Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Certainly.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, not as far as I know.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I share the gentleman's view. I hope the conferees can reach an agreement that will be agreeable to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, both the House and the Senate, and the President.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 11:30 a.m. on Monday, February 4, 2019; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to objection, I do not intend to object, Mr. Speaker, but I hope the experience of the last 35 days has taught us that we should never repeat this exercise of shutting down government again. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour debate. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon 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. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Members are advised that additional legislative items are possible, including additional legislation related to fiscal year 2019 appropriations. I want to make it clear to Members that when we leave today or tomorrow, we will leave with the notice to Members that they are subject to being asked to come back Saturday, Sunday, Monday morning, or any day thereafter, if there is a possibility of opening up the Government of the United States, so that it can serve the American people.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me make very clear that which ought to be very clear: We believe the President of the United States, with the aiding and abetting of the majority leader of the United States Senate, has taken the Government of the United States hostage, and the President of the United States is asking for ransom, and that ransom is to accept his policy or go home and stay shut down. I will tell the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that I have been in this body for a long time. I am in my fourth decade. I have never supported shutting down the Government of the United States. Now, the gentleman may point out that I have voted from time to time against bills that would have opened it up because of things that were in the bills and these bills passed the House of Representatives when you were in charge. They did not pass the Senate, of course. I believe that shutting down the people's government is an unacceptable--unacceptable--tactic in a democracy when one is discussing differences that need to be resolved. Unacceptable. Furthermore, as I said on the floor the other day, Mr. Speaker, I can find no free government in the world that shuts itself down, other than the United States of America. Now, we have a relatively unique system of government. But I will tell my friend that we are for border security. We have supported bills that affected border security. During our tenure, there was more border security fencing, I will tell the gentleman, constructed than when they had been in charge over the last 8 years. Look at the record. But the issue is, we are not going to negotiate at the point of a gun, which is shutting down the Government of the United States, affecting 800,000 of our employees. Some of you say: I run a business. I am a businessman. Well, if you are a car company, or you are a real estate company, or you are a contractor, or whatever you may do, can you tell your employees: I am going to have you work, but by the way, I am not going to pay you. Mr. Speaker, we want to negotiate. We want to get this resolved, but we are not going to pretend this is business as usual. This is the longest shutdown in history, and the other side has consistently voted against every bill that we have offered to open up government. Now, the other side offered a bill where they want to pay employees while they don't work. I voted against that. I think the taxpayer deserves to have his employees or her employees working, and, yes, he should pay them and she should pay them for working, not some stopgap measure to pretend that somehow we are lessening the consequences of a shutdown, in light of a consistent, overwhelming vote on the other side of the aisle to keep government shut down. I tell my friend, he voted against Boehner, when he was the Speaker of the House, requesting to open up the government. Maybe he believes, Mr. Speaker, that shutting down the government is good policy, good practice, the way to treat your employees. I emphatically reject such a premise. When the gentleman asked me if will we negotiate, I am pretty proud of my reputation, having negotiated with George H.W. Bush a major piece of legislation that was very controversial, the Americans with Disabilities Act, negotiating in league with Roy Blunt, one of the gentleman's predecessors on his side of the aisle; and Jay Rockefeller and Senator Kit Bond from Missouri to get FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was a very controversial issue, resolved, with Democratic and Republican support, and President George W. Bush signed that bill. So anybody who knows my reputation knows that I am prepared to sit down and come to agreement, because that is what you need to do in a democracy. I won't get everything I want; you won't get everything you want. But the fact of the matter is, as long as government is shut down, we are not going to have business as usual. I remind the gentleman that his side was in charge last year and went 11 months and 20 days and didn't bring a Homeland Security bill to the floor of this House--11 months and 20 days. It was in the waning 10 days of the year when his majority brought a bill to the floor that they knew wouldn't pass the Senate. We have passed Senate bills that would open up the government. We have sent simple CRs with no controversy to them that would have opened up the government. We have sent 10 different bills, 11 different bills. The 12th lost on suspension, because their side voted against it. So I tell my friend, I am prepared to negotiate. I am prepared to negotiate in good faith. I will tell the gentleman, the Speaker of this House is prepared to do the same, and our Members are prepared to do the same. There are significant, strong differences. We differ on whether the