Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Green and Mrs. Wagner for their efforts in a bipartisan way. I thank the committee for reporting it overwhelmingly-- in fact, I think unanimously--out of committee. And I thank Chairwoman Waters of the Financial Services Committee for her leadership in advancing this important bill. In 2017, damage from natural disasters, such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, cost our country and its territories $300 billion--in 1 year alone. We know that these storms are becoming more frequent and more severe, resulting from a change in climate. Sadly, our future will look more and more like 2017 as the climate crisis worsens. That is why, after visiting Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Florida Keys in the fall of 2017, I helped lead a bipartisan effort to ensure that Federal disaster relief funding is used to help communities rebuild to 21st century standards. In my view, if we fail to help communities rebuild stronger, they will be just as vulnerable to future disasters as they were before. Not only is that an unwise path to follow, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. That is why I am glad that this bill includes important provisions for climate resilience, hazard mitigation, and helping communities rebuild to 21st century standards. I am proud to bring this bill to the floor and hope that it will pass with broad, bipartisan support. This bill authorizes, for the first time, a community development block grant disaster recovery program. The program has been in use through appropriations since 1993 to help communities affected by natural disasters, but it has never been formally authorized. That means that the Department of Housing and Urban Development must go through extra hurdles before distributing these emergency funds, which can delay assistance getting to the communities that need it. Mr. Green recognizes that, Mrs. Wagner recognizes that, and, frankly, it is the unanimous view of the committee that this was a step to take. With this legislation, that process will be streamlined, and we can do our part to make the process of rebuilding after a natural disaster faster and better. I thank the chair and the sponsors of the bill for making commonsense changes to help align it with some of the reforms we have made to the Stafford Act following the 2017 hurricanes. Importantly, the bill conditions the receipt of CDBG disaster funding on the adoption of the latest building codes and standards for those communities that want to rebuild in hazard zone areas, such as flood zones. That will ensure that homes, schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure are rebuilt stronger and more resilient, making them safer for their occupants and, as I said, protecting taxpayer dollars that aren't being used to rebuild these buildings and infrastructure. I was pleased that, when we adopted the amendments to the Stafford Act, Mr. McCarthy, the then-majority leader, and I were the cosponsors of that legislation. I am pleased that Mr. McCarthy and I have worked together to try to make this program stronger and better. I have talked to my friend Garret Graves, who knows a lot about this stuff, and he has a bill himself. I am going to look carefully at that bill and try to work with him to make sure that we do, in fact, do what I think everybody on this floor wants: make these programs work, not only for those who are damaged, not only for the communities that are ravaged by natural disasters, but also for the taxpayers. None of us want to defend programs that don't work, don't work quickly, aren't paid on time or correctly. Nobody wants to defend that. But we have worked closely--when I say ``we,'' my office has worked closely with the homebuilders to make sure that the homebuilders thought this was a program that they could work with. They do. So I urge my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion, let us not once again snatch partisanship from bipartisanship moving progress. So often we do that. It is a shame, particularly when a bill is reported out of committee unanimously. Is this perfect? It may not be perfect. I don't know whether Garret Graves' bill is perfect. I know he knows a lot about the subject, and I am working to talk to him. But let's pass this bill, not necessarily in lieu of other pieces of legislation that can improve this process, but pass this bill as a step towards progress, a step towards a more rational policy, and a step towards making sure that we apply our moneys in a rational, effective way for our citizens, for our communities, and for our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 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, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. Madam Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including H.R. 4634, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, a very significant and very bipartisan bill. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. In addition, Madam Speaker, the House will be considering a continuing resolution through December 20 to keep the government open and operating on behalf of the American people. Madam Speaker, I am deeply disappointed by the Senate's failure to complete their work on appropriations, forcing us to consider another continuing resolution. This is evidence of failure, not of success. It is absolutely essential that we pass the CR to keep our government operating, but it is an indication that we have not gotten our business done as we should. I would remind House Members that we passed 96 percent of the funding of government by June 26 this year, or approximately 3 months before the end of the fiscal year, a little over 3 months. By the end of the fiscal year, the United States Senate had passed not a single appropriations bill. I am disappointed by that but recognize that passing a CR is absolutely essential. Rather than kick the can further down the road, however, we must use that time between now and December 20 to work on an agreement on 302(b) allocations, which will allow us to move appropriation bills done in line with the bipartisan budget caps agreement. Lastly, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 1309, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act. This bipartisan bill directs the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue a standard requiring healthcare and social service employers to write and implement a workplace violence prevention plan to prevent and protect employees from violent incidents at work.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman talks about a bipartisan agreement. He does not talk about the stark fact that the House did its job. We passed bills. We passed 96 percent of the funding of the government. The Senate, led by Republicans, prior to the end of the fiscal year, passed 0 percent. It is hard to come to an agreement when the Senate doesn't pass anything. Nothing. Zero. Mainly because they needed the President to say: Simon says. I know that, for a fact--based upon conversations with the leadership of the Senate, that the President signing off, and we know that the Acting Chief of Staff, when he was here in this body, voted to shut the government down and voted against opening up, and said we ought to have a sequester for this fiscal year--that that was his position. It was Mr. Vought's position as well, who is the acting director at OMB. A mirror, Madam Speaker, in my opinion, of the Acting Chief of Staff. So for the Republican whip to say, oh, gee whiz, we are wringing our hands, and we passed partisan bills, of course we passed partisan bills because the gentleman's side would not work with us on our bills. That was the strategy, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, not simply a difference of opinion. As a matter of fact, on the defense spending that the gentleman mentions, I know for a fact, because I talked to them on the Republican side in both of the committees on appropriations and authorizing, the 733 figure that we used was an acceptable figure. A figure, by the way, acceptable to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But it is very hard to reach an agreement if one side doesn't say anything, doesn't send any bill, doesn't take any action. There was nothing to negotiate on. And the gentleman talks about a bill. First of all, the only thing that was agreed to was how much money we are going to spend overall on discretionary spending, about 30 percent--a little over 30 percent of the entire budget. But there was no agreement on the distribution of those dollars to the various committees. Now, the gentleman says so much on defense side, so much on nondefense side. The gentleman is correct. But, very frankly, what the Senate Democrats are concerned about is that they will be passing bills, and money will be cut from programs that we feel are very important, to build a wall, a wall that somebody bought a $100 saw at Home Depot and cut a hole in. So I would reiterate my disappointment with the total failure of the United States Senate, led by Republicans, to enact any bill that appropriated money for the operations of government prior to the end of this fiscal year. So I say to my friend, there are people meeting. As the gentleman knows, the Speaker and Mr. Mnuchin had an agreement. Now, what does that reflect? Simon says. Because the Senate will not act as an independent body, coequal branch of the Government of the United States. Mr. McConnell has said as much. We won't pass anything unless the President will sign it, as if we have no mind of our own; as if-- the Representatives of the American people who vote by majority and pass something or by 60 votes in the Senate--only one vote counts, the President of the United States. And I say, I lament that fact, Madam Speaker. I tell the minority whip that I regret, and I will tell him--and I hope he believes me, because I believe it--if it were a Democratic President, I would be prepared to vote for bills on this floor that I believe the American people would support and that this body would support. And if the President signs it. He signs it. If he doesn't, then we see if we have two-thirds under our Constitution. And if we don't, the bill does not become law. That is the way the system ought to work. But, no, we are negotiating with Mr. Mnuchin, not with the Senate, not with Mr. Leahy, not even, apparently, with Senator McConnell. We are simply waiting for the President to tell the Senate: This allocation is okay. That is why, in my view, they didn't pass a single bill before the end of the fiscal year. But I hope we pass the CR. I hope it is as clean as it can be. There are anomalies that have to be taken care of, and we will take care of those, things that have to be extended because they are going to expire on the 21st of the month, this month. So I hope we do that, and I hope we can join together in a bipartisan way to do that. And then I join my friend, the minority whip, Madam Speaker, and hope we can get to bipartisan agreement. There is nobody in this body that served with me for any length of time that doesn't know I work toward that end, and I will continue to work toward that end.