Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Of course, we both know, certainly since the time I have been here, that motions to recommit, on both sides of the aisle, have been gotcha amendments. They have been amendments to use for political ads to talk about partisanship. Both sides did that, understand. So is there consternation about them? There is. Did you have an MTR today? You did. It was a difficult MTR. Of course, it dealt with a problem that does not exist at the Federal level, and it said so in the resolution, that there was not a problem that they were solving, just a sort of a sense that local communities ought to be directed what to do. Having said that let me go back to the gentleman's question again. You said you had nine amendments. We had zero. So you could say it was 900 percent, 9,000 percent, but whatever you want to say, on H.R. 1 in your Congress and H.R. 1 in our Congress and all those figures, I think, are probably lost on the public, but what is not lost on the public or the press that has covered it extensively, last Congress was the most closed Congress in history, just as the Government being shutdown at the beginning of this Congress was the first time that happened in history, because you didn't get your job done. But I would tell the leader, I understand the rights of the minority. We want to honor the rights of the minority, and, yes, there is a lot of discussion, but as you know, nothing has been done, and I am sure those discussions will continue. But I understand the gentleman's point. We used the motion to recommit. You have used the motion to recommit. There is no proposed change currently under consideration.

Mr. HOYER. I tell the gentleman, I have heard that question raised before. You removed Mr. King from the committees after 10 years of comments, speeches, and support for groups that did not comport with what we said yesterday in terms of rejecting bigotry and prejudice and hate. Ten years. We have now twice taken action to make clear that hate and prejudice and bigotry are not the policies of this Congress, of this country, and should not be the policy of any of our Members, rhetorically. Debating policy, having differences of opinion are clear. I don't know whether the gentleman heard my speech on the floor, but I could not, I think, have articulated more forcefully that anti-Semitism is unacceptable, that anti-Semitism has led to grievous results, unacceptable results, the Holocaust, of course, being the most horrific. I made that very clear. The resolution made that very clear. And yes, it did include other forms and other objects of hate and prejudice and bigotry. And I was disappointed that 23 of your Members voted against it. Every one of my Members, without exception, voted for that resolution. So that resolution, I thought, that got over 400 of us, spoke very strongly to our opposition to anti-Semitism, to racism, to sexism, to Islamophobia. And I haven't seen any resolution on the floor of the House when you were in charge that responded to the President of the United States stoking Islamophobia. I saw no resolution. I saw no resolution on the floor when the President of the United States made a comment that, well, there are bad people on both sides, in Charlottesville--those holding Swastikas; those who were saying we are not going to allow the Jews to take over; those who had racist epithets and who, in fact, of course, killed one of the participants. I saw no resolution. We ultimately did get to a resolution. But I would say to my friend, frankly, those of us on our side of the aisle think that the President too often uses words and actions that undermine the sentiment of the resolution that I voted for, that you voted for, and the overwhelming majority of the House voted for saying that is not and should not be the policy of the United States. I won't go into more specifics, but the gentleman, I am sure, knows that I could. What is positive is that yesterday some 400-plus of us voted to say to America and to each of our citizens and those who view America as a beacon of liberty and justice that we reject out of hand any comments, any actions that would be recognized by most people as stoking bigotry and prejudice and hate. So, yes, that language you are talking about, as introduced, was not a final product. The final product came about through a lot of discussions and addressing the hate and bigotry and prejudice that is directed at too many people who are somehow viewed as different. The remarks to which the gentleman referred were pointed out very clearly as being remarks which had been used through the millennia as ways to diminish the integrity of Jewish citizens and to imply that somehow their support for Israel was an indication of their lack of loyalty to their country. You and I both know that was used for centuries, millennia, to marginalize Jewish citizens and to make them feel unwelcomed and rejected. So I think the resolution was a good thing for us to do. It passed overwhelmingly. I am sorry that 23 of your Members decided not to vote for it. Let me go back to the MTRs. We had a very strong statement that your side offered on anti- Semitism. And you all voted for it; we all voted for it. Not a single Democrat voted against it. And when it came for final passage, I don't recall how many Republicans, but it was the overwhelming majority of your caucus voted against it. So offering an amendment, having the amendment adopted, which we accepted because we thought that it was important to make that powerful statement against anti-Semitism, we adopted it. Unfortunately, when it came to the real vote--not the political gotcha vote, but when it came to the real vote--your side all voted against it--or if not all, pretty close.

