Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, all of us who serve in this House are deeply indebted to our hardworking staff who enable us to serve our constituents and meet the rigorous demands of this job. In particular, all of us are grateful for our district directors, as we are for all of our staff. But our district directors are ``us'' for so many instances, for so many constituents, and for so many different events. They represent us when we cannot be there, when we are here in Washington. They are our eyes and ears on the ground when we are here. They are the angels on our shoulders who remind us that everything we do on a national level needs to benefit our constituents back home. For the past 30 years, I have been blessed--the Fifth Congressional District has been blessed--to be a colleague of Betsy Bossart. I love Betsy Bossart, and my constituents love Betsy Bossart. Before she served as my district director, she was my administrative assistant, the jack of all trades who made sure my office ran smoothly, and served as one of my chief advisers. Betsy joined my staff on March 3, 1989, 30 years ago, and until she retired--sadly, from my perspective--last month, she served me, the people of the Fifth District, and our country every day. With her departure, my office--and, indeed, this House--is diminished by the end of her extraordinary service. Betsy gave her time and energy selflessly for the people of the Fifth District, working many, many late nights, many weekends, and long days. She has taken meetings with every organization and visited nearly every school and medical facility and government office in the counties I represent. Betsy Bossart has been so successful as my district director because she is an excellent listener and has a deep wellspring of empathy for people. She has been a role model, Madam Speaker, for others on my staff and a champion, an advocate for young people coming into public service and waiting to make differences in their communities and in their country. She has been an unsung hero of my team for three decades. It is largely because of Betsy's hard work behind the scenes that we are able to organize the Rebuilding Together program--formerly known as Christmas in April--in all five counties in our district. It is a day of service that brings people from all walks of life together to repair homes, revitalize communities, and help our neighbors. Because of Betsy's efforts, we have the annual Fifth District Women's Luncheon, dedicated to advancing women's equality and raising awareness of women leaders in the Fifth District and our country. Because of her, we have robust support for the network of early childhood centers in Maryland named in memory of my wife, Judy, who had a wonderful relationship with Betsy as well. Maryland's Judy Centers will always be a major part of Betsy's legacy, and the thousands of children and families who benefited from their services may not know Betsy or what she did to make the Judy Centers possible, but they will always owe her and her colleagues who partnered with her on that effort a debt of gratitude. Along with her friend and my friend, Betty Richardson--another longtime member of my team, who has since retired but remains very active in my district--as partners, Betty and Betsy were also instrumental in launching the annual Fifth District Black History Breakfast, now in its 38th year. All the young people who participate in the annual Greater Washington Soap Box Derby have Betsy to thank for being able to use the Capitol Grounds. Madam Speaker, I will look back with many, many, many fond memories of my time working with Betsy Bossart, my friend, my colleague, my coworker, whom I had the opportunity to work with to advance the interest of our district. We traveled together to South Africa and met with Nelson Mandela, discussing the important issue of racial justice and unity through history and healing. We have attended so many events together across Prince George's County and southern Maryland, making sure that every one of our constituent's voices is heard loudly and clearly in Congress. As majority leader and Democratic whip over the past 16 years, I have had to balance service to our district with my responsibilities to our Caucus and to our country. Betsy has spent every single day of that time making sure that our district always comes first. I will miss Betsy. I expect to remain her friend throughout my life, but I will miss her daily advice and expertise, though I am relieved that she will always be just a phone call away. As she retires, Madam Speaker, to spend more time with her husband and their family in Pennsylvania, I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Betsy Bossart for 30 dedicated years, yes, to me, but, more importantly, to our constituents, to our State, and to our country. Madam Speaker, were I to speak another 2 hours--as some fear--I could not thank Betsy Bossart enough. God bless Betsy Bossart, a wonderful friend, a wonderful American.