wall is an effective way to keep the border secure. But we agree on a number of other things. When the gentleman and I were down at the White House, for instance, the magnetic resonance of trucks and vehicles that are carrying contraband, drugs, guns, and other material that we don't want to come into the United States, we can agree on that. We can agree on much, I think, of border security. That was a long answer to the gentleman's question, but until we open up government, it is not going to be business as usual, until we open up government and put those 800,000 people back to work. I represent 62,000 of them. Now, not all of them are laid off, because we funded some portions of government. But a significant number of them are, and they are hurting. A TSA agent comes in at $28,000 per year. We make substantially more than that, and they are living paycheck to paycheck. Tomorrow, they are not going to get a paycheck. But they have been told by their government they have to work, and because they are conscientious, patriotic Americans, they are working. But you can't expect them to work much longer. We can't expect people to work when they are not getting paid, when they are not getting respected, when they are not getting treated as we would want to be treated ourselves. So I say to the gentleman, in answer to his question, we are prepared to discuss and negotiate and compromise, but not in the face of this shutdown. I would hope that it would end. It is the wrong policy. It is a cruel policy. It is hurting America. It is hurting our economy. It is hurting our reputation around the world. And it is hurting our people who work for us.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. The gentleman, of course, just voted against funding the Department of Homeland Security, as did his colleagues. The gentleman proudly said that all of his colleagues--and not all of his colleagues voted against it--but he voted against opening up the Department of Homeland Security. He voted against paying the personnel in Department of Homeland Security. Yet, he cites them as experts who have given us advice, and why don't we follow that advice. But, Mr. Speaker, the minority party doesn't have enough respect for them to open up the government, open up the Department of Homeland Security, pay the people who are protecting our border, pay the people who are processing paperwork for those border security guards, pay the people who are answering the phones, pay the people whom we ask to protect our borders, and then laments that somehow we are not coming up with a number. Open up this government, Mr. Speaker. And, yes, I used the word, ``hostage''; and, yes, I used the word, ``ransom.'' And, yes, I believe there are two people, and a lot of complicit people, with this government being shut down and with the pain and suffering that we are imposing on our employees. Anybody who thinks Democrats are responsible for that doesn't know what is happening. I am very concerned about the President being able to communicate with the American people. The historic, greatest tweeter of all time. You can't get away from hearing what the President has to say, every morning, every afternoon, and every evening. He has plenty of time. And, by the way, the President said: Yes, I am not going to give the State of the Union until the government is open. He just said that, just a few hours ago. Open up this government. And for anybody who watches the votes on this floor, watched that we voted unanimously to open up DHS; we voted unanimously to open up the other departments of government; we voted unanimously to make sure that the people are being served by their government agencies. And, Mr. Speaker, again, I understand Mr. Scalise and I have a difference. When the Speaker of the House John Boehner brought a bill to the floor when the government was shut down to open it up, Mr. Scalise voted ``no''; and the other person who voted ``no'' is Mr. Mulvaney, who is now the chief of staff. I get that. They think shutting down the government is not a bad option to try to force the other side to agree with them or to pay their ransom. Yes, I use those words. And, actually, if either one of us adopts that as an acceptable alternative in the negotiation process, this country is in real trouble--real trouble. And so we ought to open up the government, and then, yes, we can sit down, and, yes, we will resolve this. But my friend's great angst--he did not mention why it took them 11- 2/3 months while they were in charge last year. They didn't offer a bill until they were about to walk out the door and be the minority. Mr. Speaker, 11 months and 20 days, no Homeland Security bill was brought to this floor. I don't know why. My supposition is they didn't have the votes, but I wasn't counting on their side. Mr. Speaker, I have been to probably 37 or 38 States of the Union. Never was the government shut down. This shutdown is not only of historic length, it is of historic irresponsibility and historic danger to our country, to our people, to our national security, and to our economy. Let's vote to open up this government, and then let's resolve the differences that we have in the way democracies resolve differences: by discussion, by debate, and by votes.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, these CRs carry forward the spending in 2018, the CRs the gentleman voted against. They have $1.6 billion in them. He voted ``no.'' And would the gentleman tell me why he didn't bring a bill to the floor for 11 months and 20 days that would have done what he says is such important work to be done? Can he tell me why he waited 11 months and 20 days to bring a bill to the floor?

