Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that, with House and Senate passage of the fiscal year '19 conference report, votes are no longer expected in the House on Friday, February 15. Next votes are expected on Monday, February 25, 2019, at 6:30 p.m.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Engel, Chairman Smith, Representative Khanna, and others for ensuring that the House expresses its views on the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen. After the Republican leader declined to allow this resolution to come to the floor in December, I promised to bring it to the floor. Here we are, and now the House will have an opportunity to express its views to the President and to the country that he ought to end his administration's support of the Saudi coalition's military campaign in Yemen. It is a campaign that has led to tremendous human suffering, with minimal military gains. After 4 years, it is time for a change in policy. Let me be clear: The Houthi rebels in Yemen are bad actors, engaging in brutal actions against civilians, and they are sponsored by Iran. The Houthis commit human rights abuses, prevent humanitarian assistance to starving civilians, and exercise a brute form of governance in the areas they control. We should have no illusion that there are two parties responsible for this humanitarian catastrophe; however, we are supporting one of them. The result of the coalition campaign thus far has been an unmitigated humanitarian disaster as well as a military stalemate. Using military force to pressure the Houthi rebels into accepting coalition demands has demonstrably not worked. It is time, therefore, for Congress to make clear to the Trump administration and to our country and to the international community that it cannot simply keep our Yemen policy on autopilot while the situation not only has not improved, but deteriorates. With the United States supporting one party to this conflict, the best way we promote a peaceful and positive solution is by focusing our efforts on the variables that we can affect. It is time that we set a new course forward on Yemen and that the House and Senate need to demand that the administration uphold basic American values in its exercise of our foreign policy. That means ending our support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. Although not the focus of this resolution, I am mindful that this debate is taking place a day after the President disregarded the law and failed to report to Congress who was responsible for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The more the President tries to sweep this heinous incident under the rug, the more incumbent upon Congress it is to act. This resolution is bipartisan. A similar resolution passed the United States Senate. It was not brought to this floor. I hope it will receive the strong support of both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HOYER. I object.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 120, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House; and further, I ask unanimous consent that it be read in full.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, my fellow colleagues, I rise with great sadness to announce the passing of one of this House's great and good Members, former Representative John David Dingell, Jr., who served in this House for almost a full six decades. His father preceded him for 22 years, and his wife, our beloved colleague, Debbie Dingell, serves now. At the request of his beloved wife, I have the sad task of informing the House that John died yesterday after a long, distinguished, and committed career of service to community, to this House, and to his country. John served with honor in wartime and with distinction in this House. He worked for the advancement of his fellow veterans and their care and benefits in peacetime, and he fought all of his life for fairness and opportunity for all. He defended vigorously the working men and women of the auto industry and working families everywhere. His wit, his humor brought smiles to our faces, and his fearless questions of witnesses in committee brought grimaces to those who believed they had undermined the safety and health of our citizens. Much will be said. I know that each of you have your own memory of Chairman Dingell. I know that each of you will want to rise at some point in time over the next number of days to give your observations of this colleague with whom we were honored to serve. Let us begin our remembrances of him, however, by celebrating the love that he had for this great institution about which he cared so deeply. He believed its powers to be: improving people's lives and delivering on the promises of those who came before us and to those who will come after us. May John's legacy guide us forward as we seek to make this House all he believed it could be and all he did to make it so better than it might have been. I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the Speaker for her retelling, very briefly, the extraordinary record of our friend and colleague, John Dingell, who made America better, who made this House better, and who believed that in doing so, it was critically important to reach across the aisle, to have legislation that would enjoy the support of both sides of the aisle. In that regard, I am blessed now to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader and my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the majority leader for his remarks.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, the spirit of John Dingell was so present in that remark. Now, John Dingell apparently was not always right. He wanted to repeal the Senate, but then he wanted to replace it. Mr. Chair, John Dingell, I will tell you, I was with him Wednesday from approximately 4 p.m. on Wednesday until 6:30 p.m., and Debbie was there. Your dad was there, Andy, our dear colleague. Sandy Levin was there and John Orlando, who served with John on the Energy and Commerce Committee for such a great time. He remembered all of you. He asked me to give each of you his best, to wish you well, and to say that our country needs each of us to work together. Would that we could leave just some of the legacy that John Dingell has left behind. We are so blessed that we have the opportunity to serve with his wife, his beloved wife, his lovely Deborah. What an extraordinary relationship, what an extraordinary man. How lucky we were and are to serve with them. The Speaker will be shortly notifying us of when the funeral will be, opportunities to go to the funeral. There will be a memorial service as well, here, and probably a service in the Capitol as well. So there will be opportunities for each of us to stand and testify to the greatness and goodness of John David Dingell, Jr. Mr. Chair, I ask all the Members of Congress and all the ladies and gentlemen in the gallery to join us in a moment of silence in remembrance of our friend John Dingell.