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, who is my friend; and I want to respectfully say to him: This resolution is not about partisanship. It is about prejudice and the necessity to confront it. Mr. Speaker, my father was from Denmark. He was born and raised in Copenhagen and came here as an adult in his twenties. I have a large extended family in Denmark. The President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, did not tell me to go back to Denmark. He did not tell the Speaker of this House, a woman proud of her Italian American heritage, to go back to Italy. He did not tell the Irish American Members of this body to go back to Ireland or tell those of German ancestry to go back to Germany. No. He told four women of color, three of whom are natural-born citizens, born and raised in their home country of America, to ``go back'' to their countries. This is their country, Mr. Speaker, I would tell the President. And it is the country of our colleague who came here as a refugee from Somalia. She endured hardships and arrived on our shores like so many others, seeking freedom, safety, and opportunity. She is an American citizen, one who chose to give back to her community and our country through public service. This is her country. I will not speculate on this floor about the motives or intentions of the President, but no one can dispute that the words he said and wrote were racist words--and have been called such by Republicans--with a long history of being used to demean, dismiss, and denigrate some American citizens as less than others, as not fully belonging in our country because of the color of their skin or the origin of their families. Mr. Speaker, to oppose this resolution is, in effect, saying the words were acceptable. They were not acceptable. Such words should never be acceptable from the leader of this country, or frankly, anybody else. They demean our Declaration of Independence; they demean our Constitution; and they demean our Pledge of Allegiance: ``One Nation . . . indivisible.'' So I urge this House to come together and support this resolution. No matter whether one supports this President or not; whether one believes he is a racist or not; vote for this resolution that condemns the words he spoke. They hurt. They are not American. They are not us. The sentiment was not one we ought to espouse. Mr. Speaker, I say to the President, if I were speaking to him: The next time you wish to denigrate and demean those who came here, or the children and grandchildren of immigrants, say it to me. Say it to all of us in this House. Say it to every descendant of immigrants. Express the sentiment of the House of Representatives that this is not the conversation that we have in America. We lift our lamp beside the golden door. Let us keep that flame bright.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Pursuant to section 3(a)of House Resolution 491, I hereby give notice of intention that the House consider the following joint resolutions on Wednesday, July 17, 2019: S.J. Res. 36; S.J. Res. 37; and S.J. Res. 38.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to mark the twenty-ninth anniversary next week of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) being signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on July 26, 1990. This transformative and trailblazing piece of legislation, which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, serves as a lasting reminder that Congress can bring so much opportunity for our people when we join together for the greater good. The ADA calls us to continue to act on behalf of millions of Americans with disabilities to ensure that their hopes, dreams, and aspirations are as valid and attainable as those of every other American. It remains a powerful expression of Congress's determination that disability rights are civil rights. On July 23, advocates for those with disabilities are also pausing to celebrate and recognize the many contributions of Helena Berger, President & CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), who will be retiring this August after thirty years of service and leadership in the disability rights movement. Ms. Berger held several leadership positions with AAPD prior to becoming President & CEO, including Executive Director, Chief Operating Officer, and Executive Vice President. Under Ms. Berger's leadership, AAPD has significantly increased its reach and impact across the country, including through the expansion of AAPD's renowned Summer Internship Program, which cultivates the next generation of leaders in the disability rights movement. I join in thanking Ms. Berger for her years of service to AAPD and the broader disability rights community, for her tireless efforts to fight for representation and economic opportunities for Americans with disabilities, and for ensuring that AAPD can continue to advocate on their behalf for years to come. I hope all of my colleagues who value and celebrate what the ADA represents will join me in paying tribute to Ms. Berger for her leadership and wishing her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the schedule, I know that all of our thoughts are with my good friends in Louisiana and my good friend who represents Louisiana, his constituents, and the people of Louisiana as they brace for Tropical Storm Barry, expected to make landfall tomorrow. This is a serious storm, and, when combined with the flooding we have already seen along the Mississippi, it poses a serious threat to the safety and welfare of many. We hope everyone is safe and taking the necessary steps to get out of harm's way, and I want the gentleman from Louisiana to know how much we are paying attention to his constituents in the State he represents and the region he represents.