Mr. HOYER. Let me first say that Mr. Scalise and his party over the last 8 years that they were in charge passed bill after bill after bill after bill that they knew without any doubt they had no chance in the United States Senate--none, zero, zip. They passed them for message. They knew that, we knew that, and America knew that. So that is not the reason they didn't bring the bill that they talk now so passionately about to the floor for 11 months and 20 days. They only brought it as they were going out the door. Let me tell you what they rejected, Mr. Speaker. They rejected a bill from the United States Senate which would have opened up government and paid all 800,000 of the people who are now either furloughed or asked to work without pay. They rejected that bill that passed overwhelmingly and unanimously on voice vote from the United States Senate that the President of the United States was said, by the Vice President of the United States, to support. But something happened during those 24 hours as it came from the Senate to the House. A bill that passed the Senate, they rejected that bill, the Republicans in this House, and then they, and only then, did they bring a bill which they knew would not pass the Senate. Talk about negotiation and compromise, and you have done that over and over and over, Mr. Speaker--not you but the Republican majority. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you who sent it over here: Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader of the United States Senate. Let me quote Senator McConnell in a CNN report: In his strongest words to date, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, tried to quash talk that he would allow another government shutdown if he becomes Senate majority leader next year. What was his response? `` `Of course not. Remember me? I am the guy that gets us out of shutdowns,' McConnell told CNN in an exclusive interview Wednesday. Then he went on to say: `` `It's a failed policy,' he said of shutdowns.'' Now, sadly, in league with the Republican minority here in the House of Representatives and the President of the United States, he has done exactly the opposite of what he said he would do. He hasn't opened up, he has shut down government. The minority whip is correct, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to pretend that this is business as usual as long as we have 800,000 of our employees--some working, some not--not being paid and not being treated with respect because it is a tactic that they have adopted. And I tell my friend again: it must be a tactic he believes in because he voted against his own Republican Speaker and the majority leader who is now the Republican leader who voted and urged Members: vote to open up this government. Now, he was not alone in that vote. There were 143 other Republicans. Only 87 voted to open up the government. So apparently he believes this is a tactic that is acceptable in a democratic government. We reject that emphatically and proudly. We have passed bill after bill after bill after bill that would open up this government, and Mr. Scalise, Mr. Speaker, and his colleagues have almost to a person--not always unanimously--rejected that effort. So I tell my friend: open up the government and we will talk, but we are not going to talk while you hold hostage the employees of this government--not all of them, but 800,000 of them--who are worried about whether they can put food on the table. There are food lines. Our people at food lines--public employees--do we have no shame? Do we have no moral commitment to those whom we ask to work to protect this country and to serve these people? What is it that the President and his party refuse to open up the government? This is historic. Never in the history--he talked about going back to George Washington in 1799--has this ever happened before that we kept the government shut down. The longest before that, of course, was the Republican shutdown of 2013. It is not a tactic I tell my friend that we accept. We reject it emphatically, and we are not going to subject ourselves tomorrow to the same kind of blackmail or the day after to the same kind of blackmail or the day after that to the same kind of blackmail. I will tell my friend: we will have a Democratic President at some point in time. And he ought to reject this tactic as well because it is bad for the government. Much more importantly, it is bad for the people of this country, the economy of our country, and the national security of our country. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing else to say.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is a motion to recess in order or is the Speaker empowered to recess on his own?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, to all my colleagues, I apologize. I may speak just a little longer than 1 minute--not much. Madam Speaker, I was sitting in my office just a few minutes ago and Representative Michael Waltz, whom I do not know, from the State of Florida rose and said he was here in an empty Capitol. Scores of my fellow Democrats are here because they are outraged that we have shut down the people's government, and they are here, Mr. Waltz, to urge the President of the United States and Mitch McConnell to open up the people's government. That is why they are here. They haven't gone home, Congressman Waltz. We are here. I don't see anybody over here. Madam Speaker, I rise to join with my colleagues in highlighting the absurdity of the Trump-McConnell shutdown and share some of the ways, just some few ways, it is affecting Americans in my district. Now, you can go to this website, trumpshutdownstories.us, and get scores more stories than I will be able to tell on this floor in this short time I will speak. Maryland's Fifth District, which I have the great honor of having represented for the last 38 years, has 62,000 Federal employees, tens of thousands of whom are not getting paid, and some who are being forced--no, who are voluntarily working because they love this country and they love their jobs, and they are working without pay. Is that any way to treat any employee, much less an employee working for their government? One woman from Prince George's County, Maryland, wrote to tell me that her husband, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, is furloughed. She isn't working because they have an infant, and he, the only source of their income. Another constituent wrote to tell me that he serves in the Coast Guard. He said: As I was putting my 9-year-old son to bed last night, he asked me, ``Dad, how come they are making you work without pay?'' He went on to say: I gave him an answer about having taken an oath and that it is my duty to serve, but he was still