Mr. HOYER. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say I reject out of hand the premise that we didn't speak directly to anti-Semitism in the resolution that was adopted yesterday, period. It spoke strongly to that. Not only did it speak strongly, but if the gentleman heard my remarks, they were very strong with respect to an absolute rejection of anti-Semitism. Now, apparently, the problem is we also spoke against racism. We also spoke against xenophobia. I mentioned the President on xenophobia, the denigration of the dignity of immigrants who have been so important to this country at the highest levels of our government, the allegations of widespread criminal activity in a broad bush. That resolution yesterday spoke to that. It spoke about Islamophobia. It spoke about hatred of immigrants, of LGBT members of our society. It spoke against discrimination and hate. And, yes, it spoke directly about anti-Semitism, as it should have. As I was absolutely committed, and the Members of this House were absolutely committed--save 23. I don't know why that 23 voted against it, but they did, not on our side of the aisle. And I agree with the gentleman. Hopefully, we can continue to not use this as a political football, as I think it is being used. And I am not going to cite some of the remarks of the minority leader with respect to Mr. Soros, Mr. Steier or others, Mr. Jordan, Mr. King. There was a difference, Mr. Speaker. We didn't wait 10 years. Initially, we acted--the entire Democratic leadership--with a very pointed and direct letter that anti-Semitism was not acceptable, period. No confusion. And within days, we put a suspension bill--which, by the way, the rules are waived on suspension bills. As the gentleman knows, you don't necessarily have to give 72 hours. But there were 72 hours that that was being discussed, and people knew it was being discussed, and the leader--and the whip has referred to that. But I hope that nobody would diminish what we said yesterday about anti-Semitism, or racism, or any other kind of ism. Let us not diminish what we did yesterday. I think this was a good week, Mr. Speaker, for the House of Representatives. We spoke about making sure that voting rights were protected for every American, and not only that, protected, but facilitated, made easier to register and to vote so that all Americans could express their opinion on the policies of their country and their State, and their municipality, or whatever office they were voting for. It was a good day to say that we are going to have redistricting which is not run by the politicians, and I have been one of them that has done it so everybody understands that. Every State, not just a few, would have to have a redistricting process that was fair and balanced, and not just the politicians drawing their own districts. It was a good day, Mr. Speaker. It was a good week, because we also spoke about making sure that we have campaign finance that discloses to everybody who the contributors are. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that I was here when we considered McCain-Feingold and the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate both said: ``You don't need caps. You don't need to limit spending. What you need is disclosure. Let people know who is contributing.'' Well, of course, Citizens United undermined that pretty substantially, and we have millions and millions of dollars nobody knows where it comes from, so this bill did that. This bill also said that we ought to have better ethics. We ought to not be serving on boards of profit-making corporations while we are making policies that affect them in this House. And, yes, it said the President of the United States, as every President since I have been a Member of Congress which has been since 1981, should disclose their tax returns so that the people know, are they acting in their own interest, or in the people's interest. We called this bill the For the People Act, for voting rights, for fair registration, for campaign finance that is honest and above board and transparent, and for good ethical behavior by us and by the President. So I disagree with my friend, the minority whip. I think this was a good week. In some ways, it was a tough week, but it was a good week. I am very pleased that not only did we adopt that resolution against hate, and prejudice, and bigotry against all, including and very pointedly, starting out with anti-Semitism. We also adopted a bill that will give more trust and faith to the American people in their government and more access to the ballot box. It was a good bill. It was a good week.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, why in his comment did he mention three Americans of Jewish descent but didn't mention the Koch brothers, and by the way, didn't mention the gentleman from Nevada?

