Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He made a number of points. First, generally, I have been here long enough to have heard the debate for the 1981 bill, the so-called supply side, Jack Kemp. Vice President Bush referred to it as ``voodoo economics.'' And point of fact, as the gentleman knows, because I am sure he knows the record, we increased the debt under Ronald Reagan 189 percent. Larger than any other President with whom I have served over the last 37 years; 189 percent. Stockman said: We knew it wasn't going to balance the budget. We just said that for political purposes. Stockman said that. He was Director of the OMB under Ronald Reagan. Then in 2001 and 2003, we had tax cuts. We heard the same arguments, how it was going to grow robustly the economy. It brought in the deepest recession anybody in this Chamber, other than perhaps Sam Johnson, who I think is probably our oldest Member, because the rest of us didn't experience the depression, it ushered in not the biggest growth rate in America, but the least job-producing 8 years of any American President whom I have served with, and the deepest recession that anybody in this body has experienced, and a hemorrhaging of jobs. In fact, the stock market, which the gentleman refers to, had a 25 percent decline in value over the 8 years of the Bush administration, with two tax cuts where exactly the same argument for growth was made, and it didn't happen. On the other hand, I was here in 1993, when we raised taxes, not much, but a little bit, particularly for infrastructure, and the prediction, Mr. Leader, on your side of the aisle: we would tank as an economy; we would have a terrible recession. Exactly the opposite happened. You were dead, not you personally, but those who made that representation were 180 degrees wrong. First of all, we balanced the budget 4 years in a row. Nobody has done that other than President Clinton. Now, you can say you were in charge of the Congress, you were, and I would respond to you: Why couldn't you do it under George Bush when you had everything? There is no answer to that. In terms of the experience that we have had when we had tax cuts, the debt did, in fact, explode; 189 percent increase in the national debt. That was approximately 2\1/2\ times the increase under Obama and the increase under George Bush. But we continue to argue there is going to be great growth. No reputable economist agrees with that proposition. Well, you read them out to me. I will be glad to hear them. The stock market increase under this President has gone up. It went up 300 percent under Barack Obama. Three hundred percent. Three hundred percent, from 6,500 to over 18,000. He had the largest job production, and I told my friend, in 2016, as opposed to 2017, hear, my friends, there were 279,000 more jobs created in 2016, under Barack Obama, than have been created under this President. Mr. Speaker, 279,000 more. Now, that is not a great deal, but in terms of growth, there was more growth of jobs in 2016, when Obama was President of the United States, than has occurred under Donald Trump. Check the records. I am sure you will review and say: Let's see if Hoyer is just giving us some malarkey. The gentleman talks about this great tax benefit. What he didn't mention, and what I was referring to, by the way, was when you were giving the schedule, not in response to the question, but that aside, doesn't mention the State and local taxes. Now, I am not exactly sure what has happened to State and local taxes, but in my State, it will have a very substantial negative effect. Why? Because we have a significant income tax. Why? Because it is a progressive tax, and it puts the burden on those who have more. Now, you may disagree with that. Just have a flat tax no matter what you have, and you pay the same thing. I am not sure exactly what you have done. The shutdown you talk about. You had 90 people vote against a CR that you recommended they vote for in September, which was a clean CR. You would not have passed that CR. You would have shut down government. You are responsible for keeping government open, ``you'' being your party. You are in the majority. The only reason that CR passed was because we voted for it. You had 90 of your people vote against it; 90, who apparently didn't want to pay the military, apparently didn't want to protect them overseas. That proposition, like they say, won't hunt, because the chairman of the Armed Services Committee voted against that CR. Why? Because he thought it was harmful to the national security of our country. Secretary Mattis believes the CR is damaging. It is inappropriate, in my view, when we do something and say: We don't like this bill, and the only party with whom I have served who would consciously, purposely shut down the government, I tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, is the Republican Party. They did it in 1995, under Newt Gingrich, and they did it last year with Mr. Cruz coming over here and saying: Shut down the government unless they repeal the ACA. Shut it down, consciously. We have never done that. Have we had to shut down because we couldn't get agreement? We have done that for a few days. But for 16 days you shut it down consciously. And guess what? When you voted to open up the government, guess who voted against it? Mr. Mulvaney, the Director of the OMB. He voted against opening up the