Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) for yielding. We can discuss all sorts of bills, but we discussed the appropriations process. And the gentleman expressed how they were able to pass 70 percent of funding of the government because they had the Defense bill and the Labor-Health, which are the two biggest bills, passed and signed by the President. Why were they able to do that, Mr. Speaker, when it requires 60 votes in the Senate? They didn't have 60 votes in the Senate because Democrats acted in a bipartisan way to affect that end. This year, we have had no opportunity to do that. We have had no opportunity to conference on our bills. Republicans lead the Senate, passed your bills, and if you can't get 60 votes, yes, you would have to compromise in the Senate. You didn't compromise when you were in charge, frankly, on an awful lot of things that had closed rules, more than any other Congress, so we didn't have an opportunity to even amend. But that aside, when you claim that you passed those bills you did, and the only reason you could do it is because the Democrats acted in a bipartisan fashion because you did not have the votes to pass them on your own, you needed Democratic votes. Democrats gave you those votes because we knew that in order to get things done you had to move in a bipartisan fashion. That is the only way you were able to do it. We have not been given the opportunity in the United States Senate because there are no bills yet to consider, except for the last 3 days the bills came forward. But for the first 9 months of the year, no bills came forward, Mr. Speaker, not one.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee spoke about their process. Their process has been a fact-finding process. That is our responsibility as a Congress. That is his responsibility and the committee's responsibility as a committee. The majority party claims that they have an agenda for the people, and the people believe we ought to exercise our responsibility. That is what the committee is doing. I do not want to anticipate what the committee's findings will ultimately be nor what the committee's actions will finally be. We will wait to see. But it is exercising its responsibility as a coequal branch of government as provided in the Constitution. I am not going to get into an argument, Mr. Speaker, about the premises in the Mueller report, other than to say I disagree with the characterization made by the Republican whip. That will be for another day to argue that. The committee is doing its duty and it will continue to do so. And if it decides that that requires further action, my presumption is it will pursue that as well.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I didn't want to get into this debate, and I don't want to prolong it, but I do not want the premises articulated by the whip, Mr. Speaker, to stand unobjected to. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the Mueller report is replete with instances of cooperation by members of the Trump team with the Russians, page after page after page. As a matter of fact, one of them was Page, of collusion. Now, ``collusion'' is not a legal term. ``Conspiracy'' is the legal term. Mr. Mueller said we didn't look at collusion because it was not a legal premise. In fact, Mr. Mueller made it very clear that the reason they didn't find criminal wrongdoing was because they believed, under Justice Department rules, a President cannot be indicted during the course of his term. They did not absolve him. Whether it was obstruction of justice, using a foreign government that is, essentially, not our ally, not our friend, or meeting with Putin secretly and not allowing the American people or the Congress to know what was said, my friend's premise that there is no smoke, no fire, is wrong. Very frankly, as someone who has served here a long time and who has seen some of the most irresponsible attacks on the President during the Obama administration--hearings, over and over and over again. A tragedy in Benghazi--seven hearings, seven hearings, all concluded nothing there, so they had an eighth hearing. The gentleman talks about Judiciary. Eight hearings on Benghazi, four lives lost tragically, with an attempt over and over and over again to be made a political issue. The eighth found nothing there either. When I see this wringing of hands, Mr. Speaker, I am not impressed. I have been here for a long time. I have seen irresponsible action, and the American people have seen it. The Judiciary Committee is doing what it pledged to do when they all raised their hands to defend and support the Constitution of the United States of America. The President would like us to think everything is fake news. The gentleman hasn't used ``fake news'' but ``the witch hunt.'' ``Poor me. I am the victim of all these people,'' when, daily, the President says things that are demonstrably not true. Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee will continue to pursue its duties, as it needs to do.

Mr. HOYER. Eight hearings, all Republican-led.

Mr. HOYER. And all found nothing there.

Mr. HOYER. All found nothing there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Eight hearings found nothing there.

Mr. HOYER. All led by Republicans.