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend Mr. Scalise, the Republican whip, for his comments. It is a testimony to the love and respect that John Dingell enjoyed in this House from both sides of the aisle. As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, there is no one in this House who doesn't have a particular story about John Dingell. So, before we begin this colloquy, I want to again express my gratitude for the life and service of my friend John Dingell. Madam Speaker, I was with him Wednesday. He died yesterday. I was with him the day before he died. We sat together for 2\1/2\ hours and talked. As I left, I leaned down and I kissed him on the forehead, and I said: ``I love you, John.'' I think I was speaking for, literally, scores of Members who worked with him on the committee, who worked with him on the floor, and who saw him in various different venues as a colleague. They loved him as well for his integrity and for his fairness. And, yes, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, he could be tough, and he could be rough, but he also could be gentle and accepting and open. All of us in this country were blessed by his time on this Earth, so much of which he gave back to the rest of us in the form of service in the Armed Forces and in this House and in his community. History will remember him as its longest serving Member of the House of Representatives, but we who knew him well remember John Dingell as a man of extraordinary character, intellect, courage, and purpose. From healthcare to the environment, from workers' rights to veterans' care, John worked tirelessly over six decades in the House to make sure Congress was doing right by the people who the House represents. His legislative record of achievement speaks volumes about who it was he believed he was fighting for every day in office. Medicare, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, all of these bore his imprint. What an extraordinary record of service and accomplishment. And that is because he was a champion of affordable healthcare, equality under the law, the right to vote, economic opportunity, and a healthy future for our children and grandchildren. To his beloved Michigan, he was an indefatigable defender of autoworkers and their role in the American economy. John was steadfast in his belief that the best way to serve them and all his constituents was to work, whenever possible, in concert with those across the aisle and not against them. We are, after all, all Americans. We serve Americans. We serve a great country. He believed in Congress, and, oh, how he believed in his country. He believed in sitting down together and working through our differences in a way that was respectful and civil. Madam Speaker, I hope that spirit and his example will imbue in us a resolve to find compromise in these challenging times. John, as everybody knows, followed his father into service--22 years of service. In 1955, in December, his father passed away, and John was sent by the voters to continue the service of the Dingell family. John Dingell, Sr., was a major proponent of New Deal legislation in this House, serving from 1933 to 1955. John was followed in service here by the ``lovely Deborah,'' as he so affectionately and lovingly called her. His wife is an extraordinary Member of Congress herself, and we are blessed to have her. Debbie is an extraordinary woman, an outstanding Member of the Congress of the United States. We stood in a moment of silence just a few minutes ago. I hope that we will adjourn in his honor today. Debbie has been carrying on the Dingell legacy of seeking bipartisan results while remaining steadfast to the progressive values that brought her into public service. I offer, Madam Speaker, my condolences, as I do to John's children and grandchildren and to their entire extended family. I thank the minority whip for his comments and expression, which demonstrates what we have all said. John Dingell was, of course, a Democrat, but John Dingell was more than that, by far. He was an American and a fierce promoter of the people's House and the work that was done by all the Members of the people's House, so I thank my friend. Madam 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, 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, with last votes expected no later than 3 p.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspensions will be available by the close of business today. The House will also consider H.J. Res. 37, a war powers resolution on U.S. involvement in Yemen. This legislation will force a much-needed conversation about how to bring to an end the violence and the humanitarian crisis that we see in Yemen. In addition, Madam Speaker, the House is expected to consider the conference report that finishes fiscal year 2019 appropriations. I understand that progress is being made, and I am hopeful--I am hopeful--and optimistic that we can have a deal that comes together early next week. Members are advised that additional legislative items are possible. Let me simply say that Members ought to know that there is a possibility as well, given the death of our colleague, John Dingell, and the desire of so many to attend his funeral, that the schedule may be modified to accommodate that effort and that travel to Michigan.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. I am not a member of the conference committee. He quoted me in what I said. We are for border security. I am hopeful that the conference committee reports out a bill that all sides can support that does, in fact, try to make our borders more secure. I look forward to having that bill, hopefully, on the floor next week prior to the 15th or on the 15th, so we can: A, ensure that the government is not shut down; and, B, ensure that we have a bipartisan agreement on how we can make our borders more secure.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the question. As the gentleman knows, this bill was introduced in the last Congress in which the Republicans, his party, were in charge of the House and the Senate and the Presidency, and it did not pass the Congress and go to the President. We will pursue the regular order. This bill, like every other bill, will be referred to committee, and the committee will handle its consideration as the committee sees fit. The gentleman has talked about, or there has been discussion about, a discharge petition that is obviously available. We were trying very hard to have people we call Dreamers allowed to stay in the only country they know. Unfortunately, the leadership was against that discharge petition, and it never got to the floor. For many bills that either side may want, some come to the floor, some don't. But this will go through the regular process, and it is going to be referred to the committee of jurisdiction. We will see how that proceeds.