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I would advise all Members on both sides of the aisle not to schedule any business outside of Washington, D.C., between the 16th and the 20th of next month. And I will advise them further if, in fact, we do not fund the government by the 20th, they may well be here longer than that. We will not leave here without funding the Government of the United States of America.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, it is December 20, not November 20.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am advising all Members to ensure that their schedules accommodate sessions between the 16th and the 20th of December, which was originally, as the gentleman points out, not scheduled. But that was on the thought that we would rationally get past the only bills we really have to pass, and that is appropriation bills. By the way, Madam Speaker, the way that should work is we pass a bill, the Senate passes a bill, and, yes, they require 60 votes. Well, what does that mean? It means they have to come to a compromise at a higher number. We didn't have to do that. We got some Republican votes for some of the bills. But the fact is, we did our business and, frankly, we did it before--it has been done since I have been here--96 percent of the government funded, and we sent them to the Senate. The Senate has not considered a single one of those bills because they had no stomach for compromise, which was why we are negotiating with Mr. Mnuchin and not the Senate leadership to listen to what, apparently, the President will accept. I agree with the minority whip that considering the administration's views is important because, of course, we want the bills signed. But we have known for a very long time that the Republicans could not--on this floor--neither Speaker Ryan, nor Speaker Boehner could negotiate with Mr. Mulvaney. The minority whip knows that, Madam Speaker. As a matter of fact, a lot of the Republicans have talked to me, Madam Speaker, about how difficult Mulvaney is to deal with. But we waited for checkoff, either from Chief of Staff Mulvaney or the President himself. But we waited. Not we in the House, in the Senate. So I tell my friend, the Senate was not prepared to bring their bills, not our bills, to the floor to try to achieve that bipartisan agreement of which the minority whip speaks. Not a single bill was brought to the floor before the end of the fiscal year. You are not going to get any kind of an agreement if you don't try to move forward, if you just wait for what Mr. Mulvaney wants us to do.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just make one additional comment. It is ironic that the minority whip, Madam Speaker, addresses such great concern about funding the Armed Forces of the United States. We passed a bill at a figure that the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought was a figure that was acceptable and supportive of our national security, and almost every Republican--maybe every one--

Mr. HOYER.--voted against it.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would say that is not accurate. But having said that, we hope we can move forward. But to absolve the United States Senate, led by Republicans, have a majority of Republicans controlling the Senate Committee on Appropriations and controlling what goes on the floor--Democrats don't control that; the Republicans control it--they didn't bring a single appropriations bill to the floor. Now, if you don't like our ideas, put your ideas on the floor. Have them voted up or down. If they lose, then you either have to get a compromise or you don't get a bill passed. I will leave it to the American public, Madam Speaker, to determine who is being partisan on this issue and who is not.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam 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, we are involved in a very serious process to determine whether the President of the United States has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution provides for the removal of high officials who violate their oath of office, who violate the powers of their office, and who commit bribery or treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. In the course of that process, we have been involved with numerous people asking for the whistleblower to testify. I will not speak to the substance of the consideration that is ongoing with respect to the impeachment of the President of the United States, but I do want to speak pointedly to the calls from so many that the whistleblower be identified. The whistleblower, of course, has no direct evidence to offer. What the whistleblower is is somebody who responded to ``if you see something, say something.'' We have witnesses to wrongdoing all over this country and all over the world, and our police departments have a line that is called an anonymous tip line so that somebody who sees something will say something. It is anonymous so