Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. More than that, I thank her for the thousands of hours that she has put in over the years in trying to address in a positive, constructive way our broken immigration system and for her leadership in forging a bill that is a step--just a step. I want to thank Mr. Nadler, the chairman of the committee, for ensuring that this bill came forward. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for a few minutes, and I have heard a number of my Republican colleagues bemoaning the fact that we could have done this in a bipartisan fashion and come with up with a much better bill. Many of those folks who said that have been serving here over the last 8 years in the majority, and we have been pleading with them over those 8 years: Bring us a bill, a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, as you so well know, you and Mr. Hurd, a Republican from Texas, worked tirelessly in fashioning a bipartisan bill, and the Republicans refused to bring it to the floor; although, in my view it had a majority of votes on this floor. Indeed, it was about to be petitioned out of the committee and brought to the floor in a process that you can do that without the committee's voting for it. Just short of the 218 votes necessary to do that, the Republican leadership put all sorts of pressure to assure that that bill was not discharged from the committee. So spare me the crocodile tears about a bipartisan bill. We tried to do a bipartisan bill. The Senate did a bipartisan bill in 2013, and we pleaded for the Republicans to bring it to the floor, a bipartisan Senate bill, and they refused, all the time saying the immigration system was broken. But they refused to fix it. So, now they come to the floor, bemoaning the fact that a bipartisan bill did not come forward. If they had intended to work on a bipartisan bill, as the majority leader, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan bill would have come forward. So sad, so unfortunate that that didn't happen. Mr. Speaker, I want to read something: ``We're going to work something out that's going to make people happy and proud. ``They''--referring to the Dreamers--``got brought here at a very young age''--1, 2, 3 years of age. ``They've worked here. They've gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they're in never-never land because they don't know what's going to happen.'' Who said that? Donald Trump said it. When did he say it? After he was elected, but before he was sworn in as President of the United States. I met with the President, along with a few others, at the White House, and he said to us: ``Send us a bill,'' then he created the problem we are confronting today. And he said: ``Congress, fix it, and I will sign it.'' Well, today, Mr. Speaker, we are fixing it. And I hope that my Republican colleagues would join us and that the President of the United States would sign a bill which will take these folks out of never-never land. The bill we have on the floor today is called the American Dream and Promise Act--the American dream and American promise. We lift our lamp beside the golden door. That is what we have said to the world. That dream is to see hard work rewarded with opportunity. My father came here at the age of 32 in 1934, an immigrant from Denmark. That promise is the commitment of our Founders and every generation since to ensure that this Nation makes that dream a reality for all. Today, more than a million people who grew up in America don't know any other home, yet they live in fear of being sent to a home they never knew. They live in fear of being deported to countries they never or barely knew. These Dreamers, these yearners for justice and opportunity, deserve to live without fear. They deserve to access the opportunities of America that they have been helping to build already--a Nation of immigrants, made great by immigrants. This bill will remove that fear. It will give them the opportunity to stay in the country they know and love and to know their hard work and contributions will give them a chance to make it in America and that they can give back by serving in our military or creating jobs or working in their communities; that they can have a pathway to citizenship, which is in their interest and in the interest of our country. This bill will keep the promise of our Founders and our forebears, and it will keep the promise of policymakers from both sides of the aisle who agree they should stay, along, I might add, with 86 percent of the American people. They are American in every sense. They are patriots and dreamers. President Trump campaigned on a promise to help Dreamers--a promise he broke. It was President Trump who created the crisis we now face by rescinding the DACA program 2 years ago and allowing the Republican- controlled House to stand in the way of a legislative solution. Now, the Democrat-led House is taking action. With this bill, we proclaim to the Senate and President: Take the advice of the American people. Pass this bill. For these Dreamers are, in all but a certificate of citizenship, brothers and sisters. One of them from my district, Gabby Hernandez, is here today, Mr. Speaker, to watch us take this important vote. She arrived in this country from El Salvador at the age of 4. She attended school in Prince George's County, Maryland, which I represent, and she has been studying these last few years to be a social worker and help people in our community. I hope we can give Dreamers like Gabby reassurance that their country, America, will not abandon them. In addition, this bill would also allow those who have been on temporary protected status and deferred enforced departure to remain as permanent residents. One of them has a business in my district. He employs 40 people. Forty families would be affected by his leaving. He has been here for 25 years. He is, in every sense, a member of our community. These are people who fled a natural disaster and violence and were welcomed into our country as refugees. Here, they have helped build a stronger community and have participated in building our economy. I am proud to represent a strong community of Liberians in my district, many of whom fled war and disease outbreak and built new lives here. We should not allow them to be uprooted from their homes a second time. Some of them are here today in the gallery as well. Let's show them. Let's show them that we stand together with them and cherish their contributions to America. Whether we are Irish or Danish or Italian or Jews or Poles or Germans, all who came here in great numbers immigrated to this country and have made us great. This bill is not perfect. No bill is perfect. But it is a step, a very important step, a down payment on fulfilling that promise. But change happens most often in steps, and today the Democrat-led House is taking that step forward by keeping our promise to Dreamers. I want to thank Lucille Roybal-Allard, Nydia Velazquez, Yvette Clarke, Jerry Nadler, and--yes, once again--Zoe Lofgren for all the work that they have done to get us to a place where we have a fair bill--not amnesty, a fair bill for America. I hope my Republican colleagues will join us in voting for this bill. Together, let's send a message of inclusion and acceptance of these Dreamers, whose dreams are the same as ours, whose patriotism is the same as ours, and whose Nation is the same as ours. Vote ``aye.'' Vote for America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Madam Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. I was seeking recognition. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I asked to be recognized before the gentleman objected. Do I not have precedence of recognition?