Mr. HOYER. Exactly. The three Jews that were mentioned were all Democrats, and the Koch brothers were not mentioned.

Mr. HOYER. I agree with that.

Mr. HOYER. Of course not.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I urge both sides, when the leader of our Government says things that clearly offend minority groups of all stripes that we speak out. I think that is a good thing for us to do, and I am sure that we can be joined together to do exactly that. I would also ask the gentleman to perhaps observe the extraordinary diversity representing all of America on this side of the aisle. You ought not to be surprised that in representing that diversity, they bring forward issues that we tried to also address in a resolution that said hate, bigotry, and prejudice is wrong. It is un-American. Unfortunately, none of us have ancestors today that were free from pursuing hateful policies. We ought not to be, as I said on the floor, too sanctimonious. We are a Nation that allowed slavery and went through an extraordinary Civil War to eliminate that blot on ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.'' So, yes, we have a lot of diversity on our side of the aisle, and that diversity is representing its people. They are Americans, but they represent a number of Americans who are perceived as different than other Americans for some designation, either because of race, gender, color, sexual orientation, or immigrant. You name it. Yes, we have a lot of diversity on this side of the aisle, and we tried to respect that diversity and make sure that every American knew when they read this resolution; we are against discrimination against anybody.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his yielding and his comments. Let me simply add, we can honor that by our words and our actions today, and tomorrow, and every day thereafter.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me suggest at the outset that no party be too self-righteous on the issue of supporting prejudice and bigotry too often. This is a very serious matter. It is important to call out anti- Semitism in a way that is unmistakable and unambiguous. We must do so because whenever some people begin to question the allegiance or patriotism of Americans, indeed, whether certain people fully belong as part of our country, it is critical to set the record straight. Recent statements employing timeworn tropes of dual loyalty have deeply and correctly unsettled American Jewish communities because their allegation is, simply put, that American Jews who support Israel are not loyal to this country. I stand as a very strong supporter of Israel and a very loyal American. Such allegations fall into--as has been said--a century-old and dark history of Jews being marginalized and set apart. They recall past evils that occurred in other countries and in our own when, according to the Anti-Defamation League, people accuse Jews of ``being disloyal neighbors or citizens'' because of their connection to Israel or Jewish communities elsewhere in the world. That was false, and it was bigoted. To be clear, the First Amendment protects the right of every American to criticize policies and leaders, whether our own country or others. That is the glory of our democracy. However, in these past few weeks, those who say they are only criticizing Israel's leaders or policies have, instead, been making claims about the allegiance and motivation of Israel's defenders. I do not believe there is anyone in our Caucus, not one, who wishes to silence debate over policy. Rather, what is being called for is an end to the invocation of age-old, anti-Semitic tropes that demonize people instead of criticize policies. Accusations that Jews bear dual allegiance because of support for Israel or concern for its safety are false and they are also hurtful canards that must be opposed and exposed for what they are: bigotry. They elicit legitimate fear and uncertainty in the individuals and communities they target. In much the same way, we have also seen vile examples of hatred aimed at painting Muslim Americans as somehow disloyal to our Nation, or not fully belonging, causing similar feelings of insecurity and distress. No Muslims could come to our country. Those feelings cannot be discounted either. One of our own colleagues was the target of an Islamophobic attack, impugning a Member of this House. That ought to be unacceptable to all of us. We have seen this same form of exclusion, hatred in recent years whenever acts of bigotry have been directed towards African Americans, and when Latino and Latina citizens have been yelled at to ``go back'' to their country. This is their country. This phenomenon is also a reminder of the horrific internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. None of us ought to be like Pontius Pilate and think that we have not fallen short of the principles enunciated in our Declaration. In our multicultural Republic, sometimes it is incumbent upon the American people to speak as one Nation, indivisible, and make a clear affirmation that all Americans have an equal share in our Republic, that no one's race, or creed, or origin can call into question one's love of country. I will continue to urge unity in the face of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism against African American, Latino, Asian