Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. As has been said so many times on this floor, America has faced many threats, some in the nature of attack by enemies and some in the nature of natural disasters, whether they be hurricanes or tornadoes or floods. Americans have responded and overcome those threats. We now have a threat, as some have mentioned, that is unseen but has a great effect and is having a great effect today as we debate this bill in America. Today we will vote not as Democrats or Republicans but we will vote as Americans who have been sent here to represent our country and our people to promote the general welfare. Certainly the general welfare has been put at risk by this virus. We have in a very short time passed three major pieces of legislation, two that generated in this House and one that generated in the Senate. We will pass this bill today. I want to thank the majority leader--excuse me--the minority leader. I am the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. You can't have it. While we enjoy a little levity, we understand the gravity of this situation. People will die today as a result of this virus. We have come together as Democrats and Republicans from every region of this country to respond in a way sufficient for the challenge, and we know we will need to do more. But this day let us hope that like the United States Senate we come together each and every one of us not for partisan advantage but for the advantage and defense of our people. America has been blessed by God and by our people. Let us respond this hour to their need in their defense so that America will go forward stronger, better, and more ready to face future challenges. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her remarks. I am sure all of us on this floor can subscribe to them and, hopefully, react accordingly. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), another senior Member of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the Discalced Carmelite Nuns of the Carmel of Port Tobacco, Maryland, will mark the 230th anniversary this year of their establishment as the first women's religious order in our state. Established in 1790, the same year that Maryland and the other thirteen states were in the process of ratifying the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of worship, the Carmelite nuns were Americans who had left for Europe years earlier in search of the Catholic religious life. With their return, they began a tradition of religious orders for women and men of many faiths to build and grow in Maryland and in America. Founded originally as a haven for those facing religious persecution in Europe, the colony of Maryland welcomed many Catholics to its shores from its origins in 1634. In the years before the American Revolution, Catholics in Maryland and elsewhere faced persecution for practicing their faith. An absence of any local Catholic religious orders for women led a number of American women to travel to Europe to join orders there. Among them were Mother Bernardina Matthews and her nieces Sister Mary Aloysia Matthews and Sister Mary Eleanora Matthews, who had left Maryland in their youth. Together with Mother Clare Joseph Dickenson of England, they set off from their convent in Hoogstraten, Belgium, on April 19, 1790, and reached New York on July 2 after an arduous sea journey. On the evening of July 10, they arrived in Port Tobacco, which was then the seat of Charles County, Maryland. From 1790 to 1831, the Discalced Carmelite Nuns of the Carmel of Port Tobacco grew from these original four to twenty sisters. Guided by their spiritual director, Father Charles Neale, they followed the rule established by Saint Teresa of Avila in the sixteenth century, living a life of poverty and prayer, focusing on contemplation, meditation, and charitable works. After Father Neale's death in 1823, the convent fell on hard times, and the sisters resettled in Baltimore in 1831, where they served the population of the growing city. Although the Discalced Carmelites eventually spawned chapters across the northeastern United States, only one chapter remains active today, serving Maryland. In 1933, a group of supporters founded `The Restorers of Mount Carmel' to purchase the site of the original convent, which was preserved as a historic site. In 1976, a group of American Catholic missionary women from Great Mills, Maryland, were granted permission to move to the site and re-establish a religious community there. They left in 1982 but were quickly followed by the return of Carmelite nuns from elsewhere in the country determined to carry on the order established in 1790. Since that re-establishment, there have been as many as fifteen Carmelite nuns living at the convent, carrying on the traditions of their forebears and adding to the religious diversity of our state and our nation. I am proud to represent a state that was founded to promote religious tolerance and be a welcoming haven to all seeking freedom to worship and pursue a better life. Maryland has been enriched by its many religious communities, including the Discalced Carmelite Nuns of the Carmel of Port Tobacco, who were pioneers at the start of America's independence. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the order on celebrating its 230th year.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the House has now spoken in a clear voice and approved this bipartisan bill. If there are any developments that would require Members to return before our scheduled return date of March 23, 24 hours' notice will be provided. I want to thank all Members for their patience as leaders on both sides worked hard to negotiate the coronavirus response legislation the House has now adopted. Much remains to be done, but we have done good work last week on behalf of the American people and good work this week on behalf of the American people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to commit.