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object. I, of course, will not object, and I urge my friends in this body not to object. I urge them not to object because millions of people are at risk. This bill, passed in January to the Senate, which we passed some 3 or 4 weeks ago, needs to be passed as soon as possible for the welfare of our people in this country who have been attacked by natural disasters. Madam Speaker, I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle not to object.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on Friday, May 10, 2019, the family, friends, and former colleagues of the late Rep. Ron Dellums of California paid tribute to him at a memorial service here in Washington. Several of us who served with him in this House delivered eulogies praising Rep. Dellums for his decency, his strength of character, his leadership, his dedication to the men and women who serve in our military, and the respect he earned from his fellow legislators on both sides of the aisle. I want to take this opportunity to include in the Record the remarks I offered along with the kind words spoken by Rep. Barbara Lee, Chairwoman Maxine Waters, and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton. Majority Whip James Clyburn also spoke, although unfortunately there is no transcript of his remarks. I can attest, however, to his moving words. Below I share with the rest of our colleagues my remarks in praise of our friend, the late Rep. Dellums, joined by the statements of others made in tribute to him: Mr. Hoyer: Rev. Lamar and Father Conroy, thank you for your words of peace and reflection. Cynthia, Erik, Piper, Brandon, and Pam, thank you for allowing us to join you in mourning Ron and participating in this service today. To his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, let me say ``thank you'' for the love you gave him, because we all saw the joy it brought him. I had the great honor to serve in congress with Ron Dellums for seventeen years. He was a friend, a teacher, an example, a hero. He was always a gentleman. He was kind, gracious, strong, and historic. Respected and admired by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. As Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Ron Dellums was a man who knew the purpose of arms. He understood that instruments of war could be guarantors of peace. And he knew that the greatest force was that of the moral being, the spirit of good will and powerful words used to speak truth. When he saw the injustice of apartheid in South Africa, Ron fought with every fiber to arm Congress with truth and make our country an instrument of moral clarity. When he and other African-American Members saw an opportunity to raise issues that were being ignored in Washington and lift up voices that weren't being heard, Ron helped create the Congressional Black Caucus that now serves as the conscience of the Congress. As city councilman, he drew on his own family's experiences to see the clarity of his cause championing workers and their families, the downtrodden, the forgotten, and the dispossessed. The people of Oakland elected Ron eleven times to congress and then made him their mayor--because they saw in him the kind of moral leader unafraid to stand up for principles and determined to do right by those who entrusted him with high office. They knew he would always speak up for them and speak out for the causes he knew to be just. Ron Dellums understood that the power of words speaking truth--on the Floor of the House or in Committee or in the City Council chamber or from the mayor's desk--could be mightier than any armament. He was a man who chose his words carefully and wielded them forcefully. President John F. Kennedy said of Winston Churchill that he ``marshalled the English language and sent it into battle.'' So too did Ron. And we will remember him always for speaking truth, speaking justice, speaking goodness, and speaking for those who needed a voice. He was regal in bearing. He was real in his relationships-- warm and empathetic to all. He was courageous in battle. Principled in his policies. Moral in vision. Worthy of leading. Courteous in demeanor. Clear in his goals. Loyal to his country, colleagues, and conscience. Deserving of our love and respect. A Teddy- Roosevelt ``doer of great deeds.'' And, most assuredly, a man to be admired, emulated, followed, and--as we do today, remembered. Ron was our friend and our exemplar. We were honored and blessed to be a part of his life. Ron: you were always faithful, Marine. You were ``Semper Fi.'' Ms. Lee of California: To our officiant, Rev. William H. Lamar IV, Father Conroy, Reverend Skinner, and to all members of the clergy. First, let me offer my deepest condolences to Cynthia, Brandy, Rachel, and Ron's entire family and extended family and Ron's staff who have and continue to experience a deep sense of grief, yet hope that through the celebration of Ron's life, we all can join together and keep his legacy alive through our work and love for each other. I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge my colleagues; members here; Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip James Clyburn, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congressman Hank Johnson, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congressman Gregory Meeks, and Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee. Members, please stand. Our former congressional colleagues. And Ron's friends and constituents, and all program participants. I thank you for being here today as we celebrate the life of a man who was a statesman, a gentleman, and an authentic representative of the people. Also, Ron was my mentor and my friend. I looked up to him, like we all did, as a warrior, and a fighter. Ron never gave up his principles and integrity, even though he was brilliant, a deep thinker, a philosopher, and a man who--as he would say--had a memory like an elephant. He was a psychiatric social worker who understood human behavior in its totality and a proud former marine who demonstrated that peace is patriotic. He was a comedian too. He was so funny--some of you may remember his Richard Pryor skit--Sandre, and I were with Ron when he played the role of Richard Pryor at Lou Gossett's house. What an evening--Ron became Richard Pryor, and Richard Pryor became Ron. Ron never let the weight of the world destroy his sense of humor and fun-loving side with his friends and family. I first met Ron as a college student in the early 1970s. I was going to school, raising my two little boys while on public assistance and developing my political consciousness. I wanted to be an Intern in Ron's Washington office once I was in graduate school at UC Berkeley. I went to Ron's District Director, our beloved, the late Don Hopkins who Ron relied on and loved deeply, with this request. Don placed me in Ron's DC Office during the Watergate hearings in the summer of 1974. I learned a lot that summer, saw how Ron, as a progressive African American man from Berkeley and Oakland, navigated his work as a legislator. Even though--as he always reminded us--they painted him as a commie pinko from Berkeley and he was on Spiro Agnew's hate list--Ron wore this as a badge of honor. He knew he came to Congress as an Anti-war, peace candidate, who knew the priorities of our country were wrong and destroying people's lives here at home & abroad. In 1975, I came to Washington, D.C. to work on Ron's staff. In those days, it was rare for a woman--let alone a black woman--to run a congressional office. But Ron was proud to call himself a ``feminist'' and lived his life by the same progressive values he espoused on the House floor. As an ardent anti-war activist, he also sought a seat on the Armed Services Committee to advocate for alternatives to