that we do not intimidate those people or expose them to danger for coming forward to out criminal behavior. The President of the United States has made an analogy to this information coming forward as the result of spying, treason, which, as we all know, according to the President, can subject someone to capital punishment. Why do we have a whistleblower statute? We have a whistleblower statute, Mr. Speaker, because we want to encourage people, and we want to not expose them to danger or intimidation--including from the most powerful person on Earth, the President of the United States--or retaliation. Yet we continue to hear: Tell us who the whistleblower is. Let us throw the whistleblower into the lion's den. In fact, of course, what we do know is the whistleblower, the information that was brought forward, A, led to the release of funds to the Ukrainians just shortly thereafter and, in addition, has led to substantive testimony corroborating the information that the whistleblower either saw or heard. If you see something, say something. It is irresponsible, it is wrong, and, in fact, in almost every jurisdiction, there are criminal penalties for threatening a witness, for impeding justice. So, Mr. Speaker, when people say, ``Show me the whistleblower,'' what they are doing is not only trying to intimidate that whistleblower, they are trying to intimidate every other whistleblower who might deign to come forward because they saw something or heard something. I would hope all of my colleagues would think to themselves: Why do we have a whistleblower statute? I represent 62,000 Federal employees, and, very frankly, I want them to have the confidence to come forward if they see wrongdoing in the Federal Government, even if it is about the President of the United States, and even if the President of the United States wants to make an analogy to a capital offense--despicable--undermining the very essence of why the Congress of the United States enacted a whistleblower statute and the essence of why police departments all over the United States have anonymous tip lines and why almost every State has a statute which imposes a criminal penalty for the intimidation of witnesses. We are a nation of laws, not of men. We are proud of that. But if we are to be a nation whose top leaders try to intimidate those who would come forward if they see something or hear something and they say something, then we will be a lesser nation, less focused on a nation of laws. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that Members on both sides of the aisle, political pundits, commentators, and, yes, the President of the United States would cease and desist from trying to intimidate this whistleblower and all of those who may be whistleblowers. The intent of that legislation, the intent of those protections, the intent of witness protection statutes and intimidation of witnesses is so that we will get at the truth and that our government of the people, by the people, and for the people will be more honest, will be more safe, will be more just.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding. And I thank Mr. McHenry for his work on the committee. Mr. Chair, I say to Mr. McHenry: There is still time to get well. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I have been the majority leader in years past, the minority whip in years past, and now again the majority leader. During all of those years, I have been a strong supporter of the Ex-Im Bank. Mr. Cantor, who was the majority leader, and I worked together the last time we brought this bill to the floor for reauthorization. There were 42 Republicans, many of whom served on the Financial Services Committee, who signed a discharge petition, a Republican discharge petition, because the chairman of the committee refused to bring this bill to the floor. Mr. Chair, this bill enjoys the support of the United States Chamber of Commerce, wide support among the business community throughout America, support of the labor movement--the AFL-CIO and labor unions-- all over America, and the support of millions of workers who are producing products here in America. I have an agenda. I call it Make It In America. This is critical to that because all of our competitors around the world have an agency similar to the Export-Import Bank that facilitates their products being sold in competition with ours. If we fail to reauthorize this piece of legislation, and if we fail to effect the reforms that have been included in not only dealing with the amount of money that they are authorized to lend but also the fact that we will not be locked into the inability of either a President or a Senate to confirm members of the Ex-Im board, but we will be able to act. This legislation, therefore, is better than we have done before. I thank Maxine Waters for her untiring leadership on this issue, and I also congratulate my friend Denny Heck, a member of the committee from Washington State who has been as tenacious and faithful in his support of ensuring the reauthorization when we had the discharge petition, and this time, as anybody in this House. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Heck, for his leadership on this issue. When that bill was discharged, some of you may remember, even though the Republican leadership would not bring it to the floor, it had to be discharged. Forty-two Republicans signed the discharge petition, led by Mr. Lucas and Mr. Fincher from Tennessee. Mr. Lucas is still here. I hope Mr. Lucas will vote for this bill when he has the opportunity to do so one more time. I had made the point with Mr. Cantor that I believed that the majority of Republicans would support the reauthorization. And, in fact, they did. The majority of Republicans, when the vote came, voted for the bill that had been refused by Mr. Hensarling to bring it to the floor. So this is not as if it is some partisan piece of legislation. I would hope the Republicans would have the courage--although I see them too often marching in lockstep to their party principle rather than their own principle. I am disappointed with that, Mr. Chair, because this is a piece of legislation that will protect and create hundreds of thousands of jobs and because it will make us more competitive. We make some of the best products in the world, period. But we need to be price competitive because people will be inclined to buy, perhaps, a less quality product because it is cheaper. That is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is overwhelmingly in support of this. That is why the administration is in favor of reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank. They say they want it clean. The President was initially, during the course of his campaign, opposed to the Ex-Im Bank. Then he talked, frankly, to some people in manufacturing who said: Mr. President, if we don't have an Export-Import Bank, you said you want to create jobs, but you are going to lose jobs. So he changed his mind. Then, unfortunately, he appointed somebody to head up the Ex-Im Bank who was totally against it, a guy named Scott Garrett from New Jersey. The good news is the Senate said, because it supports the Ex-Im Bank, they are not going to take Garrett, so his name was withdrawn. Mr. Chair, I appreciate Chairwoman Waters for bringing this to the floor. I urge every Member of this body to support it. Don't snatch partisanship from the jaws of bipartisanship every time you get the opportunity. Let's try to reflect to the American people that business and labor are together, and, yes, even Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, are together because this is good for American jobs. It is good for people who want to make it in America. That is what Ms. Waters, the chair of the committee, has been arguing, and Mr. Heck, and Gwen Moore, who chaired the subcommittee when we took it out last time, and others who have fought so hard for this bill. Our economy depends on strong export growth, not just for large businesses, but small and medium-sized businesses in communities across the country. It is not just the exporter. It is all the secondary small businesses that provide products for those large exporters. For this reason, the Export-Import Bank has traditionally had strong, bipartisan support. A majority of Republicans just a few years ago supported this bill. Not this exact bill. This bill should have that kind of support, too. There is not a single provision in this bill that those on the other side of the aisle can legitimately label a poison pill. That doesn't mean it is exactly like they want it. We don't always get everything we want. But the central part of this bill ought to be supported by every one of us. The last time this came up, one Democrat voted against it. He is no longer with us--not because of his vote on this bill. But I point out to you that we are overwhelmingly for this bill. Business wants this bill. Usually, you don't see the Democrats saying yes to business groups. This is for jobs for working Americans. That is why this bill has the strong and unified support of the business community. I am disappointed, frankly, that Republicans have decided to make this bill partisan. Frankly, Mr. McCarthy was for this bill before he was against this bill--not this bill. He was for the Export-Import Bank before he was against it, if you look at the Record. He is going to vote against it this time. Mr. Scalise voted against it last time, as did Mr. McCarthy on the reauthorization that I just mentioned that was discharged out of committee, as did Mr. McHenry. All three of them opposed this bill in the past. So it is not a question of these amendments. For whatever reasons, they are opposed to this bill. That is a shame. There is no reason for supporters of American exports on both sides of the aisle not to come together and support the Ex-Im Bank's reauthorization. My hope is that what this House will do today is send a strong message of support for the Export-Import Bank. Tell the rest of the world we are going to compete. Tell the rest of the world we are going to compete on an even playing field. Tell the rest of the world we are going to support our exporting community. Indeed, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, during the 4-year period from 2015 to 2019 when the Ex-Im Bank lacked a quorum needed to do its job properly, our country gained 80,000 fewer manufacturing jobs and lost $119 billion in manufacturing output, all because we didn't fix the quorum, which is now fixed in this bill. Let me repeat that: 80,000 fewer manufacturing jobs and $119 billion in lost output. This fixes that. If you vote against this bill, you may be voting against $119 billion--probably more because of inflation, maybe $150 billion--to the good. Not government spending, increased