Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Tuesday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On 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. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. The House will also consider H.R. 986, the Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019. On October 22, 2018, the Trump administration continued the Republican assault on affordable, quality health coverage by issuing new guidance to carry out section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act. That new guidance, Madam Speaker, undermines patient protections and threatens coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions. H.R. 986 blocks implementation of that guidance so as to preserve preexisting condition protections and ensure that healthcare remains affordable and comprehensive. In addition, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 2157, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2019. The legislation would provide relief and recovery assistance for Americans affected by recent natural disasters. It includes an additional $3 billion above that which we passed and sent to the Senate some weeks ago to address urgent needs following flooding in the Midwest and tornadoes in the South that have occurred since the House passed its first disaster relief bill in January, which, unfortunately, has languished in the Senate. Lastly, the bill includes an extension of the National Flood Insurance Program until September 30, 2019.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I won't respond to his initial comments. Obviously, we have a disagreement on the impact that the administration has had on preexisting conditions and on the section to which we are referring. But we will have a full debate on that next week when we consider the bill. With respect to the gentleman's question as it relates to the President's proposal for supplemental funding for border security, which, by the way, was sent down yesterday and is now being reviewed, the gentleman knows that we are strong supporters of border security, and we want to make sure that the border is also humane. The gentleman did not mention, but I want to point out, that in the bill that we adopted to fund the government that was shut down for 35 days, in the bill that we passed, there was $755 million for construction and technology at ports of entry where most drugs come into the country illegally. We want to make sure those drugs stop. We want to have border infrastructure that allows for not only security but checking people who are coming into the country to make sure they do not have illicit substances with them, either for their own use or for sale. In addition to that, we had $415 million for Border Patrol and Customs agents and for humanitarian relief, which, obviously, was anticipating the problem that currently confronts us and to make sure that people who come across our border are treated humanely and with respect. In addition, there was $30.5 million for alternatives to detention and family case management, which we think is important. In addition to that, there was a half billion dollars, $563 million, for immigration judges to reduce the backlog of cases. Lastly, there was a half-billion dollars, $527 million, to assist Central American countries, which has had a positive effect on reducing crime and violence, one of the major reasons that people are fleeing those countries, particularly the Northern Triangle countries, and seeking asylum in the United States of America, pursuant to American law. But we are reviewing. We want to make sure, as I said at the beginning, that our borders are secure and that we are treating people consistent with American law, not separating children from their families. The President says he wants to perhaps renew that policy. We are vigorously opposed to that policy. We think the President is wrong in citing previous administrations that separated children. They did so in very few instances, almost exclusively when they were concerned about the safety of a child because of a parent's actions toward the child. I will tell the gentleman that we are going to be reviewing the President's request very carefully. Ms. Roybal-Allard, who chairs the committee, and Mr. Thompson, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee, both will be looking at it carefully. We will be making recommendations in the near future as to the disposition of that proposal.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The point of reciting the dollars that were included just some weeks ago to the administration is to point out that they had clearly significant sums with which to operate now, and we will see what funds they need in the future. But I wanted to point out that we have not been negligent or sleeping, with respect to both border security and the humanitarian treatment of those who come across our border seeking asylum. As I said, we will review it and see what determination needs to be made on what further resources are necessary.