Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been listening to this debate in my office on television. Virtually, in other words, I have been watching. I thought everybody would be interested to know I didn't have a T-shirt on, and I wasn't in a golf cart. I was in my office. But it was virtual, Mr. Chairman. First of all, there is an aspersion on this bill for dealing with climate change. We are here in the midst of a pandemic. It is a terrible scourge on our country and on our people and on our economy. And our President called it a hoax. Our President has also called climate change a hoax. Mr. Speaker, if we are put to sleep by the assertion of the challenge being a hoax, we will not act. We acted very late on this pandemic. This bill seeks not to act too late for the pandemic that we call climate change that all the scientists, the overwhelming majority of scientists, say will have a catastrophic effect on our global environment and the support of life itself. And so, yes, this bill deals a lot with climate change because we have a vision of trying to solve the problem before it becomes the pandemic that kills 125,000 people in America, and, of course, according to science, that will be in the millions not the 125,000s. And there has been a lot of discussion, Mr. Speaker, about this is not bipartisan. In the 2016 election we had a lot of bipartisanship in terms of infrastructure. We said we needed infrastructure. The President said we needed infrastructure. Republicans said we needed infrastructure. Democrats said we needed infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, in 2019 Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Neal, myself and others went down to the White House, including the Speaker, and we sat with the President of the United States who said he wanted to put $1 trillion into infrastructure. I heard Mr. DeFazio say it earlier; we said $1 trillion. He said, Oh, no, that is not enough. We need $2 trillion. Now that is from the President of the United States that then sent an infrastructure bill down here for $200 billion, one-tenth of what he said was needed. The engineers say, of course, $4\1/2\ trillion is needed to fix our infrastructure. And we said to the President, Mr. President, we will try to support you. We will work together in a bipartisan fashion. Now, tell us how we ought to pay for this. Frankly, I was sitting not too far from the director of the National Economic Council, Mr. Kudlow. Mr. Kudlow sort of looked down and shook his head, not wanting the President to come up with how he was going pay for $2 trillion. Mr. DeFazio, you saw that. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Neal looked across the table and said to the President, Mr. President, you tell us how you think we ought to pay for this, and we will work with you. That was bipartisanship. We went down there some weeks later--frankly, later than we had planned, but it was later--and we were there to hear the President tell us how we were going to pay for a $2 trillion investment. And he frankly made up some spurious reason that Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, had criticized him--and very frankly, we would never have any discussions if he didn't want to talk to people who criticize him because we criticize him all the time. But he returns the favor; he criticizes us all the time. So we would never talk, we would never have any bipartisan discussions--and he walked out on us. There was no markup. There was no discussion. There was no what are your ideas. He walked out on us. So, yes, we are here with a bill less than the President says is necessary. But we are here to do what he said we needed to do and what we said we needed to do, and we all said it in a bipartisan fashion. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago I first launched the House Democrats Make It In America plan for jobs and opportunity, and from the very start, investing in infrastructure has been a key component of that agenda. Over the years, we have adapted that plan to meet changing needs and new challenges. Democrats ran on jobs, higher wages, making healthcare more accessible and less expensive, and investing in infrastructure. And we picked up 40 seats. We have 63 new Members of the Congress of the United States, so apparently our message resonated in 2018. In my view, it is resonating now. We were handed an overwhelming mandate to use our House majority to pass a big and bold infrastructure package that will help create good jobs and spur economic growth. That is what the President promised in 2016. I will wait for a minute if somebody wants to tell me what they thought of the bill that the President sent us to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure. There is silence in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, because the President hasn't sent a bill to do that. He hasn't sent a bill to fulfill his promise. Don't blame it on us. He hasn't sent us a bill and so many more of what he promised the American people. But that is what this legislation will do. Will it do it exactly as the President wanted to do? We don't know because he hasn't told us exactly. The Moving America Forward Act is the product of years of work by multiple committees with input from many Members, including a lot of our freshmen Members. I thank Chairman DeFazio. I thank Chairman Pallone. I thank Chairman Neal. I thank all of those who worked with us, including Ms. Waters and Mr. Scott. They came together to craft an infrastructure package that will truly move America forward. This bill lays out House Democrats' proposals for the kind of big and bold investments in infrastructure that everyone agrees we need to move America forward. It would--and I know it has been discussed, but just briefly-- authorize new highway, rail, transit, and airport projects. We need them. Fund clean drinking water and clean energy: If anybody thinks that Flint was a unique happenstance in America, they are wrong. We need substantial investment, in every city and every rural area in this country, on water. Extend key clean energy tax provisions by 5 years: Now, if you want dirty energy only--and I am an all-of-the-above needs to be used, certainly, in my lifetime. Invests in new hospital infrastructure, public schools, and affordable housing: We have seen how they are stretched. I am also proud that the Moving America Forward Act brings back one of the most popular programs, which was, unfortunately, allowed to lapse under the Republican-controlled Congress of 2011. State and local governments issued more than $181 billion in Build America bonds to support nearly 2,300 local infrastructure projects, I dare say in almost every district represented by anybody in this body. We are bringing them back. Moving America forward with major investments in