military intervention. Years later, Ron went on to make history as the first African American to chair the Armed Services Committee--and he used that position to advocate for more just and humane military policies. I travelled with Ron, along with his staff throughout the world. Heads of State wanted his advice and knew he was a global leader. I remember him telling his staff ``Let your conscience be your guide. If you are right--just to stand on that street corner alone because sooner or later everyone must walk right to you.'' I'd like to ask Ron's staff--Congressional and Mayoral--to stand. Ron loved his staff. They are all true public servants who gave their all to our community, the country, and the world. Ron demonstrated this repeatedly--he introduced the South African sanctions legislation 13 times. It was the first override of a presidential policy veto in the 20th century and finally put the United States on the right side of history. I will always remember Ron calling me after I was elected to Congress to come to his beautiful home for dinner. Yes--he also was a great cook. Well, we sat at his kitchen table and asked me to think about introducing an AIDS martial plan for Africa given the devastating HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa. His idea led to my legislation establishing the global fund and PEPFAR which has saved millions of lives. He worked so hard to help me get these bills passed and the world owes him a debt of gratitude. Ron was my boss, mentor, and yet, like the brother I never had. He gave me personal advice and support as a single Mom raising two boys. When my son Craig graduated from Brent Elementary School, in the sixth grade here in Washington, DC., he asked Ron to be the graduation speaker. Ron left Capitol Hill, spoke at the graduation, took pictures and spent time with the kids afterward. Mind you, they were young children. They didn't have any political clout and couldn't vote. Ron did this out of the goodness of his heart because he loved children and cared about their future. My sons Craig and Tony were childhood friends with Ron's kids Brandy, Eric, & Piper, and to this day they remain close friends. Also, as a single woman in Washington, DC, Ron counseled me on who--and who not to date. He saved me from a lot of trouble and heartbreaks. We can't forget that Ron was nominated for President in the mid-70's, in Cincinnati, Ohio, but he declined the nomination for the Office of the President at the National Black Political Convention. Then there was an effort to draft him to run for president, in New York,--I believe--in 1980. Of course, he was conflicted--so was the staff. We just knew he could win--but Ron decided he wanted to continue serving his constituents because he wanted to help them achieve their dreams and aspirations. And, as the father of Coalition politics, which began in the East Bay, his leadership was needed to continue to build coalitions for peace and justice around the country. When Ron called me and told me of his illness, I was devastated. In his generous manner, he said he didn't want to worry me and was gentle and cautious in the way he told me-- preparing me for that sad day. But he gave me time to be with him each week during his last month. Thank you, Cynthia. I spent my birthday last year--the evening of July 16 after a legislative session--with Ron and his family. He was in rare form, telling stories, being the comedian that he was, toasting our friendship and singing Happy Birthday to me. He was frail, in pain, but demonstrated a sense of hope and courage--even as he knew he would meet his maker soon. After my next visit, which would be the last, he talked about family and friends--told me some of his secrets, and I told him some of mine--encouraged me to keep fighting the good fight and imparted more pearls of wisdom. As I was about to leave, I was reluctant to hug him, knowing he was in pain. He reared up in the bed and called me to him in his playful way and gave me a big hug with tears in his eyes. As a brilliant, powerful, elected official, a fighter, and a physical fitness champion, Ron was also kind, gentle, and a humanitarian who lived his life with dignity and respect. He left this earth demonstrating that same sense of dignity and courage. He did it his way. Ron passed me a blue baton when we announced in 1998 that I would run for his seat upon his retirement. The baton, which I look at often, reminds me that all of us must carry that baton that Ron gave us and run our mile in this marathon for justice, for peace, and unity. So, when we can pass our batons to the next generation, we know, as Ron said frequently--we have secured their future. In honor of the great legacy Ron has left, I'll be introducing the Ronald V. Dellums Memorial Fellowship For Women Of Color In Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Math, and National Security Act. And we will get it passed. Finally, let me say during moments like this, as a person, of faith, I go to the scriptures often for inspiration and hope. 2nd Timothy Chapter 4, verse 7 says: ``I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, and I have kept the faith.'' Ron, rest in peace, rest in power, know that we got your back. Ms. Waters: By all standards, our brother, Ron Dellums, was a truly exceptional human being who consistently gave of himself to his loved ones, his community, his nation, and the entire world. Reverend King wrote ``The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy. In dangerous valleys and hazardous pathways, he will lift some bruised and beaten brother to a higher and more noble life.'' In both his public and personal capacities, Ron embodied this standard of character, purpose, selflessness, and service. As an elected official, Ron was a bold pioneer, a true leader, and a stalwart advocate for peace in the U.S. and globally. Fueled by his extraordinary acumen and legendary eloquence, he built a stellar track record of standing up for principle, righting the wrongs of inequality, and empowering the powerless. Ron initiated his career in Congress as a crusader for peace, taking on the establishment by opposing the Vietnam War. He pressured Nixon to end the U.S. involvement, and exposed war crimes in Vietnam, earning him a place on Nixon's enemies list, of which he was proud to be a member. Ron was a pioneer in the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa, proposing sanctions as far back as 1972. He was fiercely dedicated to opening hearts and minds in Congress to the plight of the oppressed South African majority. Together we fought apartheid, with my bill divesting California's pension fund investments, and Ron's bill divesting U.S. companies' assets and applying sanctions against the repressive regime, becoming law just days apart, in Ron's case by overriding the president's veto. Ron called out racial discrimination in the military and advanced diversity and inclusion through innovations that opened doors of opportunity to people who had been excluded. He championed the minority set-aside program for Defense Department contracts, enabling businesses owned by African Americans, Latinos, and other minorities to compete for a share of the DoD's large procurement budget. Ron consistently advocated for peace, opposing expensive, excessive weapons such as the B-2 stealth bomber, and the MX and Pershing II missiles. He called for funds for those weapons to be shifted to cities, communities, education, and housing. He opposed military intervention in Grenada, Zaire, Burundi, Sudan, Angola, Liberia, and elsewhere, and was an outspoken critic of the Persian Gulf War. Ron's illustrious leadership was on display as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He maintained his commitment to peaceful