Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the ranking member for his service, and his leadership as chairman. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to reject the President's executive order and to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution introduced by my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy). His resolution simply states what millions and millions of Americans know to be true, that the Trump administration's ban on transgender people serving their country in our military is discriminatory. It reflects bias. It reflects prejudice. Indeed, it reflects bigotry. Martin Luther King tried to teach us that what we said in the Declaration of Independence, we ought to live out. He said that all of us--and, certainly, he would have included women as we did yesterday in our Paycheck Fairness Act--are created equal in the image of God. Martin Luther King said that we ought to judge one another on the content of our character. The President's order does not do that. The President's order is based upon a prejudiced view of somebody because of a distinction that is not the content of their character nor the quality of their performance. I was proud to be a sponsor of and brought to this floor as majority leader, the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation. That has enhanced our national security, not diminished it. The President's resolution states what millions and millions of Americans know to be true: that the Trump administration's ban on transgender people serving their country in our military is discriminatory; that it denigrates the service of patriotic Americans. That is a facet of their character. They are patriotic, and they want to serve, and the service judges them able to do so. This resolution, millions of Americans understand, undermines our national defense at a time of serious global threats. This resolution rightfully calls on the Trump administration not to implement such a ban on April 12. To do so would be a blow to our country and the principles it represents. Let me remind my colleagues that there was a time when we said African Americans ought not to serve with White Americans together because that would undermine morale and undermine the security of our country. That was a manifestation of prejudice and bigotry, not of intellectual honesty, content of character. Have we not yet learned that lesson? Are we not big enough to live out the premise that all men and women are created equal? This resolution seeks to redeem the best of America's principles, not the worst of our discriminatory past. I was proud to bring legislation to the floor as majority leader that ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and it was overwhelmingly supported in this House and in the Senate, and passed. It has been a benefit, not a detriment. In the years since, we have seen our military strengthen by the open service of many LGBT Americans who have contributed a great deal to keeping America safe and advancing our national security interests around the world. To say to transgender servicemembers in uniform that they must leave their units, not because they are not performing well, not because they are not needed, but because of who they are, not the content of their character, not their service, not their performance, but because of who they are, would be a shameful action for our country and deprive us of their talent and contributions. To deny transgender Americans the opportunity to put on that uniform and wear the flag of the country they wish to serve--as I do every day--would be to diminish that flag, that Declaration of Independence, that Constitution of the United States of which we are so proud. I hope my colleagues in this body will join in sending a clear message that the House, not Republicans or Democrats, that the people's House reflects the values, the service, and patriotism of our transgender fellow Americans. Let us today reflect the best of our values, not the worst of our values. Pass this resolution. Make America proud of its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, and of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s admonition to make our judgments based upon content of character.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I anticipated this was going to be an extraordinarily hostile colloquy. Louisiana was so incredibly lucky. However, it cost me, I admit to the world, I guess. I hope I don't get in legal trouble. But the Republican whip and I had a little sort of side bet, so I owe the Republican whip a crab dinner for four people. That is the bad news. The good news is the minority whip will now be eating the best crab in America, not Louisiana crab. It will be Maryland crab that I will be giving him for dinner. Mr. Speaker, if my friend would like to ask some questions about the schedule--or he did ask me, I am told. But I knew that game was coming.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think it keeps getting worse. In any event, we will move on to the schedule. I congratulate LSU. They played an excellent game, as did Maryland. It was a really good game. There has to be one winner and one loser, and we lost. We have the fourth youngest team in the NCAA, so we will be back next year. Maybe we will be able to play LSU again, if they make it. On Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 9 a.m. and recess immediately. The House will reconvene at 11 a.m. for the purpose of receiving a joint meeting with the Senate. His Excellency Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, will address us. Members are advised to be on the House floor and seated no later than 10:30 a.m. for the joint meeting. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with last votes no later than 3 p.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider a major piece of legislation, H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. Frankly, that bill should have been reauthorized prior to September 30 of last year in the last Congress. We extended it until February 15 of this year, at which time it lapsed. We are very hopeful and expect that this will pass this next week. It is sponsored by Representative Karen Bass. I am pleased to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor, in response to our Nation's crisis of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The Violence Against Women Act officially expired on September 30. As I said, it was extended. It is way overdue that we consider a long-term authorization of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is possible that we will bring to the floor legislation regarding the crisis that is occurring in Yemen. There are 22 million people at risk of starvation--22 million people at risk of starvation--noncombatants, women, and children. We also may consider other legislation, if it comes from the Senate.