output, increased economic activity, and increased jobs of 80,000, probably more. Countries all around the world have export credit agencies, as I have said. In fact, China has three export credit agencies that provided more support in just 1 year than the Export-Import Bank has provided in its entire history. What do you say by a ``no'' vote? We are going to retreat from that competition. We are not going to play. Who does that advantage? China. Who does that advantage? Every one of our other competitors. Who does that disadvantage? American workers. Mr. Chair, we need to give our exporters a fair, fighting chance by providing export financing to American business. That is what this bill does. It is not a partisan bill. It is not a Republican bill or a Democratic bill. Those of you who say you are probusiness and proworker and want to build jobs, that is why the President of the United States decided he is for reauthorization. He may not like a provision or two in this bill, but the administration says they are for reauthorizing this. This gives you the opportunity to do that. Take it. This is not going to be a partisan bill for any of us. Take this opportunity to stand up as the majority of your colleagues did the last time this reauthorization came to the floor, and as they have done every time it has come to the floor. Join me, my colleagues, in voting for American workers, American manufacturers, suppliers, subcontractors, little businesses, small businesses, and medium businesses. This is good for America. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, by the way, Mr. McHenry is my friend. He and I have a good working relationship, and I appreciate that friendship. I regret that he is opposing this bill. I know there was an attempt to reach a bipartisan agreement. In candor, I think everybody on this floor needs to know there were outside business concerns about that agreement, so it was not simply a partisan act. It was that those who see this as a job creator thought that some of the provisions that were put in the so-called compromise would be harmful to job creation and to the sale of exports across the sea. But the reason I really rose--and I thank Madam Chairwoman for yielding--is to say, yes, the President said he was going to veto this; yes, the majority leader in the Senate said he is not going to bring things up. That is unfortunate, but the statement I made is accurate. The President of the United States says he is for the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. That is a change in his position during the course of his campaign in 2016. It is a change because he was convinced that the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank is good for America, good for jobs, good for business, good for working men and women in this country. And so he has repaired, also, to partisanship. There are no poison pills in here. There may be some things you wanted that are not in this bill; there may be some things in this bill that I would have liked that are not in this bill. But the central point of this is this reauthorizes the Bank.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman. It takes care of the challenge that we had when there was no quorum, and the fact that we had no quorum was all about politics. Don't make this about politics as well. An estimate of 80,000 jobs, $150 billion lost because we didn't have a quorum. Let's not twist in the wind. This bill has 95 percent agreement. The gentleman who spoke before me said he voted for this last time. There is no change that, in my opinion, warrants a change in heart. I know that there is some upset that the bipartisan bill that was agreed to didn't fly, but it didn't fly mostly because the outside came in and said: This will not help us; this will not affect the end that we want. That record ought to be clear, Mr. Chairman. So the chairwoman worked on bringing a bill to the floor that will help. She has done that. I hope my colleagues will put their partisanship behind them, put protecting, frankly, their positioning in terms of negotiation behind them and vote for this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, today is a serious day. Last night was an extraordinary night. I rise for the millions of people who live in the Washington metropolitan area to congratulate and to exalt with all of our region on the extraordinary achievement of the Washington Nationals. This morning in Washington, the heavens are crying tears of joy. In other words, it is raining. But there is no rain in any of our hearts or minds today. It may be raining, but the faces of Nationals fans are shining with pride and happiness. For the first time in 95 years--we have waited a long time, Madam Speaker--the Major League Baseball team from our Nation's Capital is bringing home a World Series Championship. My colleague Ms. Norton is here, being urged to put on a sweater, over her pride. With the might of their bats and the lightness of their feet, the Nats pushed through to a hard-won victory in game seven last night against the Houston Astros--arguably, the best team in either league this year--who won the most games. While I congratulate the Houston Astros on an extraordinary season, they just didn't count on the Washington Nationals. But, today, the Houston Astros and the Washington Nationals are in absolute agreement. It is my understanding that they are sending a joint