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman knows, and I thank him for his observation, the bill to which he refers has essentially four parts, including a provision with reference to the MOU for Israel's assistance package, which we strongly support. We strongly support the levels of that. That was not controversial. Also, the Syria sanctions bill--of course, we have passed the Syria sanctions bill, and we are working on other bills that relate to that. Unfortunately, they are being held up in the Senate by some Republican Senators. The Syria sanctions bill has not been moved in the Senate. It also has the Jordan MOU, which is noncontroversial. It has Syria, Jordan, and the MOU. Those are the three factors. One is controversial. It is controversial because of whether or not it comports with the law. There have been a substantial number of State cases that have been ruled on, State actions taken on this issue that have been held not to be consistent with law and the Constitution. We are concerned about that because I share the gentleman's view. I am an opponent of the BDS movement. I think it harms one of our most important allies, and it is inconsistent with, I think, the welfare of the people in Israel and, frankly, the Palestinians in the West Bank. Having said that, we are strong supporters of the resolution. That resolution has bipartisan support, I think, and if it comes to the floor, it will have bipartisan support. The gentleman indicated that. We intend to come forward with that, but we are trying to work to make sure that other suggestions are consistent with law, and we may move with those as well. We haven't made that determination yet.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Of course, what the gentleman didn't say is that the last Congress had the most closed rules of any Congress in which I have served, the most closed Congress that we have served in, according to outside observers. There were 30 amendments available to this bill. I am not sure how many were asked on the Democratic side or the Republican side, frankly. But having said that, there were Republican amendments made in order. Mr. McGovern, the chairman of the Rules Committee, has said he intends to have as many amendments made in order as they believe consistent with getting our work done. So I would say to the gentleman, unlike the last Congress, I think you will see closed rules be very much the exception while, frankly, they were very much the rule in the last Congress. But I take the gentleman's point, and I will have discussions with Mr. McGovern. But as you know and I know he is one of the fairest Members in this House, and we will be trying to accommodate Members. I will also say that the gentleman's statistics include the appropriations process, where there were a lot of amendments on both sides of the aisle. We have not gotten to the appropriations process. As you know, it is my intention that we get to the appropriations process and, frankly, try to conclude the appropriations process next month, and I am sure there are going to be a lot of amendments coming from both sides.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think the viewers and the Members of Congress are probably glazed over right now with these numbers, but I will tell the gentleman, there was not a single open rule in the House that was presided over by Paul Ryan, not one--not one. Check your record. But as I say, Mr. McGovern has clearly said that we want to have amendments made in order so that both sides can get a fair hearing, and I think he has been doing that, and I think he will continue to do it.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world, not just in the United States, believe that climate change is one of the major crises confronting the global community. We went to Paris, and the world community got together and adopted an agreement that was voluntary in its implementation. No sovereignty was given up by any nation. They said that scientists say we have a crisis and that we need to respond to it. My friend from Michigan who spoke earlier, Mr. Walberg, said that we ought to be focused on education, housing, healthcare, and job creation. He is right, but to ignore this problem is dangerous and unacceptable. Climate change is perhaps one of the greatest threats we face as a nation and as a planet. Those who deny it do so at great peril to the health, security, and economic prosperity of our country. H.R. 9 will not solve climate change. The first step in any journey does not get you there. But without it, you get nowhere. House Democrats are laying down a marker today that we are committed to tackling this challenge with the seriousness it deserves. Recognizing and combating climate change must be a global effort. This legislation prohibits the Trump administration from using any funds to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. I tell my friends in the House that I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans support that proposition, as do the citizens of the world. We have been the leader of the free world. Withdrawing from an agreement that was voluntarily entered into by over 170 nations shrugs off the mantle of leadership, moral and intellectual. If the United States withdraws, then we will be the only nation in the world not to be part of this historic agreement which embraces the goals previously set by our country--joined by the contribution of other nations--to reduce carbon pollution, promote technological innovation, and help avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. If we ignore the challenges of climate change, then we will also close ourselves off to opportunities to take the lead in the race to develop and deploy cleaner and more efficient technologies, which would create jobs and grow businesses and be a boon to our economy. So I would suggest to my colleagues that those who argue against this bill argue not for economic progress, not for the creation of jobs, but exactly the opposite, and they deny the future: the future of the economy, the future of our health, the future of our environment, and the future of our children. America, if it is to be great, must not sit on the sidelines and shrug like Atlas in confronting the rest of the world. We must act on climate change. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my dear friend, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Engel, for his leadership and his strong voice on behalf of what is an international issue. It is an issue for us, but it is an international issue. I want to thank, as well, my dear friend, Representative Kathy Castor, for her leadership as chair of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and for introducing H.R. 9. I also want to thank Chairman Pallone and the Energy and Commerce Committee for their leadership. There have been over 30 hearings on this issue. All concluded we must have a concerted effort to address climate change, and House Democrats will continue to do our part. But this ought to be a bipartisan vote. Every citizen--Republican, Democrat, Independent, and nonaffiliated-- are going to be affected if we do not deal with climate change, and their children as well. I look forward to bringing to the floor future legislation from our committees which seeks to tackle the climate crisis with substantive proposals, but I urge my colleagues: Let's take this first step. Let's say that we are not going to withdraw from the rest of the world. Let's say we are going to continue to lead on an issue that there is a global consensus on that we must deal with climate change. Take this step. Assert America's leadership.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the shooting that targeted the Jewish community in the San Diego area this weekend was a heartbreaking reminder of the new challenges facing our country and the world in the 21st century. In centuries past, purveyors of anti-Semitism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, racism, and other vile forms of hatred employed the ancient tools of whisper and rumor and incitement in the village squares to intoxicate mobs with fear, and fuel violence against those of a different race, a different religion, a different origin, and a different color. Today, the internet and social media have provided haters with modern tools to do the same incitement. We have seen it in Pittsburgh and in San Diego. We have seen it in Charlottesville; in Christchurch, New Zealand; and in Sri Lanka. We have seen it in the viral images online using anti-Semitic tropes, or painting Muslims as terrorists, or vilifying migrant families. As a nation, we need to take action to counter these new forms of incitement. We are observing a lesson in how hatred has adapted to the 21st century. What we learn from that lesson and how we adapt to combat new tools of hatred will determine whether our democracy and commitment to tolerance and pluralism will survive this century. Mr. Speaker, I pray for the victims of this weekend's shooting, and I say to them and all the others who have been targeted by hate in our day: this House stands against hate and will continue to do its part to promote the vision of our Founders, of a nation where all are created equal, and endowed not by the government or the Constitution, but by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let us all stand for tolerance, for inclusion, and reject hate. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the last day of the session of the General Assembly in Maryland. Sadly, the day before, on Sunday, the longest serving speaker of the house of delegates--as we call our house of representatives--died on Sunday, and I rise to pay tribute to him. He was a great American, a great public servant, and a very dear friend. Maryland lost a champion. Michael Busch, Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, passed away after a long and distinguished career serving the people of our State. He was young; he was 72 years of age, and the longest serving speaker, as I said, in the history of the house of delegates. He had served as speaker of the house since 2003, having first been elected to represent Anne Arundel County in the house of delegates in 1986. His title was Mr. Speaker; many, however, knew him as ``Coach,'' a reminder of his days as a teacher and athletics coach at St. Mary's High School in Annapolis. It was at St. Mary's High School that Michael Busch first made a name for himself as a very excellent football player. He later played at Temple University, and for 40 years, he worked with the Anne Arundel County, Department of Parks and Recreation with young people, teaching them, mentoring them, giving them values. Many who served with him in the legislature called him ``Coach,'' not just because of his history, but because Speaker Busch was like a coach and a mentor to so many of those who served in the house of delegates. He was a man of deep intellect, poise, steadiness under pressure, and a wellspring of compassion. He led efforts to expand access to quality, affordable healthcare for Marylanders. He helped lead efforts to make Maryland one of the first States to adopt marriage equality by legislative action, an action that was later confirmed by the voters of our State. He led the State in its effort to abolish