infrastructure is part of the Democrats' plan to help businesses and workers in our country Make It In America. The American Society of Civil Engineers that I spoke of just a little while ago gave our country's infrastructure a D-plus and estimated that we need trillions of dollars by 2025 to keep pace with our needs, and that was before the COVID-19 epidemic hit. This bill is about competing in the 21st century with our competitors all over the world. They are investing in infrastructure. Now, the pandemic's economic impacts make it even more necessary that we invest in infrastructure projects that will help put Americans back to work and get our economy back on track and moving forward. Infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, is an area where Democrats and Republicans have been largely in agreement. I regret this is not a bipartisan bill, but no one is surprised. The last Congress that the Republicans were in charge of was the most closed Congress in history, and by that, I mean the most closed rules, no amendments, no participation. They passed a tax bill that was $1.5 trillion--no contact with Democrats. So, don't cry crocodile tears that you are not included when you haven't included us and, more importantly, the Senate doesn't include the Democratic Party. It is a shame. We ought to get back to more bipartisanship. I agree with that. But I remind you of the meeting with the President: Mr. President, we will support you. We will work with you. We will try to get the job done. We will try to help you carry out your promise to America. And the President walked out. Let's move America forward together. Together, let us help our people Make It In America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I have only been on the floor a short time, but I am sure there have been the repeated opposition statements that: ``Oh, if only we could get agreement.'' ``If only we could do this, we would have a wonderful healthcare program.'' Madam Speaker, frankly, my friends on the other side of the aisle have had 12, 14 years, at least, to come up with a program. Madam Speaker, they did come up with a program, and they passed it through the House--they were in charge--and it went to the Senate. The Republicans were in charge of the Senate. When they passed it through the House, they all went down to the White House, and they had a big party. ``What a wonderful deal this is.'' Lo and behold, within 2 weeks, the President, who was extolling that bill, called it a ``mean'' bill. That is not me. That is the President of the United States about the bill that he was celebrating with his Republican colleagues. The Republicans talk a good game, but they don't play a game. It is not that they don't play a good game. They don't play a game. There is no bill coming from the President of the United States. Madam Speaker, last week, in the middle of the worst pandemic in our lifetimes, the Trump administration submitted briefs to the Supreme Court in support of a lawsuit by Republican-led States seeking to overturn the law that provides millions of Americans with access to affordable healthcare. They offer no substitute. They said they were going to, but they have never done it. In spite of a decade of Republican efforts--a decade, 10 years--they have had to work on this and come up with a plan that all of them are talking about--``Oh, we want to protect preexisting conditions.'' ``We don't want to have lifetime limits''--you know, all these things. Where is the bill? Where is the meat? It is not here. It hasn't been offered. The one bill that was offered and passed in this House was called by the President of the United States a ``mean'' bill. Not our President, their President--I mean, he is the President of all of us, but he is a member of the Republican Party, just like Obama was a member of the Democratic Party. We passed an alternative. It was signed, and the majority of the American people supported it. As a matter of fact, 53 percent of independents supported it. Madam Speaker, when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the Republican lawsuit this autumn--in the Republicans' lawsuit; these are Republican AGs--it will hear their arguments for taking away protections for those with preexisting conditions, those most vulnerable to COVID-19, at the very moment healthcare experts predict another wave of infections and the start of the flu season. And where do we see the spike? Along the southern border: Texas, Florida, Arizona. Madam Speaker, taking away Americans' coverage and throwing our healthcare system into chaos is not what the American people want or need during this global public health and economic crisis. When President Trump ran for office--this was before he called the bill that the House passed a ``mean'' bill, under Republican leadership-- President Trump falsely promised that he would offer an alternative to the Affordable Care Act that was far less expensive and better quality. Madam Speaker, I ask any of my colleagues if they have seen that bill, either side of the aisle, have they seen that bill. This President has been President for 3.5 years. There is no Republican bill to make sure that Americans have affordable quality healthcare and have them able to get insurance irrespective of preexisting conditions. There is no such legislation. Now, having failed to produce an alternative, the President and his Republican allies are determined simply to repeal it entirely. That has been their position for the last 12 years. I am proud that one of the first acts of our Democrat House majority was to defend the ACA in the Republican lawsuit. Indeed, Americans don't want to scrap the law. They want to strengthen and expand it. They understand that it is not an option, having healthcare coverage. Protecting your health is not an option. When Democrats won the majority in the House, we did so promising to work to expand coverage, lower out-of-pocket costs, and provide greater stability for health insurance marketplaces. That is what we promised, and we picked up 40 net seats. This bill is part of that promise. Now, we passed another one. It sits untouched in the Senate, as some of my Republican colleagues predict for this one. I understand that. The Republicans are not for healthcare being affordable, being quality, being accessible for people. At least, they haven't offered a bill to accomplish that objective, notwithstanding what the President said. Importantly, among the other provisions that you have heard about from my colleagues this morning, this legislation addresses the racial disparities in healthcare that have become so starkly evident during this pandemic. Expanding Medicaid will help close those disparities, and the bill's provision to require Medicaid coverage of maternal healthcare for 12 months postpartum will help reduce disparities that make African-American women as much as four times as likely to die as a result of a birth or pregnancy complication than White women. Those disparities aren't acceptable, and our House majority is taking action to address them. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Scott. I congratulate Mr. Pallone. I congratulate Mr. Neal. And I congratulate Speaker Pelosi. Moreover, this bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate over the most expensive prescription drugs that do not have marketplace competition, that do not have market competition. That is what keeps prices down, consumers having choices. If they don't have choices, they have to take the drug, no matter what it costs, which is a key component to lowering prices. That said, I want to be clear that, while we use international measures, we will continue to work with the patient and disability community to ensure that our efforts to reduce out-of-pocket costs do not have the unintended result of rationing lifesaving and life- sustaining treatments or discriminate against our most vulnerable communities. Madam Speaker, I thank all the chairs and their committees that came together to produce this bill. I have mentioned Chairman Pallone, Chairman Scott, Chairman Neal, and others, and I thank all the Members who were instrumental in bringing these policies together, including the many freshman Members who ran on strengthening the ACA. I see Ms. Underwood on the floor, but there are many others in the freshman class who have worked very hard. Why? Because they campaigned on For the People, bringing costs down. I urge every Member of the House to join in supporting this bill. Now is the time, Madam Speaker, to strengthen access to high-quality, affordable healthcare, to bring costs down, and to address the stark racial disparities in our healthcare system that have come into full view with COVID-19. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if your rhetoric is about bringing costs down, if your rhetoric is about accessibility, if your rhetoric is about equality, walk the walk; don't just talk the talk. Vote for this bill, because it does what you say you want to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to leave my mask on, not only because it is the safe thing to do for all of you--not for me, for you--but also because it represents the best of America. I am from Maryland. Maryland was a slaveholding State. I represent the district that probably had the most slaves, along with my friend from the First Congressional District. In fact, there were many sympathizers for the Southern cause that would have had Marylanders join the Confederacy. They were, of course, wrong. But I want to tell my friends from those States that withdrew and whose States tried to destroy the Union that they ought to remember that this Nation took them back without condition with full citizenship and the right to vote. Surely we can do the same for our fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I thank Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton in her extraordinary quest keeping her eye on the prize to make sure that the citizens she represents have full citizenship and have our respect. I am proud to stand with her in supporting statehood for the people of the District of Columbia. On this mask, there is a drawing of the outline of the District of Columbia. That is Maryland before the 1789 and subsequent actions. That was Maryland. I daresay, there is not a Marylander who voted on that secession of that land for the Capital of the United States who thought to themselves they were disenfranchising those who lived in that District. I want to thank Mayor Bowser, with whom I have been proud to work to move this issue forward with the leadership of Delegate Holmes Norton. I made clear when we announced that the House would consider this bill today that the people who call our Nation's Capital home have been disenfranchised and shortchanged too long. Martin Luther King said: How long? Too long. Not only have the residents of one of America's most historically African-American cities--let me repeat that--historically, it is one of our largest African-American cities. It is not exclusive. It is a diverse city. Very frankly, it does not make a decision, if you don't vote for us, we will not allow you to vote. Hear me: If you don't vote for us, we will not allow you to vote. But President Trump says that my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, would be foolish to vote for this bill. Why? Because we are too Democratic and we wouldn't vote for you. What do you think the North would have done with the 11 States that tried to destroy the Union if we had said: You are not going to vote for us, so you can't come back--at least, you can't come back with voting rights, and we will keep you as subjects, not as citizens? I hope every Member who represents one of those States thinks about that proposition as you vote to exclude 706,000 of your fellow citizens from full participation in our democracy. Not only have the residents of one of America's great cities been prevented from having full citizenship, but they have also been shortchanged in the money that we give them. Just recently, COVID-19, we gave them 40 percent of what we gave Wyoming, an entity 200,000 people smaller than the District of Columbia. I see no heads shaking on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker. I see no agreement on that. Should we say Wyoming is too small and that we ought to exclude Wyoming, it is not big enough to be a State? Yet Wyoming, more than 10 times smaller than the State of Maryland and, as opposed to 40 million people in California, 500,000, one- eightieth of the size, have two United States Senators. Stand up if you think Wyoming ought not to have a vote. I see no one standing. This constitutional argument is a Don Quixote windmill argument. These are 706,000 American citizens. At the same time, their elected leaders can be overruled by Congress and by the President when it comes to local issues, as we saw when President Trump ordered Federal law enforcement and the National Guard to suppress peaceful and legitimate protest against the killing of Black men and women in encounters with the police and with others. George Zimmerman comes to mind and Trayvon Martin. This is about human rights. This is about democracy. This is about our Nation being better than that. I see my colleague from Maryland shaking his head. We disagree. The people of D.C. deserve not only real self-government, but also full representation in the Congress of the United States. Are these 700,000 people less than the 500,000 people in Wyoming? If we ask somebody to come to the District of Columbia and work for our government, is the condition that they lose their citizenship, that