Mr. HOYER. Eight times you looked into it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have said all along that we want to get to yes on the USMCA. Frankly, we think it is an improvement over NAFTA, which needs improving. As the gentleman may know, the Speaker and I were here when we voted on NAFTA. We both voted for it. There were some promises made and side agreements that the rights of workers and the environment would be protected. Unfortunately, that did not turn out to be true, so that, in adopting a change to NAFTA, we want to make sure that the promises made in the agreement are promises that can be enforced. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has often said, the commitments in a trade pact aren't worth the paper they are written on if they can't be enforced. Mr. Speaker, that has been the posture of the Speaker, myself, and of so many others, that enforcement is critical. Unfortunately, the NAFTA enforcement mechanisms have been a failure. In 25 years, as I am sure the whip knows, the U.S. has taken only one successful enforcement action under the NAFTA dispute resolution procedure, and none in the past 20 years. Not a single enforcement has prevailed. We have been completely unable to enforce its labor provisions, not one successful enforcement action. We want to get to yes. And, yes, I want to say that Ambassador Lighthizer is somebody who we respect and think is operating in good faith. We think he is a positive interlocutor. He is somebody who we can work with and have been working with. On the other hand, we sent a letter 6 weeks ago, and as the gentleman pointed out, we got an answer yesterday. So, it is taking some time for our task force to get answers to questions and to determine how we can move forward to ensure that the matters included in the agreement become reality, not simply words on paper. That is important for workers. It is important for our environment. Very frankly, it is also important in terms of trying to contain drug prices, here and around the world. The gentleman talked about prescription drugs. That is one of the items that is still in dispute. We want to get to yes. We think this is an improvement on what exists. Therefore, I am hopeful that we will be able to get to an agreement. We believe it will require that the agreement be opened and that enforcement be included so that, as the chamber said, it can really be enforced. If that happens, I am hopeful that we can pass that agreement, with the agreement of our friends in labor, with our friends at the Chamber of Commerce, and in a bipartisan way on this floor. Let's hope that happens. But we have made it very, very clear that, if it is just words on paper and not enforceable, it is not a good agreement for America or America's workers. But I hope that we can move forward and achieve an agreement on this issue so that we can pass it.

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 Tuesday, September 17, 2019, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I thank Mr. Bishop for his leadership as well. I rise in strong support of this bill introduced by Mr. Cunningham from South Carolina and two other bills on the floor this week that will be considered. All three are bipartisan bills. I thank Mr. Cunningham for his leadership on this particular issue. A permanent moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in pristine, untouched areas will help protect ecosystems and economies all along our Nation's Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. The other bills we will be considering this week will prevent oil and gas drilling along the Gulf Coast of Florida and protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Trump administration is forcing a false choice between energy security and the health and safety of our coastal and Arctic environments. If we fail to protect vulnerable coastal and Arctic ecosystems, then we put at risk the livelihoods of millions of Americans in those communities that depend on their continued health and abundance. In coastal communities on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico, tourism, outdoor recreation, and fishing are crucial to their economies. In Alaska, the Gwich'in people rely on the carefully balanced Arctic ecosystem for hunting, fishing, and their ancient way of life. Drilling in these areas creates an unacceptable risk both to our environment and to the people who live in those communities. Mr. Chair, the United States is now the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. No one would have thought that possible even a decade ago, yet here we are. Thank to advances in technology, over the past 6 years, we have doubled the amount of oil we export. All of that has been made possible without touching vulnerable environments like the Arctic refuge or off the coast of my home State of Maryland, the Atlantic or the Pacific. The Trump administration is proposing to open the entire eastern seaboard for oil and gas development, from the Gulf of Maine to the Straits of Florida. States up and down the Atlantic, including my own State, oppose this move. We have seen what happens when something goes wrong, as was the case with the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. An oil spill making its way into the Chesapeake Bay and destroying our world-class fisheries or harming the beautiful beaches of Maryland's Chesapeake and Atlantic shores would, frankly, be devastating. Instead of doubling down on fossil fuels, we ought to be working to reconfigure our economy to meet the challenges of climate change and seize opportunities from developing new clean energy technologies and leading the world in transitioning to a low- and eventually zero-carbon economy. The Democratic-led House already, Mr. Chair, took action on climate change earlier this year with the passage of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act, which would uphold our commitment to the Paris climate agreement that the President inadvisably withdrew from. We will also continue taking meaningful action to stop the Trump administration's rollback of rules meant to protect clean air, clean water, and natural environments for generations to come. Our children, Mr. Chair, and our grandchildren--and, yes, our great-grandchildren-- deserve to inherit an Earth and an America that is clean, healthy, and sustainable. We ignore this challenge, Mr. Chair, at our peril. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) for leading this effort; I thank Mr. Cunningham; and I rise in strong support of the legislation we are going to consider.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman, Mr. Yarmuth, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for yielding. I thank Mr. Womack for his leadership, both as chairman, now as ranking member on the committee, as we look to pursue fiscally responsible paths, but also fiscal paths that will invest, knowing the national security from the defense standpoint, but the national security from the domestic standpoint. Obviously, if we have a strong defense but our education system is wanting, our economic system is wanting, our healthcare system is wanting, we will have a national security problem. Mr. Speaker, I rise, therefore, in support of this bipartisan legislation, which formalizes the agreement reached earlier this week by Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Mnuchin on behalf of the President. It has the support of Senators Schumer, McConnell--the Republican leader-- and the House Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy. This is what we have been working toward for a very long time, and I am pleased that we are able to secure an agreement before the end of the July work period. This will provide certainty for the American people by providing the top-line guidance necessary for appropriators and the full House and Senate to complete work on funding the government for fiscal year 2020. Ideally, we would do that before September 30 of the coming months. But this agreement was made possible by virtue of, in my view, the fact that we passed 10 appropriations bills to fund 96 percent of the government before the end of June. That hasn't been done before. Now, there have been 10 bills passed back in 2006, 13 years ago, but it did not include Labor-Health, so it left out a very big chunk of government funding. I am proud of the fact that we did that, but it also set a mark. It set an objective. It set, through the chairman's deeming, the numbers that the appropriators could mark up their bills, that we could mark them up in June. It set an expectation of what we could do and should do. It was also achievable because Democrats were united in our determination to deliver our promise to end the constant brinksmanship that characterized the last several years and restore responsible government for the people. It is also, in my view, a result of the fact that Secretary Mnuchin wanted to have a fiscally responsible and knowable end to the differences between the two parties, which undermined our economic security and undermined the confidence of the American people and the international community in the financial stability of our country. To that end, I am glad that this agreement also suspends the debt limit. Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, we ought to do away with the debt limit. It is a phony issue. It bears no relation to reality. It is just a game. It is a political gimmick, an item of demagoguery for the Members. Very frankly, we set a debt limit when we buy something or we borrow something. The United States is going to pay for what it buys, and it is going to pay back what it borrows. That is the debt limit. This phony number that we are now suspending for a couple of years, I think that is what we should do. But, frankly, if it were up to me, I would do away with the debt limit, not because I don't want to see us bring down the debt, but because I think it bears no relationship to our needs, our challenges, our opportunities. Those who would have held hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, as some have done in the past to demand partisan concessions, will be prevented from throwing the legislative process into chaos as they have done. With the threat of default gone and the danger of sequester-level budget cuts removed--and thank goodness, we will see the end of the sequester, which, as I said, bore no relationship to needs and opportunities and responsibilities. With that threat gone, we can now move forward together to invest in fighting poverty, expanding opportunities, strengthening our communities, and, yes, defending our Nation and our allies. I want to thank Chairman Yarmuth, Chairwoman Lowey, Chairman Neal, and Ranking Member Womack, who is my friend and who I think is a very responsible, constructive Member of the Congress of the United States trying to work toward fiscal responsibility. Let there be no mistake: We are going to have to make some tough decisions in the years ahead to make sure that our fiscal house is in order. Mr. Speaker, the American people ought to know we are receiving the lowest revenue in a very long time, I don't know whether in history-- probably not in history--but a very low level of revenue to the government. But we are buying a lot of stuff, and we have got to bring those in balance, what we are willing to pay for and what we need to buy, whether it is in services, either on Social Security or Medicare or anything else, or on operating expenses, on an annual basis. This is an example, Mr. Speaker, of how we can restore the faith of the American people in their government--avoid a shutdown, act responsibly, reach agreements, create consensus--by showing them we can be responsible stewards of the economy, that we can advance our democratic values and priorities through bipartisan means, and that we can demonstrate that government can work for the people it serves. I hope we can all come together today, Mr. Speaker, and approve it, sending a strong sign of support to encourage the Senate to do the same, and to do so quickly. I urge the President, as he said today in a communication to his Republicans, he said House Republicans should support the 2-year budget agreement, which greatly helps our military and our vets. I am totally with him. I am pleased that the President supports this agreement. I am pleased that we reached this agreement. I would hope that we could all vote for this agreement, not because as, so many have said, it is perfect, but because it is the result of honest negotiations and discussions between rational people who know that we have a job to do for America, and we are prepared to do it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the history of the House. Some 21 years ago, a deranged individual came through the door that we now call the Memorial Door and took the lives of two of our officers. I rise to pay tribute to my constituent Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson from the State of Virginia. Both of them were shot and killed defending this Capitol 21 years ago today, July 24, 1998. A lone gunman burst through what we now call the Memorial Door and attacked this sacred home of American democracy. These brave officers, whom we remember today, placed themselves in the line of fire and gave their lives to protect Members, staff, and visitors in the building that morning. Memorial Door, Mr. Speaker, is right outside my office. I go through it almost every day. Every time I pass through it, I look at the memorial plaque and remember these two extraordinary and brave men whose sacrifice will not be forgotten by those who serve in and work in this House, by their brothers and sisters in the Capitol Police force who still stand sentry and watch over it, and by their grateful fellow Americans. Today, America, let us pay tribute to Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson and give our thanks to all the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police and, indeed, to all law enforcement officers who, every morning, get up and put a badge perhaps on their chest or on their belt or in their wallet and go out to protect us, their neighbors, their friends. Let us thank all law enforcement officers in communities across this country for their service, their dedication, and their sacrifices, which make the exercise of democracy possible. Honoring Melinda Walker Upon Her Retirement as Chief Reporter of Debates

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I just spoke about two who served our Capitol and our country. Unhappily, they lost their lives. I now speak about one who has served our House of Representatives as an institution much more happily, because she has served so well and so faithfully and so long and is now retiring, hopefully, to a very happy retirement. We could not do our job representing the American people without the tireless and sometimes thankless labors of the men and women who make this House function behind the scenes. They sit at the desk behind us. They sit at the upper rostrum. They make a difference. And they record what we have to say. From the Clerk's Office to the Parliamentarian staff, from the C-SPAN crew to the stenographers, the nonpartisan, professional staff who enable the work of the House and its Members are central to the success of our constitutional mission. The House has relied on the services of shorthand reporters of debates for almost 200 years, and the verbatim proceedings of House business have been published as the Congressional Record since 1873. We have a young woman who is now taking down my remarks, which may or may not be profound, but somebody will be able to say: ``What did Hoyer say?'' ``What did my Representative say?'' A division of the Office of the Clerk, the Office of Official Reporters is charged with providing nonpartisan, professional stenographic services for the House floor, committees, and leadership. It has grown from a 5-person shop in the 19th century to a diverse 43-person operation today. They work extraordinarily long hours; they work very hard; and they are extraordinarily competent. Today, I join all my colleagues in thanking one of those outstanding, wonderful individuals who is retiring as the Chief Reporter of Debates, Melinda Walker. Melinda is with us on the floor today. Melinda, thank you very much. And I know, Mr. Speaker, if it weren't out of order, I would mention that her family is in the gallery, but because that is not in order, I won't do that. Melinda will step down in August, after more than 20 years of service to the House of Representatives. A proud native of Texas, Melinda came to the House in 1999, after serving as a court reporter for the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania. Her career began after graduating from the Stenograph Institute of Texas in 1989, and her work took her around the country and across the world, with positions in the United Kingdom, the Caribbean, and South Africa. Melinda has reported both House committee hearings and floor proceedings. She has taken down committee testimony from two Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and three Secretaries of State, among many others. On the floor, Melinda has reported the State of the Union messages for three Presidents, as well as the remarks of numerous foreign dignitaries during joint meetings of Congress. Upon Melinda's promotion to Chief Reporter in 2015, she led the team of reporters and staff in charge of the production of the Congressional Record. Under her watch, the office has been successful in meeting its daily production deadlines, while capturing the intricate parliamentary nuances of House proceedings. Melinda has contributed a fully revised and updated style and formatting manual, more than 200 pages long, for the Office of Official Reporters. Americans will be advantaged by that work for decades to come. She has been recognized by the National Court Reporters Association as a Registered Professional Reporter and a Certified Manager of Reporting Services, and she remains a certified shorthand reporter in her native Texas. Melinda plans to return to her hometown of San Saba, Texas, and spend more time with her family and faithful dog, Bleu. Lucky dog to have Melinda back. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Melinda Walker for her many years of distinguished and dedicated service to the House and in wishing her the very best in retirement. Melinda, we owe you and your colleagues a debt of gratitude. You silently serve and sit and listen to verb after noun after adjective after word after word after word--and you stay awake. It is amazing. And you do it so well, to the advantage of all of us who serve here, but, much more importantly, to the advantage of the people of the United States, who will know what their Representatives say on their behalf and will be, therefore, able, in a democracy, to make a sound judgment as to whether those words are the words they want intoned on this floor on their behalf. So, Melinda, to you and to all of your colleagues, we say thank you. Godspeed. Be well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I like the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He and I are friends. We disagree. I proudly voted against the tax bill which, I think, spiked the deficit, and we had a continuation of the extraordinary growth of jobs and the economy under the Obama administration, and that has continued in a straight line. It didn't spike up--straight line. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Raise the Wage Act. This is direct--not indirect, not trickle down, direct--saying to some of the people who worked hardest and make the least: We are going to help. We think what you do is valuable to our community and to our society. We need to make certain that wages keep pace with the cost of living. We haven't done that. For 10 years, we haven't given a raise. We need to value the labor that our people contribute into the economy. That is why we have a Federal minimum wage, to ensure that everyone who works hard, full time, ought to be able to afford, not simply to get by, but to try to get ahead. I have heard from many in my district who have told me that increasing the minimum wage will have a major impact on their incomes and their lives. Dana Hudson from Owings in Calvert County, Maryland, makes the minimum wage of $10.10 an hour and supplements his income with farming on his land. He is 60 years old and looking ahead to retirement, knowing that a higher minimum wage in his final years of working will go a long way towards giving him and his wife retirement security. Delano Alexander of Clinton, Maryland, is an environmental services aide at Prince George's Hospital Center. He earns $12.85 an hour, presently, and if we pass this bill, he will get an income boost through the years to help him and his family get ahead. Victor Reyes of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, started his career as a nonunion day laborer barely making a living. Now he has a union construction job, and he is earning better pay. He wrote to ask me to support a higher minimum wage so that others who are working with him and haven't found better jobs can get the same economic security he now has. We referred to 27 million, 33 million--whatever that number is between 27 and 33--are going to get a raise by this bill. That didn't happen in the tax bill. Some of the richest people in America got a huge increase, but not the average working guy and gal. In June, we marked 10 years since the last minimum wage increase went into effect, the longest period without an increase since the minimum wage was first introduced under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. I was proud to bring legislation to the floor in 2007 to raise the minimum wage the last time Congress did so, and I am proud to do it again today. This is long overdue, something the previous Republican majority should have made a priority but failed to accomplish. Today, low-income workers in our economy are getting a bad deal with a minimum wage that doesn't even allow many workers to get by, let alone get ahead working 40 hours a week and living in poverty. That is not a successful American economy, because 10 years have passed without an increase. Workers stuck earning the current minimum wage of just $7.25 an hour have effectively received a 17 percent pay cut over the last 10 years. That is why the House will vote today on the Raise the Wage Act, which will gradually raise the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, 6 years from now. This bill also eliminates the subminimum wage for those with disabilities, which will ensure their equal pay and the ability to live with independence. Many States and municipalities have already raised their minimum wages to this level, and it has not caused the dire consequences that some on the other side of the aisle have predicted. My home State of Maryland took action earlier this year to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. I am proud of that fact. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would lift 1.3 million Americans directly out of poverty. Isn't that a good thing to do? Doesn't that make you feel better that we are helping to lift people out of poverty? And the Economic Policy Institute says that doing so would cause wages to go up for 33 million Americans. That is good for them. What I suggest is, well, it is good for our economy and it is good for all of us, because it will help grow the economy, make folks more independent, and make them feel better about themselves and about what they are doing. We campaigned on a promise to raise wages and make sure that American workers can access all the opportunities that make the American Dream possible. That is what we are doing today. I thank Chairman Bobby Scott and Democrats on the Committee on Education and Labor for their hard work on this legislation. We said we were going to raise the wage. Today we are going to raise the wage. It is the right thing to do. I urge every Member to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, and last votes of the week would be expected no later than 3 p.m. We will consider several bills, Madam Speaker, under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business tomorrow. The House will also consider H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act, commonly referred to as the Butch Lewis Act. The 10 million Americans who have paid into multiemployer pensions deserve to know they will receive the benefits they have earned when they retire. The bill will help ensure a secure retirement for these workers and retirees. In addition, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 2203, the Homeland Security Improvement Act. This legislation introduced by Congresswoman Escobar will ensure that the Department of Homeland Security addresses border issues in a responsible and humane manner. The bill fosters greater accountability when it comes to the handling of children and migrant families at all levels within the Department of Homeland Security. The House is also expected to consider additional legislation, Madam Speaker, related to the current humanitarian crisis on the southern border. Members are advised that additional legislative items are expected. As we know, it is the last week before we adjourn, and there is an effort to try to get things done that can, in fact, be done within the timeframe we have available to us. It is my sincere hope that an agreement is reached to raise budget caps and the debt limit. The Speaker and Secretary Mnuchin and others have been working very hard on this objective, and I am hopeful that they will reach an agreement that we can agree on as a House and as a Senate. Assuming an agreement is reached, we will consider that as soon as they reach it, and hopefully, that will be next week.