the death penalty, and he oversaw the enactment of Maryland's $15 minimum wage. And he worked hard to ensure a cleaner Chesapeake Bay and its watershed for future generations while increasing investments in renewable energy. Earlier this week, the General Assembly overrode the Governor's veto to enact Speaker Busch's bill to protect five oyster sanctuaries in the Bay. Michael Busch's positive impact on Maryland will be felt for, literally, decades to come. He was a good and decent person who sought to elevate our politics during an age when too many, unlike him, had brought our politics low. I hope my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, would join me in expressing our condolences to his wife, Cindy, their daughters, Erin and Megan, and to the entire Busch family and to the people of Maryland he served so faithfully for so many years. I hope all of us in this House will find inspiration in Speaker Busch's life and legacy as we strive to do right by those we serve, as he did for so many years, and to do so together in a way that is bipartisan, as was his inclination and performance; and be reflective of the way he lived his life and approached the work of governing. In an age where, as I said, politics has been brought low by divisiveness, and in some respects, hatefulness and attacks on one another, Michael Busch was somebody who treated others with respect, with consideration, and with fairness. Michael Busch served Maryland well. He served our people well. He will be missed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Craig) for yielding and I thank my friend, Mr. Meadows, for his comments, for his support of this effort, which is, as he said and as Congresswoman Craig said, very much about giving young people a sense of competition, a sense of accomplishment, a sense of creating a vehicle through their own hands and their own work and their own efforts. So this is a very good effort for us and for young people. One of my favorite events of the year is the Soap Box Derby. I am speaking, of course, from experience in terms of our district, which I am going to talk about. This resolution that has been called up today, along with other members of the region's Congressional delegation, Representatives Connolly, Beyer, and Wexton from Virginia, and David Trone, John Sarbanes, and Anthony Brown from Maryland, and, of course, the Representative of the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is a big supporter of this, authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for the derby. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is my 28th year sponsoring the Soap Box Derby resolution, and I am pleased that it has passed every year unanimously. This is the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby's 78th year. It will be held on, as has been said, June 15, and we will see soap box racers from ages 8 to 17 compete in three divisions: stock, super stock, and masters. The winners from each division, as has been said, will each have a chance to compete at the National All-American Soap Box Derby in Akron, Ohio. Soap box derbies have been called the greatest amateur racing event in the world. In America, we have a long tradition of families participating, and many adults carry fond memories with them throughout their lives of having built soap box racers with their parents or other relatives during their childhood. Soap box derbies are educational, teaching children about sportsmanship, engineering, manufacturing, and leadership. Many of the racers are sponsored by civic groups, police and fire departments, and service organizations, with members coming out to cheer on their participants. Several greater Washington soap box champions, as it will not surprise you, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, have come from Maryland's Fifth District in recent years, including the winners from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, and last year, 2018. So we are really into this and we have some very, very talented young people who are excited about participating, and obviously do well. Our racers, Mr. Speaker, even won the National Championship in both 2007 and 2008. So the Soap Box Derby is a big deal in the Fifth Congressional District. Last year, Tyler Jameson from Hollywood, Maryland, won the stock division. His brother Ryan Jameson won ``Best Decorated'' soap box racer in the super stock division. It was decorated as a Maryland flag, which we love very, very much. Aspen Tomasello from Waldorf, Maryland, which I represent, won in super stock and then went on to win third place at the National All- American Soap Box Derby race in Akron. Kenny Tomasello, her brother, prevailed in the masters division and took fifth place in Akron. I have a lot of confidence in our Fifth District folks, and, Mr. Speaker, you can imagine I would be in a lot of trouble if this resolution didn't pass allowing them to compete in this wonderful event. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the organizers of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby as well as the cosponsors of this resolution, and in particular, Congresswoman Craig and Congressman Meadows for their support and help in getting this passed. Mr. Speaker, it is a fun event, but it is also a great event to teach young people values and participation and competition.