policy positions while allowing the committee to work its will on the DoD's authorization and policies that he opposed. Ron often voted against his committee's legislation. Ron's principled passion was epitomized by his speech from the well of the House supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1990. In that August 2, 1990 speech, which is still emblazoned on the minds of many, Ron implored his colleagues to support the bill, declaring ``this is throw-down time. This is the bottom line. This is integrity. There is no substitute to freedom and human dignity . . . there is no substitute for justice.'' Ron's nature was just as resplendent outside the public arena. To his friends and all who sought his counsel, he was a trusted confidant, a source of strength, a bastion of wisdom, and a compatriot in our shared goals and dreams. His personal warmth, thoughtfulness, and empathy were as much a part of his essence as passion for peace. When facing conflict, he remained dignified. When confronting challenges, he remained optimistic. When engaging opponents, he remained congenial. Even his adversaries in Congress appreciated him for being fair, responsive, thoughtful, and honorable. I am grateful that I had the chance to thank Ron for what he accomplished, represented, and taught us. Shortly after he left Congress, we celebrated him at the Black Women's Forum in LA, not just because of what he did for his district and for the people of mine, but for all 435 districts. We enveloped him in so much appreciation and praise that day-- every bit well-earned and well-deserved--that the eloquent orator was rendered speechless, albeit only briefly. To me, Ron was far more than a colleague, compatriot, teammate, confidante, counselor, and political soul mate, although he was all that. To me, Ron was a true friend, a dear and trusted friend, a brother, and I loved him very much. Ron Dellums will always be remembered as the true article; a man of conscience, dignity, and grace; a leader with the rare blend of sincere humility and sublime intellect; the peoples' patriot who waged peace at every opportunity; and a man who is admired and loved by more people, in more comers of the country and the world, than he could have imagined. Ms. Norton: We celebrate our colleague and friend Ronald Dellums at a time of historic polarization in Congress. It is a good time to remember the peace advocate who chaired the Armed Services Committee with such equanimity that he won the respect, even the friendship, of those who opposed every cause, of the many into which Ron poured his considerable talent. I first came to admire Ron even before being elected to Congress from my work in the Free South Africa anti-apartheid movement. For 14 years, Ron did not relent until he freed his landmark bill for South Africa divestment, overcoming a presidential veto. By the time I was elected to Congress, Ron had already been chair of the District of Columbia Committee for more than a decade. That committee is long gone, and nothing would have pleased Chairman Dellums more than its demise. But when freedom-loving Ron Dellums first came to Congress, he knew that if there had to be such a Committee, he wanted a seat on it. Just as Ron sought peace by serving on the Armed Service Committee, he sought to free D.C. from Congressional control by serving on the D.C. Committee. He joined the Committee during his very first term in Congress. Upon becoming chair of the D.C. Committee, Ron framed his service as ``an advocate, not an overseer of District affairs.'' No sooner had Ron gotten to Congress in 1975, in his very 1st term, long before I even thought about becoming a Member, he introduced the 1st D.C. statehood bill. Ron would relish our progress today as we close in on enough votes for the D.C. statehood bill to pass in the House this term. We expect a vote soon in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to send the bill to the House Floor. When that committee vote occurs, we will not be able to claim we are breaking new or historic ground. In 1987, more than 30 years ago Chairman Ron Dellums proclaimed ``There should be no colonies in a democracy'' and led the District Committee in a vote for statehood for the District of Columbia that passed in his Committee. The American citizens who live in the nation's capital will forever remember Ron Dellums, prescient warrior for equality and freedom--and well ahead of his time--a leader for statehood for the District of Columbia.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Chamber is not full of Members or that the gallery is not jammed with people, for this is a historic day. Many Members have quoted that extraordinary doctrine of civil rights and human rights articulated by our Founders 243 years ago: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.'' I tell people that they may be self- evident, but they are not self-executing. Today, we will take another step in a long journey toward a more perfect Union. Today, we will take a step, and, hopefully, it will be as it was in 1957 when we passed the Civil Rights Act that year; hopefully, it will be as it was in 1964 when we passed that civil rights bill; and, hopefully, it will be as we voted on the Disabilities Act in 1990. All of those bills were passed in a bipartisan fashion; and, yes, there were bipartisan votes against those bills, some from my party and some from my colleagues on the Republican side. My presumption is, and my hope is, that those who voted ``no'' on those civil rights bills looked back and said: I made a mistake. That was not the vote I should have made. Every Democrat will vote for this bill. Every Democrat will stand up and say this is another step in the quest for a better America, a more just America, a more accepting America. That is what we have the opportunity to do today. I hope that many, if not all, of my Republican colleagues will stand not for party, not for policies of party or partisanship, but stand for principles enunciated 243 years ago but still not yet fully realized. That is what this day is about. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, which I know will pass, but I hope, as I have said, it passes with a very strong bipartisan conviction and confirmation of the fact that ``we hold these truths to be self-evident.'' This is an opportunity for the House to come together and reject discrimination and exclusion. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill that Mr. Cicilline put forward. The Equality Act is about America. It is about who we are, what we are, and what we believe. I want to commend the LGBTQ community and the Equality Caucus for being at the forefront of promoting full equality, equal justice, and equal opportunity for LGBTQ people and their families in this country. The world looks to us as the strongest supporter, historically, of human rights and equal rights. Have we always been so? No, we have not. My party was the segregationist party for many years, and we said no to that. We walked away from that. We said that was not the party we were going to be. Of course, all of us were not members of that part of the party, but this day, we should all stand and say, yes, we believe that all men and all women and all people are created equal, by God, and endowed not by the Constitution, not by this body, but endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to live as you are. Yes, we make judgments on what you may do, but not who you are. You may be Black; you may be White; you may be a woman; you may be a man; you may be a homosexual; you may be a lesbian; you may be a trans; you may be anything other than what I am; but you are entitled, from me and from your country, to respect and equal treatment, as we said 243 years ago. Sadly, some States still permit discrimination against LGBT people in those areas that have been discussed. We need to put an end to that and ensure that all people in this country, no matter where they live, are protected against hate and bigotry, exclusion and discrimination. The opportunities this country offers must be open to everyone in our country. When I first ran for office in 1966 for a seat in the Maryland State Senate, fair housing was the issue, and the proposition was you didn't have to sell your house to somebody whose color was different than yours even though they had the ability to buy it and they wanted to move into that neighborhood. This issue that we consider today is different in particular, but not in principle. That idea is at the very core of our American society: that opportunities exist for all of our people. Throughout our history, we have reinforced this idea with the passage of the 14th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and others. We uphold this commitment to a fair and more just society with passage of this Equality Act. Surely, we ought to be able to agree. Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, Northeast, South, and West, surely, we can agree that all men and all women are created equal and are deserving of equal treatment. Let's come together to make that promise of our Founders ring true. The Bible says, ``Love your neighbor as yourself.'' Not love your straight neighbor, not love your Christian neighbor, not love your White neighbor, not love your native-born neighbor, not love your neighbor of some other distinction, but, ``Love your neighbor as yourself.'' That means, in my view, love your gay neighbor, love your lesbian neighbor, love your trans neighbor. It means love your Muslim neighbor; love your Jewish neighbor; love your African American, Latino, and Asian American neighbor; love your immigrant neighbor. Love your neighbor, not your hyphenated neighbor, because we are all created equal. Martin Luther King, a century after the Civil War, said to America that we are not living out the promise of America. He called us to conscience. He called us to be America. He called us to be that light to the rest of the world. So today, we say we will judge on content of character. We will be America. We will be the best we can be of America. Like we did on so many of the civil rights bills that have come before us, again let us vote overwhelmingly to confirm America's promise to its people and to the world. Vote for this critically important statement of America's values.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Thursday, 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 the close of business today. The House will also consider H.R. 1500, the Consumer First Act. This legislation seeks to reverse the administration's efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 1994, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019. The legislation is intended to increase the flexibility of 401(k) plans and improve access to the accounts, particularly for small businesses and employees. The bill includes a host of provisions aimed at encouraging small businesses to provide private retirement benefits to their workers.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. As the gentleman knows, we passed an initial bill some many weeks ago. The Senate didn't pass that. We then passed, more recently, a bill which did, in fact, take care of everyone we know who has had a natural disaster in the interim as well as those we had taken care of the first time around. So, we think we have a good bill that was passed; however, as the gentleman also referenced, the President has asked for an additional supplemental of a little over $4 billion referenced for humanitarian issues at the border. That is being reviewed. As the gentleman probably also knows, an offer was made to our side. That offer has now been responded to with respect to both the initial and the supplemental--initial, I mean the disaster bill--and we are looking for an answer back at some point in time to our response. But, hopefully, we can reach an agreement.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Clearly, if we get an agreement--and that, of course, is the big if, but, hopefully, we can. If we can do that, then we will want to move as quickly as possible.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. We have had this discussion on a number of occasions. I am convinced that Mr. McGovern, the chairman of the Rules Committee, does, in fact, want to have the kind of process that we talked about and that the gentleman just referenced. He also knows that, in the last Congress, we had the most closed rules of any Congress in which I have served, and perhaps in history, 103 closed rules. But having said that, I am hopeful that the gentleman's side will come forth with amendments that are, as the gentleman says, subject to rational debate and are not gotcha amendments. I am not alleging they are gotcha amendments, but that is obviously a concern that the gentleman had when he was in charge and that we have when we are in charge. But I know that Mr. McGovern wants to have a fair process, and we are talking about that, so we will continue to do that.

Mr. HOYER. First of all, I would say words are important. That is why we all debate, because we think words are important. But having said that, I share the gentleman's view, as he well knows, with reference to the BDS movement, which I think is contrary to the interests of our ally, Israel, and contrary to our own interests. Having said that, as I indicated to the gentleman last week, I have been discussing this with Mr. Engel, and he, as you know, shares the view which I have expressed and my friend has expressed, and his committee is going to be addressing that, I expect, in the near term. When they do, we will decide what actions to take at that point in time, and I look forward to discussing it with the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. My friend mentioned there are essentially four components of the bill to which he referred, three of which are noncontroversial, as the gentleman knows, and one of which has issues with respect to its constitutionality. Without resolving that issue, the three that are in that bill, I think, enjoy bipartisan support. They were held up in the Senate, as the gentleman probably knows, but we want to make sure those three certainly are adopted.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, if you put patients before politics, you will vote for this bill because patients care about prescription drugs, but they also care about access to affordable, quality healthcare. Now, you sent a bill to the President--or you didn't really send it to him because it didn't pass the Senate--and you went down to the White House and you exalted about the bill you had passed, and the President said: This is a good bill. Then he had the opportunity to, perhaps, have his advisers tell him what was in the bill, and 10 days later he said: This is a mean bill because it shortchanged patients for politics. Mr. Chair, last week the House passed H.R. 986, a bill to protect coverage for those with preexisting conditions, and the Republicans said: No, it doesn't do that. They wanted to change the name of the bill. Not only did they want to vote against it, they wanted to change the name of the bill. Why? Because they want to tell the public we are for protecting you against preexisting conditions. We just don't vote that way. This week House Democrats are continuing to strengthen access to affordable healthcare by passing H.R. 987, an additional package of bills aimed at strengthening our healthcare system and lowering prescription drug costs because patients don't just worry