Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill Shuster. I am also supporting the bill. But I want to thank Bill for being a person who is constructive, visionary, and works across the aisle with constructive ideas. He has made a difference in this House. His father made a difference in this House. I thank him for his service. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It includes key changes to the Stafford Act that I have been working on with Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Bishop for many, many months. I have advocated for over the past year to permit Federal disaster aid funding to be used to not only reconstruct what stood before, but to build to 21st century standards. Importantly, the bill puts an emphasis on pre-disaster mitigation. The emphasis is on actions taken to lessen the impact of future disasters. Last year, natural disasters cost the Nation a record $306 billion, eclipsing the previous record of $265 billion set in 2005. If we fail to do this, if we fail to mitigate, then we will have forsaken the lessons of Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Maria, and now Florence, or the devastating wildfires of the West. For every dollar spent in mitigating future disasters, we save between $4 and $8 in avoided future recovery efforts. This just makes sense. Last year, when I traveled with Majority Leader McCarthy to Puerto Rico and to the U.S. Virgin Islands with Mr. Bishop, the chairman of the committee, to see the aftermath of Hurricanes Maria and Irma, I saw Americans struggling without power, access to clean water, basic health services, or shelter over their heads. The majority leader and I came away from that visit determined to help these communities. Chairman Bishop joined with us. So I thank the committee. I want to thank Mr. DeFazio, too, who like Mr. Shuster is a constructive, positive Member who wants to make a difference for our country. My constituents thank him, and the country thanks him. I come to support a bill that was fashioned by two people who wanted to make sure that we did positive things in this House. The American people can be proud of our work today.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to those of my colleagues who have expressed strong support for this bill, H.R. 1911. It is imperative that the United States leads in the effort to stamp out anti-Semitism both at home and around the world. That's why we need an ambassadorial-level special envoy to monitor and combat anti- Semitism. In recent years, we've witnessed a disturbing rise in attacks against Jews and Jewish communities all around the world. Americans were deeply shaken last year by the virulent anti-Semitism on display in our own country during the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. I continue to be alarmed by attacks on Israel and its policies that employ rhetoric historically associated with anti- Semitism and that repeat old patterns of singling out the Jewish State in ways that mimic ancient biases. There must be no place for such rhetoric or activities in our country or anywhere that calls itself a free and democratic society. I commend Ranking Member Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, along with Reps. Lowey, Schneider, Deutch, and Veasey, for their hard work with the bill's Republican cosponsors to ensure bipartisan passage of this legislation. I hope it will send a strong message throughout the world that the United States will never waver in its effort to end the scourge of anti-Semitism and defend our ally Israel.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, the majority leader. (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information. And the minibus that he referred to is what we refer to, I guess, as the first minibus. Has that conference report been completed at this point in time, Mr. Leader? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Mr. Speaker, we have some 7 days left to go, and, of course, next week is essentially one full day, and then we have 4, maybe 5 days the following week, depending upon what is necessary. I would ask the majority leader, does he contemplate us trying to effect a continuing resolution for those appropriation items which have not been addressed in the next 7 days? And if so, how long does he expect that continuing resolution to go? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I hope his optimism is met because I think that would be a better thing for us to do, so I appreciate that observation. Let me ask the gentleman as well, if we accomplish what he suggests that we might accomplish over the next 7 legislative days, there will still be a needed CR. Assuming we adopt a resolution which will fund all of government through a particular time, both because we passed appropriations bills, your point being that there are nine that are possible to pass with three remaining. The gentleman has scheduled, as of now, for us to be meeting the first 2 weeks in October. Obviously, Members are very interested in whether or not that schedule will be kept or whether there is a possibility that assuming we do, in fact, fund government to some date, either through the year, the next fiscal year, or for a period of time, for those bills that have not passed and been signed by the President, does the gentleman still contemplate that we will be here the first 2 weeks in October? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that. I would hope that, for scheduling purposes for all Members, we could make that decision by the end of next week so that Members would have the opportunity to plan. I realize full well that it depends upon whether or not, in fact, we get the work done, which is why I was asking about the CR. In addition to that, the gentleman has mentioned a couple of bills, but the Violence Against Women Act, the farm bill, and the FAA, as the gentleman knows, expire on September 30. Does the gentleman expect us to be dealing with those bills in one form or another? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman's hope is to vote on these conference reports prior to the 30th of September? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation. My presumption, therefore, is, if the conference cannot come to agreement, I would presume that we would have an extension on those three bills and others that might need that. Is that accurate? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend Rep. Lee and my other colleagues tonight who have gathered to pay tribute to our former colleague Rep. Ron Dellums, who passed away on July 30. I rise to join them in remembering Ron, who was my friend and with whom I served in this House for many years. Ron Dellums's entire career was spent in service--to his community, his city, and his country. As a U.S. Marine, he proudly wore the uniform of our nation at a time when the peace of the world was threatened by cold war. As a city councilman in Berkeley, he drew on his family history of labor activism to fight for better conditions for working families. As a Congressman, he led the fight for sanctions against apartheid South Africa and chaired the Armed Services Committee as our military challenges were changing from a Cold War to a post-Cold War environment. He was a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, which today is the conscience of the Congress. Later, as Mayor of Oakland, Ron worked hard to make neighborhoods safer, improve local schools, and bring new infrastructure funding to the city. Ron fought with tenacity for the causes he believed in. One of those was human rights and the equal dignity of all people. When a presidential veto threatened to block his anti-apartheid legislation, he rallied support to override it. As Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he earned the respect of his Committee colleagues and military leaders, and he worked diligently to transition our military to meet the threats of the twenty-first century. It came as no surprise to those of us who served with him that when he retired in 1998, praise for his service and leadership came from both sides of the aisle. I was deeply saddened to learn of Ron's passing. Our nation lost a faithful public servant and a champion for working families and those working hard to make it in America. I mourn with the people of California and my colleagues in this House who served with Ron. I mourn with his wife Cynthia and the Dellums family. I mourn the loss of a man who gave service his all and contributed so much to the nation he loved and this institution he so faithfully served.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this spring the Fifth District of Maryland lost an extraordinary advocate for the men and women of our Armed Services and for America's naval engineering at the Pax River Naval Air Station. John `Jack' Francis Lynch of St. Ingoes, Maryland, which is in St. Mary's County, passed away on May 18 at the age of eighty-five. Jack spent his career at Pax River, first as an engineer, then as Technical Director, and later as part of the private sector and as an early leader of the Southern Maryland Navy Alliance and the Patuxent Partnership. When he arrived in Southern Maryland in 1955, Jack began a career that would see him become one of the most influential individuals in the history of Pax River and the region. When he became Technical Director at Pax River in 1979, he realized that the installation was at a disadvantage compared to other major military installations around the country. That was something Jack would not abide. Pax River needed more engineers, so he went to Washington and asked that they be hired. He got what he asked for. Pax River had no on-site offices in Washington, so Jack made the trip to the Pentagon over and over again to lobby military leaders on its behalf. By the time he retired from government service in 1986, Jack had completely transformed the way engineers at Pax River trained and worked. After leaving government service, Jack joined Mantech International until 1999 and continued to devote himself to Pax River and those who serve there throughout that time and after. In the early 1990's, Jack and I worked closely together and with other state and local leaders to secure funding to build an anechoic chamber at Pax River for the precision simulation of aircraft dynamics, the first of its kind in the world. We also worked together to ensure that Pax River benefitted from consolidation during the 1996 BRAC round, which helped make Southern Maryland the hub for aerospace development and testing it is today and a center for American engineering. Much of these achievements were the result of Jack's efforts to bring stakeholders together into the Southern Maryland Navy Alliance. Later, he led the Patuxent Partnership, which was also instrumental in growing Pax River and its critical role in naval aviation. I will miss Jack Lynch, not only for his devotion to Southern Maryland and to a strong Navy but also for his optimism and determined spirit. I hope my colleagues in the House will join me in thanking Jack for his service to our country and in expressing my condolences to his wife Patricia Ann ``Trixie;'' their son Thomas and daughter-in-law Susan; their son Paul and daughter-in-law Kimberly; their son Patrick and daughter-in-law Kathy; and their ten grandchildren and three great- grandchildren. May Jack's memory bring them joy and comfort, as it surely will inspire all of us in Southern Maryland to carry on the work he cherished.