they lose their full voting rights? Is that the condition we put on them? If so, I respectfully disagree with my colleagues who believe that is what America is about. That is what this historic legislation would do, admit Washington, D.C., as the 51st State. That would provide residents of the District of Columbia with a voting House Member and two Senators, as every other group of Americans who lives in a jurisdiction called a State has the right to have. It would right a historical wrong to ensure that our Founders' vision of representative government will be enacted for all Americans, no longer excluding the 706,000 in the District of Columbia. The House will take action today to make the District of Columbia a State. It is an historic day. Be on the right side of history. So many voted against the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s and years thereafter. They were on the wrong side of history. The gentleman is absolutely right. Somebody mentioned it was Democrats. We were a segregationist party. And guess what? We said we do not want to be that kind of party, and Hubert Humphrey got up in 1948 in New York at a Democratic convention and said that we need to come out of the dark shadows of slavery and segregation into the bright sunlight of justice and equality. Yes, I understand that was our party. We said to them: We do not want to be that party. Don't you be that party. Don't you have Lincoln turn over in his grave and say: That is not our party. Yes, I heard the gentleman over there. Sadly, in the denial of democracy, the Republican-led Senate has indicated, Mr. Speaker, it will not act, just as it has not acted on 275 bipartisan bills that we have sent to the United States Senate. They will not act. The majority of the Senate is elected by 18 percent of the American people. That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because this is more than just a local issue for the District of Columbia. It is a civil rights issue for our country, as yesterday was a civil rights issue for our country. It is something that ought to concern all Americans, because when some Americans are denied the full rights and representation of citizenship, it diminishes the meaning of citizenship for all. Statehood is not merely a status; it is a recognition by the rest of the States of the sovereign equality of the people who live there that they are part of the main, not simply an island, as the poet reflected, and that they cannot be treated as lesser by their fellow citizens. By admitting Washington, D.C., as a State, we will admit what we already know to be true: that its people are our fellow Americans, equal in their pursuit of happiness and their enjoyment of the full rights and privileges of American citizenship, including representation in the Congress of the United States. Our patriot forebears in the 18th century used to cry out, ``No taxation without representation.'' The citizens of Boston stole some tea, a criminal act, and they threw it into the Boston Harbor. Why? They said: Because we will not be taxed without representation and that King George cannot tell us what to do without consulting us. Be on the right side of history. Washington residents correctly still use that battle cry in the 21st century. Let us make it ring true at last. Let us make our Union of States a more perfect one by adding to its number as we have 37 times consistent with the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for America, stand up for democracy, and stand up for the premise of America that every person counts. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his respect. Is the gentleman aware that the District of Columbia was reduced in size historically a while back so that the land was reduced? This is what is happening here. There is clear precedent for doing this. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning- hour debate. I would repeat that because it is unusual. On Monday, we are meeting at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business, with votes expected to occur as early as 2:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning- hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. The House will consider H.R. 1425, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act. This bill will significantly increase the ACA's affordability and subsidies, lower prescription drug prices, expand coverage, and crack down on junk plans, while strengthening protections for people with preexisting conditions and addressing racial health disparities. The House will also consider, Madam Speaker, H.R. 7301, which is the Emergency Housing Protection and Relief Act of 2020. This bill would authorize nearly $200 billion for the dire housing needs arising due to the COVID-19 pandemic. H.R. 7301, which was included in the HEROES Act, would help renters and homeowners by extending the eviction and foreclosure moratoria and providing $100 billion for emergency rental assistance; $75 billion for homeowners assistance to cover mortgages, property taxes, and utilities; and more than $11 billion for homeless assistance programs. I would again reiterate that that bill passed as a part of the HEROES Act, which is now pending in the Senate. Lastly, the House will consider H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act. This bill would invest more than $1.5 trillion in modern, sustainable infrastructure, while creating millions of good-paying jobs; combating the climate crisis; and addressing disparities in urban, suburban, and rural communities. The bill includes a 5-year reauthorization of the surface transportation program, invests in schools with the Reopen and Rebuild America's Schools Act, invests over $100 billion in our Nation's affordable housing infrastructure, delivers affordable high-speed broadband internet access to all parts of the country, and promotes new clean renewable energy infrastructure. We expect, at that point in time, to be out on Thursday for the July Fourth break. I would tell the House that the 2 weeks that will follow the July Fourth weekend will be reserved, as were the first weeks in June, for committees to do their work, in particular, the National Defense Authorization Act being considered by the House Armed Services Committee. That bill is, obviously, very lengthy. It composes a little more than half of the discretionary spending, and we expect the committee to need substantial time to mark up that bill. In addition, the Appropriations Committee will be marking up its 12 bills for consideration by the House. Then, the last 2 weeks, we will be taking the products that will not be limited to the NDAA and the appropriations bills, but we will be primarily taking up the time with other legislation that will be promoted and sent to the floor for consideration by the committees.