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken no backseat to my support for Israel for half a century. I rise in opposition to this cynical, political ploy. We are about to vote on a resolution concerning U.S. involvement in the conflict in Yemen and how to promote an end to a humanitarian crisis in a country that threatens the lives of 22 million people. They are hungry. They are displaced. They are scarred by a war and violence. This resolution is about them and about what we as a nation can do to put a stop to that conflict. The gentleman is incorrect. The gentleman did not tell us the truth. This kills this resolution. In an effort to prevent Congress from taking action on such an important issue, however, House Republicans are trying to make this a vote about something else; and in doing so, they risk undermining the long history of bipartisan consensus supporting our ally, Israel. How shameful. How sad. The American people will not be fooled or misled by this tactic. Our fellow supporters of Israel will not be fooled. No one can accuse me of failing to defend the U.S.-Israel partnership and strongly opposing BDS. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so as well. I urge every single one of them to do so. And I urge every Republican who believes that using Israel as a partisan cudgel is dangerous, cynical, and harmful to Israel to join me in voting against this motion. Mr. Speaker, none of the major organizations supporting Israel have any illusions about what this motion seeks to do. Its intention is not to unite, but to divide. Its intention is not to support our ally, but to sabotage our resolution about the conflict in Yemen. This vote on this motion is a vote to kill this joint resolution through a cynical and dishonest tactic. So let's move past this charade of a motion. Let's stop playing games with this very important and serious issue in support of Israel. Reject ``gotcha'' politics. Let me be clear: For as long as I am majority leader, House Democrats will never waiver in our party's steadfast support for a strong Israel relationship. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Scalise, for yielding. I also thank him for not mentioning the LSU-Maryland game one more time.

Mr. HOYER. We are both lamenting that fact. On Monday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. On Thursday and Friday, no votes are expected in the House. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business tomorrow. Madam Speaker, the House will also consider H.R. 1644, Save the Internet Act of 2019. This bill will reverse the administration's repeal of critical net neutrality protections, which will empower the FCC to prohibit unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory practices and ensure consumers can make informed decisions when shopping for internet plans. This bill also enacts authorities to support expanding broadband to rural communities and struggling Americans. In addition, Madam Speaker, it is possible the House will take action to set the budget levels for discretionary spending for the next 2 fiscal years.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we share views, as he has expressed, and we are awaiting committee action. When the committee acts, we will make a determination of how to go forward.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as I said, I agree with the gentleman's objective and position with respect to BDS. The committee has legislation before it and is considering it. As you know, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Nadler, I think, are the cosponsors of that legislation. I expect the committee to consider it, and then, at that point in time, we will make a decision how to move forward.

Mr. HOYER. Well, of course, as the gentleman well knows, we have, Madam Speaker, passed many substantive pieces of legislation. We have sent to the Senate H.R. 1, a very broad-reaching reform bill trying to ensure voting rights and access for everybody, trying to ensure fair redistricting throughout the country, trying to make sure that dark money does not control our elections, and making sure that we are operating both in the executive and the legislative agency with ethical conduct. That passed unanimously on our side. I forget exactly how many.

Mr. HOYER. Today's vote, obviously, we had two very substantive pieces of legislation, one of which is going now to the President, and the other of which--the Violence Against Women Act--had a signature bipartisan vote, as the gentleman knows, passed the House. We have done the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which had been pending for some period of time in making that a permanent piece of legislation. We made sure that women--in 1963, we passed the Equal Pay Act. John Kennedy signed it. Unfortunately, we are still struggling to make sure that that promise is realized and that women are, in fact, paid based upon what they do, not based upon what their gender is. So I would say to my friend, we have passed a lot of legislation we had pending, and we are doing a lot of hearings. We are dealing with infrastructure. We are dealing with drug prices. We made it a big issue in the campaign. We are moving ahead to make sure the Affordable Care Act works in a way that it was designed to work. So I would say to my friend that we have pursued, both on the floor and in committee, the substantive legislation that we have talked to the American people about. I also feel very strongly that we want to avoid what happened to us at the end of the