confused. I share that young child's concern and confusion. Why would we do this? What would lead us to show such disrespect for those who carry out our policy? All Americans should be confused about why our hardworking public servants would be forced to work without pay or be told to go home and wait while a paycheck doesn't come. It is not just Federal employees and contractors who are affected. And, by the way, we are going to repay the Federal employees, as we should. But the contractors, the small business people, the small shop owners in my district who have thousands of their customers who aren't being paid and, therefore, are not customers. One woman from St. Mary's County, the county in which I live, said: We were scheduled to close on our home on January 11, and we received a phone call 3 days before that we would not be going to closing because our loan was on hold due to the government shutdown. A time that is supposed to be the happiest, and here we sit with our house in boxes and living week to week with a landlord. We don't know if we will lose our home. Madam Speaker, I would tell President Trump to listen to these stories, listen to the humanity that must be in you, be sympathetic, be empathetic, be caring about these people who are your constituents, whom you are pledged to protect. Madam Speaker, I would ask the President and Senator McConnell to hear the voices of men and women their shutdown policies are hurting. They are going to hear many more stories. Democrats have voted now 11 times to end this shutdown, and Republicans and the President have blocked these measures again and again. Let me say, Madam Speaker, to those who might be listening: We passed Republican bills to open up this government--not our bills, not partisan bills, but Republican, Senate-passed bills which would have opened up the government. Madam Speaker, because we care so deeply about our constituents who either work for or are served by our government, we will continue to do everything possible to reopen government and share the stories of those being held hostage by the President and Senator McConnell. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for being on this floor to bring their stories of their constituents, of the President's constituents, to his attention, as well as Senator McConnell.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate my good friend Craig W. Floyd on his retirement after thirty-four years of service as the founding Chief Executive Officer of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Craig retired at the end of 2018 and leaves behind a powerful legacy of service to the men and women of law enforcement across our nation. I have been proud to work closely with Craig over the years on a cause about which we both care very deeply: honoring those who have fallen while protecting our communities. Craig helped launch the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund in 1984, partnering with his former boss--and my friend--former Rep. Mario Biaggi of New York and others to establish a permanent memorial in Washington. In 1991, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial was unveiled, and it now preserves the names of 21,541 law enforcement officers who gave their lives in the line of duty. It stands as a powerful reminder to the millions of visitors to the nation's capital of the service and sacrifices of those keeping them safe back home and in every community. In 2018, the National Law Enforcement Museum was opened near the memorial to tell the stories of the men and women whose names are borne upon its walls. Craig was instrumental in bringing this vision to completion and establishing the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and the National Law Enforcement Museum. Under his guidance, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund launched the world's most comprehensive database of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty; published To Serve and Protect--a Tribute to American Law Enforcement; built partnerships with the Department of Justice and Department of Transportation to promote officers' safety and wellbeing; and inaugurated the tradition of holding annual candlelight vigils during National Police Week in May. In many ways, these all stand not only to pay homage to the men and women of law enforcement but also as a lasting tribute to citizens like Craig W. Floyd who dedicated their careers to honoring and aiding these heroes. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Craig for his service and wishing him well in his retirement. I encourage everyone to visit the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and the National Law Enforcement Museum in our nation's capital to learn about the service of those who put their lives on the line to protect our communities every day.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay a heartfelt tribute to the men and women of the Capital Gazette. The staff at the daily paper, based in Annapolis and covering news across Anne Arundel County and the surrounding area, were recognized last month by TIME as one of its `Person of the Year' honorees. They joined murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi; Maria Ressa, a reporter in the Philippines working to expose corruption amid the country's drug war; and Burmese journalists Kyaw Soe Oo and Wa Lone, imprisoned for covering the plight of Rohingya refuges. TIME's award focused on the dangers facing journalists as they seek to fulfill their role as `guardians' of truth. At the Capital Gazette, that danger took the form of a deadly mass shooting on June 28, 2018, which killed five employees and injured several others. On that tragic day, a gunman entered the Capital Gazette offices in Annapolis and took the lives of Gerald Fischman, Rob Hiaasen, John McNamara, Wendi Winters, and Rebecca Smith. It was a targeted attack by a mentally disturbed individual who should never have been able to acquire dangerous firearms. The attack came after months of vitriol leveled at the press, where reporters were called `enemy of the people' and lambasted as purveyors of `fake news.' To their credit, even after this deadly shooting took the lives of their friends and colleagues and after having to endure threats targeted at them and other journalists, the staff of the Capital Gazette continued their important work of reporting the news to the people of Maryland and released an edition of the paper the very next day. They would not be deterred from their mission, so critical to our open and deliberative democracy. Madam Speaker, I hope all of the Members of this House will join me in congratulating the Capital Gazette and thanking its staff for the hard work they do every day--as well as all the members of the press who are risking danger to report the news. We must continue to stand up for the freedom of the press, which is critical to the liberty of our people and to all nations around the world.