Mr. HOYER. I know the gentleman is concerned. We share that concern, and we share the concern for the people of south Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour debate, 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on that Thursday. Mr. Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including H.R. 748, Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2019. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. The House will consider H.R. 3494, the Intelligence Authorization Act. I am pleased to say that the bill was approved by unanimous voice vote in committee and would authorize funding and enable congressional oversight of the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider a resolution to hold Attorney General Barr and Secretary Ross in contempt over efforts to ignore congressional subpoenas and subvert the 2020 Census with the addition of a citizenship question meant only to deter minorities from participating, leading to an undercount in parts of the country. In addition, the House will also consider S.J. Res. 36, S.J. Res. 37, and S.J. Res. 38. Mr. Speaker, last month, the Senate passed 22 resolutions of disapproval related to the Saudi-UAE arms sale for which the administration declared an emergency, thereby bypassing the Congress of the United States. The House will take up three of these resolutions related to precision-guided munitions, the most controversial and significant sales contemplated. Lastly, the House will consider H.R. 582, Raise the Wage Act. This legislation, authored by Chairman Scott, would gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2024. This bill is an important step toward lifting millions of American workers out of poverty. We believe that one should not be working a 40-hour week and still remain under the poverty level in our country. We raise the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, essentially, 10 years.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations. He, I think, told a partial story of the CBO study and some other studies. Of course, he mentioned the city of Baltimore. The problem with the city of Baltimore, as the mayor who vetoed it indicated, was that next door, the minimum wage was lower. Had the minimum wage been the same, there would not have been the same transfer, I suggest to the gentleman. That aside, he mentions the CBO report on the impact of gradually raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The minimum wage was last raised in 2007. It then incrementally raised over 3 years to the present $7.25. It has not been raised in a decade. The poorest workers in America have not had a raise in 10 years. We don't think that is right, as we see this extraordinary disparity of income, where presidents of corporations now are making 1,500 times what their average worker makes. Very frankly, we are a consumer-based economy. Seventy percent of our GDP is based upon consumers. If we raise their salaries, they are going to spend more, grow the economy, and, I suggest, grow jobs, not shrink jobs. Let's look at the CBO study. The CBO study had a number of different averages that were perceived, three of which were zero loss of jobs. 3.7 million was the maximum, not the average, the maximum loss. I am not surprised that opponents of raising the minimum wage would point to that as if it were the figure. It is a maximum, the worst-case scenario. We have a growing economy. I don't expect the worst-case scenario to occur. The fact of the matter is that we believe that this bill and this raise will have little, if any, adverse impact. What we do know is this, which the gentleman did not mention. CBO said the bill will give 27 million workers in America a raise, and that the worst-case scenario--we don't want to see anybody lose their job-- would be 3.7 million, but the average would be less than 2 million. That was their average estimate, and three of them were zero. We believe that 27 million Americans, which will lift 1.3 million Americans out of poverty, is something that will be good for America. It will be good not only for those workers but good for business, for families, for children, and, frankly, for all of us. The benefits of the Raise the Wage Act for America's workers, in our opinion, far outweigh any potential risk. We think the risk is minimal. More than 10 years with no increase in the Federal minimum wage, I might point out, Mr. Speaker, is the longest period since the adoption of the minimum wage in 1938, the longest period we have gone without raising the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, it has been 10 years since we Democrats were in the majority. I point that out because the last time we were in the majority, we passed and, very frankly, President Bush signed the raise that was to $7.25 an hour. But this is the longest time in history it hasn't been raised. The Raise the Wage Act is a critical step, in my view, toward restoring the value of work and ensuring that working families--we all say we are for working families. Well, we ought to pay them, and we ought to pay them a decent wage. By the way, this raise is probably a very, very infinitesimal percentage of the raises that those at the upper level, in the top 10 percent and the top 5 percent, have received. This will allow working families to achieve some type of financial security. We believe that is essential. We are very pleased that this bill is moving forward, and we urge all of our Members to support it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would simply say that he said the entire State of Maine. Maybe he missed the fact that I said 27 million people, under this bill, are going to get an increase in their salary and in their ability to support themselves and their families. That, by the way, is about the size, perhaps, of New York. It is not quite California, which is 38 or 39 million people. But 27 million are going to get a raise. My suggestion is, and I believe this sincerely, that that increase and raise, because they are consumers, those consumers all spend their spendable money. They need it to support themselves, and that is going to be an infusion. When the gentleman says small business, I understand that. We all pay it in the end because the consumer of services and goods is who will pay it. We understand that. But not paying it perhaps advantages us because some families can't support themselves and, very