last Congress, when you were in the majority. We shut down the government. I am going to be working hard, hopefully on both sides of the aisle. I don't think anybody wants to see that as an objective, so I am hopeful that we can work together. I am working with your ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, Kay Granger, with whom I have served for some period of time, and Mrs. Lowey to make sure that we get the appropriation bills done in a timely fashion and send them to the Senate. I am hopeful that that will occur, and I am hopeful that we can fund the government in a rational way and not shut down government, which was so irrational and so harmful to our country and so costly to our taxpayers. So those are some of the things that we have done, are doing, and will do; and, hopefully, we can, to some degree, work on this in as bipartisan a fashion as possible. In particular, the President has said he wants to bring the cost of prescription drugs down. We share that view. I am hopeful that we can work together. The President said he wants a substantial infrastructure piece of legislation. We share that view. We hope we can work together on that. So we have been pursuing, on a weekly basis; and this was, from our perspective, a pretty good week. I know we disagree on the net neutrality bill, but we do agree that it is a major piece of legislation, and I expect to pass that next week as well.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comment. Of course, there was no budget last year until very, very late in the year. What was done was what we will certainly make sure we do very early on, which is to try to establish the numbers, which, of course, a caps deal would do. And our objective will be to show our values in the appropriation bills as they come to the floor--hopefully, in a timely fashion--and our main objective would be not to shut down the government but to do our work on time. I am confident that, working together, we can reach that objective.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman may know, the Speaker invited Mr. Lighthizer to address members of the Democratic Caucus on where we stood. As you know, that agreement has not been submitted. The Speaker said the other day that, in order to consider that in a positive way, the Mexicans, whom the President has been somewhat critical of through the years, take certain actions which make sure that our workers and their workers are treated fairly so we are competing on an even keel. But we certainly are in discussions. There are a number of items of concern, which have historically been of concern, regarding the environment, regarding workers' rights, regarding the availability of prescription drugs for people, as well as enforcement, dispute resolution. So those are being discussed. The conversations are ongoing, and I believe that the administration will make a determination when they believe it is timely to submit that document to us. As the gentleman knows, once they do so, there is a timeframe in which the House and Senate must act. The committees must act within, essentially, a 3-month period of time. So we are in discussions. We are waiting on the administration's judgment as to when to submit. And I am sure they are discussing with us as to when we think that is timely as well, but there are still substantive matters that are being discussed. I would presume some of those are on your side as well.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. As the gentleman knows, Madam Speaker, the House voted on this bill during the last two Congresses. The most recent time it was brought to the floor, the gentleman and his party were in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. That bill was not brought up in the Senate. The gentleman mentioned, earlier, H.R. 1 and that Mr. McConnell has said that wouldn't be brought up. In fact, when it passed this House, it went to the Senate, and it was not brought up by Senator McConnell. So there are no plans at this point in time for us to bring this up.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have nothing further to say. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of those who have been involved in getting this to the floor. This bill is a critically important bill and, unfortunately, its authorization expired last year. It is timely that we bring it to the floor. I am hopeful that it passes. Mr. Chairman, I was proud to be a cosponsor of the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994. It passed on a bipartisan vote in the House. It was reauthorized in 2000 with a vote--and everybody ought to note this--that passed 371-1. And in 2005, it was reauthorized and passed 415-4 and signed, of course, by President Bush. Democrats fought hard to expand the law's protections to immigrant women, Native Americans, and LGBT people, and we did so in 2013 with bipartisan support once more. We want to protect all of our women, whatever their particular difference. I was disappointed that the law's authorization expired at the end of fiscal year 2018. It is critical that we enact a long-term reauthorization of the law without further delay in order to provide that certainty that another short-term extension cannot. This legislation was introduced by Representative Karen Bass. It is a 5-year reauthorization. The gentlewoman from Texas, who just spoke, Ms. Jackson Lee, did a lot of work on this bill in the Judiciary Committee as well. I thank her for her leadership in this effort. Her bill--and I speak of Congresswoman Bass--would improve on current law by expanding existing grants that make communities safer and protect vulnerable populations, including Native American women. Why wouldn't we do that? I can't think of a reason. It would also improve economic assistance and security for survivors struggling with unemployment or financial hardship due to an abusive relationship to which they had been exposed. It would also ensure that the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women remains open and is not merged into another office or de-emphasized. And, very importantly, the bill closes loopholes in gun laws to help prevent intimate partner homicides, an all too frequent happening. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, on average, nearly 20 people every minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. That is a tragedy and a crisis. One in four women experience severe intimate partner physical violence. And one in seven have been stalked by an intimate partner to the point at which she felt very fearful or believed that she, or someone close to her, would be harmed or killed. The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500 percent. That is why we aim to close gun loopholes by expanding the definition of intimate partners to include dating or former dating partners. It is also why this bill has language preventing anybody convicted of a misdemeanor crime of stalking from obtaining a gun. I am deeply disappointed that some Republican Members of this House are using the NRA as cover to vote against this reauthorization which has been overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan fashion, reauthorized over and over again. These are commonsense protections that prevent domestic abusers from obtaining the guns that have, sadly, been used so frequently to harm or kill their partners. Mr Chairman, I urge every Member to vote for this reauthorization. Let's make this renewal of the Violence Against Women Act as strongly bipartisan as the House's support for the law used to be. Let's send a resounding message that the House stands with the victims and survivors and law enforcement and will do its job to help them and to prevent domestic violence and abuse, which have no place in our society, but are, tragically, too often, perpetrated in our country. Mr. Chairman, let's make it safer for women, for families, and for the children they care for. Let's pass this bill. Let's reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would hope that we could do what the gentleman from Oregon wants to do and work together in a bipartisan fashion. I will say to him, however, that his party was in control from 2011 to last year, and there was almost no effort to accomplish that objective. There were, however, over 65 votes to repeal, and there was no replace. When his party won the Presidency as well, there was no replace. We passed something through this House that couldn't get through the Senate. The Senate was controlled by the gentleman's party. This is something that is not optional for any of our citizens. Healthcare is essential, and they expect us to sit down and work together. Unfortunately, today, we saw in a tweet--the President who campaigned on the basis of everybody was going to be covered at less cost and higher quality. We are now, I suppose, in about the 29th month in the President's term. He has sent us no bill--and this morning, he has the gall, in my opinion, to tell the American people: I have got a plan. It is secret, and I will show it to you in 2021. What is interesting about 2021? It is after the election. Elections ought to be about policy. The election of 2018 was about policy, healthcare, and, very frankly, our argument prevailed. Our argument was that we wanted to protect the Affordable Care Act; that we wanted to make sure that the protections included in the Affordable Care Act were available to all Americans. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Representative Allred for introducing this resolution, and I rise in support of it. Since taking office, President Trump and his administration have been focused on doing everything it can to take affordable healthcare coverage options away from American families. Madam Speaker, you can make healthcare a lot cheaper. Offer them no coverage--it is very simple--not hospitalization, not doctors' reimbursement, not this, not that, and not the other. We call them junk policies. They pretend to be health coverage when they are not. The President did make two failed efforts along with his party to repeal the Affordable Care Act in Congress. They came after Republicans tried to repeal or undermine the bill in more than 65 votes during their years in the majority. The American people do not want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, because if they did, then they wouldn't have us in the majority because they know we want to keep it. They want Congress, however, to work to improve and make our healthcare system work better for all Americans, and, yes, have it affordable and accessible. Instead, President Trump and Republicans have doubled down and tripled down on their agenda of sabotaging the law through executive actions on an almost weekly and monthly basis and through lawsuits like the one now pending in Texas. I am not sure who convinced the President to change his mind, but I have a suspicion