Mr. HOYER. My answer, however, is the same to the gentleman, Madam Speaker. We have a process. The bill has just been introduced. It will be referred to committee, and the committee will have it under regular order to consider. I cannot predict what the committee will do with that bill, but I understand the gentleman's strong feelings. I respect those; and I respect the fact that this is an issue that is current. But, again, my answer to the distinguished Republican Whip is that we will be considering that in the regular order and, at that point in time, I am sure that he will be able to testify before the committee, if and when there is a hearing, and that others will as well, including the sponsor. But we are going to pursue the regular order on this bill and other bills as well.

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. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I am, of course, not shocked that those who wanted to shut down the government and keep it shut had Federal employees making nothing. I am not shocked that they don't want to give Federal employees a cost-of-living adjustment. Now, I could spend a lot of time responding to my friend from Ohio about the qualifications necessary to run NASA and to work at NASA, or the FBI, or the CDC, or the other agencies that require high levels of skill to work. I am sure my friend from Ohio has read the government reports from the council that is charged with the responsibility of determining whether we are paying comparable wages who say, no, we are not. As a matter of fact, we are substantially under, if you compare apples to apples, educational requirements, and skills requirements to the private sector, similar requirements. He doesn't mention that because the averages, they sound just much better. Now, of course, the average salary on the Washington National's team is a little higher than that. Why, because their skill levels are higher than almost anybody else in the country. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Representative Connolly and Representative Wexton for their hard work, and I want to thank my friend, the chairman of the committee. Representative Connolly, of course, has been a long- time advocate of the pay and benefits, and retaining, and being able to recruit people who have those kinds of skill levels. You better be careful; some 30 to 40 percent of our people are getting pretty close or are at retirement age, and they are going to say, you keep shutting them down and not keeping their salary level, unlike our salary, which has deteriorated now for 10 years in terms of its purchasing value. But averages are averages. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Connolly in particular. He has been an outstanding advocate for many Federal civilian employees living and working in northern Virginia and across the national capital region, and, indeed, around the country. Let me disclose, I represent 62,000 Federal employees. You are not shocked that I am for Federal employees. But when I was in the State Senate, I represented a miniscule amount of State employees, and I was for paying them comparable wages so that we could hire competent, capable, committed people to serve my constituents. This shutdown just showed what kind of pain it has caused. Do you think those high-price people were in food lines because they wanted to say: I am in a food line? No, sir. They were there because they were not making enough in the Washington metropolitan area and in other areas around the country, because less than 20 percent of the Federal employees live in this Washington metropolitan area. The pay freeze President Trump imposed on Federal workers has been detrimental to our ability as a nation to recruit and retain the best and brightest citizens to serve in government. Now, very frankly, Abe Pollin, a very good friend of mine, owned the Washington Wizards. He never asked me to play center because I have a disability. I am 6-feet tall, not 7-feet tall. That is all. And the people he asked, he had to pay a lot of money to them because he wouldn't get them if he didn't. The people who were running our space program, or running NIH, they are just not run-of-the-mill people, frankly, like me. They have got extraordinary skills. If we keep shutting them down and we keep not paying them, you are going to have a second-rate government. That is where you are going You are going to have another opportunity to say shutdown is stupid. I hope you join us on that because it is stupid. It cost us $11 billion according to CBO. After 5 weeks of an unnecessary, costly, and painful shutdown, the American people have been reminded how critical the work our Federal employees perform is to our national security and economic security. Americans were horrified to learn that many civilian Federal employees live paycheck to paycheck, as they do. Even a single month's delay of income sent many of them to food pantries and in search of emergency loans. That isn't right. We had, for a long time, an agreement. We do parity for our military personnel. Now we pay our military, who we put at the point of the spear, hazardous duty pay, as we should. But our agreement was we are going to make sure that everybody keeps their pay at pretty much a stable level of purchasing power. That is the key. Very frankly, some people in this House are not for raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage has eroded 40 percent in purchasing power since 1968. The Federal employee pay will erode in purchasing power if we don't pass this legislation. Let's not forget that 85 percent of Federal employees live outside the Washington area in some of your districts; even in North Carolina. Those who work hard to keep our country and its people safe deserve to be paid competitively. This does not bring them to competitive pay with the private sector, I tell my friends. I am proud to represent, as I said, 62,000 of them. I have met many of them over the years. They are wonderful people dedicated to serving the Nation and the people of our country. They