Mr. HOYER. It is a very interesting question, Mr. Speaker, that the minority whip asked me. I would ask, in response, a question: Does the minority whip remember when last year, when you were in charge, you brought the budget to the floor?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman a simple question. He asked me about when the budget was coming, and I asked him when did he bring the budget to the floor last year.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, a lot of words of the minority whip. He didn't pass the budget last year. There was no fiscal year 2019 budget. He is correct that we had reached a caps deal. That is not the budget, Mr. Speaker. A budget is a plan that is reported out and brought to the floor and passed and sent to the Senate, and the Senate passes it and we have a budget that is in the same position on each side of the aisle. That is a budget. That has rarely been done in the last 8 years. A caps deal has been reached. I would like to see a caps deal reached. I have been talking to Mr. McConnell, who wants a caps deal reached; I have talked to Mr. Shelby--both of those, Republican leaders. I have talked to the White House about a caps deal. Unfortunately, I don't think Mr. Mulvaney wants to reach a caps deal. He wants to use it as leverage as opposed to allowing us to proceed in the regular order. But a budget is a different kettle of fish, I will tell my friend, than a caps deal. A caps deal does, in fact, set the 302 level of discretionary funding for both defense and nondefense spending. Yes, we reached the 2-year cap deal. I have been trying for the last 2 months to get meaningful negotiations underway to do the same. I have not been successful, largely because the President, apparently, and Mr. Mulvaney are not interested in reaching such a deal. I regret that. But the Budget Committee is meeting this week--it is going to meet next week, and we are going to be reporting out what will be what the minority whip refers to as a budget. It will certainly speak to the levels of funding that we need to spend. I want to pass the appropriation bills by June 30. That has never been done, but I want to do it. I think we can do it, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to work towards that objective. It will require reaching what numbers are going to be for discretionary spending. Unfortunately, the budget that the President of the United States sent down to Congress is totally unreasonable and irrational, and there is not a single person, I think, on this floor who will support his budget. I will tell the minority whip that I will be glad to give his party the opportunity to vote on the President's budget. If he asks me, I will have it put on the floor. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are not able to get to a budget caps deal. We passed and began, in my view, an irrational--and I voted for it, and I am sorry that I voted for it--Budget Control Act, creating the sequester. ``Sequester'' is a complicated word which starts with S, which I tell my people in my district and town, many, stands for ``stupid.'' It was an irrational document that took numbers out of the air without regard to our responsibilities and our opportunities. But I am hopeful, and I tell the Republican whip, my friend, that we are going to try to--hopefully, working with his party--establish some reasonable, rational numbers for defense and nondefense discretionary funding so that we can move ahead with doing what really makes the difference, and that is the adoption of appropriation bills on this floor; send them to the Senate; have the Senate consider them; and we will have a conference, and we will pass those bills and send them to the President of the United States.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield simply for clarification?

Mr. HOYER. I want the public, Mr. Speaker, to understand that a caps deal is not a budget. They are two separate items: A budget is a plan for expenditure on defense and nondefense objectives. A caps deal is to simply set not necessarily those priorities per se, but to set a top level of discretionary spending. That is why it is called a cap. It has been about $1.1 trillion or $1.2 trillion--now, it is going to be a little over that this year, I presume--for discretionary spending. Most of the budget, of course, is not discretionary spending. Two- thirds of the budget is either mandatory spending or debt payment. I just want to clarify that we are talking about two separate items. One is a budget, which is a budget plan which can, in fact, include caps within it, but a caps deal is a separate deal. As the gentleman has pointed out, we have usually made them now for 2 years since the sequester would otherwise have gone into effect. The reason we made that deal is both sides--both sides--are unwilling to follow the sequester because we think the sequester does not make rational sense for the security of our country and for the investments our country needs to make. The President doesn't want to do that either. The difference is, he wants to borrow an additional $180 billion-plus to fund defense and leave domestic discretionary spending largely at 2010 or 2009 levels. We think that doesn't make sense. But I will clarify for the gentleman again that the Budget Committee is, in fact, considering what legislation they should bring to the floor in order to facilitate us, as the caps deals did, to facilitate us achieving the ability to mark up our appropriation bills, send them to the Senate, and try to reach agreement between the Senate and the House prior to September 30, and certainly to avoid the historic and very harmful shutdown that occurred at the end of the last Congress and continued into this Congress.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. The Mueller report is not out, Mr. Whip.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield? The Mueller report is not out. The only report that is out is the Barr four-page letter report.