Americans, and other forms of prejudice and discrimination. American Jews, including those who serve our Nation in Congress, need to be reassured that they are equal partners in the diverse coalition for justice, opportunity, tolerance, and equality, and that they have true allies who stand with them as firmly as they have stood with others. I will continue to make that clear. America is rightfully respected for its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, as amended and perfected, both of which proclaim the dignity and rights of individuals endowed by our Creator. But America has also seen, too often, the denial of that dignity and equality to millions of its citizens based upon the color of their skin, the land of their birth, or the faith of their forebearers. My colleagues, if we are to be better than our past, we must reject all forms of bigotry and prejudice directed at any of our fellow human beings and fellow Americans. Let us all, in solidarity and in union with the principles of our country, support this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Don Young, who the minority leader and the Speaker have both indicated loves this House. The minority leader then added apparently you haven't worked a day in your life, at least that is how I interpreted it, Don. That was a liberal interpretation, you know, this side of the aisle. What can I tell you? We just lost the longest-serving Member of the House just a few weeks ago, and as I sat here, I thought, what a resemblance there is between the longest-serving Democrat of the House and the longest-serving Republican of the House: irascible comes to mind; caring about this institution comes to mind; faithful to principle comes to mind; blunt, speaks truth, not only to power, but to everybody else as well. Don Young has made a difference. Don Young comes from Alaska, as all of us know, although the Speaker and the minority leader recognized that he came from California, but, Don, you have really made a difference, particularly for your State. As chairman of Natural Resources, you were focused like a laser on making sure that your State was treated fairly. I know there are still some things you didn't accomplish that you would like to have accomplished, and you have much time left to do that, but the fact is all of us have benefited, I think, from your honesty, your recognition of how the House ought to work, and, yes, your regular order, which you demanded and didn't always get. Of course, you took that with just very low-key responses, as I recall, walking by your seat from time to time. But Don Young is an institution. Don Young is an institutionalist. Don Young is the kind of Member that makes this House, over the decades, work as constructively as it can, not as constructively as it should. Hopefully, we will follow Don Young and John Dingell's example, because both of them are lions of partisanship, but both of them were not only willing but thought it appropriate to work across the aisle to reach objectives that they could hold in common. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Don for his service. Don and I have served together for 37 years. Between us, we have a little bit of time on us. I look forward to serving with him for some years to come. God bless him and Godspeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for her leadership on this bill, H.R. 1, and I thank Mr. Sarbanes for being a principal sponsor and proponent of H.R. 1. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act in 2002, which responded to the lack of performance on our voting system in the 2000 election, hanging chads and all. This bill expands on that. But let me, at the outset, remind those who would talk about what the Constitution says to read a portion of the Constitution. Let me say before I do that, throughout my lifetime, early in my lifetime, I heard a lot about States' rights. People talk about the right to vote. I was in Alabama this past weekend, and we commemorated the march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge, which was led by our colleague, John Lewis. There were State troopers meeting him on the other side of the bridge that beat and almost killed John Lewis. Why? Because he was marching from Selma to Montgomery to register to vote. I remember, as a child--not a child; I was a young man--watching Lester Maddox on television with an ax handle saying that nobody was going to integrate his premises. I have heard a lot about States' rights through the years. Now, what did our Founders say about States' rights as it relates to Members of Congress? ``The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof''--and apparently we didn't get to this phrase-- ``but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. . . . `' Why did our Founders do that? Because they wanted one nation. Now, that was not our pledge at that point in time, but they wanted the Colonies to come together as a nation. They had been a federation, and it didn't work so well. So they wanted one nation to come together, and at least for the Federal Congress, they reserved to the Federal Congress the right to set the rules in the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, last September, I delivered a speech outlining House Democrats' plans to renew faith in government by enacting