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I doubt that there is a person on this floor who disagrees with the premises that Mr. McCaul just stated. Soleimani was a bad person. I said during the course of debate on the Slotkin amendment, which referenced exactly that premise, that no one lamented the loss of Mr. Soleimani--no one. That is not what this bill is about, nor is that what this amendment is about. This bill, which is called a partisan bill by Mr. McCaul, had 15 percent of the Republicans in the United States Senate vote for it. This bill, called a partisan bill, says the bill we are voting on, the bill we are going to pass, says that Members of the United States Armed Forces and intelligence community and all those involved in the planning of the January 2, 2020, strike on Qasem Soleimani, including President Donald J. Trump, should be commended for their efforts in a successful mission. That is what the bill that we are asking this body to vote for says. Madam Speaker, does that sound to you like a partisan document? Now, Madam Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to kill this bill. This is a Senate bill. It will send it back to committee. It will not allow it to pass with an amendment, and it will preclude it from going to the President of the United States. Now, what this issue is about is our Constitution, about the power of this body, about the responsibility of this body, and about the authority of this body to declare or not declare war. That is what this bill is about. There may be some in this body who want to shrink from that responsibility and send it to the President of the United States, but our Founders believed that was not what our democracy ought to be. It ought to be the Representatives of the people who take them to war, not a President--any President, Democratic or Republican--to take us to war. This is about our responsibility. It commends President Trump, and it commends our Armed Forces, and it allows them to defend themselves if attacked. But it stands for the proposition that I hope all Members are for, that we, the Representatives of the American people, ought to decide on their behalf whether they or their sons and daughters go to the point of the spear at war--not just one person. There are a lot of countries in this world where one person makes the decision. They are called dictators. Our Founding Fathers did not want dictators running America. And I say to my colleagues, of course, our Republican friends who are offered this amendment never vote for an MTR, because--and I will not read the litany of quotes from so many of you--an MTR is simply to delay and defeat. Your quotes, not mine. So I ask all of us, without exception, vote against this MTR, vote to send this bill to the President of the United States, supported by 15 percent of the Republicans in the United States Senate. It is not a partisan bill. It doesn't attack President Trump. In fact, it says, ``our troops,'' and ``President Trump ought to be commended.'' It is in the bill. Don't tell me this is a partisan act. It is not. It is an act of responsibility, and to our oath of office, and to the Constitution of the United States. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with last votes of the week expected no later than 3 p.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. The House will consider H.R. 2214, the NO BAN Act. This bill would repeal the President's Muslim travel ban and prevent the administration from putting in place other discriminatory travel bans. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 5581, Access to Counsel Act. This legislation would make certain that those held or detained while attempting to enter the United States are guaranteed access to legal counsel. That legal counsel, Mr. Speaker, would not be paid for by the government. The current FISA authorization expires March 15, requiring action in this House. Conversations are ongoing, and I hope to bring legislation to the floor next week. Lastly, following Senate passage of Senator Kaine's bipartisan War Powers resolution, it is possible that the House could also consider the resolution as early as next week.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will give a relatively short answer. First of all, there is nobody in this House on either side of the aisle--certainly none of the proponents of this legislation--who want to in any way limit the President's ability to protect America, whether it is from terrorists, whether it is from the coronavirus or some other threat that manifestly presents itself to the safety and well-being of the American people. What the bill attempts to do is simply to preclude violating, in effect, the Constitution of the United States in either making a religious test for admission to the United States of America, which, very frankly, a number of statements of the President would indicate that, in the past, that was what he intended to do and, in fact, was manifest in the very broad reach, unrelated to whether somebody was a terrorist but related to what their religion was or some other distinction unrelated. Now, obviously, both the health and safety of the American people would not preclude the President from acting to protect that. I think we would all agree on that. But, clearly, we believe the President has, in fact, gone far beyond specific ways and means to protect the American people and simply preclude people, as I said, of a particular religion, a particular nationality, or some other broad base unrelated to the specific items to which you referred, with which I think most of us agree. Of course, we will debate that next week.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman that it is our view that nothing in this legislation will preclude the President of the United States from acting, either on the basis of national security or the security of our people, either from threats of terrorism or from health, or for some other identifiable threat to the American people. This simply says that he cannot act based upon the generalization that somebody is a Muslim, somebody is from this country, somebody is from a different nationality or different religion, or some other arbitrary distinction. He has to focus on specific reasons. In China's case, for instance, we know that China has a very large outbreak of coronavirus and that it poses a proximate threat to the health not only of the American people but of people around the world and that we need to take steps to ensure that that is contained. So, we will debate that next week, but we certainly don't accept the premise that the gentleman has just stated, that somehow we will limit the President from protecting the American people for legitimate and necessary reasons.