Mr. HOYER. I hope you are right, Mr. Whip.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, what it found is six of the President's closest associates--his campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, his foreign policy adviser, his national security adviser, his lawyer and counsel for over a decade--all committed crimes. All were either convicted or pled to crimes.

Mr. HOYER. You had a lot to say. I have something in response. There is not a person on our side of the aisle who doesn't believe the letter that you issued regarding Mr. Schiff isn't totally a partisan distraction from what you hope is not found. There has been no Mueller report yet that we have received. The gentleman, Mr. Speaker, voted to have the Mueller report, as did every other member on his side of the aisle and every member on our side of the aisle, to be disclosed. Hopefully, it will be. Hopefully, it will not be just a four-page letter from the Attorney General of the United States appointed by Mr. Trump. Hopefully, we will get Mr. Mueller's full report. That is what the Congress voted to get. That is what we expect to get, and that is what we hope to get. Let me assure the gentleman that there is not a person on my side of the aisle that believes that Mr. Schiff has done anything but act in the highest interest of our government, of the Intelligence Committee, and of full knowledge for the American people, unlike his predecessor who worked hand-in-glove with the White House, not as an independent coequal branch of government, but as an advocate for the White House's position, who clearly should have been removed and was not. Mr. Speaker, I say to the minority whip that Mr. Schiff is a member of the highest integrity, highest intellect, and has great responsibility. I expect him to pursue his responsibilities as chairman of the Intelligence Committee to assure that neither Russia nor any other country will in the future be able to interfere in the elections of the United States, as Mr. Mueller concluded the Russians have. Now, the President hasn't concluded that, but almost every American understands that the Russians tried to, on behalf of the President of the United States, affect the elections. So I tell my friend, I hope that we can have the debate. Let's look at the Mueller report. Very frankly, there are other investigations that are going on, as the gentleman knows, in the Southern District of New York, as well as in the Government Operations Subcommittee, as well as in the Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as in the Financial Services Committee, as well as in the Intelligence Committee. We still pale in insignificance in the number of investigations that we have had or oversight hearings that we have had when compared to the oversight hearings the Republicans had of the Obama administration and Mrs. Clinton in trying to undermine their credibility, an administration that, by the way, I don't think anybody was put in legal jeopardy and there were no scandals in the Obama administration. There were disagreements, but I would think the gentleman ought to be very reserved, very frankly, in terms of making conclusions based upon a four-page letter before we have seen the Mueller report, before we have seen the actions of the Southern District of New York, and before we have seen the results of the oversight hearings that are continuing.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't think I will respond to all of that, time being of the essence, I suppose. The gentleman represents a party who held eight hearings, all headed by Republicans, on Mrs. Clinton. All eight reached the same conclusion, but the first one wasn't enough. The second one wasn't enough. The third one wasn't enough. The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh weren't enough. So the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) was appointed to do one more because it was pretty close to the election then, Mr. Speaker. The majority leader, now the minority leader of this House, said: Oh, no, they accomplished something. They accomplished the political objective. He said that on television, roundly criticized by his party. Why did you say that? Why did you admit that? But for the minority whip to say that the Mueller report instigated X millions of dollars spent for political purposes, Mueller was appointed by a Republican, not by a Democrat, and the Attorney General recused himself so the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein, was the one that appointed him. Why did he recuse himself? Because he had been involved, contrary to what he testified to in his nomination hearing, with the Russian Ambassador. I don't know if there was anything of substance in this conversation because we don't fully know what that conversation was. But the fact of the matter is, for the minority whip to be talking about political hearings or oversight, and then to say he has had an opportunity to review the Mueller report, the gentleman has had more than I have had. He reviewed the four pages of the Barr letter, appointed by Mr. Trump, and what we know is Barr's reading and his conclusion. But, frankly, we knew that before, because he sent a 19-page letter months ago that he thought this investigation would not reach any conclusion, and that it should not, and that the President could not be held accountable, in any event. That was Justice Department policy. So I listened to a long discussion, in my view, with all due respect, I tell my friend, the whip, at odds with the performance of their administration and the eight hearings they