a series of reforms to increase transparency, accountability, and ethics reform. This week, after extensive hearings and lots of witnesses, we bring to the floor a legislative package of reforms that made good on our promises to the American people last year. We didn't make a secret of this. This was well-known to everybody, and they gave us the majority of this House. We are redeeming, today, that honor and that responsibility. I want to thank, again, Representative Sarbanes and the cosponsors of this bill, every single Democratic Member. I want to thank John Lewis, a giant of a man, a giant of principle, a giant who risked his very life to make sure that the protections available in this bill would be available to every American and that we would promote--not prevent--accessibility to the voting booth and that we would not confront people going over a bridge in Selma, Alabama, who only wanted to register to vote, to be turned around by State troopers ordered by Governor Wallace to do so. This bill was driven in large part by our dynamic freshman class who were elected on a platform of making government work once again for the people. This For the People Act will open government up in several critical ways. First, it includes real national redistricting reform. I am for that. Mr. Chairman, it may cost Maryland a seat--I get that--but it is the right thing to do to have a level playing field. Now, we have got a number of court cases that have turned around redistricting in North Carolina, in Pennsylvania, in Texas, and in some other States as well. But I have always said that, in order to be successful, redistricting reform cannot be done on a State-by-State basis; and the Constitution, of course, says that Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations so that we have fair--they don't have to do this for State elections. If they don't want to do it, that is fine. But we, under the Constitution, are the arbiters of Federal elections. It must be a uniform process across all States. H.R. 1, the For the People Act, achieves this by requiring a nonpartisan redistricting commission to oversee the process in every State. What does that mean? It means the politicians will not do it. Iowa, California, or Arizona will have a fair redistricting process. Next, this bill includes a much-needed expansion of voting rights to protect our democracy. It would institute automatic voter registration. In America, if you are an American citizen, you ought to have the right to vote, and government ought not make it difficult for you to exercise that right. No eligible voter should ever be turned away from his or her polling place. It will also restore the vote to those who have paid their debt to society and should have a voice in their representative government. This legislation builds on the important bipartisan work we did in 2002 when we passed, as I pointed out, the Help America Vote Act. It reauthorizes the Election Assistance Commission, which, very frankly, my Republican friends tried to eliminate on a number of occasions and transfer their authority to the finance commission, which oversees campaign finance--not election laws, campaign finance. It was a way to, in effect, undermine and kill, in many ways, the Election Assistance Commission designed to make sure that our elections are secure and fair. It reauthorizes the Election Assistance Commission, which is critically important to ensuring modern, accessible, and secure elections. In addition, H.R. 1 will make campaign finance more transparent, requiring super-PACs to disclose their donors. Again, I want to congratulate my colleague. We are very proud of John Sarbanes and his dad in Maryland. He has been indefatigable in his work in trying to make sure that it is the people's interest and not the financial interests that control our elections. This bill will end the era of massive amounts of dark, unaccountable money funding ads and campaigns. The For the People Act will also impose higher ethical standards on America's highest elected officials. There is only one person in government who can do something on his own. It is not the Senate. It is not the House. It is not us. We need collectivity. But the President can make substantial decisions on his own and, in fact, has. He has done so over the wishes of the Congress of the United States just recently, so the people ought to know what his interests are and whether he is acting for his interests or the people's interests. Among other new requirements, Presidents and Vice Presidents would be required, therefore, to release 10 years' worth of tax returns. In such ways, H.R. 1 will make strides, Mr. Chair, in restoring the trust in government that, unfortunately, has been lost in recent years. Americans need to know that their government works for them and can be a force for good for their families, their communities, and our country. I rise in strong support of this legislation. I don't rise because I think it is perfect, but I rise because I think it is an excellent effort to redeem the promise of America and our democracy. It is for the people. Let us vote for the people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to our colleague Walter Jones, who passed away last month. Walter was my friend. Ever collegial and kind, he saw this institution for the good it could do for his constituents and for our country. I admired Walter for his candor and for his patriotism. Over the years, I watched him make very difficult decisions, take very difficult votes. He did so out of principle. He stood up for what he believed. It's no surprise that Walter had so many friends on both sides of the aisle. And it's no surprise either why the people of North Carolina's coastal communities sent him back to Congress election after election. Those of us who served with him could also see the extraordinary love he had for his wife Joe Anne and for their daughter Ashley. We will miss Walter Jones in this House. I will miss my friend. We all are better off for having served with him, and this House and this country are better off for his service.