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to tell the gentleman that, this morning or late last night, we sent a response to your offer, and the committees now have that in their possession. I see they are shaking their heads that they may not think that we did it, but we did. We have already sent a response to your offer, with reference to the reforms. As the gentleman knows, we have agreed on a number of items as, frankly, the person that dealt with the person who had your job previously, Roy Blunt and I, with Senator Bond, also from Missouri, as is now-Senator Blunt but then-Minority Whip Blunt, and Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia. We worked on the reauthorization of FISA in 2008, and we received broad bipartisan support. I am hopeful that we can do that. This bill, as the gentleman knows, the authorization for section 215 expires on March 15. The Attorney General, as the gentleman knows, recommended that we pass a clean reauthorization. Obviously, both sides felt that there were some things they wanted to deal with, and we are doing that now. Hopefully, we can get this done. Mr. Speaker, I will assure the gentleman that, once we have agreement, I will bring that bill to the floor.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, somewhat like the recitation of the Mueller report that has been quoted--the Mueller report, of course, found substantial reason to believe that there was wrongdoing. It was projected by the Attorney General and others that the Mueller report was a conclusion that the President or others had not done something wrong. That was not the fact. In any event, with respect to the gentleman's comments, with respect to what was done by the FBI, it should not have been done, obviously. But the gentleman didn't read this very important sentence from the inspector general's report regarding the court's decision: ``We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision,'' meaning the court's decision, the judge's decision. The bill that we are talking about is reauthorizing section 215. None of this deals with section 215. It deals with metadata on which the parties have an agreement. It also deals with business records and issues of lone wolves, who are not necessarily associated with a terrorist organization but present a danger to the United States. There are reforms that we can pursue to ensure that the FISA court gets all the information that it needs and, in fact, has a representative who makes sure that they get that and who is not associated with, necessarily, the law enforcement officers or intelligence officers who are presenting information to the FISA court. Unfortunately, and I want to say candidly, Mr. Speaker, the President's focus on the Page case and distracting from the issues that we are dealing with--Attorney General Barr recommended that we reauthorize the FISA section 215 as is. That is what the Attorney General recommended. I don't know what his present position is because he was criticized by the President in a tweet, so heaven knows what he did in response to the tweet. But the fact of the matter is, the issues which the gentleman raises, we all want appropriate, honest disclosure from individuals who present to the FISA court. That is not an issue, and we ought to pursue reforms that lead to that end. But in this case, the focus on an issue unrelated to section 215, which we are really talking about, is slowing up this process. And I would hope that in the coming days, because the 15th is upon us, we come to an agreement. As I said, we sent an offer back, Mr. Whip. Hopefully, we will hear back from you and, hopefully, reach agreement in the near term because this is an important thing to pass, to reauthorize for the security of our people. The gentleman was talking about security before. We need to make sure that we act in a bipartisan way to ensure that the FISA process is working and working properly.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't have anything further to say.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The previous speaker, Mr. Green from Texas, said that it is time, that it is past time. But it is never too late to do the right thing. I am pleased that this will be a bipartisan vote. This is about Emmett Till. It is about lynching. It is about violence. It is about hate. But in a larger sense, this is about who we are as a country, who we are as a country that said: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'' Surely, our Founders today would have said all men and women are created equal. But in the eyes of two murderers, Emmett Till was neither equal nor a fellow human being, but a dehumanized being, undeserving of protection or of decency. To the surprise, I think, of probably many Americans, Madam Speaker, lynching has not been described as a hate crime. We will do that today. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Collins and Chairman Nadler for bringing this bill to the floor. The House will make that determination today. I am proud to bring this legislation to the floor as majority leader. A broadcaster in our area, Joe Madison, came up to me some year and a half ago and said: Why can't you pass lynching legislation? I had no answer, so I went to the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, who spoke just earlier, Karen Bass, the former speaker of the California Assembly, one of the leaders in this House. I said to her: ``Karen, I want to make sure that we get lynching legislation on the floor.'' I talked to my friend, Bobby Rush, who I have been a close friend of for more than two decades, a leader in this House, a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee and in this House. I talked to him about it. I talked to him about his legislation. Two Senators also had legislation. I am glad that they were able to come together and that we have this legislation before us. Bobby Rush represents the district in which Emmett Till lived. Emmett Till took a summer vacation to Mississippi. It was his last vacation. He came to be, and continues to this day to be, a symbol of the terror and hate and atrocities and prejudice directed against American citizens whose color of skin was different than some others. This should be a lesson to us all. Then you see movies like ``Hidden Figures,'' the heroine of which just died a few days ago at the age of 101, or ``The Help,'' or ``Harriet,'' Harriet Tubman from my State, to see the violence that was visited on our fellow human beings because of the color of their skin. If Elijah Cummings, my colleague, were alive today, he would say: ``We are better than this.'' That is what this legislation is saying: We are better than this. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Rush, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the Congressional Black Caucus, Chairwoman Karen Bass, and the CBC itself for their work on this bill. The Senate passed a similar bill last year, and, Madam Speaker, I thank Senators Booker and Harris for their work. I hope we can get this to the President's desk and signed quickly. It is very fitting that this legislation will be named in memory of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old whose brutal lynching in 1955 marked a turning point in America's history. Many Americans might associate the term ``lynching'' with hanging, but if you go to the dictionary, it has a broader definition: the premeditated, extrajudicial killing by a mob or group of people in order to instill fear, to intimidate, to subjugate populations and individuals, and to enforce a social order on people, contrary to the concepts out of which America was born. According to the Tuskegee Institute, by the time of Emmett Till's murder, it had recorded more than 4,700 victims of lynching in America since the 1880s. We had a Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and still, from 1870 to the 1960s, there were people who thought, with impunity, they could take the lives or brutalize others--with impunity. Even today, we continue to see the memory of lynchings used to instill fear and threaten minority populations, from nooses being displayed as hate speech to threats of political violence using imagery of lynching. We still live with its dark legacy. Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues, as we continue to observe Black History Month throughout February, let us resolve to commemorate that history by doing our part to correct its injustices. I paraphrase Martin Luther King when he said: Do not worry so much about the voices of your opponents as you worry about the silence of your friends. Madam Speaker, this day, the House of Representatives shall not be silent. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Representative Speier, Representative Maloney, and all of those who have been such warriors on this issue for such a long period of time. They are keeping the faith. This constitutional amendment was passed in 1972, to be specific, in the early part of 1972. I was a member of the Maryland State Senate in 1972, and I had the honor in the late spring of 1972, just months after the ERA had been passed, of voting to ratify that. Now, the previous speaker said in only 35 States. That is 70 percent of the States ratified that in a timely fashion. Timely in the sense that we set in a resolution, as the chairman pointed out, a date. Seventy percent of the States of this Nation. Now, it needed three more States. It has now received three more States. I have been an advocate for the equal rights amendment for essentially 4 decades, actually longer. I will be proud to vote for it today. Just a few months, as I said, after Congress adopted the ERA, Maryland voted for ratification. I thought that it was long overdue even then in 1972. Here we are some 48 years later, and it still is. Our Founders declared ``all men are created equal'' in their Declaration of Independence. Surely, no Founder, if they were writing that document today, would have said ``men'' meant white, property- owning men. Surely, they would not have written that. Surely, none of us would have supported that. Since the very beginning Americans have been taking steps, therefore, to define that in a more expansive, inclusive term representing our universal values. We amended the Constitution to ensure African Americans and women could not be denied the right to vote. It took a long time. Particularly, I hope the women in this body will think of the suffragettes who were extraordinarily active and involved in our community and making decisions in our families and in our communities and country but who could not vote prior to 1919. From 1789 to 1919 women could not vote. I am the father of three daughters, the grandfather of two granddaughters, and the great- grandfather of three great-granddaughters. For me to go home to them tonight and say I voted against your being equal in America. Now, my wife passed away, but if I went home to her tonight and said I voted against your being equal in America or those grandchildren and great- grandchildren who happen to have been born as women and say to them I voted against your being equal in America today. We passed the Civil Rights Act to make clear that all must be treated equal regardless of race. We passed the ADA, which I cosponsored 30 years ago to ban discrimination against those with disabilities. But still nowhere in our Constitution does it state clearly that women must be treated equally and that one must not be subject to discrimination because of their gender. The ERA would enshrine that basic tenant of our democracy in our Constitution at long last. Seventy percent of the States and then three more said that ought to be in our Constitution. Three-quarters of the States have voted to ratify this amendment. Discrimination against women has through our history kept bright and talented Americans from achieving their full potential in our economy. Because of their hard work, the sacrifices, the leadership, and the perseverance of trailblazing women, we have seen barriers come down, doors of opportunity open, and glass ceilings shatter. Discrimination, inequality, and injustice persist, and we will hear arguments on this floor rationalizing why discrimination ought to still exist. And as long as our Constitution does not explicitly ban discrimination based upon gender as it does based on race, we will continue to see forms of legal discrimination against women linger in our country. Taking this step to add the equal rights amendment to the Constitution is one of the many that House Democrats are taking to combat discrimination against women simply because they are women. Last year, we passed the Paycheck Fairness Act. Not everybody voted for that, but, in my opinion, everybody voted for that who thought equal pay should mean equal pay, irrespective of gender and based upon work performed. That built on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 to ensure equal pay for equal work. We also passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Most of us on our side voted for that, but there was a rationalization why some thought, no, we will not protect women against violence. We have continued working to protect women's rights to make their own healthcare choices and to access quality affordable care. Who said that was part of the Constitution? The Supreme Court of the United States. They said that was a constitutional right and we see effort after effort to erode that constitutional right. I am proud