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, 28 years ago, President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. I was proud to be a lead sponsor of that legislation and to be on hand for the bill signing on this day 28 years ago, together with former Democratic Whip Tony Coelho; Representatives Steve Bartlett and Jim Sensenbrenner; and Senators Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, and Lowell Weicker. Other individuals present were: President George H.W. Bush; Dave Capozzi; Justin Dart; Yoshiko Dart; Chai Feldblum; Lex Frieden; Boyden Gray (Counsel to President Bush); Anthony Imparato; Arlene Mayerson; Paul Marchand; Ed Markey; John McCain; Normal Mineta; Ralph Neas; Katie Neas; Carolyn Ocelinik; Becky Ogle; Lee Page; Liz Savage; Bobby Silverstein (Hatch); Melissa Schulman; Cheryl Sensenbrenner; Bob Williams; John Wodatch, Esq.; and Pat Wright. We worked hard to shepherd that legislation to passage with strong bipartisan support. The ADA has reshaped the landscape of our country for millions of people living with disabilities, and, indeed, for many millions throughout the world. It has done more than build ramps or widen doorways. It has changed perceptions and brought greater understanding, not only to the abilities of those who were previously excluded, but also to the challenges of living with a disability. I am glad we have been able to come together to strengthen the ADA over the years in the same spirit of bipartisanship that we had at its inception. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate this anniversary each year, we rededicate ourselves to the project of protecting the civil rights of Americans with disabilities and expanding opportunity, equality, and access for all of our people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it would be inaccurate to say that this is a vote about process. It is a vote about substance. In fact, Mr. Quigley's amendment is about one of the most pressing issues of our time. The Director of National Intelligence has said that there is a flashing red danger signal similar to the one that happened before 9/11. This amendment responds by providing for us to partner with our States to slam the door in the face of the Russian bear or any other adversary who seeks to steal the integrity of our elections. The flashing red light calls us to action. Surely we can rise above pandering to party and Putin to act on behalf of our freedom and our security. We have sworn an oath to defend our Constitution and our liberty against all enemies foreign and domestic. Mr. Speaker, you have the opportunity to do that today. Do so. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment for your country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his exposition of the schedule. I want to speak briefly to the appropriations process. I think the Appropriations Committee is fairly close to the completion of its bills. Can the gentleman tell us when the balance of the appropriations bills might be coming to the floor and when we can perhaps expect the next appropriations bill on the floor? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observation. I share his delight that the Senate is moving bills. I would observe that they appear to be moving them in a bipartisan fashion, which I think is positive for an outcome on the appropriations process. In that vein, I know we are in conference on the MILCON and Legislative Branch minibus. Does the gentleman have any idea when that might conclude and we might be considering that conference? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me just mention, we just had a vote, and, obviously, I was disappointed in the outcome. I was the sponsor, probably as the gentleman knows, of the Help America Vote Act, which created the Election Assistance Commission. The Election Assistance Commission bill, the HAVA bill, passed with a big bipartisan vote and was signed, as the gentleman knows, by President George W. Bush in a very bipartisan effort. The premise was that, for 200 years, the Federal Government had not participated in assisting the States in running Federal elections. I will repeat that. The vote for President, the vote for Senate, and the vote for the House were all done through State administrations with no participation by the Federal Government. In 2002, the Congress and the President made a determination that we would contribute to making sure that our elections ran correctly. The gentleman will remember the issue of hanging chads and the question of whether or not votes were properly counted. It was of great concern across the aisle. So we passed the legislation. Unfortunately, however, we have not continued to pursue that. And today's vote, we have a greater challenge today. The challenge in the 2000 election was inappropriate administration, domestically, of our election. The problem in 2016, as Speaker Ryan pointed out and the Intelligence Committee found and the intelligence community has found, was that there was clearly an outside attack on America by Russia, and perhaps others, to undermine the integrity of our elections. The vote that we held just a few minutes ago was about the Federal Government continuing to partner with the States to ensure the integrity of our election system and its safety from outside attack, interference, and undermining. I hope, Mr. Leader, that we could visit that issue. I hope the Senate visits that issue. Perhaps we can visit it in conference, and, together, Republicans and Democrats could join together in an effort to work with our partners in the States to ensure the integrity of the administration of our election and to ensure that votes are cast correctly, counted correctly, and reported correctly. As the sponsor of that bill that was cosponsored, as the gentleman may remember--no, you weren't here in '02--by Bob Ney of Ohio, but overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle, I hope that we could move ahead, in the weeks ahead, as we move toward the November 6 election, to make sure that Americans--Democrats, Republicans, independents, all others, and not only in this country but around the world--have confidence in the results of our election. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the gentleman wants to respond to that. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observation. I would simply be constrained to say, I listened to Mr. Frelinghuysen. I listened to his opposition to the MTR. The pretense that the amendment that was offered is somehow a procedural or nonconsequential amendment is incorrect. Mr. Frelinghuysen didn't even try to make the argument. He said it was a good bill; we ought to pass it. Fine. The amendment would have not undermined the bill in any way. Now, there is a provision in that bill, as the gentleman knows, to, in effect, undermine the agreement that was made last year, with respect to the funding levels, by putting $500 million into a grandchild's or a children's fund by the chairman of the subcommittee. It is a little bit like your rescissions. The gentleman who put that in voted for a $2 trillion deficit- creating document and put $500 million in a trust fund to bring down that deficit. I know my friend is happy that that will, at that rate, take 4,000 years to fill that $2 trillion hole. So I disagree with my friend that the amendment would have had any adverse effect on the bill that was passed. Now, I voted against the bill, but the bill passed the House of Representatives. Nothing would have adversely affected that bill. I appreciate what the gentleman said about last year's action, which I supported, which I thought was correct, and which I appreciated the Congress taking. Next, Mr. Speaker, we had a vote on ICE. The gentleman can argue it one way or the other. I know you criticized us; we criticized you. The fact of the matter is, what it did not deal with--and you will indicate that there was a bill that dealt with this in a fashion. But, again, I would remind you that your pledge, through your Speaker, was to take issues head-on, one at a time, discretely, not confuse them. I would urge the leader, the Speaker, and the majority party to bring a bill to the floor that deals simply with an issue with which we believe the overwhelming majority of Americans agree: Do not rip children from the arms of their parents. Do not estrange children from their parents for weeks and months. Do not traumatize children, perhaps permanently, by this policy of separating children. I would hope and urge the majority leader to bring a bill to the floor that would deal with that discrete issue. Mr. Nadler has a bill, H.R. 6135, to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from pursuing this policy of separating families. John McCain has said that that policy of separation offends the dignity and decency of the American people. That is John McCain, former candidate for President in your party, Mr. Leader, and I would agree with him on that issue. I would urge the leader to bring a bill to the floor to deal with this issue directly, and I believe--perhaps I am wrong--that it would receive a very significant majority of support in this House. I would ask the gentleman, is there any plan to bring such a bill to the floor in the near future? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. The omni last year? Yes.

Mr. HOYER. I am going to reclaim my time, Mr. Leader, for this.

Mr. HOYER. Of course, I supported that policy. Now, the reason I was going to reclaim my time, very frankly, Mr. Leader, I have done some research on bills you voted against. I could go through them and pick out this, that, and the other that everybody in the world was for, and I could say you voted against it. I have not done that. The reason I have not done it is because I don't think that would be intellectually honest on my part, because I know that there are things I would pick out that you clearly supported but you didn't support some parts of the bill and, therefore, indicated your objection by voting against them, which is exactly what I did in the omni. The gentleman, my friend, knows that to be the case. My friend brings up CHIP all the time. My friend knows that I have supported CHIP at its very inception and in every step of the way of its development and reauthorization. My friend knows that, but he continues to pretend, because I voted against the omni, that I voted against CHIP. I didn't like the omni. I thought the omni was wrong. Very frankly, I think I was correct in that vote. Now, the omni passed, and it passed with a very substantial number of Democratic votes. I didn't lobby against the omni with my Members. I did indicate that I did not agree with things you had left out and did not put in the omni, and I, frankly, did not agree with some things that were in the omni. Having said that, let's not go back and forth. I can get a lot of bills the same way and show that you voted against motherhood and apple pie in this bill, that bill, and the other bill. You know that to be the case. I would hope we can stop doing that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. You are correct.

Mr. HOYER. I will do that. I will tell you, you are correct in saying that I did not support the omni, but I did support the proposition.

Mr. HOYER. Separating children from their parents.