Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks a lot about law enforcement, correctly so. We ought to honor those who protect us and who put their life and limb at risk daily to do so. We ought to honor them whether they are ICE agents, whether they are Border Patrol agents, whether they are DIA agents, whether they are members of the Armed Forces, whether they are members of the sheriff's departments or police departments in our various communities around the country. We ought to have compassion for those who are victims whom they are protecting and compassion for those whom we lose in the performance of their law enforcement duties. There is not a Member of Congress who has been at more memorial services for law enforcement officers that we have lost through the centuries than I have, period. Yesterday's vote was because of the patently political nature of the resolution that was offered. The majority leader says he wanted to offer a bill of one of our Members who suggested the elimination of ICE--small number. And that Member, apparently, according to the majority leader, told him: Look, I am going to vote ``no'' on that if you bring it to the floor, obviously trying to raise a point about wanting to stop the policies and practices--not the ICE agency, but the policies and practices of ripping, literally ripping children from the arms of their fathers and mothers and estranging them at places that neither knew where the other was. The gentleman talks about the opioid epidemic being on the front page. It is there, and properly so, because it is a crisis, and we have dealt with it in a bipartisan way, which was correct to do so. We believed it was underfunded for some period of time. We have come up with some more funds. We are glad about that. But he did not answer my question, and he distracted us from the focus. There was a bill, which we didn't like, because the bill had a lot of other stuff in it, which is why the Speaker said we ought to consider things discreetly, individually, one at a time. Don't confuse and obfuscate the issue. So bring a bill to the floor that says that the policy that the President was pursuing, that he then changed--and the courts have now interjected themselves; we don't know for how long--to say that we ought not, that is not who we are as Americans, Mr. Speaker. These 2- and 3- and 4-year-old children whom we see on the front pages of our paper, they are not MS-13. There is not a Member on this floor who will defend MS-13. There is not a Member on this floor who does not want to see the folks who gain some status by being an MS-13 caught, stopped, and taken out of our country if they are not citizens of this country, not a one of us. So that is a red herring dragged across this floor back and forth yesterday and today. Mr. Speaker, you would think that we could say that America's values do not support taking children, small children, infant children. An instance was cited on the floor yesterday where a mother was nursing her child and that child was taken from her and the mother was put in handcuffs. Is that America? Is that the compassionate country of which George Bush talked? Is it that bright and shining city on the hill of which Ronald Reagan spoke? I think not, Mr. Speaker. Lastly, I know that flood insurance is going to expire July 31. I see the ranking member, Ms. Maxine Waters, on the floor. I know she has been working on this with Mr. Hensarling. Does the leader know whether or not that bill might be coming to the floor or some extension coming to the floor next week? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows damn well that is not the case, and I am tired of hearing him demagogue about that. I expect him to do it between now and the election, but the gentleman is not honest when he does it, and he knows that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. He says something about the Democratic Socialist Party--it is my time. It is my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is my time. This is the most autocratic Congress in which I have served. It has had the most closed rules. And the majority leader brings to the floor his version of what he wants to say and how he wants to characterize it. No consultation with us, no amendments allowed, and then we say we are not going to vote against ICE agents. We honor the work that they do. We honor the sacrifices they make. We honor the critical role they play in defending our country and enforcing our laws. But, Mr. Leader, we are not going to take it or leave it. We are not going to vote ``no'' on a resolution that purports simply to honor our ICE agents. If it were simply that, it may have been a different matter. But, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the majority leader would stop talking about--there are some people in his party who say absolutely absurd things at the very highest level of his party, and I haven't brought them up. Mr. Speaker, I asked a simple question. The Speaker of this House said he was going to bring issues to this floor individually, vote them up or down. I asked the leader: Will you bring a bill to the floor which will stop the separation of children from their parents? He says he did. 113 of his colleagues on his side of the aisle thought it was a bad bill and voted ``no.''