that the Democratic Caucus in the 116th Congress is not only the most diverse in American history, but also includes the greatest number of women. In Virginia, it was an election that saw the house of delegates reach 30 percent women and the State senate reach 28 percent. Once it got there, the women of Virginia stood up and said this ought to be in the Constitution of the United States, and they voted to do so. Virginia now has a woman speaker of the house, as we do in our U.S. House, and as my home State of Maryland has in our house of delegates. It is because more women are stepping up to run for office and winning elections that more women's voices are being heard in our democracy. That is why this resolution is on the floor. That is a wonderful thing, and I have been proud to help recruit talented women to run for the House as Democrats. And very frankly, we need more women as Republicans, a diminishing group, I might add. I urge my colleagues, men and women, Democrats and Republicans, to join in supporting this resolution. And, finally, is it too late? It is too late. But it is never too late to do the right thing. Make this part of our Constitution. Stand up and say, yes, women should be included as all humankind who are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That is the principle that we are articulating today. Alice Paul, who first wrote the ERA and campaigned for it for most of her life was once asked why she kept all her focus on getting the job done, and she said this, ``When you put your hand to the plow, you can't put it down until you get to the end of the row.'' We are not at the end of the row, but this is a way upon that row to make it complete to make our Constitution protect all people, male or female, Black or white, all people. At long last, let's hold firm to that plow. Let's get the job done. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate an outstanding and trailblazing leader in higher education in Maryland's Fifth District. Dr. Charlene M. Dukes will be retiring as President of Prince George's Community College this June after thirteen years at the helm. She is the first woman to lead the College in its sixty-two-year history. Dr. Dukes's time as President has been characterized by growth and a deepening of the College's mission. She oversaw a partnership with Prince George's County Public Schools to create the first middle college in our state as well as a new Teacher Academy, Academy for Health Sciences, and two P-Tech Schools. The College joined with the University of Maryland Global Campus to launch a 3D Scholars Program and to expand programs in information technology and math. Under President Dukes's leadership, the College built new buildings at its Largo campus, including Lanham and Bladen Halls, the Culinary Arts Center, the Center for Performing Arts, and the Center for Health Studies. She led the effort to begin a major renovation this year of Marlboro Hall, the College's largest classroom facility. A proponent of streamlining operations to enhance the quality of its services, Dr. Dukes oversaw a process of realigning the College's organizational structure under the 2019-2021 Strategic Plan. That plan focuses on increasing student success, growing the College's regional impact, and ensuring that the College's organization excels in helping it serve the 40,000 students who benefit annually from its courses and programs. Before becoming the eighth President of Prince George's Community College, Dr. Dukes served on the Prince George's County Board of Education and as adjunct faculty at the Community College of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh. She also taught at Prince George's Community College and at Morgan State University. Former Governor Martin O'Malley appointed her to serve on the State Board of Education from 2007 to 2015, and she was the Board's President for the last three years of that period. Recognized by Washington Magazine as one of the 100 most powerful women in the metro area in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017, Dr. Dukes was inducted into the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame in 2013. She continues to serve on the boards of Prince George's County Chamber of Commerce, the Biden Institute, the Business Roundtable, the Greater Washington Community Foundation, the Institute for Higher Education Policy, and Campus Compact, among other nonprofits. When Dr. Dukes retires at the end of June, she will leave a powerful and lasting legacy for the College and for the county and state she has so faithfully served in the cause of higher education. Because of her leadership, thousands of Maryland students have access to quality, affordable community college that can serve as a pathway to opportunity and success. I join in thanking her for her service, and I congratulate her on her upcoming retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the Gentlelady from California, Ms. Speier, has introduced H.J. Res. 79, legislation that would provide for the Equal Rights Amendment's immediate adoption as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As Majority Leader, I am proud to bring that legislation to the Floor this week. Because House rules prohibit the addition of further cosponsors to a bill once the committee report has been filed, however, I am not able formally to cosponsor this legislation. I am in support of the bill and request to be considered by this body as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 79.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Trump administration released its budget proposal for fiscal year 2021. It was titled ``A Budget for America's Future,'' but its vision for that future is bleak. Its vision of the future is the true American carnage that President Trump described in his inaugural address. It envisions an America that is less than it can or should be. It envisions an America where working families are left to struggle while the wealthy continue to prosper. Rather than expanding economic opportunity to all, it would force families to choose between food and other essentials by cutting nutrition assistance by $182 billion so more children and more people would go hungry in America, the richest nation on the face of the Earth. It would completely eliminate the Community Development Block Grant, which helps local communities keep millions out of poverty. Rather than ensuring healthcare is accessible to all, this budget cuts Medicaid by $900 billion and slashes Medicare by half a trillion dollars, even though