Mick Mulvaney did. Mick Mulvaney, of course, voted 65 times--well, I don't know that he was here every one of those votes, but every time he had an opportunity, he voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. If the Americans wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, then they would have voted against us. Madam Speaker, I would tell my friend from Oregon that if it is partisan, it is partisan because none of you will support it, and so many of you campaigned on the basis of wanting to protect preexisting conditions. Obviously, the President changed his mind about doing that. All this resolution does is express the sense of this House that such efforts are wrong and would harm tens of millions of Americans who benefit from the ACA. This includes the 133 million or more Americans living with preexisting conditions like asthma, diabetes, cancer, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, who are protected in their ability to get healthcare insurance. The actions taken by President Trump, however, and the Republicans would make these individuals uninsurable, forcing them and their families into financial hardship in order to pay for medical bills. It also includes older Americans for whom Republicans have proposed an age tax. It would do harm to the 20 million Americans who are now covered because of the Affordable Care Act who would lose their coverage as a result of what President Trump and Republicans in Congress are seeking to do. That is what the lawsuit does. This says that we don't agree with the lawsuit--a pretty simple proposition. By joining the Texas lawsuit, the Trump administration is seeking to allow women to be charged higher premiums than men as they used to be. It seeks to allow lifetime and annual limits on coverage, which the Affordable Care Act banned. In addition, it is trying to force Americans under age 26 to get coverage on their own, even if they don't have a job yet and are still in college. Preventive health visits and screenings would, once more, require out-of-pocket co-pays. Plans would no longer be required to cover essential health benefits. Now, if you don't have to cover required health benefits, then you are going to get a cheaper policy, not a lot of coverage, but a cheaper policy. The objective is not just a cheaper policy, it is a policy that covers your risks. If we can make it cheaper, then we ought to do that. Plans would no longer be required to cover, as I said, essential benefits such as maternity care and prescription drugs. This resolution is an opportunity to state on the Record whether Members support doing away with these reforms or not. Now, that doesn't mean you think that an alternative is perfect, it simply means that we either want to improve or replace it with something that is viable, passable, and good for the American people, whether to turn back the clock or look ahead, and whether to stand with the Trump administration as it seeks to dismantle every single piece of the Affordable Care Act, which it has done. The gentleman mentions maybe a daily resolution, well, unfortunately, we have daily action by the President that does things that we don't think are appropriate. We voted on one of those the other day where we appropriated money to a certain object, and the President wants to change it on his own. We think that was unconstitutional. We didn't get a lot of help on the Republican side, the gentleman did, I agree with that, the gentleman who has spoken before me. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me and others in supporting Representative Allred's resolution in expressing bipartisan opposition to the Trump administration's efforts--not to Trump, but to the policies. We ought to be talking about policies, not personalities. It is not about personalities. It is about policies and do we believe that we ought to repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement? I think the answer to that ought to be an emphatic ``no'' for all of us. The gentleman is correct. We ought to work on a bipartisan basis to accomplish good objectives for our people. This vote will show every single American where his or her Representative stands on the question which is so consequential to the everyday lives of millions and millions of Americans. The President clearly has no intention--he said in his tweet today-- of sending a bill down here until 2021, 2 years and more from now. How sad to be the leader of our country and say: I am not going to tell you what I am going to do, just trust me. Well, Mr. President, we don't have any reason based upon your performance to trust you to make sure that Americans have what you said you were going to give them, that everybody was going to be covered at lower cost or higher quality. Vote for this resolution and tell the American people that when you said on the campaign trail: I am for preexisting conditions, you meant it; and when you said that there were other protections that you wanted to keep in the bill, you meant it. If you do, then you will vote for this resolution and send a message--democracy is a lot about messages--by talking to one another. This is the way the Congress can talk to the administration--one way. We can talk a lot of ways. Have that communication be clear: Mr. President, leave the Affordable Care Act alone and work with us to make it better and work for all Americans, which is what you said you would do during the course of the campaign.