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. My friend, the gentleman from Georgia, just rose and said that this won't work. We have risen on this floor time after time after time after time and had a moment of silence followed by no action. As I said time after time, we have had a moment of silence. I will tell my friend from Georgia that it hasn't worked. It has been appropriate, but it has not worked. Can we guarantee that this will work to make every person safe? It cannot. It will not. But I rise in strong support of doing something, and in this case doing something that 90 percent of America supports. Mr. Chairman, this House is finally going to do its job and take action--not just a moment of silence, but action--to address the epidemic of gun violence in our country. After the tragedies at Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas, Charleston, the Tree of Life synagogue, and Great Mills High School in my district, the House, under the previous leadership, did nothing. It didn't work. After the shooting just down the street at the Washington Navy Yard, the Republican-controlled House did nothing. Three of the victims of that attack were constituents of mine living in southern Maryland. Dr. Wendy Edmonds and Wanda Wallace are in the gallery, Mr. Chairman. They are the sisters of Sylvia Fraser, a Navy Yard shooting victim. Montana Geimer, daughter of Wendi Winters, a writer for the Capital Gazette of which my colleague, Mr. Brown, just spoke; and Mackenzie Boughey, a high school student who organized a March for Our Lives rally in Anne Arundel County, are here with us today not to have a moment of silence, but to have a moment of action. Many of our districts have been painfully affected by gun violence. In St. Mary's County in Maryland, as I told you, Mr. Chairman, a student was killed by a shooter at Great Mills High School, and a courageous school resources officer there saved countless other lives. In Annapolis, five staff members of the Capital Gazette were gunned down in their newsroom. For years, the American people have demanded action to address gun violence. After the Parkland shooting, just over a year ago, students marched in cities from coast to coast to demand that Congress protect them in the classroom, in the streets, in houses of worship, and in all public gathering places. I, as I am sure many of you have, had the opportunity to meet with many of the students who participated in the March for Our Lives and heard the determination in their voices as they spoke about working to achieve a future where students would no longer have to practice active-shooter drills in their schools. I found their courage and persistence deeply inspiring. Now, with a change in the majority control, we are bringing to the floor legislation supported by, as I said, nine out of ten Americans, including a majority of responsible gun owners to expand criminal background checks to make sure that those who have a criminal past, a past of violence--domestic or otherwise--a mental health problem, or are on the no-fly list because they are perceived as possibly terrorists, won't be able to buy a gun. Does that mean they won't get a gun? It does not. I understand that. But as I told my friend from Georgia, the moments of silence have not worked. They were appropriate, I understand, but they didn't work. We will also be voting this week on legislation offered by our whip, Mr. Clyburn, to close the loophole that contributed to the horrific mass shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston in 2015. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass the legislation we advance, and I call on the President to sign it without delay. Mr. Chairman, let us not have a moment of silence for this legislation. Do not let it die. Do not let the hope that it provides die. Do not let us stand by one more time to lament the death of a constituent, a friend, a neighbor, a fellow citizen, who dies at the hand of a gun purchased illegally or by someone who should not have a gun. This is not about taking away guns. It is about preventing guns getting in the hands of people who do bad things, and we can predict that they are a danger to others. Let us not have a moment of silence for this bill. Let us pass it. Let the Senate pass it. Let the President sign it. Let's make an effort at least to stop the carnage.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, in order for the amendment that was just passed to be passed, am I correct that you would have to vote for this bill with that amendment now?