had in trying to bring Mrs. Clinton down and never finding--never, eight hearings, all led by Republicans--a conclusion that led to anything. So we will see what the Mueller report says, I hope. And I am pleased that the whip and his party voted to have the Mueller report fully disclosed. He is correct. There are some national security interests that will properly restrict some of that, so we don't out sources or ways and means of discovering information. But having said that, I say to the whip that we will have a time to debate this. We will have a time to debate it when we have the information. We will have a time to debate it, perhaps months from now, when all of these investigations are through. But I wouldn't take too much solace in what the Mueller report did. It led to, as I said, the indictment and conviction of the President's campaign manager. It led to the indictment and conviction, either through plea or trial, of five other individuals to date. That is not something to be very proud of in terms of the President of the United States being so close to and so involved--Mr. Cohen, in particular, brings that information forth to a hearing, and he was apparently his closest legal adviser for over a decade. We will see. But I don't think now, Mr. Speaker, is the time to debate it. Because the time to debate it will be to see when we see, and the American people see the Mueller report. I want to say to my friend, so he understands, I am pleased that we don't have a finding that the President of the United States colluded, as he said he did not do. Colluded, of course, is not a legal term. Conspiracy is the gravamen or the essence of a criminal activity, a conspiracy to commit something that is illegal. But we have a time to debate that and discuss it. And the American people, hopefully, are going to have an opportunity to reach their own conclusion, which, obviously, in the final analysis, will be the most important conclusion. But the good news is, we are continuing to do the substantive business of the people of the United States. We are continuing to focus on jobs. We had numerous hearings this week on jobs, on wages. We had numerous hearings on healthcare, and the costs of healthcare, and the costs of prescription drugs. We passed one of the most far- reaching reform bills that we have seen on the floor of this House, H.R. 1. Every Democrat voted for it. Almost every Republican voted against it. We have passed some rational and reasonable controls on people with criminal records who are on the no-fly list or with mental health problems from not getting weapons to hurt a lot of people quickly. We have seen the tragedy here and around the world. So we have done a lot of very substantive legislation in a relatively short time, and, very frankly, we would have done more if the Republicans hadn't let the government shut down and repeatedly voted against opening it up for the first month of our session. Mr. Speaker, this is obviously about scheduling, and we are going to continue to bring substantive bills to the floor to respond to the needs of the American people. Yes, we can do oversight as well, but that will not preclude us from pursuing, as the majority, the agenda that we think the American people sent us here to Washington and made us the majority to do. I hope that my Republican friends will join us in that effort and offer substantive amendments when they think there are differences that they have with that legislation, consider those, and send them to the Senate, because that is really what the people want us to do. To the gentleman's observation about impeachment, I know he has been here. I know he has voted on efforts by some to move ahead on impeachment, and surely I know that he knows the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted ``no.'' I know that he must have heard Speaker Pelosi say that we are not pursuing impeachment and that we want to focus on the needs of the American people. I am sure he heard that, Mr. Speaker, but he tends to reference otherwise on that. I think that is not accurate. The American people ought to understand that we are pursuing their agenda: their jobs, their healthcare, and the welfare of their families. That is what our duty is, that is what our responsibility is, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend: Is he at all concerned that somebody that he didn't mention, Mr. Flynn, was, in fact, indicted and convicted of lying about his relationship with the Russians and his having clients in Europe, in Ukraine, which he failed to disclose? He was appointed to one of the highest offices, the National Security Advisor to the President, and he lied about his relations with the Russians to law enforcement, which is a crime, and was convicted and, in fact, pled. I understand what Mr. Barr has said in a 4-page letter after some 48 hours of review of all of the documents, all of the evidence, that was adduced. None of us really knows. I am not going to make a conclusion until I have an opportunity to review the report. I hope we will have a full debate on that. All of us are concerned, Republicans and Democrats, about the extraordinary number of people very close to the President--and, most importantly, Flynn, who was the National Security Advisor to the President--who were convicted of lying to law enforcement, some not paying their taxes and cheating the American people and all of us by not paying their fair share of what was due. I think that ought to be of concern to all of us. These weren't just some people. They were the President's campaign chairman. They were one of