Mr. HOYER. Yes. I talked to Mr. McCarthy yesterday. Obviously, because of the timeframe that the COVID-19 health strictures have imposed upon us, it takes a long time to vote on amendments. So, rather than consider amendments individually, the leader and I talked about having amendments either in manager's amendments or in amendments that have a lot of individual amendments within them. And they will be considered en gros so that there may well be a lot of amendments, but we hope to hold the votes down to a manageable level. As the gentleman knows, votes have been taking about an hour. If we took every amendment seriatim, frankly, we wouldn't finish until September. So, we are trying to manage that, and we are working with the minority leader.

Mr. HOYER. No, it turns out that we considered the bill in the House the same way the majority leader in the Senate wanted to consider the Scott bill, or the Republican policing bill. So, both Houses wanted to consider them, apparently, in the same way.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. We are hopeful that the Senate will pass a bill. I know that my friend will say, Well, yes, but it is the Democrats that stopped the bill. Let me tell the gentleman, I genuinely hope that we have a bill passed by the Senate, that we go to conference, and that we adopt a bill that can garner the support of the majority of the House and the Senate and can be signed by the President of the United States. As I said on the floor when we considered the bill, Karen Bass, the Congressional Black Caucus, and those of us who strongly supported the bill, we don't want to send a message. We want to make a difference. To the extent that making a difference requires us to have agreement between the two parties, I am hopeful we will get to that objective.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman will surely note that when his party was in power and was scheduling bills, you had the most closed rules of any Congress in the history of the Congress.

Mr. HOYER. Let me tell the gentleman that we certainly intend to continue, as I said, to try to protect the American people. A lot of people have died. Over 122,000 people have died.

Mr. HOYER. The President of the United States said this virus was a hoax. Because he said it was a hoax, people thought they didn't have to worry about it. I tell my friend from Georgia, a hoax. He is a gentlemen who refuses to set the example of wearing a mask, which the science and medical people say we ought to do, a gentleman who really shunted aside much of the science and medical advice that he got. So I tell the gentleman we hope that the President is as concerned as my friend has stated he is, and I know that I am and I think all of our Members are.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I hope the gentleman has as high an expectation for the President of the United States as he has of others.

Mr. HOYER. First of all, of course, I reject emphatically the premise that this is absurd. As the gentleman knows, there were some 70, some weeks ago, who cast a vote. There were 30 today. They cast their votes because they were concerned about their health or families' health to whom they would return. I think the gentleman probably has been reading, as well, and maybe listening to the extraordinary spike in cases that have been identified and the concern that hospital beds will be overrun. We will end this when the medical community, not somebody who has no medical knowledge and very little command of the facts, tells us it is time to get together again. When he told people to do that, they did get together, 10 of whom apparently work for the White House who have gotten infected, and, frankly, spikes in Florida, Texas, Arizona, and, yes, even California and some other States as well, including Arkansas. Now, I am not sure exactly what the figures are in the gentleman's State. But, Madam Speaker, I believe that we are going to continue to be concerned about the health of the Members, the health of the staff, the health of the people who cover us on behalf of the American people. So, I can't tell the gentleman whether it is going to end because I can't tell you when the pandemic is going to end. I can't tell you when the spike in the numbers of people who are getting sick or people who are dying is going to end. But I can tell you that we will be very sensitive to the risks, and we will act accordingly.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman from Georgia yield?

