Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I love my 1 minute. I also love my glasses, so I can read what I want to say here. Thank you very much. I rushed up from my office. I was on a conference call. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for keeping it open. I want to thank Mr. McCaul for helping to bring this to the floor. Mr. Speaker, Americans, of course, knew when President Trump took office that he was inexperienced in foreign policy and national security. That doesn't mean he didn't have opinions, he did. But he hasn't been in the day-to-day work. That was alarming. But also from my view, alarming is his penchant for putting his own self interests ahead of America's interests and America's national security. That troubles the world. The disastrous consequences are becoming obvious to Americans more and more each day as we watch thousands of our Kurdish allies. And this is not an issue without some complexity, I understand that, but our Kurdish allies fleeing, ISIS gathering strength, and Iran and Russia and Assad advantaged. There has rightly been broad bipartisan shock and condemnation that President Trump would so recklessly endanger America's allies, permit the release of thousands of violent ISIS extremists and give in to Vladimir Putin's aims in Syria. In short, he just opened the door for ISIS to reclaim some power. Any terrorist attack they now take part in will be as a direct result of this action. President Trump has betrayed the trust, in my opinion, of the American people. He has also betrayed America's friends. The Kurdish forces in northern Syria have been among America's most reliable and effective local allies. It was their blood and sacrifice that led, in part, to us being significantly successful against ISIS. It is their young men and women in uniform who have been guarding ISIS prisoners, who, if released, have vowed to resume attacking Americans and destabilizing the Middle East. And in that effort, we may lose further American lives precious to us, precious to their families, precious to our country. Our Kurdish allies trusted us to have their backs. Loyalty is a two- way street. It took years to build them into an effective fighting force, now America is turning its back and undoing years of efforts and progress. How shameful. How irresponsible. The President said he took this action because he had pledged to get American troops out of the Middle East. Ironically, he took out about 2,000, or put them someplace else. And guess what? He sent an additional 2,000 troops to the Middle East. Now, it is Saudi Arabia, where ISIS is not, hopefully, doing much, at least where we are sending the troops. But how ironic it is to say that we are going to take troops out of the Middle East, and at the same time, we send more troops into the Middle East. America's reputation as a world leader depends on the bond of our word. Can we be trusted, or are we simply responsive that day for that issue? If we abandon our allies, we will have none when we need them to stand with us. Not only has President Trump abandoned the Kurds, but he has also refused to join with world leaders in considering the Turkish attack in the United Nations. Instead, he chose to stand with Vladimir Putin and is doing his bidding once again by handing large swaths of Syria over to his control. He is moving in as we speak. Indeed, as the front page of The Washington Post pointed out this week, Russia is now the one country that every country in the Middle East talks to and trusts to be a mediator. Is that an America that is great? America has abandoned that role and the power it brings. President Trump has also chosen to stand with Bashar al-Assad, as I said, a tyrant who has gassed his own people with chemical weapons, murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and caused the extraordinary refugee challenge that the Europeans have. He has chosen to play into the hands of the Iranian ayatollahs. The President says Iran is not our friend. He is right. We played into their hands with this action. In summary, Mr. Speaker, the President's actions empower ISIS, betray our Kurdish allies, embolden Russia, reward the Assad regime, benefit Iran, and endanger Israel. These developments were sadly predictable. Experts like Brett McGurk and Secretary Mattis said this is not the right thing to do. This is not a partisan issue. This is about America. This is about our allies. This is about international security and stability. From the moment the President made clear he wanted to abandon America's strategic interests in Syria, both McGurk and General Mattis, Secretary Mattis, expressed their opposition. These developments confirm the worst fears of so many Americans from both parties who have long questioned this President's wisdom or interest to protect our country and keep it safe in a dangerous world. It is critical, Mr. Speaker, that this House, the peoples' House, make clear to the world that President Trump's reckless actions do not carry the support of the American people. It is critical that we condemn Turkey's incursion as well, and to do so in a bipartisan way. That is what this legislation will do. Mr. Speaker, I commend all of those from the Foreign Affairs Committee who brought this to the floor. I know it was difficult for some, but it is the right thing to do. The House will do everything in its power to reassure our allies and remind our adversaries that America does not cut and run, that we stand by our word, hold true to our values, and stand with our friends. I hope they will hear us and understand that this action by this President must not mar the goodwill or erode the steadfast principles upon which our country has engaged with the world throughout our history and surely again in the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, read the bill, read the amendment that they offered. Eric Cantor called MTRs a gimmick. This is the gimmick of gimmicks. It does nothing for veterans' healthcare, not a single thing. You know it. I know it. Everybody in this House knows it. All it does is try to delay this bill for 10 years, and they are going to all vote against the bill. Mr. Speaker, this does nothing for veterans' care. If the gentleman cared about veterans' care, he would have offered it.