the President's foreign policy advisers, Mr. Papadopoulos. It was his personal attorney for 10 years, a so-called fixer, did anything he was told or implied to do. We all ought to have concern about that. But we ought to also be happy that, hopefully, correctly, Mr. Mueller found that we were not in a conspiracy with--I don't know about that, but colluding with--I don't really know what that exactly means; I have a sense, but it is not a legal issue--that the President did not, because any President who did collude with a foreign government that was clearly not our friend and, indeed, for the most part, our competitor and, yes, enemy, that would be something, I think, of which all of us would be extraordinarily concerned. I am glad that Mr. Mueller didn't find that. But to think that, as the President says, this was a whitewash and no problems when five or six of your closest allies and friends have been or are about to be sent to jail, that is not something to be happy about. It wasn't that Mueller didn't find wrongdoing. What Mueller didn't find was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, there was criminal behavior on which he believed he could act. That is what Barr said. And, in fact, Mr. Mueller, in Barr's letter, concluded that the President could not be exonerated or indicted on the basis of obstruction of justice. He made a conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence. We don't know the answer to that question, but Mr. Mueller says that he could not find beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, made no assessment as to whether he did or did not. In any event, we need to move on, as I said, Mr. Speaker, with the people's business: jobs, healthcare, integrity in government, safety in our neighborhoods, education of our children, and the health of our people. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the whip that I look forward to working with him on such an agenda for the people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. 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 Monday, April 1, 2019, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise out of a deep concern for our country and its ability to sustain investments in growing our economy and making opportunities available for our people. Our country suffered the longest government shutdown in its history just a few months ago. For 35 days, 800,000 Federal employees and their families were forced to go without paychecks. Our economy was burdened by uncertainty and a lack of confidence in our leaders. That shutdown was the direct result of the Trump administration's confrontational approach to governing and its irresponsible decision to insist on a position that Congress had already rejected. I would have hoped that they learned from that experience, but it appears that that is not the case. Now President Trump and Mick Mulvaney--a former colleague of ours who voted not only to shut down the government, but against the wishes of the Republican Speaker, voted against opening government up--have sent to Congress a budget proposal that ramps up confrontation and sets up an even more difficult impasse. Their budget proposal rejects 6 years of governing consensus enshrined in three 2-year budget agreements to raise the caps put in place by the Budget Control Act in a bipartisan way and according to the principles of parity, fairness, and equality. Adhering to that path and working together to raise the caps responsibly and at the same rate for defense and nondefense investments would be, in my view, the best way to ensure that appropriations for next year proceed on a bipartisan basis so that we can do the job of funding the government and avert another unnecessary, dangerous, and harmful shutdown in October. The administration's proposal of using the overseas contingency operations account to avoid negotiating with Congress on responsibly dealing with the BCA caps and hiding increases in defense funding is a massive gimmick. Who said that? The Republican majority said that a number of years ago. It is more than just an accounting sleight of hand, with real implications for our national security planning and long-term strategy. The OCO account, again, overseas contingency operations account, was created to fund imminent defense priorities outside of the normal Pentagon budget planning cycle. Now Mr. Mulvaney wants to use OCO at the rate of some $175 billion- plus as if Afghanistan, in which we have been involved for some 17 years, is a contingency. It is not a contingency. It is an operating expense. If OCO were used in the way the administration intends, it could cripple multiyear planning by our military by calling into question every penny shifted into that account in future years. It is also disingenuous for them to demand that Congress pour money into defense through what Mr. Mulvaney himself has called a ``backdoor slush fund.'' That is what he called OCO in 2015 when he was a Member of Congress. And now that same Mr. Mulvaney, the Acting Chief of Staff and, frankly, I believe, also, the Acting OMB Director, proposes to use what he called a backdoor slush fund without acknowledging the need to compromise elsewhere on the ledger. This is fiscal irresponsibility at its worst, because it is a veneer of concern for fiscal discipline used to hide the ugly truth of fiscal recklessness and brinksmanship. The Trump-Mulvaney budget is, to put it bluntly, a fraud. It is the Congress' job to move ahead with good faith efforts to agree on raising the caps. We have a procedure called sequester that, if we do not amend