the President promised he would never touch the program's funding from that podium just a few days ago. It would also cut research into lifesaving cures at the National Institutes of Health by $3.3 billion--penny-wise, pound-foolish. It cuts the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by more than half a billion dollars, at a moment when we need to protect our people against the coronavirus and other public health threats. Mr. Speaker, a true budget for America's future wouldn't increase the cost of attending college, as this budget does, by cutting student loan programs by $170 billion. The education of our young people is our greatest investment in a successful future. This budget discourages those who want to serve their communities by eliminating the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. It would slash the Department of Education's budget by $5.6 billion this year alone, while eliminating after-school programs for kids. Kids would be less safe, less educated. Ignoring another of his pledges, this time on infrastructure, President Trump's budget proposes cutting the Department of Transportation by 13 percent this year and reducing funding for the Army Corps of Engineers by 22 percent, both agencies that deal with infrastructure. It proposes a future devoid of innovation, as well, eliminating several programs that fund and promote research and innovation to support advanced manufacturing, new energy technologies, and entrepreneurship. On all of those, the President's budget sounds the trumpet of retreat. This budget promotes a future that is less secure by reducing funding for public diplomacy and foreign aid. For 3 years now, and in our fourth year, our public diplomacy has been put at risk. Moreover, this budget extends the 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy, while once again asserting the debunked and discredited theory that the tax cuts pay for themselves. They didn't do it in 1981; they didn't do it in 2001 and 2003; and they haven't done it now. The evidence is clear: The President's tax cuts for the wealthy did not provide the trickle-down benefits that he promised or give our economy the kind of boost he said that it would. Yet, the administration is back again, promoting the notion that if we give tax cuts for the wealthy one more try, they will produce growth well above what every mainstream economist projects, period. This budget is not a serious proposal, nor is it fiscally sustainable. Budgets are about priorities. The priorities in this budget, giving tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting the programs that help working Americans get ahead, are the wrong priorities for our Nation. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about who is going to offer a budget. The President has offered a budget, and we have offered a budget. And that budget, Mr. Speaker, was incorporated in the appropriations bills signed by the President of the United States. We now have an agreement on what the level of discretionary expenditures will be. So I want to tell my friends not only on the Republican side of the aisle, but I want to tell everybody in America that we have a budget. We have set forth our priorities, and those priorities were in the bills that we passed last year and the President signed. The marginal increase in those is very, very small this year. That was the deal that was made between Secretary Mnuchin and Speaker Pelosi. We will pass our appropriations bills consistent with those priorities that we have already articulated at the numbers agreed upon, unlike the President of the United States who sent us a budget that completely abandoned the agreement we made in July, just 8 months ago, 7 months ago. What is the point of making an agreement if it is looked at as a ceiling? It is like going and bargaining on a house and saying, ``I will pay you $100,000,'' and then coming to the settlement table, and saying, ``Well, I am really going to pay you $90,000. That $100,000 was just a ceiling.'' Mr. Speaker, we are going to pass through this House and send to the Senate appropriations bills that will represent the priorities of the American people, and that budget will be for the people. I am hopeful that, one more time, we can adopt those priorities, have them signed by the President, and have no drama about shutting down government, as we did not this past year. That is our responsibility. That is our duty to the American people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) for yielding. I lament that, as Miss Gonzalez- Colon pointed out, she will not be able to vote on the final passage of this bill. I lament that Puerto Rico is not a State. If it were a State or if the Virgin Islands were a State, they would have already been addressed and helped, consistent with what we have done for States. Madam Chair, history will remember this generation of Puerto Ricans for their perseverance, their courage, and their strength. Having endured two devastating hurricanes in 2017, they have had to cope with their heartbreaking aftermath, characterized by the Trump administration's failure to allocate resources properly, fairly, effectively, and timely. Now a series of powerful earthquakes have struck the island, causing additional damage and, sadly, loss of life. We have heard reports that, while much of the power transmission infrastructure that was rebuilt stronger after the hurricanes were able to hold up, the aging power plants they serve sustained substantial damage. Madam Chair, I will remind my colleagues that the people of Puerto Rico are our fellow American citizens. They are our brothers and our sisters, our fellow Americans. Their well-being is our concern. Their capacity to rebuild, and rebuild stronger, is our responsibility as the representatives of the American people--of all the American people. That is what we do after natural disasters: We help our fellow Americans in need. Madam Chair, I and several of my colleagues will be traveling to Puerto Rico over the President's Day district work period next weekend. We will be visiting communities in the south of the island that have been hardest hit by the earthquakes. Many of the same communities are still trying to rebuild from Irma and Maria. I was there in 2017, in Puerto Rico, and in the Virgin Islands with Representative Plaskett. I was there with the Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy. We visited with families who lost their homes, who lost loved ones, and who asked us to come back here to Washington and help. We worked