frankly, may be on public assistance, so we pay for it one way or the other. This is the right thing to do. Twenty-seven million Americans, that is about a sixth, I think, of our workforce, somewhere in that neighborhood, are going to get a raise under this bill. I hope that the estimate of 1.3 million is wrong. I think it is wrong, as I explained. If everybody is doing the same, then the employer that needs to have things done is going to get those things done. He or she will be on a competitive level because others will be doing the same thing, in terms of the level of pay. They won't be competing with people who are paying their folks at a very low level, and people will be able to survive. I understand the gentleman's position. By the way, I would say the gentleman's argument has been made since 1938. Every time the minimum wage came up for increase, we have heard this. I didn't hear it in `38, I want to make that very clear. But that argument has been made every time the minimum wage, while I have been involved in this floor over the last 30 years, has been made. And I suggest to you, as a result of the raising of the minimum wage, our economy has been better, it has grown more, people have been better off, and we have had a better country.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think we have exhausted that subject. I think the positions have not changed since 1938, and I don't expect them to change in the next few minutes.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We did have a meeting, and in a bipartisan fashion, I think we are all hopeful that we can pass the USMCA. I was here when we passed NAFTA, as was the Speaker. There were a number of promises made, as the gentleman knows from his knowing experience of NAFTA. We are very focused, as the gentleman knows, on workers' rights, environmental protections, the price of biologics, and the length of time that they would be protected from generic competition and bringing prices down. But we are, as we discussed in the meeting to which the gentleman referred where we met with the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau, and many of his Cabinet, we are very concerned about enforcement. We want to say if we make this agreement that it will, in fact, be enforced. And, as the gentleman knows, there were meetings as late as yesterday on this issue. The good news is, as the gentleman probably knows, Ambassador Lighthizer has great respect and confidence on both sides of the aisle. I would say that he is one of those people who both sides of the aisle believe is credible, knowledgeable, straightforward and an honest broker. So we are working very hard with him. Almost every Democrat has said we are trying to get to ``yes'' on this. I don't think you have heard many Democrats, if any, say we are not for this agreement. So I am hopeful that we can get there, personally. I think this is an improvement over the existing NAFTA. I would say, however, that I think it would be a mistake if, in fact, we don't get to an agreement, which I hope we will, to back out of NAFTA, as the President has indicated. I think that would cause chaos in our economy and with respect to Canada and Mexico, as well. So I think that would not be a good policy. But I think a good policy would be, if we can get enforcement and the assurances that the agreements that are made will, in fact, be carried out by all parties, then, hopefully, we can get this done. Whether we can get this done by the August break, can't make that representation to the gentleman, which does not surprise him, I am sure. But I can tell you, yesterday, as you know, there was work being done on it, and I trust that there will be work being done on it in the coming days. And if we can get to an agreement, we will move it as quickly as possible. But we may need to make sure that the protections that are referenced in the document will, in fact, be the protections that are affected and enforceable. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment, Joe Wilson, of course, a member of his party. Joe Wilson filed that bill five Congresses ago, 8 years ago, and it languished. It was not brought to the floor. It did not pass. I understand the gentleman's concern, but he ought to also reflect upon the fact that Joe Wilson introduced it four Congresses ago, so that we have now included it in the bill. We think it was a proper provision to have in our bill. Of course, all your people voted against that bill, and I would observe, they voted against a bill that, frankly, the chairman of your committee, now the ranking member, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that said the appropriate level of funding was exactly what we put in our bill. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the figure for 2020 was 733. I was deeply regretful that a bill which was the figure that Mr. Thornberry put forward in an editorial in The Wall Street Journal--and, I might say, I had conversations with him subsequent to that, recently, which confirmed to me that he still held that view. Notwithstanding that, every one of your Republicans voted against it. And it was the largest--there was this complaint about the size of the military pay raise. It was the largest raise for our military in 10 years. Now, we were in charge 10 years ago and we are now back in charge, which means we have had the two largest raises, and that was included in your MTR. Mr. Speaker, I would hope the whip would, as we do so often, work in a bipartisan fashion on these issues. The committee did work in a bipartisan fashion. I am very disappointed that this was made a political issue. Mr. Speaker, it was made a political issue on the theory that maybe the Democrats can't pass this