the same thing, nothing happens. I make this observation every time we do this. But I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. I have talked to the new chair--and I know the ranking member, and I have worked with her and have great respect for her, as she knows. Why? Because she wants to get a job done. She was a mayor. She was a mayor of a great city in the State of Texas. She knows that you have to get things done. Ms. DeLauro is a person who gets things done. I am going to work with both of them, Mr. Speaker, in this coming Congress. We are going to pass every one of the appropriations bills, every one. We haven't dealt with homeland security because of the wall, not because of the other items, but the wall. We had a disagreement. We couldn't forge agreement on that and compromise on that. I am going to work with both the chair and the ranking member, and, frankly, all the Members on both sides of the aisle to get our work done by June 30 of this coming year. That will give us 90 days to reach agreement with the Senate, pass the bills, and do it by September 30. We have rarely done that. I think in my 40 years of service in this House, I think we have done it twice. I would have to check. Maybe it was only once. Maybe you could tell me that, and we could find out. But I am hopeful that we will do it. There aren't many Members on this floor. This CR has to pass. All we did was change the date because of practically recognizing we have not gotten our work done on time. And whoever is listening, whether the public or other Members are listening, Mr. Speaker, as I speak, I hope they will take to heart our responsibility to the American people, and to this institution, to make it work on time. I told the majority leader of the United States Senate just about 2 days ago, 3 days ago, I said: Mitch, there is no agreement we can make on December 18 that we can't make on December 11. There is no magic in these next 7 days--now, I guess, 9 days. There is no magic in it. It is just, psychologically, we have until December 18, so we won't make the agreement today. That is why I set December 11, because I was hopeful that we could do it by December 11. I urged the Members to do December 11, very frankly, for two reasons. Number one, it is the right thing to do. And number two, our Members are at risk when they travel. They are at risk here. They need to be in their homes quarantined with people who do not pose them any risk. It is not that we want to shirk our duty. We can do our duty, but we don't need to be here for 2 more weeks or 1 more week to do it. We just have to have the thought in mind we are going to get it done today. This will give us 8 more days, 9 more days to do it. I know the staff is going to be working round the clock over the weekend to get us a bill done. We need to pass three bills. We passed the NDAA last night. That bill should be passed in June as well, or late May. I told Mr. Smith and the new ranking member that I am going to do everything I can to have that bill on the floor this coming May. We traditionally did that. I am not inventing something. Ms. DeLauro knows we did that; the ranking member knows we did that. We all say it is a very important bill. Well, if it is a very important bill, let's deal with it in a timely fashion and not have this last-minute veto; we are going to do this. We need to pass it, and 335 of us yesterday said we need to pass this bill. So, I will end this tirade by simply saying congratulations to Ms. DeLauro and to the ranking member, who is a good friend and a very responsible Member of this House. I will work closely with them and with all of our Members, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that the American people can be proud of the fact that the House of Representatives knows its responsibilities, meets its responsibilities, and passes legislation in a timely fashion and does not say to the Federal employees and the people who are operating government: Maybe you will be funded tomorrow and maybe you won't. We have wasted billions of dollars over the years I have been here with the government trying to figure out how they are going to prepare for a shutdown. Any business that operated that way in America would go bankrupt pretty soon. The CEO would be fired, and the board of directors, which we are, might be fired as well. Let's learn the lesson that we learn too often, and let's do our work on time and do it well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the son of a great man, who that great man would say is a great son. He loved John, but he respected John. He believed that John was enhancing the Sarbanes legacy, and he was right. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, with the expectation that Mr. Trone from our State will continue to recognize other Members from our delegation who want to speak.