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, they didn't vote ``present.'' I voted ``present'' because I wanted to say to the leader, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take it or leave it. He wants to make me look like I am not for law enforcement when I have been for law enforcement in the 50 years I have been in public office, without fail--without fail.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. I voted ``present,'' Mr. Speaker, because I was not going to take it or leave it. I was not going to just take what the majority leader wanted to shove down my throat and the throat of others. Because, Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric in that bill--and let me say to the leader, Mr. Speaker, he and I worked on a lot of resolutions regarding Israel, and we want to keep the Congress united on Israel, and we keep the Congress united on Israel. How do we do it, Mr. Speaker? We work on the language. We work on the language of the whereas clauses and the resolved clauses so that we can create a broad majority. We could have done that with the ICE bill, easily--easily--an overwhelming support for their role and for their courage and for their character. Now, Mr. Speaker, I asked about the bill that deals with flood insurance. I think the gentleman has told me that that is going to come to the floor, and I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't know who ``we'' is. Somebody who introduces a bill on either side of the aisle doesn't make it a ``we'' bill. And the reason they brought the nonbinding resolution to the floor, when they really wanted to bring the bill to the floor, is because it wouldn't have served their political purposes because everybody on our side of the aisle would have voted ``no.'' He knows it. That is why he didn't bring it to the floor, for politics; not for principle, for politics. And to his credit, I understand the Speaker didn't want to bring it to the floor either. At least that is what is reported in the papers. Now, Mr. Speaker, my question has still not been answered. There have been more closed rules in this Congress than any Congress in recent memory, during the time I have served. Now, there have been a lot of bills passed, and we passed them on bipartisanly. We had about six, seven, eight, or nine naming a post office the other day.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Isn't that wonderful. I voted for all of them, either by voice vote or by card. They were bills that we all agreed with. But more closed rules on this floor, including today's bill that we passed, than any Congress in recent memory. My question to the majority leader was: Will he bring to the floor a free-standing bill which provides that children will not be separated from their parents--which John McCain says is inconsistent with the decency of the American people--so that we can vote on that proposition and that proposition only. The majority leader has not answered that question. He talks about voting ``present,'' which he didn't like. I am sorry he didn't like it, but I would vote ``present'' again to express my opposition, the only way it was possible to do, because, unlike his characterization, I did not want to say to ICE agents, ``I do not respect you.'' Therefore, I did not want to vote against a resolution, the resolved clause of which I agreed with. But it didn't deal with the most critical issue. It could have--it didn't--and it is nonbinding. To argue about that is to dissemble about the question that I asked. I am prepared to end this because I don't think we are going anywhere. I don't think I am going to get an answer from the majority leader, and I don't think he will bring it to the floor, free-standing, any more than he will bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which is so necessary to this country, to the floor, no more than he will bring a Dreamers protection act to this floor. He is gesticulating, Mr. Speaker, as if: What do you mean by that? He brought a bill to the floor that he said solved the problem that 113 of his Members voted against. It got over 300 votes against. That is not a viable option to bring to the floor. He knew it was going to fail. He knew it was another message bill. So I asked him: Will he bring that bill to the floor individually, discretely, to protect these children, or not? I haven't gotten an answer to that. The second thing I asked him, which he did answer, is that we are going to bring a bill to the floor, apparently, hopefully, to protect those who live in flood zones and who are going to have trouble getting flood insurance on August 1. He says he will bring that to the floor. Now, I am prepared to close and to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this has gone on longer than it should have. But it has given us time to look at a MILCON-VA vote on May 15, 2008, in which the majority leader, on a substantive vote, not a resolution that was nonbinding, but a substantive appropriations bill, voted ``present.''

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Voted ``present,'' Mr. Speaker, voted ``present.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the ICE agents for being present. It is unfortunate that our Republican colleagues are not present doing the business that cries out to be done. I am voting ``present'' on this resolution because it is a sham and a distraction. It is an outrageous attempt to hide the continued suffering of children behind a partisan attack on Democrats. This is exactly the kind of gotcha vote that alienates Americans from our government. It is as shameless as it is inappropriate. It is inappropriate because Republicans are not doing a single thing to address the crisis of children still separated from their parents, even after a court ruled that they need to be reunited. Democrats refuse to play the Republicans' game when it comes to children's well-being and the safety of those who come here seeking asylum. We are not falling for this trap, and you can say we are doing it as much as you want. Democrats support secure borders and honor the service of all whose lives are at risk in protecting our country and our people. I take a back seat to no one in the House over the years in supporting our law enforcement personnel, but we will neither be silent nor will we cease fighting to bring an end to the dangerous and inhumane policies of the Trump administration that are traumatizing families and children at our borders, which Senator McCain correctly called ``an affront to the decency of the American people.'' Shame on the Republican House majority for putting such blatant partisanship ahead of the children. Shame on you for using our law enforcement agents as pawns in your political games.