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Mr. Joyce is still on the floor. Mr. Joyce, I think, put his finger on the problem, and the problem is: Gee, I really like the Interior bill. It has been reached in a bipartisan fashion, and it is wonderful, but, by the way, the package is not perfect because it doesn't do what I want done or what the President of the United States wants done on one specific bill, Homeland Security. My goodness, I don't know why we didn't have an opportunity to conference on that bill. You brought it to the floor on December 20, 10 days before the end of the year--10 days before the end of the year. If it was so important, why did we wait 11\2/3\ months to bring it to the floor? How could we conference a bill like that? There was no time. The reason you didn't bring it to the floor is you didn't have the votes. Mr. Joyce, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Cole all came to this floor when we considered another bill that was what the United States Senate Republicans wanted in their bills, and so we said we need to open up this government. Mr. Graves talked about and Mr. Joyce talked about consensus. Mr. Graves used the word ``consensus.'' Hopefully, we will have a consensus on this floor. Shutting down the government of the United States is stupid, irresponsible, and dangerous. That ought to be a consensus on this floor. And if that is the consensus, as it certainly is mine and certainly on my side of the aisle, then the cure is to open up government. We have offered 9, 10, 11 different alternatives to do that, most of which were their bills formed in the last Congress under the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate. But, sadly, they won't take ``yes'' for an answer, so they keep the government shut down. Only six Republicans in the last vote voted to open up government. Every Democrat, save one--and that had nothing to do with opening or shutting down government--voted to open up this government of the people and for the people. I served on appropriations for 23 years. I never voted to shut down the government, because the government is there to serve the people, and we swear an oath to protect and preserve. Somebody is now going to say: Well, we put something in a bill and you voted against it, Hoyer, and that was an appropriation bill. By the way, when I voted against it, it passed. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been trying to open this government since the first day of our majority passing their bills. When I say ``their bills,'' the Republican bills; they were out of the Senate. On January 3, the Democratic-led House passed a package of six appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019 based on the language approved overwhelmingly in the Republican-controlled Senate, alongside a continuing resolution for the seventh bill funding Homeland Security, which, I will remind you, was not brought to this floor until December 20, 2018. What a high priority they placed on that. They were in charge for 11 months and 20 days, and they never brought it to the floor. High priority item, obviously. Senate Leader McConnell passed a bill through the Senate on a voice vote, I think, unanimously, and sent it to us, so government would be opened. We would have voted for it, all of us, but they didn't bring it to the floor. They brought a bill to the floor that said they wanted to do something on the wall. Why? Because the President wanted to do something with the wall. Why is the government shut down? Because the President will not allow the Congress of the United States to act to open it up. And Senator McConnell, for unknown reasons, believes that we have to have a by-your-leave, Mr. President, to open up this government. This is historic that we have shut down the government for this length of time. It is unforgivable that we have put 800,000 of our fellow citizens--people who work for this government, people who help millions of people every day to get assistance they need or documents that they have to have to settle on a home, or make sure that there is training for firefighters, or any one of thousands of different, critically important jobs that the Federal Government does--out of work. They, on the Republican side of the aisle, my colleagues, have done that. They have shut down the government. We have not. Unless you think taking a hostage and demanding a ransom and having us not agree to that ransom is shutting down the government, and, therefore, you have to vote over and over and over and over and over again to keep the government of the people shut down. During the second week of January, we passed, on an individual basis four appropriations bills that passed the Republican Senate last year 92-6. Is that a partisan act on our part offering four bills that passed the United States Senate, which they controlled, 92-6? When I say ``they,'' I mean, the Republican Party. These are not Democratic bills we are trying to pass through with some majority we have. We took their bills. Why? Because we have a consensus: shutting down the government is the wrong thing to do. And very frankly, I think privately, if you are asked that question, presumably most of you respond with a consensus answer: ``You are right, it is. We shouldn't do that.'' As the urgency of this shutdown grew last week, House Democrats attempted to send a continuing resolution at last year's funding levels. Now, it is important to understand, last year's funding levels are the levels that were set when the Republicans were in charge of the House and the Senate, not Democratic numbers. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about doing the right thing: opening up the government. So we were prepared to send your bills, and you voted against your own bills. I can't understand it, and I can't understand why anybody in America doesn't understand that we are for opening up government and the Republicans are repeatedly and consistently voting not to open up the government. House Republicans rejected those four bills that were Republican bills. Next, we voted to add an amendment to reopen the government through February 8, a short term--give us time to talk and discuss and see if we can come to agreement. It seems to me to make sense. That is usually what short-term CRs are for. We may yet find out tomorrow whether Senate Republicans can agree to reopen government under those terms. I hope they do. In the meantime, late last week, we also brought a continuing resolution to the floor to reopen the government through February 28. Okay. Maybe we need a longer time to negotiate. Democrats have been trying to end this Trump-McConnell shutdown nonstop since taking control of this House. That work continues this week as we bring to the floor a new appropriations package. As we debated the Senate-authored versions--let me say that again, the Senate-authored versions, not our versions--of funding bills earlier this month, some of my Republican colleagues came to this floor and said that their objection to it was because it did not reflect the House position. Now, ladies and gentlemen, you just heard Mr. Joyce talk about the Interior bill. Presumably, if the Interior bill were here alone, he would vote against it because it didn't have national security interest in it. On that theory, we ought to vote against 11 of the bills that we don't like individually, but you brought them as packages last time. I thought that was a good example. We are going to do it again. But the fact of the matter is it is not because you are disagreeing with your bill--you come as the ranking member, I say to my friend, Mr. Speaker--but because of some other issue. We can all find some other issue. So I think there is a consensus that shutting down the government is the wrong thing to do, and unless you believe that shutting down government is okay, you will vote ``yes'' on these bills to open up our government, the people's government. Serve your constituents and the American people, generally. I don't know why you keep voting ``no'' just because the President tells you to do so. That is not what your constituents sent you here to do. Our constituents sent us here, Mr. Speaker, to serve them. The writers of the Constitution of the United States didn't say the President tells Congress what to do. They said Congress tells the President what to do, and he executes that policy. That is what separation of powers is all about. Not for Senator McConnell to say: Unless the President says it is okay, I am not going to put a bill on the floor. What kind of misreading of the Constitution of the United States is that? We are the policymakers of America. We are the ones who send to the President. Yes, he has a role, a critical role. He can veto, and we need two-thirds to override his veto, but it is not to say: Mr. President, we won't even put it on the floor for the Representatives of the people of the United States to express their opinion on unless you say okay. Let's get a spine. Let's stand up. Let's act like the Article I institution we represent. Let us be independent. Let us have what democracy demands: differences of opinion argued out, not by taking hostages, not by demanding ransom, but by discussion, by debate, and by votes. That is what democracy is about. And if it becomes common practice for President Trump or any other President to say to us: ``If I don't like what you are doing, I am going to shut down your government''--that is what is happening here. It is not just about a wall. It is about whether tomorrow the President is going to make some other demand and shut down the government, or tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow when the President makes another demand and shuts down the government. When will it stop, my friends? Maybe never, but it will not continue with my vote. Vote for this bill. Open up the people's government. Stand up and be what America believes you are, an independent, coequal branch of the Government of the United States. Vote ``yes'' for your country and for the people you represent.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Aderholt from Alabama has just said this is ``veto bait.'' What is veto bait? A proposition to open up the people's government. Veto bait? What is the Republican position? Unless the coequal branch of government, the House of Representatives, says ``yes'' to the President of the United States, you will continue to support, ad infinitum, closing down the American Government. Our Russian--I won't call them enemies, but adversaries, at least, are very happy, I am sure, that the American Government is shut down. Our Chinese competitors are very happy that the American Government is shut down. We look ridiculous on the national and international scene. I ask one of my Republican colleagues to stand, and I will yield to them. Tell me which government of the world shuts themselves down. You are correct. The answer is, I can't find any government in the free world that shuts themselves down. Is that what you won't vote for, opening up your government, the people's government? Is that what this fight is about? Or is this fight about, Mr. President, you tell us what to do? Mr. McConnell says he won't put anything on the Senate floor that the President won't sign. My, my, my, what a coequal branch of government we are. Article I says we make the policy. We decide what is rational to spend $5.7 billion on. Experts tell us this wall won't work. Senator Cornyn, Senator Graham, Senator Kennedy, other Senators have said this is not a good investment. By the way, somebody else who said that was Mick Mulvaney, some years ago. He is now Chief of Staff at the White