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my heartfelt congratulations to Dr. Samuel L. Myers, Sr. on reaching his milestone centennial birthday this past April 18, which is being celebrated on September 27 at a gathering of friends, family, and community and national leaders at National Harbor in Maryland. From speaking out against segregation in the military as an Army captain during the Second World War to becoming one of the first African Americans to earn a doctorate in economics from Harvard University, from his efforts as part of the Civil Rights Movement to expand access to higher education to his championing of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) for more than half a century, Dr. Myers' life has been one of blazing trails and breaking down barriers. In 1967, Dr. Myers assumed the position of President of Bowie State University, the oldest HBUC in Maryland and one of the oldest in the country. Under his administration, enrollment increased 200 percent and tensions between the student body and officials were calmed by his skilled diplomacy and determination to ensure that high- quality education always came first. After ten years at Bowie State, Dr. Myers began an eighteen-year tenure as President of the National Association for Equal Opportunity (NAFEO). Representing 117 HBCUs, Dr. Myers fought tirelessly to secure much-needed funding for these colleges and universities to expand and offer more courses and degrees. I am proud, Madam Speaker, to be a member of the Congressional HBCU Caucus and to support Bowie State University and other HBCUs as they work hard to carry out their important mission of making educational achievement and career success more equitable in our country. Even after his retirement from NAFEO, Dr. Myers has been a force for good in the community, working since 1995 as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Minority Access, Inc., an organization that works to expand the access of under-represented groups to institutions of higher education, federal and state governments, and private corporations. Dr. Myers has spent decades fighting for the public good, for equality, for justice, and for opportunity. His impact on education in my home state of Maryland and in our country cannot be measured and will surely be long-lasting. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Dr. Myers for his lifetime of service and wishing him a very happy 100th birthday.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. On Tuesday, 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. I remind Members that is Tuesday, not Monday. We will not be in session on Monday. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including H.R. 1595, the SAFE Banking Act of 2019, as amended. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. The House will consider H.R. 2203, the Homeland Security Improvement Act, and H.R. 3525, the U.S. Border Patrol Medical Screening Standards Act. These bills will improve how the Department of Homeland Security oversees border issues in a humane and responsible manner, including the care of children. Members are of course advised that there is additional legislation that may come forward.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Clyburn and the Clyburn family very much appreciate his condolences and his remarks. Jim Clyburn and I have known each other for over half a century. His wife, Emily, he met during the course of the civil rights struggle. She, too, was a drum major for justice, as Jim Clyburn has been. She has, as the gentleman pointed out, been facing health challenges for some period of time. And, yes, she is in a better place. But as one who has lost his spouse, I know what a difficult time this is for Jim Clyburn. I would let all the Members know that there will be a service in Columbia, a wake, on Sunday at 5 o'clock, and the funeral will be in Charleston at 11 a.m. I intend to be in attendance. Any Member, I know, would be welcome to be there as well. Jim Clyburn has been a giant in this body. He has been a leader on our side of the aisle now for almost 20 years, and before that, a leader of the Congressional Black Caucus and somebody who has been a strong voice, particularly for rural communities and for people who are challenged either because of the color of their skin or their economic status. I know that Emily was his partner in those efforts, as the gentleman knows. She was a wonderful, warm woman and will be greatly missed. But the gentleman's observation that she is in a better place is one with which I agree, and I know that Jim Clyburn agrees as well. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I know that all Members join us in sending Jim Clyburn and the family our deepest sympathy and condolences.