Mr. HOYER. In response to my friend, Madam Speaker, I will tell him that the committee did, in fact, mark up bills this past Wednesday, yesterday, and those bills are being looked at to possibly move to the floor.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, again, I will tell my friend, as he has articulated, that bill has not been marked up in committee. There are two bills that were marked up in committee, and there is a possibility that we will consider those, but the other bill was not marked up.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Unfortunately, of course, three of the component parts of the bill, to which the gentleman refers, we are strongly for. Unfortunately, they were held up in the Senate, as the gentleman may know. We want to see the MOU for Israel assistance package, which we strongly support, which was negotiated by the Obama administration and which we strongly support in terms of the amount of money, available not only on a general basis, but also a specific basis, for support of Israel's defense against rockets and other munitions that would be sent into Israel. We also support the Syria sanctions and the Jordan MOU, so we hope, at some point, they will move. I will reiterate, however, there have been two bills marked up, and the possibility of considering those for next week is there.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, let me say two things: We are confronting, in my view, an unprecedented refusal of an administration to cooperate with the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional duties. I refer specifically to the issuance of subpoenas, either for testimony or for documentary evidence, so the Congress can properly exercise its oversight responsibilities under the Constitution. I have been here for some almost four decades, and I have never seen any administration, essentially, direct across the board no response to the Congress of the United States or to its committees. So, yes, we are pursuing. The gentleman referred to the contempt citation dealing with Mr. Barr and Mr. Ross. Now, the issue at the center of that, as the gentleman knows, is the administration ultimately decided it would not pursue the policies that were the subject of that investigation. However, it is not about the specific, but it is about the general constitutional responsibility that this Congress has to the American people. We ask for information not on behalf of ourselves individually, but on behalf of the American people, so they will know what their government is doing, there will be a transparency to the operations of government, and they will be able to determine whether or not any administrative official, or the administration generally, is acting on its behalf personally or whether it is acting on behalf of the American people. So, from that perspective, I think the resolutions that we have offered, of which there, essentially, have been two dealing with this issue, and maybe more, the refusal to cooperate with subpoenas has continued. I hope the gentleman will understand that we are trying to protect the responsibilities and authority of the Congress of the United States, the people's body, the article I body, to do its duty properly. Secondly, yes, we did have a very difficult day yesterday. But I will tell my friend from Louisiana that I think it is the absolute responsibility of this body to respond if it sees things that are being done by the administration or by others that it perceives to be contrary to the ideas of this country, contrary to the declaration that we believe that all men and, yes, all women are created equal; contrary to the extraordinary wrenching war that we had among the States to determine that all were equal. And a construction period. And then, as I grew up in the 1950s and the 1960s, looking racism in the face and saying, we reject it, that we reject racism, we reject prejudices, we reject simplifying if people are a certain color, a certain race, a certain nationality, or a certain gender, that somehow, they are less than other Americans. I think it is our responsibility to confront that. That is what we did yesterday. It was difficult, I understand. I was sorry that it was not a bipartisan vote, because I don't believe that Members on your side of the aisle want to tolerate racism any more than we want to tolerate racism. And if we see it, I think we have a responsibility to speak out, to stand up, and to say this is not right in America, this is not America. So, yes, we had a resolution yesterday that the gentlemen refers to in response to a tweet. It was not the tweet, it was what the tweet said, what it implied, what it diminished in terms of America's sense of decency and equality and tolerance and inclusion for our people. Now, let me go to legislation. As the gentleman knows, we have passed substantial pieces of legislation. We passed H.R. 1. No Republicans voted for that, but it seeks to make it easier for people to vote in America, make sure their vote is protected and counted. It made sure that we have transparency in the financing of campaigns. It made sure that our redistricting was fair to our citizens and that we politicians were not drawing the districts, but that the districts are drawn in fairness to the American people. It also demanded ethics performance. But then we passed an anti-hate resolution. It was just words, but it said no to hate: 173 Republicans voted for that. It overwhelming passed bipartisan. We passed a Land and Water Conservation Fund that made that fund permanent, a very important bill for a State like Louisiana and, quite frankly, my own State of Maryland, who are all surrounded by water, have a lot of water. That bill got 133 Republicans. It languishes still in the Senate. We passed the SECURE Act, which makes it easier for people to get retirement security. That was supported by 187 Republicans. We