Mr. HOYER. The vote now is to pass the bill as amended. Am I correct? My parliamentary inquiry is, if that does not pass, am I correct that the amendment that was just voted for by so many in this House, it would be defeated if the bill is defeated?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this issue is not about a wall. It is about the Constitution. It is about this institution. It is about the balance that we say is equal between the Article I institution and the Article II institution. That is important to remember. That is why this argument is so very important. It is not about just a single policy. It is about the kind of government that our Founding Fathers instituted, which has been the envy of the world and the example to many. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Congressman Castro of Texas, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for introducing this resolution. I was at the border in California and in New Mexico just a few days ago. I was at the border in El Paso with my distinguished colleague, the former executive, called judge, of that area. She will speak shortly. Ms. Escobar will say there is no war at the border and there is no crisis at the border. She will explain that better than I can. She lives there. At the border, I saw a lot of heartbreak and challenge, but I did not see a national emergency that would justify the President ignoring the Constitution and trying to make funding decisions without congressional approval. That is the issue. For my colleagues to say this is a partisan issue, let me call your attention to the statements of approximately 20 Members of the United States Senate. The President admitted on February 15 that this is not a true emergency when he said: ``I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.'' Not that he needed to do it much faster, but he would just rather do it much faster. Of course, if the Mexicans were paying for it, perhaps he could have. Congress has a chance to answer the President and make it clear that he cannot make an end run around the Constitution and claim powers reserved for the taxpayers' representatives. Mr. Speaker, the Congress of the United States needs to have a spine and not lay at the feet of the President of the United States and say, ``Whatever you want, sir.'' That is not what the people elected us to do. We are their representatives, not the President's representative, whether it is President Obama, President Trump, President Clinton, President Bush, or President Reagan, all of whom I have served with-- two Bushes. Our Founding Fathers had enough of King George, so they adopted a Constitution that said: We are not going to have a King George. We are not going to have an authoritarian regime. We are not going to have the executive setting policy. They said the Congress sets policy. By the way, 300 of us in this body voted for the funding levels for border security. It didn't squeak by, by some partisan advantage--300 of us, which is to say well over 66 percent. Now, Congress has a chance to answer the President and make it clear. He demanded that the American taxpayers give him billions for the wall that Democrats and Republicans alike say is expensive and ineffective. Again, this is not about the wall. This is about our Constitution, our institution, and our self-respect. He has chosen to ignore the will of the American people, as expressed by their representatives. He has opted to set aside the wisdom of our Founders for the expedience of getting his own way. Constitutional law professor Roger Sloane of Boston University noted, last week: ``To my knowledge, no President has ever tried to use national emergency funding to appropriate funds Congress refused to appropriate.'' Overwhelming Senate vote; overwhelming vote in this body. He went on to say: ``Politically, it would mean the President would be seeking . . . to override a bipartisan judgment of Congress.'' Have we no self-respect? Have we no sense of the balance between the executive and the legislative branches of government? We are the Article I branch, the policymakers, the people who raise money and spend money, not the President--any President, Republican or Democrat. And a lot of Republican colleagues, including Senator McConnell, said: Mr. President, don't do this. Right up until the time Senator McConnell said: I will support you, Mr. President. First, he was against this, and now he is for it. The respected Harvard Law School constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe said of the President, on Thursday: ``He is simply trying to do what emperors and kings do, not what a President of the United States should do.'' In The Washington Post this weekend, columnist Max Boot noted why we are now at a pivotal moment for Members of the President's party in the Congress, who are being asked to choose between loyalty to the President and fidelity to the Constitution. I am sorry the Chamber is not filled. I thought of asking for a quorum call. I didn't. Fidelity to the President or fidelity to the Constitution, that is the choice we make today. That is why this is a pivotal moment. We choose between the Constitution and its principles, which have made our country the world's envied democracy for almost two and a half centuries. Boot continued with this: ``Trump's action is an affront to all that Republicans stand for.'' The premise is you continue to stand for this institution and our Constitution. ``They claim to be pro-military, but Trump's action would take money away from the defense budget. They claim to be pro-property rights, but Trump's action would result in the taking of private property along the border. And they claim to be constitutional conservatives, but Trump's action is an obvious violation of Article