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. I don't have a timetable, but I share his view that we want to move this along. As I told him, and the Speaker was on the floor, we were trying to get to ``yes'' on this. Again, we appreciate Ambassador Lighthizer's good faith. We think he has been dealing in good faith on behalf of the administration and on behalf of getting to an agreement, so we appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we are eager to update and improve NAFTA so that it functions better for the American businesses and workers. However, for House Democrats, as the gentleman knows, getting NAFTA 2.0 done right means doing more than just changing its name. We need to make sure it changes actually its work, and by that, we mean enforcement. Both the Speaker and I voted for NAFTA. We were concerned and disappointed that the sidebars were not carried out, so we are pursuing that. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as the gentleman knows, has said: ``The commitments in the trade pact aren't worth the paper they are written on if they can't be enforced.'' Not only do we agree with that, but that has been our experience, so we are hoping that we get mechanisms to accomplish that objective. In 25 years, we have only had one successful enforcement action under NAFTA--dispute resolution procedures--and none in the past 20 years, so that is why we believe enforcement is so very important. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman--and I know he will find this as a positive--there is a meeting today with the task force that was set up by the Speaker, headed by Mr. Neal, with Mr. Lighthizer, so this process is under active and vigorous consideration. We hope we get to a place where the administration will be able to submit, pursuant to the statute, the proper agreement so that we can proceed on it, but we want to get this done.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me first say, if the gentleman wants to pursue bipartisanship--I know that they all want to use the word ``socialist,'' which was egregiously misidentified in an ad that I wrote to Mr. Scalise about, which was a hateful ad. My suggestion is ``liberal,'' this, that, and the other. The drug bill that we have is going to be dealing with private sector producers, privately owned, of prescription drugs. This is not anything about socialism, but I know the gentleman wants to use that word. I know his advisers apparently have told him that is going to be a catchword that politically will be great for the next election. But if the gentleman wants to seek bipartisanship, let's just not try to color everything we say in terms that clearly reek of partisanship, not bipartisanship. Now, as to the bill itself, very frankly, we introduced a bill yesterday. The committee has been working on it. When I say ``the committee,'' the Energy and Commerce, the Education and Labor, and the Ways and Means Committees have all been working on this bill. There has been no secret about it. We have been discussing it. It has three components, essentially, as the gentleman knows. It has a component of negotiation, which, of course, as the gentleman knows, the Veterans Administration does so right now. I don't know whether the gentleman thinks that is socialism in the Veterans Administration--maybe he does--but in any event, it is not a unique proposal. It puts inflation limits on drug prices so we can't have drug prices that people need to maintain their health and their lives increase 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 700, 800 percent in a very short period of time. We don't think that is really what ought to happen. Lastly, it restructures the medical part D benefit to cap out-of- pocket spending for seniors, somewhat as the Republicans did with their part D under President Bush. So this is a proposal that is doing what we said we would do in the last election, and that is to try to look at bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, lifesaving, life-enhancing, health-enhancing drugs, so that people are not priced out of the market or have to make a choice between food, mortgage, rent, and the prescription drugs which they need to be healthy. Now, I agree that we do need a bipartisan solution, but so does the President of the United States. When the gentleman says ``done in secret,'' let me give a quote that the President of the United States says: ``I like Senator Grassley's drug pricing bill very much. . . . `' I will say, I do not know the depths of Senator Grassley's bill, but it is Senator Grassley's bill, the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Now, continuing to quote the President: `` . . . and it's great to see Speaker Pelosi's bill today.'' That is the ``socialist'' bill to which the gentleman referred just now. Let's get it done in a bipartisan way. In other words, what the President of the United States is saying is the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has introduced a bill; Speaker Pelosi and others have introduced a bill. Let's try to work together on those bills. That is what President Trump said just the other day. That is what I expect we are going to do. So I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We hope we can work in a bipartisan way, because this is a very critical challenge that the American people face. They know they need these prescription drugs to stay alive, to stay well, to be able to continue to work. But if they are priced out of the market, they suffer; and, therefore, our economy suffers; and, therefore, we all suffer. So I share the gentleman's view that I hope we can get this done in a bipartisan way. Senator Grassley has a proposal; we have a proposal. Let's see what we can do together to assist the American people in having something that they absolutely must have.