House. This is not a partisan issue, and this is not about the wall, nor was it about the ACA, nor was it about the level of education funding when Gingrich shut down the government or when Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus shut down the government. Thank God for John Boehner, who had the courage to say shutting down the government does not make any sense. It is a stupid policy. Thank God for John Boehner, who came to the floor, notwithstanding the fact only 87 of his Republican colleagues would support it, but with all the support of the Democrats, we opened up the government after 26 days. Now, we have exceeded it this time. What happens 2 weeks from now when the President says: Either you do it my way or no way, or I am going to shut down the government. We are paying a high price, Mr. Speaker, for shutting down this government, not only the 800,000 hostages who have been taken by the President of the United States, with the complicity of his Republican supporters in the House and in the Senate. 800,000 people, 440,000 of them forced to work without getting paid, 360,000 of them sitting home and saying: How am I going to pay my mortgage? How am I going to pay my car payment? They don't know. I talked to a veteran just 3 days ago who represents a lot of veterans organizations. He said to me: Do you know the highest reason for veteran suicide? I said: No, what is that? Fiscal uncertainty. We have a lot of veterans in the Federal Government. We have a lot of veterans who are either laid off or working and not getting paid. We are creating financial instability and anxiety among our employees. What a stupid way to run a business. Yesterday, we had a motion to recommit, and it was to strike opening up the government of the United States. That was apparently, as the chairwoman has expressed, a poison pill for my Republican colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I don't get it. We were sent here by our people to make their government run more efficiently and effectively for them and for our country, and what have we done? We have said: If the President won't agree to opening up the government, we won't either. Yes, we have tried every kind of alternative: opening it up for 7 days, opening it up for 14 days where we can negotiate, and now we are saying to open it up for a month, put people back to work, give them a paycheck. And what does the President's Council of Economic Advisers say just the other day? We are hurting the economy of the United States, which hurts everybody and the international community. I don't get it. I can't think that the American people will get it, that their Congress sits supine and says we will only pass something if the President says it is okay. Have we come to this state where the Article I branch of government, given the power by the people to make policy, says to the person in the Second Article, given the responsibility of executing policy, to tell us: You guys who make policy, don't do it unless I tell you you can? How sad, how lacking in respect for our own responsibility and duties to sit idly by while not only 800,000 people are held hostage, but also millions and millions and millions of others who are served daily by those 800,000 people. I plead with my colleagues: Stand up. Reject this policy of shutting down government whoever does it, whichever side does it. And we don't do it. We don't believe in it. Mitch McConnell doesn't believe in it. He said just a few years ago it was a failed policy. And he, Senator McConnell, was the guy that opened up government. That is what he said. He has now abandoned that, unfortunately, to the detriment of our country--not just to the detriment of our Federal employees, to the detriment of the country. Mr. Speaker, I would hope every American would call their Member and say: Look, you guys have differences. That is all right. But don't shut down my government; don't hurt my economy; don't hurt my neighbor; don't hurt my mom and dad; don't hurt my child; don't send people to the border to make us secure when you talk about border security and then don't pay them and have them worrying about when they are going to get their next paycheck. We are better than this. The Congress ought to be better than this. In a bipartisan way, we ought to say to the President of the United States: We are for you, against you on this, that, or the other policy, but we are united in the fact that we do not want to shut down the people's government. Pass this bill. Send it to the Senate. Let's open this government. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank the ranking member for his leadership as well. Mr. Speaker, I join Mr. Himes in saying this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of America and whether or not we are going to hold accountable those who would threaten and undermine the interests of the United States. I thank Mr. McCaul for his principled leadership on this issue, and I thank Chairman Engel for his continuing focus on making America secure. Mr. Speaker, I am offering this joint resolution today because it is deeply concerning that the Treasury Department would terminate sanctions on companies owned by Oleg Deripaska. Mr. Deripaska is a Russian oligarch--meaning essential is very, very wealthy--and is a very close associate of President Vladimir Putin. The businesses he controls were sanctioned under the Russian sanctions legislation the Congress enacted through bipartisan action in 2017. As I have sponsored numerous bills with Mr. McCarthy when he was the majority leader to make sure that the Congress was on record and had policies which would staunch the attacks on our country and on our security by the Russians. I was deeply disappointed that the Republican Senate rejected a similar resolution yesterday. When I say they rejected it, the majority of the Members of the Senate--57 to be exact--supported this resolution. I talked to Secretary Mnuchin yesterday and the day before, and I asked Secretary Mnuchin: Given the concerns about this legislation, about this withdrawing of sanctions on RUSAL, that they give us until February 28 to have hearings to reflect upon and have further discussions with the administration and make