deserve better than to be treated like pawns in political games with shutdowns and pay freezes. Now, the Senate included 1.9 percent. We included zero over here, of course, not surprising. When you don't respect people, you don't necessarily have to treat them as you would treat an employee in your own firm. Federal civilian employees, unlike their counterparts in the military, have been asked to contribute $182 billion over the last 10 years in reduced benefits and pay. $182 billion they have contributed to try to bring down our debt, which is sort of a drop in the bucket when you give yourself $1.5 trillion for some of the wealthiest people in America. You give yourself headroom to create $1.5 trillion to $2.5 trillion of additional debt to give some of the wealthiest people in America a huge tax cut, but not 2.6 percent for Federal employees. My no. That scientist at NASA or the FBI agent who has maybe a college degree, maybe a law degree, who has to figure out what some of the most dangerous people in America and around the world are doing, no, not 2.6 percent for them. Mr. Chair, we need to make sure pay is keeping pace with the rising cost of living for those who serve this country in civilian roles, as well as those in military roles. They are no less deserving of our gratitude and fair compensation. This bill would ensure that civilian Federal employees receive the same 2.6 percent that all of you voted for on that side of the aisle for our military personnel. I honor our military personnel. We should give them that. We should make sure their purchasing power doesn't erode. And by the way, you can talk to military families who also from time to time are in food lines. Is that the right way to treat our people who work for our country and our constituents? I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting this bill. In doing so, we can show the hardworking men and women--unlike we showed them for 35 days--that we do have respect for them; that we do care about their morale; and that we do care about their ability to support themselves and their families. We can show them that we value their contributions and thank them for their important service. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues, at a time of extraordinary trauma among our Federal employees, to show them the gratitude and respect that they have earned and that they deserve.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on the point he just made?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much because he makes a good point. When President Obama became President, of course, we were in a deep trough as the gentleman remembers. It was January of 2009, and we sat around the Cabinet table. I was the majority leader then as well, and I said: Federal employees ought to get no cost-of-living adjustment, Mr. President. The country is in a deep trough. Many people are hurting in this country, and we should not have a COLA adjustment this year. I supported the second year of not having a COLA adjustment because we were still in a problem. Mr. Chairman, you will not find any record of my standing on this floor saying that we ought to give Federal employees a COLA while so many people in the country were struggling without a job and losing their homes. So I just wanted to tell the gentleman that when a Democrat was President of the United States, I told the Federal unions--all of whom supported me--Look, the country is in trouble. But we are not in trouble now. The President talks about what a great economy we have and what low unemployment we have. So now is the time to give them that raise. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. I didn't support him, however, when he did those zeros in those years when we were doing well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to respond to that last speech. A bill came from the Senate unanimously, Republicans and Democrats, that would have opened the government. We would have voted for that bill, all of us, but after not moving on Department of Homeland Security for 11-2/3 of a year, the then-majority party added into that bill a piece of legislation they knew would not pass in the United States Senate. Democrats would not be for it. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman knew they wouldn't be for it, and the gentleman knew they couldn't get 60 votes. Notwithstanding that, they passed a piece of legislation that directly resulted in the shutdown of government. I say that those are the facts. As a matter of fact, we thought the President of the United States agreed with that bill, but somehow, in the some 900 feet of there to here, he changed his mind. Maybe he talked to Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. I don't know who the operative adviser was, but he changed his mind. As a result, we had the longest shutdown in history. The CBO says it cost at least $11 billion. The economic adviser at the White House said that it was costing at least one-tenth of a point a week. This resolution says: Shutdown is stupid. I am sure some don't agree with that, because I have been in this Chamber when you have voted to keep the government shut down. And you don't like me saying that. Your Speaker asked you to open up the government and 144 of you--your Speaker, Mr. Boehner, not a Democrat, said: Look, this is stupid. We need to open up the government--voted no. Now, it passed because all of us voted with 87 Republicans, including your present leader, who voted yes to open up the government. This resolution is so simple. A shutdown is stupid. That is all it says. We will see how you vote. And I am going to say something about some people who think it is stupid. I want to thank my friend from Virginia, Ms. Wexton, for her leadership on this issue. She represents a district, as I do, where there are many hardworking Federal employees, who were negatively affected. We had an argument here about whether we ought to give people a 2.6 percent raise, a COLA adjustment, to keep them even with the economy. And we voted to give them