Mr. HOYER. I hesitate to ask the gentleman a question I don't know the answer to, so I won't. But I don't know which Governors the gentleman is talking about. But I will, certainly, want to find that out from the gentleman at some point in time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we ought to come together, we ought to reason together, and we would get a better product in the legislative process. Sadly, our friends in the United States Senate don't always do that. Sadly, when my friend's party was in the leadership, it didn't always do that. And, yes, from time to time, we didn't do that. This is an issue of critical, immediate concern, and there is a way to get to where the gentleman from Texas suggested: pass legislation in the Senate; pass legislation here; we will go to conference; and we will try to resolve our differences so we can pass a bill. I have talked to the gentlewoman from California, the former speaker of the California Assembly, and she has told me that she doesn't want a message; she wants a law. And I am absolutely convinced that is true. She understands the legislative process very well. But in order to initiate that process, we need to pass a bill. Of course, unfortunately, we have some constraints here on amendments because of the coronavirus. Having said that, I hope that we pass this bill, and I hope the Senate passes a bill. Now, unfortunately, they will have to come to agreement and get 60 votes. I say ``unfortunately'' because Mr. McConnell is not prepared to get to 60 votes. We don't have to get to 60 votes. Here, the majority rules. The majority will rule today, and the majority sponsored this bill. Mr. Speaker, on the rostrum in front of me there are inscribed five words: ``union,'' ``justice,'' ``tolerance,'' ``peace,'' and ``liberty.'' It is our individual and collective responsibility as Members of this House, the people's House, to ensure that all of these virtues are upheld in the United States. There is justifiable anger in this country because justice is not being upheld. That does not mean it has never been upheld, but it ought to be always upheld. There is a deep frustration because some of those charged with enforcing our laws are doing so without tolerance and in a way that disregards the rights and welfare of victims without just cause. That does not damn all members of the police--in fact, not the majority--but it does damn actions that are inconsistent with justice, peace, tolerance, and liberty. Many of our people will never see the full light of liberty because of the color of their skin. The result has been a broken union and a broken peace. That is why this House must act. We must act to make it clear, beyond any doubt to every person in this country, that Black lives matter. For far, far too long in America, Black lives did not matter. Too many people who lived in America were chattels. Their lives were counted in the dollars, by what that property was worth, not in their human value. For far, far too long, Mr. Speaker, that has been a reality and a legacy of slavery, segregation, and prejudice. We must act to ensure that law enforcement in every jurisdiction understands that each human being is entitled to equal justice under the law and to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We must act to ensure that no longer will we see horrific images and videos of unarmed Black men and women being killed by those who were sworn to uphold the law and keep the peace. The bill we are voting on today is long overdue. I congratulate the Congressional Black Caucus, Ms. Bass, Senator Harris, and Senator Booker. This bill will ban chokeholds like the kind that killed George Floyd last month, in whose memory this bill is named. I knelt on the marble floor. My knee rejected that as something that it didn't want to do. It was not only painful, but it was a long time: 8 minutes and 46 seconds. That was not to restrain George Floyd. He was restrained. It would also ban no-knock warrants of the kind that led to the murder of Breonna Taylor in her own home that was mistakenly broken into by the police, and it would condition Federal funding to State and local governments on their banning racial profiling and adopting best practices for police training as identified by the Obama administration's Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Moreover, this bill would facilitate, under appropriate circumstances, the ability of victims to be compensated for their loss. A right without a remedy is no right at all. I want to thank Chairwoman Bass and the Congressional Black Caucus for introducing this bill of which I am proud to be a sponsor, and I would like to thank, as well, Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee for moving swiftly to mark up this legislation so we can have it on the floor today. I said ``swiftly.'' It has been centuries that the dark blot of slavery and the dehumanization of some of our fellow Americans has been a reality. Senator McConnell has already said that the Republican-led Senate will not even consider this bill. That is not surprising. There are 275 bills, all of which have Republican votes, sitting on Senator McConnell's desk--or maybe wastebasket--so it is not surprising that he won't consider this bill either, any more than he considered Justice Garland by a President who had 11 months left on his term. We will see what the people say in a few short months. If we do not consider this bill, it will be an egregious mistake and a failure to honor one of the most sacred of our Nation's precepts: that we are all created equal and we should be judged not by the color of our skin--which happens too often, too frequently, and too regularly--not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character and the caliber of our conduct. By ignoring this bill, Senator McConnell is ignoring the cries for justice from Blacks, from Whites, and from Americans of all different colors and of all different religions, all who were distinguished by one facet or another, but they have in common that they are Americans governed by a Constitution and laws of our country. Senator McConnell will be ignoring the history and legacy of slavery and segregation that has led to these acts. My colleague mentioned Montgomery, Alabama, and a number of the museums. Bryan Stevenson has a museum, and he says the first thing you do when you discriminate against people is you dehumanize them. It should not be a surprise, if we have, for centuries, dehumanized people of color that, from time to time and too often, they are not treated as human beings. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Vote for this bill. Vote for this bill even if you don't think it is perfect. Vote for this bill because you want to say that we want justice for every American. Vote for this bill because you want to say that we want a remedy for wrongs. Vote for this bill to restore justice. Vote for this bill to protect liberty. Vote for this bill to promote tolerance. Vote for this bill to restore peace to the families of victims and entire communities that live in fear. And vote for this bill to prove our Union is not only a union of States, but a nation of free people united in our common pursuit of justice and opportunity for all. The people's House needs to do its job for all the people. This is not an antipolice bill. It is a bill that cries out--whatever our discipline, including Members of Congress--that we act consistent with the law, consistent with the Constitution, and consistent with our moral values. We will not leave these words to only be inscribed in wood, but enshrined in our hearts and in our laws: union, justice, tolerance, peace, and liberty not for some, but for all. These are neither Democratic principles nor Republican ones. These are American principles. These are, in many ways, unique principles honored by this country in its rhetoric. This bill is to honor those in its reality. That is why all who believe in these principles should vote for this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as I said, what we are going to do over the next couple of weeks, we have adopted a rule that allows the committees to meet even if they can't be here for health reasons, depending upon what the status is in D.C. and the Capitol, where it is around the country, including transportation. The rule that we adopted provides that committees must have, in order to conduct virtual or hybrid hearings, a practice session, then two hearings before they go to a markup. So obviously, if we are going to work on this floor, we need product and, obviously, product comes from the committees. And so I am very hopeful that the committees will be getting up and running at top speed in many respects. And, of course, the committees have been working so very hard, and the Members have been working so very hard, in my view, on both sides of the aisle, as they have been home and talking to their hospitals, talking to their governors and their county commissioners and their local folks, nursing home administrators, so many people that we have kept in touch with through these weeks to see what we could do to assist them with whatever they needed. The committees will be getting up to speed, and they will be qualifying for having hearings. I expect work product to be coming later this month, and we will be giving notice in the near term on a longer term schedule. But the House will not be in session next week, and we will be looking at how the committees are proceeding from that point on. We will give, as I said, as we have in the past, 72 hours' notice to Members when and if we have to come back. I want to again say also that we are very hopeful that our Republican colleague will engage in the matters that were included in the HEROES bill because our States are struggling. I know my State is a relatively wealthy State, but its revenues are off 20, 25 percent. I don't know what Louisiana's position is, but I am sure they are struggling as well. Municipalities are struggling, cities are struggling, and counties are struggling from the revenue reduction that is a direct result of COVID-19. So, we are trying to help those States. In addition, of course, we invested substantial sums in testing, isolating, tracing, and treating individuals who have COVID, and we need to follow up on whom they have contacted so that we can make sure that they isolate themselves because the only way we are going to get a handle on this is to make sure we reduce the transition from one to the other. We are also hopeful that we will develop, and there is money in there to develop, a therapeutic to mitigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 but also a vaccine to protect us from getting COVID-19. Until that happens, we also need to give additional help to our small businesses and individuals who are really struggling as unemployment is at historic levels. Over 38 million Americans--maybe it is now closer to 40 million Americans--are without jobs. We have given them assistance, and we need to give them some more. That is where we stand now, and we will operate with an intent in mind of getting the business of the House done, in addition to the extraordinary work that we have done on five responses now from the House on the effects that the coronavirus has caused in this country both to human beings' health and to the health of our economy. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. HOYER. The answer is yes. We are going to have out a fuller schedule in the near term. But we have to find out how our committees can operate. I want to say, regarding the national defense authorization bill, Members on both sides of the aisle have been working very, very hard at a distance, on the phone, and in other ways. So, I expect them to be ready to come to the floor this summer, and we are going to pass that bill, we think, before the summer break. That is for certain. Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The information I had was, as the chairman has indicated, that the gentleman who just spoke appeared before the Rules Committee in support of this bill. And we can get the transcript. I don't have it right now, but perhaps somebody can get that transcript for me. For my entire career in public service, I have supported efforts to make America both strong and safe and a force for peace and reconciliation. In the course of those years, I have striven to draw an acceptable balance between our national security and the protection of our personal liberty and the right to privacy central to our unique extraordinary democracy; a government of laws, not men. Pursuant to that principle, as the majority leader, I scheduled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for floor consideration over 2 months ago. Previously, in 2008, Roy Blunt, then the minority whip, and myself, the majority leader; Senator Kit Bond, Senator from Missouri; and Senator Jay Rockefeller, Senator from West Virginia, worked together, at a time of great controversy with respect to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to forge a bill that would garner bipartisan support. It was a difficult bill, with the same kind of principle differences that Chairman Nadler spoke of earlier and I am going