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wrote the gentleman a letter. Did he believe that that ad that I complained about and that I thought was so egregious, so disgusting, does he agree with me that that ad totally misrepresented what socialism is? It deluded the American people. It was a big lie. Does the gentleman agree with me?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we brought a bill to the floor that the gentleman spoke about that prohibited pay for delay, prohibited drug companies from paying generics not to bring their drugs to the market so that drug prices would be lower for consumers. Mr. Speaker, of the 194 Republicans, maybe even 98 Republicans--I don't know how many were elected at that point in time--5 of them voted for it, 190 voted against it. Mr. Scalise also said that we wanted to protect that no one with a preexisting condition would be denied healthcare. Five Republicans voted for that bill. Six years, the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, were in charge, totally. There was no effort to bring a bill to this floor to bring drug prices down. And, in fact, Americans know drug prices didn't come down. The President was a Republican, the House was Republican, the Senate was Republican. They didn't bring a bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker. Two of the three proposals in our bill are also in the Grassley bill. And, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have regular order. We have introduced a bill, it is going to go to committee, it is going to be subject to amendment, it is going to be subject to debate, it is going to be subject to hearings. Now, we will see whether it is a bipartisan process. Because, very frankly, the record of bipartisanship when the Republicans were in charge is pretty absent. Of the 19 major bills that we passed, we got 618 Republican votes, so they weren't too partisan. Now, admittedly, about 400 of those votes were on four bills that went through this place in a very bipartisan fashion. So I would hope that we see bipartisanship when the committee marks up this bill, and we will do what the President says he wants to do. We will see whether he supports that. They have the Grassley bill and now you have a Democratic bill in our House. They are going to have hearings in the Senate, led by Republicans, Mr. Speaker. We will have hearings here, led by Democrats. But Republicans and Democrats will both participate in those hearings, and it is going to be bipartisan, and we will see whether we can come up with bipartisanship. But the gentleman continues to want to make some political patina with this, some partisan patina, Mr. Speaker. I asked him, but he didn't respond. He says he hasn't seen the ad. I wish he would look at the ad. It is an egregious piece of political diatribe. But I would hope that he would also urge his Members to work together. And this business we negotiate for drugs right now, Mr. Speaker, through the Veterans Administration to ensure that our veterans get the best cost they can get. Apparently, that is okay, but doing the same thing, Mr. Speaker, for American consumers of prescription drugs who are not veterans is somehow characterized by the gentleman as government control. I urge the gentleman to proceed, as he speaks, on a bipartisan basis and see whether or not we can get to an agreement in this House. But we are going to pass something to bring drug prices down for the American consumer because that is what we promised to do, and we are going to do it. We hope we can do it in cooperation with everybody in this House, but we are going to do it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman didn't answer my question, of course.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with the standard of care at the VA, managed by the administration, which, of course, has had the Presidency for the last 3 years. Whether you pay $5 for prescription drugs or $50 for prescription drugs, that is not the standard of care. That is how much you are paying for the drug that you think helps either a veteran or a nonveteran. But let me say this: The gentleman keeps talking about, Mr. Speaker, these bipartisan bills. The reason they weren't bipartisan in passing this House is because we added ACA protections. We added preexisting condition provisions to those bills, and the Republicans, therefore, voted against. Why? Because they have been against the Affordable Care Act and its adoption, against it in the campaigns. When they had the opportunity to change it, they couldn't do it. They came up with a goose egg, Mr. Speaker. The President said, during the course of the campaign, that he was going to present a bill that included coverage for every American at a lower cost and a higher quality. I tell the press, as soon as he sends that bill down, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for it. He has been President now for 3 years, a little short of that. No bill has come down. The bill that the Speaker and majority leader went down to the White House and cheered about, look, we passed this bill, and they sent it to the Senate. The President was there at the White House. It was a great bill, and within 14 days, he called it a ``mean'' bill. Let me tell you what the President further said, Mr. Speaker, and the characterization differs from the characterization that my friend, the Republican whip, exhibited. The President endorsed Medicare drug price negotiations in his campaign and put forward a proposal to use international prices as a guide to limit out- of-control U.S. prices. That is what the gentleman's President said. The administration has endorsed the other two concepts of inflation limits on drug prices and improving Medicare part D as part of the legislation put forward by Senator Grassley. I guess everybody has their own definition of bipartisanship.