letter to Major League Baseball, saying: ``We want all of our games to be road games from now on.'' In case you didn't get that, neither team won at home. They all won games on the road. The good news was, the Washington Nationals had four games in Houston, and the Astros had only three games in Washington. So there is joy in Washington this day. It is sustained by a spirit of camaraderie and sportsmanship. Our Nats grew strength from their dedicated fans across this region, including, of course, my district. We have been waiting a very long time for this day, so I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the 2019 Nationals, led by their extraordinary manager Dave Martinez, who played earlier in his career for the team that moved from Montreal to become the Nats. How appropriate. How wonderful. I hope my colleagues will also join me in congratulating this year's most valuable player. Very frankly, there were a lot to choose from on the Washington Nats, who started out with a 19-wins-and-31-losses season. What an extraordinary achievement to come that far that quickly, to meet, arguably, as I said at the beginning, the best team in baseball, the Houston Astros. I also want to mention, as I said, the most valuable player. There were a lot to choose from. Stephen Strasburg was recruited and signed by the Washington Nationals some years ago as a very young man. He pitched extraordinarily, then got his elbow and had to be operated on, a Tommy John operation, they call it, and he has come back to be one of the best pitchers in the major leagues. He won three games. What an extraordinary achievement. So let's congratulate, as well as Stephen Strasburg, all the members of the team on this victory. To paraphrase the old poem: ``Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright; The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light; And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout.'' Today, Madam Speaker, that somewhere is the Nation's Capital. Congratulations, Nationals. We love you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the chairman of the committee, for yielding. I thank Mr. Smith for his career-long advocacy of human rights and protecting the most vulnerable, not only in this country but throughout the world. Mr. Smith and I had the opportunity to travel behind the Iron Curtain when it existed, talking about human rights, talking about the right to immigrate, the right to worship, the right to freedom of speech. We talked about the Helsinki Final Act. He and I were both members of the Helsinki Commission for a couple of decades together. He and I visited Turkey together, talking about particularly the freedom of the press and how many members and how many journalists were imprisoned. Mr. Smith, Mr. Engel, and I, and certainly Mr. Schiff, and so many others have been supporters of this resolution for a very long time. It has not come to the floor. One of my duties as the majority leader is to bring bills to the floor, and I am proud, along with the chairman and the ranking member, to bring this bill to the floor. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, recognizes the horrific and systematic efforts to commit genocide against the Armenian people a century ago. There can be no denial of the Armenian genocide, which is evidenced by historical documentation and the emotional scars still borne by the descendants of its survivors. It was a campaign of ethnic cleansing committed by the Ottoman Empire during and after the First World War, and it led to the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians alongside other targeted groups. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Smith referenced Ambassador Morgenthau, who was our Ambassador at this period of time. He said this: ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.'' He went on to say: ``I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this.'' Of course, we were, tragically, to see an even greater Holocaust, in terms of numbers of lives lost, just some 30 years later. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the British Ambassador to the United States, in an October 1915 speech, said this: ``The massacres are the result of a policy which, as far as can be ascertained, has been entertained for some considerable time''--I want to read this language--``considered for some considerable time by the gang of unscrupulous adventurers who are now in possession of the Government of the Turkish Empire. They hesitated to put it in practice until they thought the favorable moment had come, and that moment seems to have arrived about the month of April.'' The reason I bring that up is this resolution is not anti the present Turkish Government. The sanctions bill will stand for that. This is about something that happened historically, that if not recognized may well happen again. When you say, ``Never again,'' you must recognize what the ``never again'' is. I have talked to Turkish Ambassadors and others for over a quarter of a century as a Member of the Congress of the United States and said to them this is not about your government; this is about, as the British Ambassador says, a gang of thugs who took over your government over 100 years ago. I regret that our Turkish friends have not recognized this as our German friends have recognized their genocide and said this was wrong because if they tell their people