the caps, will go into effect 15 days after we adjourn this session and cut to levels that no Member of Congress, in my view, believes is reasonable, rational, or responsible. It would automatically occur if we do not pass a caps bill. That is indicative that there is bipartisan agreement, which has happened over the last 6 years in 2-year cycles, that the caps required by the sequester bill were irrational. I think there is a consensus. So, as opposed to confrontation, and to avoid a shutdown in October, we ought to come to an agreement. The President, of course, needs to be part of that agreement, because he would need to sign legislation amending the sequester act. Appropriators need guidance, also, to begin the hard work of writing funding bills. They need to know what the agreed spending level will be. We call it a 302(a). What it really means is: How much money are you going to spend on discretionary spending for defense and nondefense objectives? Now, I am an appropriator. I haven't served on the committee for some years, because I am in the leadership, but I am on leave. I understand as well as anyone how important it is to have agreed-upon top-line numbers in order for the committee to do its work effectively on a bipartisan basis. I will tell my Republican colleagues, as I have told my Democratic colleagues, it is my intention, as majority of the House of Representatives, to provide for the passage of the appropriations bills through the House of Representatives by the end of June. The Budget Act requires us to do it by June 30. We have never done it. We haven't done it on our side; the Republicans haven't done it on their side. What inevitably happens is we don't get our work done, and we had a shutdown last year and this year of historic proportions and of historic cost and of historic undermining of confidence in the United States of America here and around the world. We need to get to work; we need to get to work together; and we need to get this job done. Let's strive to achieve that which I know is achievable. I have talked to Ms. Granger. I have talked to the ranking member of the Budget Committee here in the House, Steve Womack, a good friend of mine. I have talked to Senator Enzi, the chairman in the Senate. And I have talked to Senator McConnell. I haven't heard from anybody who doesn't think we need to get caps established so that we can do our work for the American people and reestablish confidence in the rational operations of the Congress. It won't be easy, but it is necessary. Let us not delude ourselves into believing, just a few weeks removed from the longest government shutdown in our history, that the administration's shortsighted approach will lead to anything but another shutdown at the end of the fiscal year. Divided government need not be confrontational government. I tell people on a regular basis that the Congress is less than the sum of its parts. What do I mean by that? I mean the individual Members have integrity and a willingness to work together, but, as a body, we have found ourselves unable or unwilling to do just that. We are less than the sum of our parts, less than the sum of our Members' intellect and willingness to act responsibly. We can disagree on details, but we must try to reach agreement on the caps in order to assist appropriators, promote fiscal responsibility, reduce uncertainty, and protect the ability of our military to plan its budget over the long term with confidence. If OCO is relied upon, in terms of billions of dollars, they cannot do that. It is undermining our national security, as well as undermining the ability to meet our domestic needs. The Trump-Mulvaney budget proposal was, sadly, a missed opportunity and more of a fiscally irresponsible charade. I say to my friends on both sides of the aisle: Let us strive to not miss our own opportunity to meet in good faith and produce a budget caps agreement that promotes fiscal sanity, upholds the principle of parity, and allows us to invest in a better future for our country. Certainly, we ought to expect no less of ourselves, and, certainly, that is what our constituents expect of us. Then, let us proceed to achieve a realistic, fiscally responsible path toward a real, sustainable budget agreement worthy of our duty to our country and constituents and to future generations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to come together, to reason together, and to establish a plan to proceed, not just for this year, but for a decade to come, that is fiscally responsible, meets the challenges that we have, and seizes the opportunities that are in front of us.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to speak during general debate, but I will take this time to speak on behalf of this legislation and also to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, the American people entrusted Democrats with the majority in part because we pledged to work hard on the issues they care about most, issues affecting their everyday lives. I am the father of three daughters. They are all extraordinary people. I want them all treated based upon the content of their character, their performance, and the duties that they perform, not on the fact that they happen to be daughters and not sons. One of the issues we pledged to address was raising wages, and that includes addressing the gender pay gap, which keeps women from earning their fair share and hurts families, children, and all people. The last time I was the majority leader, which was from 2007 to 2011, we enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to make it