I of the Constitution: `No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.' '' I used to have people coming up here and taking out the Constitution and saying: Have you read this document? Do you know what it says? Let me repeat it: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' Now, I have heard the scare rhetoric, and I suggest to my colleagues, with all due respect, that kind of rhetoric has preceded every despot's takeover of power in the world. There was a crisis. They had to declare military law. They had to suspend the constitution and suspend the laws. That is how despots take power. We stand at the gate to ensure that doesn't happen. But we will say more with our votes. If we vote yes, we will say that Congress is still the voice of the American people. We will say that we are still faithful to the oath we took to protect the Constitution and laws of our land. And we will say that America, as our Founders promised, has no sovereign but we, the people--``we,'' not me, not I. We, the people. We must not allow the President to set a dangerous precedent stripping Congress of its power of the purse. This is the first time. You can say there are a lot of other emergencies. That is correct. But this is unique. We must not allow him to set the precedent whereby any chief executive, Republican or Democrat, can declare an emergency any time he or she doesn't agree with Congress' funding. This is not a partisan resolution. It is supported and encouraged by former and current Republican Members who recognize how dangerous it would be for the Congress not to act. A group of 23 former Republican Members of Congress, including former Senators Olympia Snowe, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and John Danforth have sent a letter to currently serving Republican Members yesterday. In it they wrote this: ``It has always been a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to Presidents or party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional Republic, we must act within the borders of the Constitution.'' Today, a conservative Senator from North Carolina, a Republican conservative Senator from North Carolina, said this: ``I have grave concerns when our institution looks the other way at the expense of weakening Congress' power.'' Senators Murkowski and Collins have already said they would support this resolution. So let us act and do so in one powerful voice--not as Democrats, not as Republicans, as Americans; as representatives; as people who have put their faith in us to make a judgment to protect their country, their Constitution; as Americans who believe in our Constitution and the wisdom of our Founders who gave Congress alone the authority to appropriate funds and gave the representatives of the people and the States a powerful check on the executive. I ask all my Republican colleagues: How would you vote if Barack Obama were President of the United States today? Think of that. Because if you cannot answer ``I would vote the same way,'' then you are not being true to your country, to our Constitution, and to your oath. If any Member cares at all about the equal status of the Article I branch of the Constitution, he or she should vote for this resolution. Vote for conscience and Constitution, not party and politics.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank and congratulate Karen Haas, and say how very appreciative this House is for the extraordinary service that has been given to us for many years, and to the people of this country, by Karen Haas. Karen, thank you so much. She has been the Clerk of the House for a very long time. She was the Clerk of the House in the 109th and 110th Congresses as well. Throughout her tenure, she served with distinction, working hard to ensure that the Office of the Clerk always acted in a nonpartisan, bipartisan way, which brought credit on this House and great service to every Member. Thank you for that, Karen. Many of us serving in the House have known her even longer, going back to her service on the staff of former Speaker Hastert and former Republican Leader Bob Michel. I might say of the latter, Bob Michel was one of the finest human beings I have ever known and one of the best Members that I have ever served with. Karen was proud to serve with him, and he, I know, was so fond of Karen and her service to him and to the House. Now, I may not be totally objective. Karen is a native Marylander. Karen is also a graduate of the University of Maryland, so Karen and I share a lot in common. We live in Maryland; we graduated from Maryland; and we love this House. I offer her the thanks of the House, its Members, and our staff, as she steps down from this position. I am not sure where Karen is going, but I guarantee you, our loss will be somebody else's gain, because she has the kind of talent, commitment, energy, and faithfulness that will make a real difference wherever she goes. I also congratulate Cheryl Johnson for becoming the 36th Clerk of the House of Representatives. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, Cheryl returns to the House where she served for 20 years with the Committee on Education and Labor, as well as the Committee on House Administration. She will bring an extraordinary amount of experience to her job as the Clerk of the House. I know she will do an outstanding job, and I welcome her back to this House, which she has served so ably before. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the whip for his comments, and I certainly share his views. I am now pleased to yield to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield to the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 143) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow. There will be no votes expected.