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to start by congratulating Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger on working together. I want to congratulate the members of the Appropriations Committee. I know there wasn't always agreement. I am hopeful, as we go forward, we can reach agreement on the individual bills or the minibuses or omnibus that we will ultimately pass to fund government in a timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, I know that Mrs. Lowey and Ms. Granger worked together towards that objective. I want to congratulate all the members. Mr. Speaker, I am also proud of the fact that we funded 96 percent of the government through this House prior to June 30 of this year. That has not been done in over a decade, and it was the hard work of the chair and the ranking member and the members of the committee. Even though there was not agreement on the substance at the end, without that cooperation, that could not have happened, so I thank the committee and its leadership. As majority leader and as a member of the Appropriations Committee, albeit on leave, I am focused, and we are focused as a majority, on doing our job and providing certainty for the military, for Federal agencies, for workers, for businesses, and for the American people that the Congress can, in fact, do its work in a responsible way. I regret that the Senate has not done its work. They have not passed a single appropriations bill, not one. By the time we came back in September, they had not passed a single bill out of committee. So this CR is necessary, as the Senate failed to introduce even a single appropriations bill before August for the first time in more than three decades, let alone mark up or bring it to the floor, as I said. That is why we need to make sure the government doesn't shut down. We don't have to have drama. We don't have to have panic. We don't have to have people saying: ``Why can't the Congress do its work?'' We are bringing this bill to the floor, and we are going to pass it today with, I hope, a large bipartisan vote and send it to the Senate. It is my understanding that they intend to pass this so that we will not have the angst, the lack of confidence in this institution, and the instability because coming right up to the precipice of closure is avoided. To that end, we have on the floor, as I said, a continuing resolution to prevent a shutdown. This CR, this continuing resolution, authorizes the operations of government through November 21. There was some discussion about going into the middle of December. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues and I want to say to my committee, there is no reason on God's green Earth we cannot complete our business on the appropriation process by November 21, not a single reason, except procrastination and an unwillingness to compromise. Americans have sent people with different views to this Congress, but notwithstanding those differences in views, they expect us to be able to work. One of the great pleasures that I have had in this Congress is serving on the Appropriations Committee, particularly when I went there. It, frankly, has become more partisan than it was when I first went on in January of 1983. I came to Congress in 1981. Sil Conte was the ranking member from Massachusetts on the Appropriations subcommittee on which I served and of the committee, and we were able to work together, resolve our differences. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that Mrs. Lowey and Ms. Granger have that same psychology. This bill will extend the authorizations that would otherwise expire at the end of this month, including the Export-Import Bank, the National Flood Insurance Program, the Higher Education Act, and a number of important health programs. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Pallone, chairman of the committee, for working to make sure that we could do that in a timely fashion as well. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can pass this on a bipartisan basis, as I said, and move forward in good faith to do the job the American people sent us here to do: assure the operations of their government in an efficient and effective way on their behalf, a government that expands justice, opportunity, economic security, and strengthens our national defense. We came to a bipartisan budget agreement on lifting spending caps in July, and that was a good first step. Next, we must come to a bipartisan agreement on how to divvy up the allotment to each of the 12 appropriations bills, what we euphemistically refer to as 302(b) allocations. We need to make progress and compromise on that issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends in the Senate to not squander the extra time this CR provides, approximately 7 working weeks, and come to agreement among themselves first and then with us. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Lowey, her subcommittee chairs, Ms. Granger and her ranking members for their hard work moving the House bills so expeditiously and producing a CR that will avert a shutdown at the end of September. We can get the job done. Again, let me reiterate in closing, we can complete this job prior to November 21, and that is exactly what we ought to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to thank Mr. McHenry for his leadership as ranking member of the committee, and for his bringing this to the floor. I want to thank my very good friend, not my Republican friend, my very good friend, Fred Upton, for his work and his leadership on this piece of legislation, and my dear friend, Annie Kuster, for her leadership. This is personal for me. I am so happy to rise in support of this legislation. I went to Georgetown Law School, and I set up practice just about 5 or 7 miles from here in the late sixties. And in the seventies, late seventies, I had a law clerk; he also went to Georgetown Law School. He was a young, bright, extraordinarily able individual. His name was Steve. Steve is now a Federal District Court Judge in New Hampshire. He had an extraordinary wife, and her name was Christa. Steve and Christa became very dear friends of Judy's and mine. In those days, I had enough time to sail, and I had a sailboat. Steve and Christa, from time to time, would go sailing with Judy and me and perhaps some of my children. I remember Christa with the wind in her hair, beautiful outside but, more importantly, beautiful inside, full of life, full of excitement, full of vision for what she, as a teacher, could do for her children. Some of you may recall that Christa's motto as the Teacher in Space was: ``I touch the future. I teach.'' And she was looking forward with such excitement, not only to leave the bounds of Earth, but to return to Earth and engage with her students; to share her experience; to share the excitement and adventure of going into a new frontier that we call space. It is so appropriate that we pass this coin bill in her name. Christa was my friend. She was the best of us, as were her fellow astronauts on that fated day at the beginning of 1986, that, for a few seconds, burned so brightly with so much hope, and whose lives were snuffed out in an instant as the Challenger blew up. Christa, during the course of the competition to be the teacher in space, would visit my office that was in the Longworth Building, in the back of the building on the fifth floor. Mr. Speaker, every time she would come to Washington, she would come to my office, and we would visit as she was participating in the competition, and I saw her excitement and her anticipation. Obviously, NASA saw it as well because, out of those 10,000, they chose her to be the representative of the most important profession in our country, the teaching profession, without whom our society cannot succeed. It is so appropriate that this coin bill, as the chairwoman has said, will benefit a program called FIRST, that Dean Kamen, one of the great engineers and inventors in our country and, indeed, the world, established; and now we have literally thousands and thousands and thousands of young people all over this world participating in STEM activities and, particularly, robotics, who will be enabled to pursue this program more fully. Surely, no one is going to vote against this bill, but we can all be very proud of the fact that we not only memorialize an extraordinary fellow citizen, fellow human being, who, as Kennedy said, brought her energy and her faith and her devotion to making her country, her community, and our children better. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for bringing this bill to the floor. I thank Mr. McHenry for his support. I thank Mr. Upton, and I thank Ms. Kuster. This is a thing that is good to do. America is better for Christa McAuliffe's life. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support for this bill. Christa McAuliffe was more than just a teacher and an American hero who lost her life in the pursuit of science and our understanding of the universe. Christa was a friend. Her husband, Steven, now senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, worked as my law clerk for two years. I got to know Christa then, and before the couple moved to New England, Christa taught in Prince George's County schools in my district. As a graduate of Bowie State University and then as a teacher for eight years in Prince George's County, she inspired so many young people in Maryland to dream big and aim for the stars. Kind, intelligent, and compassionate--Christa was a perfect choice for the ``Teacher in Space'' program, to which she was selected out of more than 11,000 applicants. Christa was the ideal candidate. She could connect with anyone; her personality was magnetic. She had a way of inspiring every student to give his or her best, and she radiated a joy and love of teaching every time she entered a classroom or stood up to speak. With trademark poise and determination, Christa approached the challenge of space travel like she did all others: with boundless passion. I remember when she spoke to over 12,000 people from Prince George's County School System after her selection for the ``Teacher in Space'' program. Everyone in the audience--from the youngest students to the oldest teachers, parents and guests--we all felt like we were about to go on the journey alongside her. Christa spoke about her goals for the spaceflight, how she wanted to get students and teachers around the country excited about science and space. She spoke of how the `new frontier' of space belongs to all of us as the children of earth. And she told us that she would be returning to teaching after her journey to space, because that was what she loved, and nothing could stop her from doing what she loved. Of course, tragically, we know that she never had that chance. Today, we have an opportunity to help make sure that Christa can continue to inspire and instill lessons about science and space. Even more than three decades after she and the six astronauts perished in the Challenger disaster, we can carry on her legacy by promoting S.T.E.M. learning with this new commemorative coin program named in her memory. The proceeds will benefit the F.I.R.S.T. Robotics Program, which engages and inspires future generations to become leaders in S.T.E.M. fields. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Christa's life and building on her legacy by supporting this legislation with strong, bipartisan approval.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, 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 Wednesday and Thursday of next week, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate, and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, and last votes are 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, Mr. Speaker, will consider a clean continuing resolution to fund the government past September 30. While the House did its work, and sent 10 appropriation bills to the Senate, funding 96 percent of the government--the first time that is been done in over three decades--I am disappointed that the Senate failed to pass a single appropriation bill. Not one. Not only that, they haven't filed any until just the other day when we got back from the summer break. I am disappointed that the Senate failed to introduce a single appropriation bill for the first time in more than three decades. So that while we were very successful, the Senate failed to move forward. Therefore, as we wait for them to complete their work so that we can begin conference negotiations, a continuing resolution will be necessary to prevent another government shutdown like the one we experienced earlier this year. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 1423, Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, called the FAIR Act, and the legislation would eliminate forced arbitration in employment, consumer, and civil rights cases so that Americans, as they have under the Constitution, would have the right to seek redress of grievances through the courts. This would restore access to justice for millions of Americans who are currently locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I understand the gentleman said a lot of things about reaching bipartisan agreements and all of this sort of stuff, and the Senate needed 60 votes. They didn't introduce a bill. Not a single appropriation bill was introduced. They had the same 60-vote requirement last year, and they passed a lot of bills last year. The reason they didn't pass bills is that the President of the United States wouldn't come to the table and agree on caps. They could have done the same thing we did. We are an independent branch of government. We are the Article I branch of government. We appropriate money. We spend money. But the Senate has not done its work. If you brought the bills to the floor and couldn't get 60 votes, we get it. But I will tell my friend that there is great frustration. For the first time since my friend has been a Member of the Congress, we passed 96 percent of the funding for government by June 30, otherwise known as 3 full months before the end of the fiscal year, giving the Senate a lot of time. But, no, we had to wait and wait and wait until the President sent down Secretary Mnuchin, and we finally made an agreement on 302(a)s, in other words, the caps, what we were going to spend. With all due respect to all this talk about bipartisanship and that we need to work together, that is, of course, true. It was not true in the Congresses when my friend's party was in the majority. The Republicans passed partisan bills, and they went over to the Senate. The Senate didn't take them, and we went back and forth. There has been no back and forth. We did our work, and although the Republicans disagreed with the numbers publicly, privately, very frankly, a lot of my friend's Members told me the numbers were pretty good numbers, and they liked them, including defense. We passed a Defense bill with a substantial increase for our troops, readiness, operations, and training. I say that to Mr. Whip not to criticize my friend but to simply say that of all this verbiage about being nice to get together and do something, the regular order is we pass bills, the Senate passes bills, and then we have a conference. Unfortunately, we have gotten away from that, which I think is very bad for the House, the Senate, and the American people. We cannot go to conference if the Senate doesn't even pass a bill, doesn't even introduce a bill, waiting on the President of the United States to say, ``Simon says.'' We can't get a bill supported by 90 percent of the American people, comprehensive background checks, which 90 percent, a majority of my friend's party, a majority of my party, and a majority of independents thinks makes common sense. We passed it in February, and we can't even have it on the floor in the United States Senate. Not only are they not doing appropriations bills, but they are not doing any other bills either. They spend all their time on judges. We are a little frustrated on this side because we have done our work. Ninety-six percent of government is funded, and, yes, there could have been differences of opinion. They should have passed bills and said, no, we don't agree. Mr. Speaker, the problem they would have had, I tell my friend, is that they didn't want to have bipartisan bills because, yes, it would have required them to get 60 votes, and they didn't