passed the violence against women reauthorization. Unfortunately, it didn't get overwhelming votes, but it got 33 Republicans voting for it. It languishes in the Senate. We passed a provision that said we want to protect preexisting conditions in the Affordable Care Act. We got 8 Republicans. I would have wished we had gotten more. We passed disaster relief. The gentleman knows a lot about disaster relief, important to his State. Unfortunately, we only got 34 Republicans, but it was a bipartisan bill. We have also passed background checks, which are supported by 90 percent of the American people, to try to make gun violence lessened in the United States of America. For that bill, we only got 8 Republicans. But those two bills, supported by 90 percent of the American people, languishes in the United States Senate, the majority leader not bringing up that legislation. We passed a national emergency resolution, which said, Mr. President, you can't take money that we appropriated for X and just send it over to Y. That was, I thought, a protection of our constitutional authority. The Constitution says we raise, and we spend money and we direct the executive--we direct the executive--how to do that. That got 13 Republicans supporting it, a major piece of legislation. We passed a Dreamer legislation. We have been asking for that legislation for almost a decade, or at least 6 years, I should say. And that legislation got no vote over the last 5 years. It got a vote this year. We got a number of Republicans--7 to be exact--to vote for that. Now, I could go through a number of other pieces of legislation, including, lastly, the minimum wage bill. This was about capitalism, not socialism. We are capitalists over here. We believe in the free market system over here. And any assertion to the contrary, Madam Speaker, is absolutely false. It is a good political tactic, it is a scare tactic, Madam Speaker, but I reject it out of hand. We believe in the free market system. We believe the free market system has been the system that has provided the most benefits for the broadest number of people. We believe that is one of the great facets of our democracy, our free market system. And I will tell my friend, Madam Speaker, that it was Democrats in the 1930s that saved the free market system. It was Democrats in December of 2007 that came in and made sure that the free market system did not crash after 8 years of Republican leadership. I would hope that the gentleman would not make the assertion that surely he knows is not true, Madam Speaker, that we on this side are looking to support a socialist agenda. We are promoting and continue to promote a socially sensitive agenda for the American people to make sure that they have healthcare. Medicare was called a socialist program, Madam Speaker, when it was adopted. That is a program that millions and millions of Americans rely on and have been brought out of poverty. Medicare was a called a socialist program when it was adopted. That program, combined with Social Security, has millions of Americans having a sense of security, a sense of independence, a sense that they are not going to fall through the cracks. So we ought not to be debating, I say, Madam Speaker, this phony shibboleth of socialism. The minimum wage is simply saying, in America, we value people who work, and we want to ensure that people who work are not living in poverty and have some ability to support themselves and their families in a decent way. We passed that bill today. We are proud of passing that bill. Very frankly, for 10 years of Republican control of the House of Representatives, we pleaded with them to bring a minimum wage bill of whatever number to the floor, and they didn't bring a single cent raise in a decade, the longest time since the minimum wage was adopted in the 1930s, to make sure that Americans were lifted out of the deepest recession that this country has ever had. So I say to my friend, we have done a lot. I wish the Senate would move it. Let me close in terms of this response. I am very proud of this. We have passed 10 appropriations bills out of 12, the most since 2006. Now, in 2006, the Republicans were in charge. I don't refer to the gentleman personally, but the Republicans were in charge, and they didn't bring the Labor-Health bill to the floor. I am not sure why, but I had offered a minimum wage increase in that bill, in the Labor-Health Subcommittee, and they never brought it to the floor. It passed in committee, even though the Republicans were in charge and the majority of Members in the committee were Republicans. That minimum wage increase passed, but they refused to bring it to the floor. I can only conclude that they are not for increasing the minimum wage. We disagree with that position. We believe that in America, if you are working, playing by the rules, and making our economy grow, then you ought to be paid a wage that you can survive on and, better than that, live on. And so I am proud of the legislation that we passed, and I am proud of the 10 appropriations bills, which, by the way, fund 96 percent of the government. Our colleagues in the Senate, Madam Speaker, have not passed a single appropriations bill through committee, not one. So we are doing our job, Madam Speaker, and we are addressing the issues of the American people. I agree 100 percent with the minority, with the Republican whip that we need to deal with drug pricing. We have pledged to do that. We are working together. The President says he wants to do that. Hopefully, we can get to a consensus. I agree with the gentleman from Louisiana, Madam Speaker, we haven't gotten there yet. Hopefully, we can get there. Hopefully, we can strengthen the Affordable Care Act so that people will have the confidence that it will be available to them. I know that was a relatively--maybe not relatively--a long answer, but I think we have done a lot of work. I am very proud of the 6 months that we have had. We spent the first 35 days trying to open up the government. This is the first Congress in the history of the United States in which the government was shut down when the new Congress started. It has been shut down before, but this was the first time when we started. It took us 35 days to get it open. And when we did get it open, we started on an agenda of which I am proud. Do we have more work to do? We do. Madam Speaker, we intend to continue on an agenda that does that work.