together, Republicans and Democrats, to pass emergency funding and partnered on an effort to amend the Stafford Act to promote resilience by ensuring that structures are built to 21st century standards. Madam Chair, when I return to the island later this month, I want to tell the people I meet that Congress has not and will not forget them, that their brothers and sisters on the mainland are with them. I want to tell them that we took action to provide the additional funding the island needs to recover from this most recent disaster. I want to tell them that the Congress came together to approve the necessary funds to help communities on the island restore critical infrastructure and rebuild schools and housing. I want to tell them that we came through with assistance for repairing the energy grid and making it more resilient. I also want to be able to share with them that Congress made key tax reforms to give low-income Puerto Ricans some help with childcare and affordable housing as they rebuild, as we do for people here on the mainland. Madam Chair, that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me in passing this bill and making all of those things possible. When I go down to Puerto Rico in just over a week, I want to be able to tell the people there that this House did its job. Sadly, we have seen the administration's veto threat, which was little more than a denigration of our fellow Americans, accusing Puerto Ricans of corruption and being untrustworthy of receiving emergency aid. Ironic that his administration would make such a charge. Shame on them for making that allegation, and shame on them even more if they veto disaster aid to Puerto Rico under such a spurious and hateful belief. House Democrats will continue to conduct oversight in order to ensure that the administration does not continue to withhold critical, congressionally appropriated disaster aid from the people of Puerto Rico who need it to rebuild. The stronger they are, the stronger our Nation will be. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Mrs. Lowey, as well as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Neal, along with members of their committees for their hard work on this package. Madam Chair, I want to thank Representatives Velazquez, Serrano, Soto, Ocasio-Cortez, and, yes, Miss Gonzalez-Colon, as well, for advocating for Puerto Ricans in Congress. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this package. Keep faith with our fellow citizens wherever they might live, in the East, in the West, in the South, or in Puerto Rico, all Americans worthy of having confidence that we will stand with them in hours of distress. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority whip for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I will say that the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on Monday next. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with last votes of the week expected no later than 3 p.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 2546, Protecting America's Wilderness Act. This bill is a package of lands bill out of the Committee on Natural Resources and would designate 1.3 million acres as wilderness or potential wilderness areas, preserving these public lands for the benefit of current and future generations. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.J. Res. 79, Removing the Deadline for the Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. This bill would remove the deadline to ratify the ERA, paving the way for it to be added to the Constitution and taking a historic step forward for women's equality. Mr. Speaker, I would add this is not an adoption of an assumption, that, in fact, the 38 States who have ratified to date have not ratified within the framework of the Constitution, and, therefore, that amendment should in fact be judged to have been adopted.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the gentleman's question is yes. And indeed--as I think the gentleman probably knows--the leaders of the relevant committees, Mr. Neal and Mr. DeFazio--Mr. Neal on the funding side, Mr. DeFazio on the substantive side of the policy with respect to infrastructure and transportation and other items that we think need to be included in infrastructure. We met with the President of the United States in April. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman, it is probably the most positive meeting that I have had with the President and that other members in the group had. This was Democrats and then the Secretary of Transportation was also there, Ms. Chao. And we talked about our joint commitment to infrastructure investment. We had suggested, as the President suggested during his campaign, that our target be $1 trillion over 10 years. In other words, a $100 billion a year, or on average, investment in infrastructure so that we will not only create a lot of American jobs, but also assure ourselves of being competitive with our competitors around the world in the 21st century. The President responded that he thought $1 trillion was too little and suggested a $2 trillion investment, i.e., doubling the $100 billion to $200 billion on average per year over 10 years. And we had discussion about that. We indicated that we agreed with the President that such an investment would be warranted, and productive and, frankly, grow the economy and therefore be an investment and not simply an expenditure. Mr. Neal made the point, Mr. Speaker, that the President--if we would give him some direction on what he could support in terms of funding that investment. And I made the observation, I said to him, ``Mr. President, neither in the Senate nor the House will Republicans or Democrats support that big of an investment if you are not leading. To which he responded to me, Mr. Whip, ``Steny, I agree with you.'' We then scheduled a meeting to be held--we thought--3 weeks, but it was some 5 or 6 weeks later. And unfortunately, for whatever reason-- both sides have their thoughts as to why--the President came to the meeting and said he was not prepared to meet. And we have not had that meeting since. But I will emphatically say to the gentleman, we want to work on infrastructure. We think it is critically important. The President said during the campaign he thought it was critically important. I think your side, both here and on the Senate side, believes infrastructure is important. So certainly, as I said, yes, we want to see if we could work together to adopt a significant infrastructure package, which we think would be good for