nothing--zero, zip. Not a cost-of-living adjustment. No pay at all. I see my friend, the minority leader, on the floor. He said, not paying 800,000 people was unacceptable. I agree with him. I think it is unacceptable. I think asking people to work and then not paying them is not a moral thing to do. This resolution, as I said, is simple. It is one I believe nearly every Member of this House ought to support, unless you support shutting down the government of the United States of America. It says, a shutdown should never be a strategy in negotiations over funding, period, full stop. We just endured 35 days of a dangerous and unnecessary partial government shutdown that cost 800,000 American workers to be denied their paychecks and that the CBO says, as I just said, $11 billion was the cost. Those are the direct costs. Our resolution makes it clear that such a use of shutdowns, or the threat of shutdowns, ought not to be tolerated in our political system. Now, this resolution says that, but I am going to have some other people who are going to say that as well. No other country has this phenomena. I can't find another country that shuts its government down. In Australia, if you shut the government down, the government falls, so you have to form a new government. There is no reason why Americans should have to live under the threat of being taken hostage, yet again, the next time there is an unresolved debate over an issue, whatever the issue might be. Even many Republican leaders agree that using a shutdown is wrong. I think most leaders, as a matter of fact, not everyone. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell very definitively called shutdowns ``a failed policy.'' And Senator Susan Collins, rightfully, said, just a few days ago that: ``Shutdowns represent the ultimate failure to govern and should never be used as a weapon''--let me repeat that--``and should never be used as a weapon to achieve an outcome.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues all know Lamar Alexander, the former Governor of Tennessee, former Secretary of Education, a Member of the United States Senate, and someone who was prominently mentioned and regularly mentioned as a candidate for President of the United States on the Republican ticket. Here is what he said: ``It is always wrong for either side to use shutting down the government as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to hear this, Senator Alexander: ``It should be as off-limits as chemical weapons are to warfare.'' Could Senator Alexander have said it any more powerfully that shutdowns are not an option? That is all this resolution says. Sadly, I think a lot of you are going to vote no, I suppose, on the theory that you think: No, if we don't get our way, shutting down the government is our option. That is certainly what you told Mr. Boehner and then Leader McCarthy. This resolution says, let's not allow that to happen again. We now have 3 weeks to avert the next shutdown. I am hopeful that the Appropriations Committee will present us with a bipartisan agreement on how best to invest in border security. We all need to do our job. Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join us on this resolution to make it clear to our Federal employees, to our contractors, to the American people, and, yes, to the rest of the world that we don't believe shutting down the government of the United States of America is an option in negotiations. Vote for this resolution. You know that shutting down government is not a positive result of our failures.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business following 1 minutes. The House will recess to allow for a security sweep of the House Chamber prior to the President's State of the Union Address. The House will meet again at approximately 8:35 p.m. in a joint session with the Senate for the purpose of receiving an address from the President of the United States. Members are advised that there will be no votes in the House on Tuesday. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Friday, Madam Speaker, 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 those suspensions will be announced by close of business Friday. In addition, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 840, the Veterans' Access to Child Care Act, introduced by Representatives Brownley and Higgins. This bill would make permanent the VA's childcare pilot program and expand it so that veterans across the Nation who are parents or grandparents have a convenient, cost-free option for childcare when they have VA medical appointments.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as I pointed out, additional items are possible to be added. We said that last week. We did add one. It was noticed on Monday, and we voted on it today. In effect, we met the 3- day rule, not the 72-hour rule, but that was a suspension. There may be others that we will add.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, we want to move on a bipartisan basis. The good news was that this resolution, although it failed to have a two- thirds vote, did have a bipartisan vote with more than 20 Republicans voting for it, which I appreciate. Of course, the balance voted against the resolution, which said that shutdowns were bad. But we will certainly try to give as much notice as possible to the gentleman and to his party.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the conference committee has either met or is meeting. It is my understanding that Chairwoman Lowey is going to have a press conference after the first initial meeting, so that we are in a conference. That is good news. I am sure the conferees are going to talk about proposals that they have to reach border security. I might say that, although it appears to be the central part, in terms of our perspective, a shutdown is not about border security or any other particular issue. It is that it is a bad policy to shut down the Government of the United States. Notwithstanding that, I expect that Chairwoman Lowey will be explaining our position in the conference.