bill, and if we all vote against it, we will say: Look, the Democrats don't support defense. Mr. Speaker, we did pass that bill. We passed it with over 218 votes--220, to be exact--and it included some very, very important things for our men and women in uniform, for weapons systems, for operations, for training to strengthen our national security. It was turned into, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a partisan issue, and that is sad and unfortunate because, at least on the national security of which I have been supportive for 38 years--I supported much of the Reagan buildup. I supported the deployment of missiles in Europe. I supported the MX missile, which was somewhat controversial in my district. I did it because I thought America needed to be strong and to make sure the world knew we were going to be strong. When you talk about Joe Wilson's amendment, which we included in our bill, which you were supportive of and I think the level of funding was also, frankly, intellectually supported, if not politically supported, I regret that we did not have a bipartisan vote on the defense bill. With respect to his specific question, I respond to the whip, Mr. Speaker: We hope this bill is signed. If not, we hope it goes to conference. We hope we have a conference agreement, Mr. Speaker, and we hope that the Wilson amendment is kept in the conference report.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman specify what they were?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, obviously, we could debate a bill we just passed, a bill that has been debated on this floor for 3 days, a bill that was chairmanned and supported by somebody equally, if not more, bipartisan in terms of his work over the years on this matter of defense, Adam Smith, period. It is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It takes care of the men and women. It provides them the necessary resources. And, yes, it says we ought to have a new AUMF that is now 18 years old. With respect to the pay raise that was going to happen anyway, I presume that the gentleman refers to the recommendation of the President of the United States, a Republican. We took the recommendations of the President of the United States and put it in our bill. It is higher than any figure that was put in for our men and women in uniform during the previous 10 years that the Republicans controlled the House and controlled this bill. There were poison pills, from my perspective, in the defense bills in years past. I now note that I voted against those bills when they passed the House. I voted for the conference committee when it came back. I am hopeful that the Republicans will decide that the rhetoric they used, ``If you vote against this bill,'' meaning the defense bill, to our side, ``you vote against the men and women in the Armed Forces, the men and women in uniform, the men and women at the point of the spear,'' I hope you will remember that language, Mr. Speaker. I hope my Republican colleagues will remember that language. Now, apparently, it doesn't apply. This was a good bill. That was a bill worked on in a bipartisan fashion. I will tell the whip, Mr. Speaker, that I had conversations with some of the top Republican leaders on that committee with respect to funding levels. I was told that the funding levels that were in our bill, as the Joint Chiefs said and as the ranking member said in an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, were appropriate levels that will fund the priorities of our country and the needs of our national security, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I hope that the Senate and the House can work on this. By the way, the Senate number is the same as our number as it relates to compensation, I believe, for members of the Armed Forces. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, when this bill comes back from conference, that we will have agreement, will pass it, and will send it to the President for signature. That is the way it ought to be. I am sorry that we didn't get significant support, as is almost always the case, except when political games were played, not just that items were put in that the Republicans didn't like or the Democrats didn't like. There were a lot of things in the defense bills that I voted for that I didn't like, but I thought the overall bill was a bill that supported our troops and supported our national security, as I think this bill did. We will see.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I only want to say that I do not accept the premise that anything in this bill we just passed with a majority vote undermines training, operations, or acquisitions, period.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Congratulations, Chairman Smith, on bringing to the floor an excellent bill. I want to also congratulate Mr. Thornberry from Texas, a responsible Member of this Congress, a responsible member of the minority, and a person who has been a strong voice on behalf of national defense. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this year's defense authorization bill. It makes smart, strategic investments in our military to keep America safe and defend our interests overseas, and it reflects core values. We are proud to fund the Department of Defense. I have been in this body for some 38 years. I have supported every Defense bill. Now, when I say that, very frankly, we have had some political fights back and forth and there have been political votes cast where we thought that there were things being done that shouldn't be done. But I have supported a strong national defense. I supported most of Ronald Reagan's build-up which was, by the way, started by Jimmy Carter. I have supported making sure that we had weapons we needed and the personnel we needed. We are proud as Democrats to stand behind our men and women in uniform. As a matter of fact, some of the great victories of democracy have been led by people like Woodrow Wilson in World War I, Franklin Roosevelt in World War II, Harry Truman in Korea, and John Kennedy confronting communism and authoritarianism, the people who want to rule by armed might. This bill, the first written by a Democratic majority in 8 years, raises military pay by 3.1 percent and recognizes the contribution of our men and women in uniform. It supports a stronger military by prohibiting funding for discrimination against transgender, that denies us the talents and courageous service of patriotic Americans. Now, that has happened before, and Harry Truman stepped in and said that, no, we are not going to segregate our services. We are not going to discriminate against those of color in our services. He said that in the 1940s, post-World War. And there were some who said that would destroy our military effectiveness. They are saying the same thing about gays and transgender. They were wrong then; they are wrong now. This bill cuts $17 billion. The chairman, the ranking member, and I had discussions through the years. We need to make sure that we spend our money smartly and not just blindly spend money. We need to make sure that every dollar is spent effectively, but that our national security is not in any way undermined. I believe the savings that have been effected are focused and that we are taking that money and using it for effective items and taking it away from an expensive and ineffective wall on the southern border that the President wants to spend money on. It also acknowledges the serious national security challenges posed by climate change. Surely, we know how critical to our national security the effects of climate change are showing. We experienced that just the other day here in Washington, D.C. It requires the Pentagon to develop a plan, along with others in our government, as to how we can confront, effectively and on behalf of our national security, climate change. This bill also accelerates the closure--long overdue--it is not the American way to hold people without finding out whether they are, in fact, guilty or not. I have been to Guantanamo. Nobody in America ought to talk about how much it costs to incarcerate somebody in America, because it is about one-tenth or one-twentieth of what it is costing us in Guantanamo. You talk about fiscal responsibility. I am deeply disappointed that my Republican friends are bucking a long tradition. I did not like everything in your Defense bill. I disagreed sincerely with some of the provisions that you put in your Defense bill, and I voted for the Defense bills you offered on this floor because I thought they were in the best interests of our country--not perfect--but in the best interests of our country, of our military, and of our national security. I am sorry that that is not happening today or tomorrow or Friday when we vote on it. This bill ought to have bipartisan support. It ought to have bipartisan support for our military, and if the situations were reversed, my Republican colleagues would be accusing Democrats of not supporting our national security, not supporting our troops, not supporting the men and women who are put at the point of a spear, in harm's way, many paying the ultimate price. That is what you would have accused us of. How sad it is that some in this House are choosing loyalty to the President and their party over a common commitment to our troops--tough words, but I think true. Republicans object to this bill because they claim it does not meet their demands for $750 billion. Until March of this year, however, they were demanding exactly the number in this bill. Some on my side of the aisle think this sum is too high. Mr. Smith, the Speaker, and I urged our colleagues to adopt this number because it was a bipartisan number--not the perfect number. More than 70 Republican Members out of your 194 wrote to the President citing the same number as their preferred figure for defense investment. That is the number the Pentagon used for the previous year around which it built its budget. That is what Joseph Dunford--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, said was the number the Pentagon needed ``after scrubbing every account,'' $733 billion. That is the figure we included in this bill. That is the figure that you are prepared to vote against. Ranking Member Thornberry, who is my friend and whom I respect and whom I have just spoken of, penned an op-ed that President Trump must ``move forward with the $733 billion budget he originally proposed for 2020.'' We took your number, and, yes, there are some things you don't agree with in this bill, but there were things we didn't agree with. Very frankly, there are very few bills that we consider on this floor that I agree with 100 percent. But we are a democratic body. We are a collective, collegial body, and we try to reach consensus. We took your number. We took the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's number. Indeed, at the same time that Republicans are arguing that $733 billion isn't enough, the White House is calling for a continuing resolution that spends far less. A former Member of this body originally suggested sequester which would devastate our national security and our domestic security. As Chairman Adam Smith has stated, to claim that $733 billion is an abdication of our responsibility to fund our troops is patently ridiculous and contrary to the representations that have been made on your side of the aisle. They claim this bill is partisan. That is absurd. The bill