want to make the compromises necessary to get 60 votes. We are here, just a little more than 15 days before the end of the fiscal year, and the Senate has not passed a single bill while we have funded 96 percent of government. This CR is necessary. Nobody wants to shut down government, I hope. Hopefully, the CR will not have anything that either party will disagree with, and we will extend some things that need to be extended because we haven't acted upon them in a timely fashion. But I am hopeful that the CR will get to the Senate, that we will pass the CR, that there will be no drama, and then, as the gentleman suggests, and I agree with him, that we will sit down in a bipartisan way and try to reach agreement on each 1 of the 12 appropriations bills and either put them separately or in a minibus or omnibus and pass them to fund the government and not have what we had last year and into the first part of 2017, a shutdown of the Government of the United States. That was not good for the people of our country, not good for our government employees, and not good for the Congress of the United States to be unable to do its work, resulting in a shutdown of government. I appreciate the gentleman's sentiment about doing things in a bipartisan way, but you can't do things in a bipartisan way if they don't come to the floor. If the leader over there doesn't have 60 votes, then he needs to reach a compromise because we need to get our business done. We passed all of our bills. Some were not partisan, I think, in many ways, but there was a determination not to vote for them because we hadn't reached a caps number. I think that was unfortunate because I think, as someone who served on the committee for 23 years, Mr. Speaker, we passed our bills in many, many instances--most instances--in a bipartisan fashion. I didn't want the comment to go not responded to, in terms of the Senate's refusal and unwillingness to act and do its business. And here we are, not a single bill--not one--has been passed through the committee. The gentleman's party has the majority on the committee. At least my friend could report them out of committee and then work on getting 60 votes.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the defense bill passed this House with almost every Republican voting against it. It was a bill that provided $733 billion, a figure that the Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested publicly. It was a figure that I know personally was a figure that was deemed acceptable by the leadership of the authorizing committee and the appropriating committee on the Republican side. The rhetoric was totally partisan. We have now made a deal, and we are now going to save defense because we did $5 billion more. The figure last year, of course, was somewhere around $700 billion, a little over. I will tell my friend that we believe on our side of the aisle that the opposition to the defense bill was totally partisan, no attempt at bipartisanship. Yes, the Republicans had some success in getting bipartisan bills through. Why? Because we were prepared to vote in a bipartisan way. That is the difference. We were prepared to vote in a bipartisan way. We were prepared to accept my friend's party was the majority. Mr. Speaker, we understand when you are in the minority you work to get the best objective you think is possible. We did that, and the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, says that they got bipartisan bills done because Democrats voted for them, including me. But I know the number was an acceptable number, and it was a number suggested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yet we heard rhetoric after rhetoric of how this was letting down the Defense Department. What did they do? They made a deal, not $733 billion, $738 billion. My goodness, what an extraordinary difference. They voted against funding the men and women in uniform, funding operations, and funding overseas contingencies. I hope that we get off this. If you want to talk bipartisan, act bipartisan, Mr. Speaker. Talk is cheap. It was clear that Democrats, in fact, when the Republicans were in the majority, did vote on a number of occasions, not every occasion, for bipartisanship. But you can't have bipartisanship if you don't introduce a bill. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have the majority in the United States Senate on the committee. They don't need 60 votes in the committee. They don't need 60 percent. They don't need two-thirds. All they need is a simple majority to pass a bill out of committee, as the gentleman pointed out when he said we did fund some pieces of government before. Why? Because we got bipartisan agreement. And I have never seen, as I say, in three decades, the Senate fail to even introduce an appropriation bill prior to the end of July. I hope the Senate will move with some degree of alacrity. I hope that we will get to agreement on these 12 bills. I hope that we will fund the government and not have a shutdown, as we had the last time. The first time it has ever happened in a new Congress where the government was shutdown--all over the wall--which a number of Republicans have said is not a useful thing to do. I won't name them. I am sure the minority whip, the Republican whip, knows a lot of them. They served in this body. Some are chairman of committees over there now. So I am hopeful that we will move together on the appropriations process and do our business, do it on time, as we have done here in the House so that the American people can be well-served.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?