easier for women who have faced discriminatory pay and benefits to seek justice. Lilly Ledbetter had worked hard, and she did not know that she was being paid less than her counterparts doing exactly the same thing she was doing, with exactly the same responsibility and exactly the same expectations. There was no justice in that, but she didn't know it. The Supreme Court said, well, you didn't raise the issue quickly enough. We also passed the Paycheck Fairness Act in that same Congress, but, unfortunately, the Senate failed to enact it as well. Now we return to this important work of ensuring equal pay for equal work. Who, intellectually, can oppose that concept? Who, with any sense of fairness and fair play, could oppose that concept and precept? It is shameful, Mr. Chairman, that, in 2019, 56 years after President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, we are here fighting for equal pay. A half century later, women still earn, on average, 80 cents to a man's dollar, and, very frankly, minority women earn less than that. That gap is even worse for minorities. Two-thirds of women are now either the primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in their households. Make no mistake, this is an economic concern for families across our country. This is not a woman's issue. It is a fairness issue. It is an every family, every person issue. Democrats ran on a platform of raising wages, as I said. We are focused on making sure that more working families can make it in America. That is what this bill will help achieve. I am proud that every member of the Democratic Caucus--let me repeat that, every member--234 members of the Democratic Caucus have signed on as cosponsors of this bill because we believe it is fair; because we believe it is right; because we believe it is good for families; and, yes, because we believe it is good for the American economy. Rosa DeLauro is on the floor, and I want to thank the gentlewoman. We hear the phrase, ``Keep the faith.'' Rosa DeLauro has kept the faith year after year, not only with women of America, but with the families and children of America who rely on women's wages for the quality of their lives, and their partners', and their spouses'. I thank the gentlewoman, Rosa DeLauro, for all that she has done for our country in keeping the faith. I also thank my dear friend and my colleague from my neighboring State of Virginia, Chairman Bobby Scott, for his faithfulness, for his focus, and for his bringing this bill to the floor so early in our session. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to observe April 2, which is Equal Pay Day. It is a day symbolizing how far into the year women must work to earn what men earned in the previous year--essentially, 3 months of free labor. Not in this body, because we are all paid the same in this body. We comply with this bill. That is the good news. The bad news is, women, on average, have to work not 12 months but 15 months to earn what men earn in 12 months. That is what that language meant. I urge my colleagues to vote today to make this the last Equal Pay Day and pass this bill to ensure the promise of economic equality for all. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all--drop the ``men''-- that all are created equal. That view maybe self-evident, but it is not self-executing. Let us act upon it today.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this House suffered a tremendous loss a year ago. Louise Slaughter was not just a Congresswoman and Rules Committee Chair and Ranking Member. She was a respected colleague and a dear friend. She and I served together for more than thirty years in this House, and I will always remember her for her tenacity, her confidence, and her determination to make the American Dream attainable for everyone in this country. Louise's drive to fight for better conditions for working people in New York and in our country can be traced to her childhood. The daughter of a blacksmith from a Kentucky coal mining town, she grew up with a thorough understanding of the challenges faced by those working hard and trying to make it in America. Those experiences shaped her as a legislator in her adopted home of upstate New York, where she fought to ensure that communities had safe drinking water, clean air, and economic opportunities. In Congress, Louise dedicated herself to these same causes while promoting human rights and freedom abroad. We served together on the Helsinki Commission at the end of the Cold War, and I fondly recall traveling with her to the former Soviet Union, where we shared the experience of meeting with leaders and citizens of the newly independent states yearning to embrace American-style democratic institutions. I got to know her late husband Bob on those journeys and remember him fondly as well. Back home, Louise made a difference for our country in Congress, serving as the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee. In that position, she helped shape nearly every piece of legislation passed when Democrats held the Majority from 2007 to 2011, including the Recovery Act, Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and student loan reforms. Working Americans owe Louise Slaughter a debt of gratitude for being their champion and fighting so hard over the years on their behalf. As we remember Louise, let us remember her for the courage she displayed, for her indefatigable nature, and for her wisdom and wit. I join with my colleagues in marking the one-year anniversary of her passing, and I extend once more my condolences to her family. I thank Rep. Tonko for leading the House's tribute, and I thank Rep. Morelle for continuing his predecessor's commitment to outstanding service for the people of New York's Twenty-Fifth District.