about prescription drugs, they worry about their health coverage. As a matter of fact, it is hard to separate the two. This effort is critical because the Trump administration, in its campaign and from its very first day, and congressional Republicans, have been working tirelessly to sabotage healthcare access and undermine the reforms of the Affordable Care Act. They voted against it and, yes, they voted over, and over, and over again to repeal it. With all due respect to my friend, we didn't vote for those bills. Now, we may have voted for some bills to improve the Affordable Care Act, but we certainly didn't vote for any of your bills which had the effect of repealing ObamaCare, because we believe it is in the best interest of the American public, and so does the majority of the American public. Last year, 1.1 million Americans lost health coverage after years of gains in coverage. This shows us, dangerously, that the Trump administration's administrative sabotage is having its intended adverse effect, from limiting access to open enrollment, to allowing junk plans. Let me say something about junk plans because the gentleman says: Well, some people can't afford it. Yes, they get a plan and they think they have health coverage, and by the way, it doesn't cover something when they get really ill, or they have lifetime limits, or annual limits. They don't have this covered. They don't have the other covered. Not only that, but guess what happens to the insurance pool? It becomes riskier. And guess what happens then? The price goes up. You don't have to be a genius or know much about the insurance business to know that that is the case. From repealing votes in Congress, to anti-ACA lawsuits in the courts, Republicans have been trying to undermine the Affordable Care Act. From shortening enrollment periods, to cutting funding for outreach to let people know what is available to them and what is the best policy for them. Advice and counsel, they don't have to take any of it, but they ought to have that available to them. This sabotage is hurting access to affordable, quality healthcare coverage for the people. That is what we are here for. For the people. And that is what this legislation is for. For the people. The legislation before the House today would push back on these efforts that sabotage in several ways: first, we are banning junk plans that don't provide adequate coverage and raise premiums for comprehensive health plans. Next, we are taking action to bring generic drugs to market more quickly, helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs. I appreciate the fact that my Republican colleagues support those bills. I appreciate the gentleman who knows full well as a pharmacist the crisis that confronts people when they can't afford lifesaving and health- enhancing prescription drugs. But they also are facing real problems on the availability of health insurance should they have to have health providers, whether they are doctors, or hospitals. Finally, H.R. 987 increases funding for outreach, enrollment, and navigators to help Americans find the right healthcare plan. That is for the people, to help the people understand, and to have access, and to be secure in knowing they have adequate healthcare for them and their families. It also provides States with additional funding to establish State- based marketplaces. Innovation. Our legislation will provide insurers, providers, and patients alike with greater certainty that the Affordable Care Act will continue to make healthcare available and affordable to Americans with preexisting conditions. I am pleased that my Republican colleagues are supporting the prescription drug titles of this bill. Perhaps we will send it over to the Senate, and maybe that is all they will send back. But the fact of the matter is, we have a broader responsibility than just prescription drugs. Democrats are committed to bringing healthcare costs down and making sure more Americans can access quality, affordable coverage. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Representatives Cicilline, Rush, Schrader, Castor, Kim, and Blunt Rochester for their leadership in the component parts of this bill, which will make the security for healthcare better for the people. They have introduced the constituent parts of this bill. Of course, I want to thank my good friend, Frank Pallone. Nobody has worked harder for a longer period of time to enhance the healthcare of Americans. Nobody has worked harder in committee, both initially on the Affordable Care Act, of which he was a very significant part of the authorship, and since then in protecting it and trying to enhance it. This bill is important for us to pass to do just that. That is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in standing up for the Affordable Care Act and its benefits; not undermining the law and its reforms. Having agreement on prescription reforms, bringing prices down, and making generics more available is an important step. But it is not the only step that we need to take. This is not the final step. This is a step. It is an important step. I hope that Republicans and Democrats would support this bill overwhelmingly because, as I said, it is for the people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the dean of the California delegation and a good friend of Ellen's for yielding. Ellen was one of my closest friends in the Congress of the United States. I think Ellen and I voted the same about almost every time the lights were turned on and the votes were requested. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Lofgren and the California delegation for organizing this tribute. I rise to join in remembering a dear, dear friend, an outstanding colleague, and a respected public servant. In recent days, I have been asked to describe Ellen. Words that come to mind are extraordinarily accomplished, stateswoman, a diplomat, an expert in our Nation's defense as a member of the Armed Services Committee and as a member of the State Department, and a politician in the best sense of the word. Her skill in rallying disparate interests behind a common objective was, I think, almost unmatched. Ms. Lofgren referred to her as presiding. She was a Democrat presiding in a House in which all respected her, which is why she was so effective. She would look to the Republican side of the aisle, and she would tap the gavel. They would know she knew what was right, and they did not want to cross her. Her determination not to be swayed from the principles to which she always remained true was a hallmark of Ellen Tauscher. Many in the House and in our country will remember Ellen for having been one of the first women, as has been pointed out, on the New York Stock Exchange at the age of 25. I can imagine there were a lot of old bulls on Wall Street who said, what is that young woman, that young, blonde, beautiful woman doing sitting on the Stock Exchange, a seat on the Stock Exchange? And the answer to that question: Damn well--like everything she did. Many will remember her for the 13 years she represented California in the Congress and for her very successful tenure as a top arms control negotiator with the Russians. But I will remember her as one of my dearest and closest friends in the House. I will never forget Ellen's kindness, sincerity, advice, counsel, and loyalty. I will never forget her honesty and her intellect. Neither will I forget Ellen's determination to see each of us here, regardless of our party or background, as a true colleague in service. That is how she was able to be so successful as a legislator. As chairwoman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, she was respected not only as a presiding officer but also for the depth of her knowledge as it related