a determination whether we thought this action was in the best interests of our country. Unfortunately, when the Senate failed to get the 60 votes they needed to bring cloture so that they could get to final consideration of the bill, the Treasury Department decided to go forward. It is crucial that the Congress, however, make clear that the allies of Vladimir Putin, no matter how wealthy or how powerful they are, face appropriate consequences for their actions against America's security and democratic institutions. That is what this is about. As Mr. Himes said, it is not a partisan vote. As a matter of fact, in my view, if Barack Obama were President of the United States today, this resolution would receive unanimous support from my Republican colleagues and overwhelming, if not unanimous, support from my Democratic colleagues. Now, I understand the Treasury Department's goal in this instance. It is trying to remove Mr. Deripaska from control of these companies. That is a good objective. I am also sensitive to the economic concerns of our European partners who are dependent on aluminum manufactured by RUSAL, which is the Russian aluminum company, one of the largest in the world and almost, maybe not a monopoly, but an overwhelming share of the aluminum market internationally. However, I do not have confidence that this specific deal accomplishes that objective. I believe many of the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle share this lack of confidence. There are way too many remaining questions for Congress not to act on this resolution. For example, I am not convinced that Mr. Deripaska would fully relinquish his control of RUSAL under this deal--as a matter of fact, I think it is doubtful that he would do so--or that the Treasury Department used its full leverage in this negotiation. I am also concerned, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Deripaska would receive massive financial benefit from this deal--this is supposed to be a sanction--massive financial benefit, nearly unprecedented for a sanctioned entity. Mr. Speaker, I hope our action today will force the Treasury Department to engage more thoroughly with Congress on explaining its actions on this deal and to seek a better one. I think their intent was an honest intent. I am doubtful they achieved it. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me and, hopefully, in a bipartisan way supporting this resolution and I call on the Senate to reconsider its position.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object--I understand there is a problem--and I intend to object. We have told all our people to go home. It is not just a question of being in their offices, with all due respect. They are on their way to their planes. It is far after the time when we usually leave on a go- away day. And I feel badly. I am going to look at the TV. I don't, frankly, think--I was sitting right here. I didn't hear or see anybody asking for a recorded vote. And, very frankly, you don't usually have to ask for a recorded vote because, when you were in the majority, it was always us that had to record the vote because we were losing. Frankly, I think that is what happened, I will be very honest with you. But again, I would like to be able to correct this situation. But I cannot do that in good conscience because people have told me they had 1:30 planes, and they are gone. And I feel very badly about that, but that is the fact. I don't think any games were played. I am going to look at the tape-- it is on television--and see. I understand the problem that most of you were not for the resolution that passed. We didn't stop anybody from asking for a vote, nor could we have stopped anybody from asking for a vote. I was surprised that it went without a vote. The Speaker and the Parliamentarian indicate that the proper procedure was followed, but the vote was not asked for. Therefore, I feel badly about it, because I understand the problem you are in. But I have Members who have left for the airports and they are not going to be here. The vote, if it was reconsidered, is equally important on our side as it is on your side. I cannot expose my Members to missing that vote, nor will I. And I apologize for that. But I hope you understand that, given the situation, I cannot let my Members be subjected to missing that vote, which is a very important vote for them. And, therefore, I will have to object.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. HOYER. I am not sure what is going on, but I object. It is done.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, from time to time, for whatever reasons, people want to vote and, either because they don't get down the aisle or they don't request a vote, they do not get the opportunity to vote on issues that they think are important to them. From time to time, frankly, on our side we have felt that we have been shut out when the majority was in the hands of the Republicans. We would want fairness. In return, we ought to extend fairness. There are obviously many, many Members who wanted to vote on the continuing resolution which was the subject of one of the votes, but from our point of view--and having reviewed the tapes--that did not happen. That happens. But because we want to assure Members on both sides of the aisle that their opinion can be expressed as they would wish it to be expressed-- and I think Mr. Scalise will say that. Mr. Butterfield, former judge, who is one of our fairest and best Members, I would hope we would acknowledge that he handled the matter fairly and consistent with the rules. Given that, it will be my intention to now ask for unanimous consent to provide for the opportunity, when we return on Wednesday, so that we have all Members here--we are going to return on Tuesday. And I would say that we will return before that. We may return tomorrow if we can open up government, if we have an agreement on that. But we will return as soon as that option is available to us. But we will return, if that does not happen, on the evening of Tuesday at 6:30, and we will then, as a result of the unanimous consent request I am about to make, vote--revote--on the issue at hand on Wednesday at the first of business.