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House passed H.R. 1, major legislation to strengthen voter access, address the corrosive influence of dark money in politics, institute national redistricting reform, and hold public officials accountable to higher standards of ethics and transparency. Taking the next step, this week is sunshine week on the House floor. The House has already passed several pieces of legislation this week to modernize government and increase transparency, accountability, and good governance. They include measures aimed at shining a light onto Russia's malign activities around the world and the suppression of democracy within its own borders. The resolution we now have before us expresses the sense of Congress that the American public ought to have transparency when it comes to the investigation into Russia's interference in our elections and efforts to undermine our democracy. It says that the special counsel's report ought to be made public to the fullest extent of the law and that Congress should see all of it. Nearly 9 in 10 Americans believe the special counsel's report should be made public, and we have heard that from Republicans in Congress as well. I hope this will be a bipartisan vote to tell the American people: You have the right to and ought to know the results of this report. One of my Republican colleagues, Representative Mike Turner from Ohio, said in February the report has to be made public. Susan Collins of Maine said: ``The American people deserve to know what the findings are of Mr. Mueller.'' ``I believe the report should be released,'' said Senator Collins. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me, Mr. Nadler, Republicans, and Democrats on supporting this resolution and in calling for transparency. Let's come together in a bipartisan vote to make it clear that the American people deserve to know the full extent of what Russia--of what Russia--has done in the objective of subverting and undermining our democratic institutions. I thank the chair for bringing this resolution to the floor. I urge all of us to support it. Let's send a unanimous message to the Russians and to any other country or entity that would try to subvert our democratic elections that that will not be tolerated.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I have expressed, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), my friend, would like to have a moment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I know that I speak on behalf of all the Members of the House to wish Virgil Godspeed, great success in the future, and great happiness.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 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, with last votes no later than 3 p.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today. The House will also consider H. Con. Res. 24, expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. I want to put it in context. For the first time in history, we started this Congress with a government shutdown. For the first time in history. The business was not completed, the government was not fully funded, and it was necessary for us, as we began this session, to have numerous votes to open up the government. We didn't get a lot of help from your side of the aisle on doing that, and it was not about a debate; we had considered six bills that essentially had been agreed to. There was clearly a disagreement on Homeland Security. But let me remind you, on H.R. 1, the largest bill that we considered during the last Congress, you brought that to the floor and you had no committee hearings. Not a single committee hearing. You had no witnesses. No member of the public was able to testify. It was a closed rule, and zero amendments were made in order. Now, let me make a comparison for you on H.R. 1, the bill we just passed. This bill had five hearings across several committees, 19 witnesses testified, the primary committee of jurisdiction had markup, and 72 amendments were made in order. Now, H.R. 1, last Congress, zero Democratic amendments made in order. Now of course there were no Republican amendments made in order either because it was a closed rule, no amendments at all, no hearings, no committee hearings, no witnesses. So that we have, as we said we would, had a process, opportunity for the public to testify, opportunity for amendments to be made in order. I forget exactly how many amendments you said, Republican amendments, but that is, whatever that number was, whether it was 10 or 15 or 25 or 35, more than we had in order. As the gentleman knows, the last Congress was the most closed Congress in history. In history. We did not see a single open rule, not one under Speaker Ryan, not one. I am committed to ensuring, however, that we have a limited amount of closed rules. Again, the gentleman is correct, the government was shut down and we had rules that we put forward to get the government open. It was not an amendment to say partially open this. It was, let's get it open. So that my answer to the gentleman is we said what we were going to do on bills. We had 72 amendments on this bill. The proportion of amendments, the gentleman's concerned about, certainly want to make sure that we have substantive amendments considered from both sides of the aisle; that was done here. The gentleman thinks not enough, but as I said, it was, as opposed to zero, a substantial increase.