includes more than 53 percent of the amendments offered by Republican Members--a higher figure than Democratic amendments in the bill. Chairman Smith's staff worked tirelessly and collegially with Republicans for months to ensure that the defense authorization bill would be bipartisan as this legislation has been historically. Of course, there are provisions in this bill with which Republicans disagree. I would be shocked if that were not the case. There are probably going to be some provisions in there that I disagree with. That doesn't mean they should vote against this entire bill, however, Mr. Chairman. Democrats supported this bill when we were in the minority over the last 8 years--check the record--even when Republicans forced controversial measures into it because we believed it was important to support our military. We voted for it over serious objections on policy because we viewed it as a must-pass bill. Where has that bipartisanship on national security gone? Is it just a strategy to defeat this bill? I am convinced that we are going to have 218-plus Democrats vote for this bill, Mr. Chairman. I urge my Republican colleagues to reconsider their opposition and vote for their number and put country over party. To my Democratic colleagues, I say: This is a strong Defense bill, as good as you are going to get. It protects LGBT rights and advances family leave. It loosens the heinous restrictions on transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Opposing this bill means we will be stuck with a Senate version that omits these provisions. I thank Chairman Smith and members of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work, and I thank the ranking member. I congratulate you both on producing a very strong, very positive bill. You did that together. Do not abandon your work. I hope that it will pass with resounding support from both sides of the aisle. Our troops in harm's way deserve that affirmation, that trust, that faith, that commitment. Let's not let them down.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word as the designee of the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I thank Mr. Connolly, who is a leader on issues of effective government. He served as the head of government, as a matter of fact, in Fairfax County, and is one of our experts in this area. I want to say to my friend, Mr. Graves, the issue here for me is not that we don't need to make OPM more efficient. I agree with his premise. We do need to do that. But the reorganization that is suggested in merging the Office of Personnel Management with the General Services Administration is, in my opinion, very bad logic. The General Services Administration deals with real property, with inanimate objects; OPM deals with human resources. There is no match between those two. Making OPM an effective, efficient organization is an objective that we ought to all share. And I know that Mr. Connolly shares that objective, and I know that Mr. Connolly, Mr. Graves, and Mr. Quigley, working together, could certainly effect that end, which I would support. But I do not support what I perceive to be a retaliatory suggestion about laying off people at OPM. In other words, if we can't merge it, we are going to lay them off. Frankly, if there is evidence that there are too many people and enough people to do the job that is being done and that we can transfer people to other agencies that might need them, that is one thing, but I don't think that is the evidence that we see. And, clearly, there will be sufficient funds in the budget that Mr. Quigley has offered to make sure that we have an efficient, effective Office of Personnel Management. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, my perception is that there is a hostility, frankly, toward the Federal workforce in this administration. I think that is unfortunate. Whether you think government ought to be small or large, you ought to agree on the fact that, whatever size it is, we ought to have an effective human resource agency so that the morale of our employees and the competency of our employees, the work ethic of our employees, the benefits administration for our employees is all done in an effective, efficient manner. So I would hope that we would make sure that we don't get into this retaliatory political response rather than a substantive response. I think that is what Mr. Connolly's amendment is about. I thank Mr. Graves for his comments, but I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Connolly amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey of the Appropriations Committee, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. Members are advised that debate on amendments to H.R. 3055, the appropriations bill, could begin as early as 3 p.m. on Monday. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour debate, and 12 p.m. for legislative business. Again, we will meet at 10 a.m. Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business today. The House will complete consideration of the appropriations bill, H.R. 3055, which entails Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2020. The House will also consider H.R. 3551, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2020. That will be the tenth appropriations bill that we will consider and is another step toward the House doing its work to avoid a shutdown at the end of the fiscal year. The House will also consider H.R. 2722, Securing America's Federal Elections Act. This legislation will protect elections for public office by providing financial support and enhanced security for the infrastructure used to carry out such elections. Lastly, additional legislative items may also be considered, including legislation related to humanitarian assistance at the border and the legislative appropriation bill.