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 am pleased to 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 the information. Mr. Speaker, I note that the bill that was supposed to be on the floor either yesterday or today dealing with DACA and dealing with the children, who are an object of great concern by all the country, is not mentioned in the gentleman's remarks for legislation that will be considered next week. The DACA bill was supposed to be voted in the second immigration bill pursuant to the rule that we adopted this week. That vote, I thought, had been postponed until next week. Now, however, I do not see it being announced as a bill that is going to be considered. It is disappointing that, after months of committing to working together on a solution to the DACA crisis, Mr. Speaker, this week, the House considered two partisan bills. I would like to point out that Speaker Ryan, on September 5, 2017, some 8 months ago, said: ``It is my hope that the House and Senate, with the President's leadership, will be able to find consensus on a permanent legislative solution that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this country.'' Speaker Ryan said more recently, on February 8, 2018, when he urged people to support the caps bill--that is, setting the limits of expenditures--``my commitment to working together,'' and he looked at our side of the aisle when he said that. But, Mr. Speaker, the only persons who apparently will be included in ``working together'' are between the Freedom Caucus and others on the Republican side of the aisle. He went on to say: ``My commitment to working together on an immigration measure that we can make law is a sincere commitment. Let me repeat,'' the Speaker said, ``my commitment to working together on an immigration measure that we can make law is a sincere commitment. We will solve this DACA problem.'' He said that February 8, 2018, from that rostrum on the floor of this House. There has been no ``together.'' Now, my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, said this: ``This all started when I was at Camp David with the President this weekend.'' We know that the majority leader is probably the closest ally that the President has in the Congress of the United States. ``He was telling me how, earlier last week, he was with some Republican Senators talking about DACA. They all agreed, but he said we can't solve that unless we bring Democrats into the room, too.'' That was Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy on FOX News on January 10, 2018. So I ask my friend, the majority leader, can the gentleman clarify whether or not changes will be made to H.R. 6136--that is, the Ryan- Trump so-called compromise that, from our perspective, ``together'' meant simply together among Republicans trying to decide what the Republicans wanted to do. Can you tell me whether there will be changes to that so-called compromise bill and whether or not that bill may be brought to the floor anytime soon? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, together, working with their Conference, not with us, not, frankly, with a bipartisan group that has support on this floor of 240 Members. 240 Members of the House of Representatives, and you need 218 for a majority, support an option and have been asking for that option for a long period of time. Now, the majority leader is looking somewhat quizzical, Mr. Speaker, and he wants to know how you get to 240; 193 plus 47. There were 54 Republicans who asked for the rule putting four bills on the floor, but 7 were, apparently, encouraged to take their name off of that, so only 47 Republicans remain. All 193, that is 240. That is a majority of the House. What was asked for was to put four options, giving everybody a chance to put the option that they liked on the floor. Notwithstanding Speaker Ryan's commitment and notwithstanding the comments that Mr. McCarthy made following his meeting at Camp David with the President of the United States where they needed to bring Democrats in, all we have seen is a deeply divided Republican Party negotiating with itself. They brought a bill to the floor, and they passed the rule. The only real effect of the rule, because the bill lost, was to negate the 216 signatures--and we believe there would have been more but for arm- twisting--to bring those compromised bills to the floor, which had both Republicans and Democrats working together and supporting. Two of those bills, the principal sponsors were a Republican and a Democrat. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, he says he is going to bring a bill to the floor--I presume he is talking about the bill that was going to be brought to the floor yesterday then changed to today, and then changed to next week--whether there will be amendments in that bill and, if so, will they be discussed with us and will we have input into that process? The gentleman concluded, Mr. Speaker, his comments with he hopes he could have our support. We are not included. We are shut out. The compromise has been rejected and undermined, and the Speaker ignored 216 people who asked for those bills to be brought to the floor, and he said no: no openness, no transparency, closed rules, consistent with the policies that have been followed in this, the most closed Congress in which I have served. So I would ask my friend again, Mr. Speaker: What changes will be affected in the bill that would be brought to the floor, or are we going to be told when they are brought to the floor what those changes are? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time just to remind the majority leader of what I asked. The majority leader likes to talk about what we did in the past. His party shut down the government, and he says I voted to shut down the government. That is absurd that he could cite a vote of mine against some sort of proposal that they put forward. The question is: He refuses to put on a bipartisan, to give even the House the opportunity to consider a bill that is supported by 240 Members of this House. And, frankly, my perception--and I am not bad at counting, Mr. Speaker, which is why I am standing at this podium and why the majority leader is standing at his podium. We understand counting. I dare him, Mr. Speaker, I dare him to put the Hurd-Aguilar bill on the floor, and I guarantee him it will get 240 votes. The people's House will be allowed to speak. But they are afraid to do that, Mr. Speaker. All of this stuff about we had meetings in his office, we had meetings in his office and he knew, from the start, that the two things they were asking for were nonstarters. Very frankly, I have had discussions with the Secretary, who said: Well, we will just stick with border security and DACA. But that is all in the past. What we are talking about is today. And what they did was shut down the people who wanted to vote on their option, on our option, and on two other options in this, the most transparent House that would take issues one by one and would face the tough issues head-on. While people are twisting in the wind and while children are being separated from their parents, ripped from the arms of their moms and their dads, we fiddle while Rome is burning, and we talk about shutting down government. Their party shut down government a number of times since I have been here. They did it intentionally. And, very frankly, their Speaker and the head of the OMB voted ``no'' and to shut it down; they voted not to open it up. That is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. The issue is: What are we going to do to solve a problem the President of the United States said we ought to solve? Now, the President of the United States, of course, this morning, says: No, forget it. Go deal with it. His tweet at 7:06 a.m. this morning: ``Republicans should stop wasting their time on immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November''--in other words, until we take over. This President who said: Well, you know, I met with Kim Jong-un. He is loved by his people. And, boy, when he says stand up, his people stand up. Perhaps, that is what he wants us to do, Mr. Speaker, but we are not North Korea. We are a democracy, and, very frankly, they don't have the courage, Mr. Speaker, to bring bills to the floor and allow this House to work its will. What they do is they negotiate with themselves and bring bills to the floor, neither of which would have passed yesterday. After all of their compromise, after all of their talk, and after all of their commitments to solve the problem, neither one of their bills would have passed yesterday. They have 240-plus Members. They don't need us, but they took the bill off the floor because they couldn't get their own party to come to agreement. So, Mr. Speaker, my question is, and I will reiterate my question: What changes are going to be effected in the bill that would have been considered yesterday, had it not been pulled from the floor, that we will have to consider next week? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Certainly.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, he didn't answer the question, of course. He hardly ever does. 400,000 more jobs created in 2016 than 2017. He doesn't say that. They inherited a growing economy. We inherited, when President Obama took office, a receding economy, hemorrhaging 787,000 jobs in January of 2009. He doesn't talk about that. That was after the two tax cuts that they passed in 2001 and 2003 that they said would create the greatest economy we have ever seen. It didn't. He didn't say that. Mr. Speaker, he didn't say that the only time we balanced the budget for 4 years was under President Clinton, and we created jobs and had the best economy he has experienced and I have experienced. He didn't say that. And, Mr. Speaker, what he didn't say is why we are not bringing to this floor four pieces of legislation, giving everybody on the floor the opportunity to express their opinion and say to the American people how they think we can address, yes, border security, which we want to address. But what the President asked us to do and the Speaker said he would do, and the Speaker has not done, and that is to address in a rational way, in a way that can get the majority of votes--the two bills they brought to the floor, they knew they couldn't get the votes. The farm bill that he just talked about that is going to the Senate, it is dead on arrival. He knows it, Mr. Speaker. The 69 times they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, wasted time. He knows it. And he mentions, by the way, how bipartisan this Congress is. Let me tell you why it is bipartisan: we don't control it, but we cooperate when we can. When we were in charge, it wasn't nearly as bipartisan, because the Republicans did not cooperate when they could. And, Mr. Speaker, he talks about fiscal bills. Ninety percent of the fiscal bills could not have passed this House, kept the government open, opened the government up, give relief to those who were suffering from natural disasters without substantial Democratic help, and in many instances with the majority of Democrats and the minority of Republicans. But the answer I looked for, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to consider next week in terms of an issue that the Speaker said some 8 months ago we were going to solve and promised us in February 2018 he was going to address to solve DACA? And now we have this crisis in the country created by the President of the United States with children being wrenched from the arms of their moms and dads. That is what we ought to be discussing. The majority leader is a good friend of the President's. I understand that. All the President has to do is pick up the phone and call and say to the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security: stop wrenching those children from the hands of their parents. We don't need legislation, but now we have legislation. And I would ask him if he would bring the Nadler bill to the floor, which will prevent children from being wrenched from the hands of their families simply because they have committed a misdemeanor of wanting to seek opportunity in the land of opportunity that we call America. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend for his response, but we need to know what is going to be considered next week. Apparently, they haven't decided. So the majority leader says they will let us know as soon as they have decided what they are going to do--who they have to deal with to cobble the votes together on their side of the aisle. We have 240-plus votes for an option, but they are being muzzled. They are being prevented to express the will of this House. Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority leader, does he believe that my representation that Hurd-Aguilar has 240 votes on this floor inaccurate? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we will close now. Neither of the questions that I posed were answered. And certainly the fact that there are 240 votes on this floor was not disputed, by the majority leader, for the Hurd-Aguilar, which addresses security at the border. By the way, cosponsored by Mr. Hurd, a Member of the majority leader's party. A Member from Texas who knows about the border and who, I presume, wants to keep it secure. The bill he has cosponsored has at least 240 votes on this floor. This is the most closed Congress in which I have served, the most closed rules. That is a fact. And apparently it is closed to the majority, who want to move ahead on a bill and just have the opportunity to vote on it and to give the Speaker the opportunity to put something on the floor and have the House consider it, and have Ms. Roybal-Allard and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Republican from Florida, have a bill on the floor and have it considered, and have Mr. Goodlatte, who did, in fact, have his bill on the floor, and it lost. So, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I don't know what there is going to be next week, because we need to take action. And we need to take action not by compromising with one side of the aisle and seeing only capitulation by some. We do need compromise, we do need action, and we need action that can pass the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, these rules would mark the capitulation by a large number of Republicans who, for a time, reflected the views of 86 percent of the American people and the hopes of the Dreamers those Americans support. If they vote for this pretense of reform and security, they will have abandoned the principles they mouthed and the people who relied on their courage. Contrary to the Speaker and majority leader, the test for bringing bills to the floor must not be whether the President, untethered to principle, would sign them, but whether they reflect the will of the people and this House. The Speaker refuses to put options on the floor supported by, at one time, 247 Members of this House. Now, 240 Members have supported a rule to give us four competing options to address the Trump-caused crisis. That number may not comply with the Hastert rule, but it does comply with democracy. And it would give the Speaker his option as well. The Speaker clearly fears that his alternative will fail. As a result, he has opposed an open process. So much for the leadership that claimed--falsely--to pursue transparency, openness, and a willingness to take the tough issues head on and individually. The bill it would bring to the floor, contrary to what Speaker Ryan and Leader McCarthy claim, is no compromise. A compromise, by definition, requires both sides to come together and meet in the middle. We did. And we built a majority of support for a bill. The Ryan bill is a capitulation by those who have professed support of the Dreamers. Indeed, the only compromise in this bill is how it compromises our values, our principles as Americans, and how it compromises our economy and national security. The conservative Cato Institute has said that only 12 percent of Dreamers would ever actually attain citizenship under this hoax of a bill. For those seeking refuge from fear for their lives and from assault, and from having their children torn from their arms and separated--as Laura Bush pleaded, ``immoral''--this bill does not provide a solution. Instead, it provides for locking up those children in prison with their parents. Isn't that a wonderful option? The American people are overwhelmingly outraged by what is happening at the border and want to see Congress take real action. As John McCain stated, such a policy that is being promoted by the President and the Republicans in Congress ``is an affront to the decency of the American people.'' In addition, the Ryan bill imposes new restrictions on legal immigration. Democrats will strongly oppose this noxious bill. Mr. Speaker, please summon the courage to let the people's House work its will and demand that the President return to a policy of treating these children as we would want our own children to be treated. That is not what these bills do. Reject these bills. We are America. We are better than these bills.