to speak about again. We passed that bill in a bipartisan fashion with, as we have today, people on the right and people on the left concerned about its content. So there was bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. Speaker Pelosi and to-be President Obama, then in the Senate representing Illinois, voted for that bill. I have tried to continue to forge that balance through the years. The bill I brought to the floor a few months ago was a bipartisan effort to achieve that critical balance, and when it came to a vote, it received two-thirds of the votes from both Democrats and Republicans. This bill essentially had two-thirds of the votes on the Republican side and two-thirds of the votes on the Democratic side, so obviously, two-thirds of the votes of this House. As I observed yesterday, Americans must have been heartened by the fact that we could reach a bipartisan agreement on such a difficult bill. It was not a partisan bill. The leaders, all three top leaders, on both sides of the aisle supported, essentially, this bill. That bill, upon Senate consideration, was amended by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote to strengthen the protections of privacy, which should have been heartening to those on the right and the left, and it was certainly heartening to me. And then, what did they do? They passed it, with 80 Senators, 48 Republicans supporting this bill; 48 out of 53 supporting this bill. But this is not a partisan bill; and this bill is about that balance. Mr. Nunes and Mr. Schiff supported this bill and supported this balance. And two-thirds of us made a judgment that they had done a job worthy of support. So two-thirds of the Democrats in the Senate, two-thirds of the Republicans in the Senate, two-thirds of the Republicans in this House, and two-thirds of the Democrats in this House have supported this bill. I believe that support was garnered because an assumption was made, a premise was adopted by the overwhelming majority of us, that it was a carefully crafted balance between security and individual liberties. It may not be perfect, but we have a responsibility to protect this country and our people. In consultation, therefore, with other leaders, I scheduled this bill for consideration yesterday. The night before, I got a call from my friend, the minority leader, that the President was urging Republicans in the House to change their votes to ``no.'' In the twinkling of a presidential tweet, without any substantive logic to justify their actions, I was told that the 126 Republicans who had voted for this bill when it was considered in the House would now change their votes and vote ``no.'' Chairman Nadler has said this, and I want to share this because it is worth repeating. I believe when FISA passed the House in March, every Member, those who voted ``yes'' and those who voted ``no'' voted their principles and their conviction on what they believed was in the security interests of the United States. Every one of the 435 people--I don't think there were quite 435--that voted on that bill, in my view, voted on principle and out of conviction. I, of course, believed that the two-thirds of the Members who voted for the bill, on principle, and pursuant to conviction about making this country safe, were voting, not for party, but for principle. Therefore, I was surprised because I saw, not then nor now, any reason that either principle or conviction should be changed, particularly in light of the fact that 80 Senators--80 Senators--48 Republican colleagues of yours, Madam Speaker, voted for this bill. Therefore, I assumed that we could bring Members back. We had a controversy where some didn't come back. We had a new rule you don't like. We could bring the Congress back and vote on a bipartisan bill for America. But, as a result of the President's antipathy toward Federal law enforcement and his personal sense of grievance, authorities that have expired will continue to be lapsed. The complicity of those who believe that the reauthorizing of these authorities was in the best interest of the United States, in preventing its passage last night and today, is, I think, both sad and irresponsible. Madam Speaker, I regret that we did not bring this bill to the floor for a vote. This is a result, in my view, Madam Speaker, of patently political and indefensible abandonment of principle and responsibility, both as a coequal branch of government and its policymaking branch as well. Madam Speaker, we need to send this bill to conference. I urge my colleagues to vote to send it to conference. And if you think this needs to be perfected in some way, as Mr. Nadler said, that is the place to do it now that we are not going to have it on the floor. Let me repeat. I would have had it on the floor. But we will not get an opportunity to vote on it, so I will wait to see the result of a conference with the Republican-led Senate on the bill that the President has threatened to veto. Two-thirds of us believed that this was a bill that was good for America. This is a serious issue with serious consequences, and I urge you to vote ``yes.'' Do not kill this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this is testimony dated 5/27/2020. I am going to read you some passages from that testimony: ``Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this important legislation.'' I will go down, skip a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps he will want to point those out. ``Fortunately,'' the gentleman said, ``this bill makes important structural reforms to the program to combat abuses.'' He then said: ``Most importantly, this bill includes accountability measures.'' He went on to say: ``It also includes reforms that strengthen Congress' oversight powers.'' ``Finally,'' he said, ``I would like to thank Senators Lee and Leahy for their amendment to the House-passed bill which strengthens the amicus role in these proceedings by extending them to any sensitive investigative matter involving any U.S. persons. And I also fully support this inclusion as well of the Lofgren-Davidson amendment,'' which is not on the bill, ``to limit the FBI's ability to obtain internet browsing history of Americans.'' I am trying to find a word of opposition to this bill, clearly, taken by the Rules Committee as support of the passage of this bill. My, my, my. As I have pointed out earlier, the consequences of a twinkling of a tweet from the President of the United States: Like that, changing the votes of 126 people, whom I believed voted on principle and on conviction for this bill for America. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.