this is wrong, it is more likely that it will not be repeated. Mr. Speaker, as the House joins in condemnation of that genocide and memorializes its victims, let us also keep our attention focused on populations today that are being subjected to ethnic cleansing and forced relocation. From the Rohingya to the Uighurs, from the people in Darfur to the Kurdish population being forced from their homes in Syria as we speak, we must declare, loudly and clearly: Never again. Never again. Sadly, ``never'' is now. In particular, our Kurdish allies, who fought so courageously to help us defeat ISIS, are being forced to leave their homes by Turkey's campaign to seize control of northern Syria. Let today's action in this House be a reminder, Mr. Speaker, to President Erdogan and his government: The United States is watching. The American people will not turn our eyes away. Neither will we turn our eyes away from the millions of others in Syria who have been displaced and the hundreds of thousands who have been killed, who have been bombed, gassed, and brutalized by the Assad regime and its enablers. That is why it is important to recognize the genocide perpetrated against the Armenian people so that we will recognize other such actions, which because of their race or their color or their ethnicity or some other distinction subject them to mass murder. Mr. Speaker, we need to let the American people's Representatives give a clear message to our Armenian brothers and sisters, to our Kurdish brothers and sisters: We see you. We will not abandon you. Never again.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow; and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Monday, October 28, 2019, when it should convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for yielding. On Monday, Mr. Speaker, 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, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business; the last votes of the week are 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 close of business on Friday. The House will consider H.R. 823, the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act; H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act; and H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act. These three bills all recognize the need to protect some of America's most iconic and important public lands. The House, Mr. Speaker, will also consider H.R. 4695, the Protect Against Conflict by Turkey Act. This bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, provides a strong, targeted response to the crisis caused by Turkey's invasion of Northern Syria. It sanctions senior Turkish officials involved in the decision and those committing human rights abuses, and penalizes Turkish financial institutions involved in perpetuating President Erdogan's practices. Lastly, the House will consider H.Res 296 affirming the United States' record on the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to that at this point in time. We haven't made that decision to move ahead. The committees, as the gentleman knows, are considering it, and if they decide that the House should move forward, then we will make that decision.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will respond as I responded last week. We are doing our constitutional duty of oversight of the administration and the actions of the President of the United States to determine whether or not there had been violations of law, whether the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. And when those hearings are concluded, obviously, they will make some determination and make recommendations to the House, as they do with other matters that the committees consider.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times the gentleman from Louisiana, the Republican whip, says that these are unfair hearings, or that they are secret hearings, or that Republicans can't participate, no matter how many times he says that, it will not be true. He talks about secret hearings. I will show you the front page of The Washington Post about the hearing yesterday. It is on the front page. Now, I know your Members can read. There are over 105 Members, 40 or so of your Members, who are authorized to sit in the committee. The President, Mr. Speaker, called the Republicans, and he has tweeted about how they need to be tougher. What I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, is: When are they going to focus on defending the Constitution of the United States? I ask the gentleman: Does he believe that the President is above the law?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as usual, the whip did not answer my question. I said, is the President above the law? But he wants to pound on the table, Mr. Speaker, because neither the facts nor the law is on his side. The process is consistent with the rules put in place by the current Secretary of State, Mr. Pompeo, and Mr. Trey Gowdy, who was a Member of this body. Let me ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker: Does he believe it appropriate that the Congress appropriates $391 million to help an ally confront Russia--which I understand Mr. Putin probably wasn't for--but does he believe that the President should have withheld that money from Ukraine to defend itself on its eastern front?

Mr. HOYER. He has no evidence of that. If the gentleman will yield, he has no evidence of that.