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, let me say that I am pleased that the gentleman refers to the Antideficiency Act and that, in this instance, the administration will not spend money on an object that was not designated for by the Congress of the United States. This is for helping children. Obviously, when it wanted to build a wall, it did exactly that. It tried to shift money that was not appropriated for. I am glad that, in this instance, we are honoring it, number one. Number two, let me say that I think the Senate's action was helpful. It was, as the gentleman pointed out, bipartisan. I think that will probably be helpful to us here as well. I want to say to the gentleman that I know for a fact that, certainly within the Appropriations Committee, there have been bipartisan discussions all along. There was a time when they were very close to agreement on what the bill would comprise. It is my hope that as a result of both these actions, as I said, my expectation is that we will pass something next week. That is my hope, and I know that work is being done on it as we speak. I know it will be done over the weekend, and I am hopeful that we will get there because this humanitarian relief for the children and for adults, for giving the proper treatment to people who are in our country and in our care, is very important, and we are working very hard to get that done. My hope is that it will be done.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I understand that this is a critical issue that we need to address, but I believe that the gentleman is not accurate. HHS employees are going to get paid. This money that is being appropriated is for the special, additional services that we need to make sure are available. I don't think there is a question of HHS employees not getting paid. More importantly, it is an issue as to whether or not the services are going to be available to provide the humanitarian treatment that the gentleman talks about, and I think we are in full agreement. I will say again that I think the Senate's action is helpful. It was bipartisan. Very frankly, I think it, hopefully, is going to help us get to some bipartisan agreement here. Frankly, I will tell the gentleman, we thought we were pretty close to a bipartisan agreement with the Republicans, and the Republicans and Democrats have been working on this in the committee, as the gentleman knows. We were pretty close to agreement. We didn't get there. They got to it in the Senate, which meant the Democrats went along with what the majority could support because they are the majority. Hopefully, we can do that here and get a bipartisan bill. I will tell the gentleman that I am working very hard and am very focused on getting a bill done so that we do not leave here without a bill having been passed to provide this humanitarian relief that is so essential.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I want to make a comment on what the gentleman just said. I think most of us are parents. I have had three 12-year-old daughters. All were 12 years of age at one point in time, and I wouldn't send them unless I thought their lives were at risk, unless I thought they were in great danger by remaining with me, unless I thought the alternative of staying was worse than the risk. That is why they come here, because they are terrified that their child is going to be taken from them by death, not by trying to get to an America that is the light of the world, that they think is the land of opportunity. That is why they come here. That is why they take this risk. Very frankly, we should have passed comprehensive immigration reform a long time ago so that there was a safe route and an open door and so that people seeking refuge and asylum, which is under American law, would be able to do that. I agree. Sending these children has to be wrenching for a parent. But the alternative they find to be even more wrenching, more dangerous, and riskier for that 12-year-old child, and so they send them here. They send them here because the reputation of America is that we will treat people humanely, thoughtfully, and safely. And it is our responsibility to do that.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to correct myself. The gentleman was correct. I have just been informed because they are funded, the employees, specifically under that account, the gentleman is correct and I was incorrect, and apparently, they would not be paid. Obviously, the general Labor-Health bill that we passed up until September 30 of this year funds almost all employees. But apparently, because these funds are segregated in this account, my friend is correct that they would not be paid. In any event, while I am concerned, and maybe some of those folks live in my district, while I am concerned about them being paid, I, frankly, share my friend's concern, which is a much greater concern, that people who come here under and consistent with U.S. law, seeking asylum from the danger that they face at home, need to be treated in a humanitarian way. So I certainly agree that we want to make sure people get paid. We shut down the government for 35 days, and 400,000 people did not get paid. Actually, 800,000 did not get paid, and 400,000 people had to work. We offered numerous bills which, very frankly, the gentleman's party voted against on a regular basis, which would have opened up the government and paid those employees. So, I wish we had been more concerned, during those 35 days, with them getting paid. But the real concern--and I know the gentleman and I share this view--is the humanitarian treatment of the people who are here in our care.