to our national security and for the fact that she was always genuine. You knew that Ellen Tauscher was not taking a position for show. She was taking it because she believed deeply that it was in the best interest of our country. Because of her work on the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee and extraordinary efforts as a diplomat, Americans are safer today. Ellen worked tirelessly during the Obama administration to negotiate the New START Treaty, which reduced American and Russian nuclear arsenals to their lowest levels in more than half a century. In that pursuit, she drew on the same indomitable nature, attention to detail, and determination to achieve results that made her so successful in business, in the Congress, and as a campaigner for Senator Feinstein. She chaired Senator Feinstein's first two campaigns for the United States Senate, and Dianne Feinstein was one of her closest friends. I join the Senator from California in expressing my deep sadness at the loss of my dear friend, and I join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have said, very rightly, that, with Ellen's passing, this institution has lost one of its most outstanding former Members. My thoughts are with Katherine, who, as Zoe Lofgren said, she adored. We may have been her good friends, but we were a far-back second to Katherine, a beautiful young woman in her own right, a wonderful athlete, and like her mother, bright, ambitious, fair, and loving. We send our sympathy to her entire family. May Ellen's memory be an inspiration to all of us in this House to serve in the way she served: with honor, with humility--humility but also great self-confidence--and with determination to see every vote as an opportunity to do right by those who sent us here. That is what Ellen did every day during her tenure. I thank Ellen for her service. I thank her for her friendship. I thank her for making America better. We miss her.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana, the Republican whip, for yielding. On Monday, there will be no votes expected in the House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be made available by the close of business today. The House will also consider H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act. That will be considered under a rule. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 987, the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act. This legislation is composed of seven bills that would protect and expand affordable healthcare and lower prescription drug costs. The legislation consists of separate bills from the Energy and Commerce Committee to ban junk health plans, bring generic prescription drugs to market more quickly, provide funding for States to establish State-based marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act, require and provide funding for outreach and enrollment, and fund the navigator program that assists Americans during the open enrollment period. All of these bills will be directed at trying to reverse some of the steps that have been taken to undermine Americans' access to affordable, quality healthcare. Lastly, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 5, the Equality Act. LGBT Americans and their families deserve to be protected against all forms of discrimination no matter where they live. This legislation would ban discrimination against LGBT people in housing, employment, education, jury service, credit and financing, and public accommodations.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The good news is, we just passed a bipartisan bill with 34 Members from my friend's side voting in favor of that bill to give very, very substantial relief and an additional $3 billion to take care of the storms and natural disasters that have occurred since we passed a bill to the Senate many, many weeks ago that, unfortunately, was not dealt with by the Senate, largely because there was a reluctance to help the Americans who happened to live in Puerto Rico to the extent that we are helping other people around the country as we should. I agree with the gentleman. We had a bipartisan bill today. I am hopeful that we can have a bipartisan bill moving forward. As my friend knows, the amendment that was offered, the MTR that was offered, was offered to an object in the bill where there had been already a substantial increase, with apparently the argument being made on the floor that that money was going to be taken from the place to which we appropriated it to another area to which it was not appropriated. We had that somewhat, I want to say, confrontation with the President on doing exactly that, taking money from MILCON and wanting to put it in a wall. Very frankly, there was the opportunity to do that in the subcommittee and in the committee. In fact, as the gentleman knows, many of his colleagues who serve on that committee voted against funding the level of Head Start that they wanted to make a $2.8 billion increase to. That aside, I will tell the gentleman that, clearly, we want to make sure that we handle people at the border in a humanitarian way that is consistent with the American way. It is ironic, I will tell my friend, as you heard in the debate, that today is the 1-year anniversary when we started a policy of taking children from their parents at the border, separating them. Some of those children to this day have not been reunited with their parents. We are very concerned about that. One of the things that I know the gentleman knows is that when we opened government--the government was shut down when we took over--we included a little over $500 million for humanitarian expenditures for people at the border so we could treat them fairly. I think, frankly, that money has not all been spent at this point in time. We do know there is a challenge for us at the border, with the numbers of people who are seeking asylum and seeking refuge. We are certainly, as the gentleman suggested, going to work on trying to respond to that in a bipartisan, effective way.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. He had a lot of facts and assertions in his comments. First of all, let me correct: He adopted the President's number. The President's number was wrong. It bore no relationship to reality. He picked it out of the air. Numerous fact-checkers have indicated that. The facts are that $42 billion has, in fact, been allocated, $20.3 obligated, and $12.7 outlaid. So, clearly, there are funds that have been allocated, but not the $90 billion to which the gentleman referred. Having said that, obviously, what held it up in the Senate was the argument over Puerto Rico. I mean, that is why we have been put to the process of passing another bill. The good news in that delay is, we did take care of the Midwest. We put $3 billion in there for disasters that occurred subsequent to the first emergency disaster relief bill that we passed. And, as I said, we included $500 million when we opened up the government for humanitarian relief. We included another half a billion dollars for judges because there are, as the gentleman knows, legitimate seekers of asylum who are fearful of their own lives, the lives of their families are in danger, and they are coming here. The gentleman well knows there are some people in the White House who want to see the numbers of immigrants to America almost eliminated, so that there is some discussion and disagreement in the White House. I don't know exactly where the President stands on that, but he certainly has been hostile to immigration. So, I take the gentleman at his belief, but we have not necessarily seen that from the White House. Having said that, we will work--because we believe, as he does, that people who come to the United States need to be