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I want to go back to this free market and the minimum wage. The gentleman, Madam Speaker, projects that: Let the free market operate. We do not allow employers to hire people under a certain age because we want to protect children. I suppose that is interfering with the free market because we know that, throughout the world, we have 8-, 9-, and 10-year-old children being asked to work 10-, 12-, 14-hour days at rudimentary tasks. Perhaps he believes that we ought to have people work 80, 90 hours a week trying to manage their families and their lives and not have a 40- hour week because of the free market. After all, individuals can decide whether they are going to work 80 or 90 hours a week. We have known that in our history. Perhaps we ought to have a free market that doesn't worry about whether workers are safe on the job. Whether it is in a mine or a factory, we require places to be safe so that we can protect workers. We don't believe that undermines the free market system. We think that improves the free market system. So there are rules.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, my point to the gentleman is, yes, we think people ought to be paid a decent wage, and we know there are people in our workplace and in our community who have no bargaining power whatsoever. They don't have fancy college educations, and they don't have fancy skills, but they are needed in our economy. They are needed to do things that the community needs done. When you go to a hotel, you hope that bed is made up. You hope the bathrooms are clean. When you go to the grocery store, you hope that the peas and corn have been picked. We believe that those folks are necessary for our community and need to be paid a decent wage, just as we think they need to be safe. I am glad the gentleman agrees on that. I thought he did. But my point, Madam Speaker, is that there is an analogy here to safety, to hours, to working conditions, and yes, to wages. I don't know that the party that the gentleman represents has ever offered an increase in the minimum wage. I am going to check on that. I don't know. Since I have been here, they have not. It has always been us offering the increase. President George Bush, to his credit, signed the Fair Minimum Wage Act in 2007, which was still less than it was in 1968. As a matter of fact, it is 40 percent less today than it was in 1968. Workers are being paid 40 percent less. Lastly, I will say, Madam Speaker, one thing our party agrees with is that men and women have a right to come together and bargain collectively for their wages, their working conditions, and their benefits. They need to be on some degree of parity because we know that with big employers, and even small employers, individuals are not on parity. They either do this or don't, and if there are no rules, then people are subjected, in my view and in my observation, to unfair tactics that they have no defense against other than us. I say to my friend, I think he and I agree on hours, hopefully, the age at which people can work certain hours, and on safety conditions in workplaces. I am not sure about bargaining collectively in unions. I think they are critical to the creation of a middle class and the maintenance of a strong middle class. We also very strongly believe in the free market system. I could pick out one or two of your Members who may have some differences of agreement. I won't mention any names, but I can think of some names on the gentleman's side of the aisle. I am sure the gentleman can as well and, in fact, does disagree, from his perspective, with some people on my side of the aisle. But we intend to continue to be very supportive of building jobs. My friend knows that I have an agenda. I call it Make It In America. It is about growing jobs, growing enterprises, helping entrepreneurs, and making sure that people have good wages and a good future through the free enterprise system.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, we could go another many minutes, but I am going to comment on one of the things the gentleman said about the person who wanted to go to work for a company but didn't want to join the union and right-to-work. The probability is the reason you wanted to work for that company was because the wages were good, the benefits were good, and safety conditions were good, which the union got, but he or she doesn't want to pay dues to the union. They don't have to join the union; they have to pay dues to the union. I think it is somewhat ironic but demonstrative that when the gentleman speaks of safety regulations, very frankly, Republicans spent a lot of time, when they were in charge, passing reductions of regulations that we think undermine the safety of consumers, workers, and individuals. We have a disagreement on that, Madam Speaker, but that is what we believe, and that is the tension here. We represent, I think, an attitude that we need to make sure that everybody plays by the rules so that people are safe. In any event, we will discuss that further, I am sure, in the coming days, weeks, and maybe years.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow; and, further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday, July 23, 2019, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.