the country. Secondly, let me say that the President also mentioned two other things--one of which was prescription drugs. We had passed a prescription drug bill, H.R. 3. The President sent down a message that he would veto it if it were passed as it was. What I would suggest, following the regular order, the Senate ought to take it up, change it, amend it--do whatever they feel is appropriate to do--pass it, if they can, and then let us have a conference. Because we have all said that we want to bring down the prescription drug prices. In fact, the President says he wants to negotiate. We included in H.R. 3 negotiation. The President said he wanted to key prices to our global competitors. In particular, we put six large nations, which are similar to ours, including Australia, Great Britain, Germany, Canada, France--and one other nation--in that calculation. And that we would, in our bill, cap the prices at 120 percent of the average price across those six nations. That was something the President wanted to do. And he responded to a question about negotiation, saying ``I want to negotiate like crazy.'' He is a businessman. He is a realtor. He knows a lot about negotiation and price. And so I think we have component parts in common. And my suggestion would be, again, that they take up H.R. 3, which is the prescription drug bill, do what the Senate's will is to do, that we go to conference, and that we discuss differences, harmonize the bills, and pass a bill and send it to the President. So there is certainly, in my experience of a long time here, that is the way we should get that done. I think that would be positive for the country and I think we could reach consensus, hopefully from the administration, from your party, my party, and pass those two bills to the benefit of the American people. The last thing I would discuss is the President said he was against preexisting conditions being precluded from getting insurance. We share that view. We have passed a bill over to the Senate that affects that end. The Senate could take that bill up. Again, work on it, do whatever the will of the Senate is to do, go to conference. And assuming that we follow the President's stricture of wanting to ensure that preexisting conditions do not prohibit anybody from getting insurance, we could pass that bill. So my response is that we pass three bills--or two bills and then infrastructure, which were four--and those are positive items we can work on, and we are prepared to do so.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comment. First, let me talk about the prescription drug bill. We did pass a bill that was a compilation of six bills that had five Republican supporters when we voted on it. So there was a bipartisan bill. Let me suggest we ought not to dismiss however the Senate operates, the way the regular order operates is we pass a bill. Yes, we are in charge, and, like you, we pass bills that we think are important. When you were in the majority, you did the same thing. Some had Democratic votes, some did not. But the Senate had an opportunity to send us back bills. We have 275 bills that we have done. We think they are all on substantive matters that deal with items that are good for the people, for the American people, and the Senate has not acted on them. The way the system ought to work is we send our ideas over there; if they have different ideas, they send them back to us, and we go to conference and resolve it. I agree with the gentleman, that is what we ought to do, and I am hopeful that we could do that. But the bill that we did pass, as I say, was a compilation of seven bills and had five Republicans. But, as you do, five Republicans makes it a bipartisan piece of legislation, and the Senate could send it back with something we don't agree on and try to resolve it because we want to reach that end. The other bill the gentleman talks about, H.R. 3, the bill that we brought out had improvements to the ACA to make it work for the American people. Your side, of course, wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Our side differs and believes that, in fact, millions of people, not only those who avail themselves of ACA--and, in the short term, it didn't bring down premiums, but it is now starting to bring down premiums, as we thought it would. The constant assaults on the ACA by people who want to see it repealed have obviously hurt that because it has undermined certainty, which means that the insurers are not certain what the rules are going to be, and, therefore, our view is the premiums are still inflated. But, again, I would urge the whip to talk to Mr. McConnell and say: Look, we have a lot of bills over there. Pass your version of the bill, send it back and let us work on it, and let's see if we can get to an agreement. That is how we have done for hundreds of years, and that is the way we ought to continue to do it. I realize that Mr. McConnell, as any majority leader the Senate has, has challenges in doing that; and what I think, frankly, he does not want to do is get to a bipartisan agreement which will allow passage through the Senate. We don't have that here, as you know. Your side could pass bills on a partisan basis when you were in charge; we can do the same. As I say, we had five Republicans agree with us on the bill to which you referred, but I would hope you would urge Senator McConnell to pass our bills. Senator Braun from Indiana was on TV with Chuck Todd on ``Face the Nation'' talking about impeachment. He said: Let's get through this impeachment and get to the people's business. I think that was a reasonable proposition. The problem is the Senate is not getting to the people's business. They are not passing their own bills, and they are not passing our bills. In fact, they are spending all their time confirming judges. We think that has a purpose of making sure that, for the long term, whether they are in the majority or not, they will have an influence on what happens in the United States. I understand that political motivation, but it is impeding us doing the people's business. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scalise and I try to work together. I would hope that the Senate would work together so that they could send us back bills of their choice, we can go to conference, and we can make things happen. This House, last year, passed over 400 pieces of legislation. I don't have the exact number that the Senate has passed of significant bills as opposed to naming post offices or something like that, but it is in the tens, not the hundreds.