treated, for whatever reason they come to the United States, in a way consistent with our American values, in a humanitarian way. And it is--I will repeat--ironic that we are debating this issue on the year's anniversary of children being taken from the arms of their mothers and fathers and sent hundreds of miles and, in some cases, thousands of miles away, and still have some of them who have not been reunited with their parents. I am glad that there is concern about humanitarian treatment now. That is appropriate. I share the gentleman's view on that. Hopefully, we can reach bipartisan agreement in the very near term. As the gentleman knows, the President's request was just sent down last week. As the gentleman further knows, we have appropriated money to certain objects. And we had a confrontation on that, and both the House and the Senate thought the President was taking money and applying it to an object which we had not authorized. Then the Congress stood up for itself, in a bipartisan way, in the Senate and in the House. Unfortunately, the President vetoed that bill, and he is spending money that was not authorized by the Congress of the United States. We are having a number of challenges to the underpinning of our democratic system and the authority of the Congress of the United States versus the exercise of authoritarian power by the President of the United States, and I would hope the gentleman would share that view. But, having said all that, we clearly want to get to the same objective, and I am sure the Senate--and I know, as I have just talked to Mrs. Lowey--they are going to review the request, as Ms. DeLauro said on the floor, see what the money is going to be spent for, make sure that it is, in fact, going to be spent for humanitarian relief at the border. We are very concerned about that and, I think, rightfully so. That is what it is projected to be, and we want to make sure that that is what it is. So, we will proceed, hopefully, in a bipartisan way and, hopefully, with relative speed. But I hope the Senate, Madam Speaker, will take up this relief bill and pass it forthwith so that the folks who have been so damaged by natural disasters will get some relief and will understand that their Federal Government cares about them and is going to give them the relief they need. I hope that we can move that as quickly as possible.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, Mr. Pallone, for the extraordinary leadership he has shown on this issue and so many others, and for his being an original drafter and sponsor of the Affordable Care Act. Sitting here, I was listening to speaker after speaker after speaker tell me that this doesn't protect preexisting conditions. Of course, it does. But those are people who not only didn't want to protect preexisting conditions, they wanted to repeal the whole bill. They wanted to kick 20 million people off health insurance. Give me a break. Their crocodile tears are not, hopefully, deluding anybody. They are against the Affordable Care Act. We get that. This administration has done everything they can think of to undermine the Affordable Care Act, which has an adverse effect on the ability of Americans to get health insurance at a price they can afford. Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, congressional Republicans and the Trump administration have engaged in a dangerous campaign to repeal, undermine, and dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Now, depending upon how long they have been here, they may well have voted over 60 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. All of it. Preexisting conditions and everything else. Through executive actions and lawsuits, they have sabotaged the law and fueled uncertainty in health insurance markets in the process. They have a suit right now which wants to, effectively, repeal the entire Affordable Care Act that the Attorney General of the United States and the President of the United States are supporting. Spare me these crocodile tears about how this bill doesn't protect preexisting conditions. It does. But they don't care whether it does or not. They, the people, want to know that protections for those with preexisting conditions won't disappear. That tens of millions of Americans won't be made, effectively, uninsurable and lose their coverage. There are very few of us in this Chamber or in the gallery who don't have some sort of preexisting condition. We, Democrats, are committed to making sure that that will not preclude people from getting health insurance. In the first days of the Congress, we took action to do what the Trump administration's Justice Department has refused to do: defend the law in court. We are taking that action. Instead, the Trump administration is seeking to overturn the entire law, including the ban on denying coverage for those with preexisting conditions. Now, the Republicans did pass a bill, when they were in charge. They sent it over to the Senate. They had a big--and I know other people have talked about that--a big celebration at the White House, and the President embraced the bill. Some 10 days later, he said: No, it is a mean bill. The President of the United States embraced it, and, 10 days later, it is a mean bill. Overturning the law means the end of popular provisions, like a ban on forcing women to pay more for the same coverage as men or allowing those under age 26 to be covered under their parents' policy. The administration's lawsuit would also bring back out-of-pocket costs for preventive care and screenings. We want to encourage preventive care. Why? It saves money and saves lives. Most egregiously, it would kick 20 million Americans off health insurance coverage who were able to get covered because of the Affordable Care Act. Last month, the House passed a resolution written by Colin Allred, our new Member from Texas, condemning that lawsuit which would repeal the Affordable Care Act, and reiterating the importance of protecting Americans' access to quality, affordable care. Yesterday, the House took another step by passing bipartisan bills, which Mr. Pallone brought to the floor, to help speed up the process of bringing the cost of generic drugs down and not prescription costs up. Today, we have a bill to overturn the Trump administration's guidance that sabotages the Affordable Care Act by allowing substandard plans. Are they cheaper? They are. But, in the end, they are much more expensive because the coverage is minimal. The effect of such a rule is to drive up prices for those with preexisting conditions. That wasn't the intent of the Affordable Care Act, which aimed to make coverage affordable for all Americans. Next week, we will continue focusing on healthcare by considering additional legislation to help Americans access quality, affordable coverage. I urge my colleagues on both sides. Some of them have said they want to protect preexisting conditions. Some of them have said that. If they believed it, then they need to vote for this bill. They need to do something to protect those with preexisting conditions. Today's vote is their opportunity to do so. I thank Representative Kuster, who is on the floor with us today, for introducing this legislation, and, again, Chairman Pallone for bringing it to the floor. House Democrats will continue, as we pledged to do in this last campaign and as the people who voted for us are expecting us to do, to protect the Affordable Care Act, protect their ability to get insurance, notwithstanding a preexisting condition, protect their families, protect them, and make America better.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield? I would like to tell the gentleman why that happened in Maryland.

Mr. HOYER

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