government. I guess he was against the Armed Forces. I guess he was against defending our country, if that's your proposition. CHIP. You are right. You waited. We didn't get an agreement. But we waited long after September 30, when the gentleman says he is very concerned about funding it. The authorization expired. Now, you passed, ultimately, a bill that we didn't vote for. You passed it on your own. If you really were that concerned, you would have passed it before the authorization expired on September 30. We passed it some weeks later, and we passed it with a piece of funding in there that is going to undermine, for instance, just as one example, vaccinations for children, because you funded it, in part, by reducing substantially the Prevention Fund, which seeks to prevent illness. On bipartisanship, very frankly, we had a 2-week CR, you are right, a 2-week CR. You got a 2-week CR. The only thing you have worked on, from our perspective, is the tax bill, and you did not include us in those discussions. You had closed hearings. We had a conference hearing yesterday. Mr. Neal tried to move an amendment out of order. It wasn't accepted. It was a done deal. Done deal in secret. I tell my friend, I reread a little bit of ``Young Guns'' last night. It talked about transparency. It talked about openness. It talked about doing things one at a time, not packaging a lot of bills. The reason we all hate CRs is because nobody knows what is in a CR. We lard it down, and this CR is larded down with numerous bills. We are talking about the tax bill, but the CR that the gentleman talked about is five or six major pieces of legislation put in one package. Take it or leave it. That is not the way to run this organization, and that is what you guys said in ``Young Guns.'' And I agree with you, but it is not what you have done. It is what you said, but it is not what you have done. Let me just close on this. Frankly, I was going to talk about the CR, but I am talking about it now. We don't have a budget caps deal. Today is the 14th; so we are essentially 17 days from the end of the year. We don't have a caps deal. We don't have a disaster supplemental for Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands that is proposed to be in this CR, as I understand it, and the fires in California. The gentleman is absolutely correct, and we are going to support helping the folks of California who have been devastated by these fires. The gentleman is absolutely correct. We don't have anything on DREAMers. We think that is critically important. I said to the majority leader 4 months ago that we felt this was critically important and we needed to get this done. I think, as I have said to the gentleman, we have over 300 votes on this floor for a bill to get this done. Alexander-Murray. I don't think, I don't know, I haven't seen the conference report, but Alexander-Murray, which tries to stabilize the availability of healthcare at a reasonable price to the American people, I don't think that is in the tax bill, as I understand it. VA Choice funding, I think, is in the CR. I haven't seen exactly what it says. Opioids funding. I have a crisis in my district. In every district in America, opioids is a critical issue. There is no funding in the CR, as I understand it, for that. The fire grants program for our emergency responders, no money for that. Perkins loans, nothing for that. The debt limit is going to come later. National Flood Insurance Program, nothing for that, as I understand it. Medicare and other health extenders, 702 of FISA to keep America secure and strong and safe. As I understand it, none of that is being dealt with. The reason we voted against the last CR is because we are tired of kicking things down the road. We are tired of kicking the can down the road. We want to get to an agreement on a bipartisan basis to pass legislation that is positive for our country, and that is why we may vote against this next CR, because we ought to stop just kicking the can down the road. And we are going to kick the can, as I understand it, down the road to some point in time to January 19, is the discussion. Mr. Leader, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to sit down to try to reach agreement on these issues that have got to be reached. If we don't reach them, America will be less safe, less secure, less healthy as an economy and less healthy, literally, in terms of making sure that the healthcare available to America is on a stable path. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the majority leader and then make a few comments, and then we will close. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I keep pushing it for you.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I don't know who the gentleman is relying on for that information, but I will tell you I have talked to Mr. Pallone. That is not correct. I don't know who you think directed him not to reach an agreement, but I will tell you, after you made that assertion, I think last week or the week before, I went to Mr. Pallone. I asked him that, and he said absolutely not. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. ``Come back, Shane.'' Maybe many of you are not old enough to remember that wonderful movie. Shane rode off and the little boy intoned, ``Come back, Shane.'' I haven't gone anywhere. Democrats have no ability to shut down the government on the floor of this House. Hear me: We don't have the votes to shut down government and we don't want to shut down government. Maybe the leader also wants those 90 of his--he is not our leader. He is the leader of the majority party, and 90 of his people did not follow him. I presume he must be much more concerned about that. With all due respect, he is my friend, but not my leader. We voted to give 90 days and nothing was accomplished in that 90 days other than working on a tax bill that we think is a disaster for this country. Nothing. The gentleman talks about passing these appropriations bills. We knew they wouldn't pass the Senate and we told him so. We said: Let's do it on a bipartisan basis. But, no. By the way, Mr. Speaker, it was the least regular order prior to an omnibus at the end of a year in dealing with appropriations bills that I have ever seen. They packaged, I think it was four or five the first time--four, I think, and then the balance of eight. We didn't consider them individually. We didn't have an opportunity to consider them thoughtfully, no. It was one big package, for or against. I said I read that book. It was anything but regular order. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the majority party that passed them is the majority in the United States Senate; and not a single one of those bills, not a single one, has passed out of the Senate. Not a single one has gone to the President of the United States. Not one. The Republicans are in charge of the House and the Senate. Not a single bill has gone to the President of the United States. Harry Reid is no longer there just to beat on: Oh, it is Harry Reid. Now, what it would have taken to pass some of those appropriations bills in the Senate is some compromise, but that didn't happen. So don't wring your hands about how bad it is that we haven't had bipartisanship on the appropriations bills--we haven't--or bipartisanship on the CR when you lose 90 of your people. Ninety Republicans voted against a simple CR. You say simple CR, nothing to be partisan about, et cetera. Ninety of your people voted ``no.''

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

Mr. HOYER. Let me reclaim my time just so the gentleman can further explain. Does that mean 90 of your people did not want to pay the bills of the United States and default on our debt? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time for just a second, and then I will yield back to the gentleman. Is the gentleman proud that you control the House, you control the Senate, and you haven't sent a single appropriations bill to the President? Not a single one. Not one. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what it would have meant, you would have had to compromise. That is why the Senate has that 60- vote rule. I am not crazy about it myself, but that is why they have the 60-vote rule. They think it is good because that is why they kept it. They think it is good because it requires compromise; it requires agreement; It requires moving ahead on a piece of legislation. I will tell you, I served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, and we reached agreement between Republicans and Democrats on almost every bill. And when we had the bills, they weren't partisan bills, and they got a lot of Republican votes, almost always, when we were in charge--not all the time, almost always. If you are a party of no compromise, then you can't move things in the United States Senate. I get that. But that is the reason. That is the reason, because you couldn't reach compromise. Very frankly, a lot of the bills have come out of the committee. Do you know why they came out of committee? Because they were bipartisan. But they haven't been brought to the floor by Mr. McConnell, and they haven't been sent to the President of the United States, so somewhat crocodile tears. Yes, you passed those 12 bills just like you can pass the CRs, on your own, without any help from us. If the government shuts down, it is because you can't get the majority of your party to pass bills.

Mr. HOYER. You are in charge. There is no doubt when we were in charge and you didn't support us, we passed every piece of legislation we wanted to pass on this floor with 218 Democrats. We were united as a party. Now, we lost some, but never enough to make it so that we didn't get 218. You lost 90. You can say it was on the debt; you can say it was on national security; you can say whatever you want on it; but you brought a bill to the floor, and 90 of your people voted against it to keep government open and to keep government operating. Very frankly, we voted with you so that we could get some work done, and we haven't gotten work done. That is what frustrates us. That is what frustrates the American people. I will tell my friend, at the end of the day, after this Congress is gone, historians are not going to be kind, notwithstanding the fact you say you passed so many bills. You passed so many bills on a partisan basis, and you used, essentially, the 51 vote because you didn't want to compromise. We get it. You don't want to compromise. You don't want to work with us. You didn't have any hearing on this tax bill. We were not included in any phase of the marking up and fashioning of this tax bill. Now, I am about ready to yield back the balance of my time. I am sure that everybody who wants to give a 1-minute or a Special Order is very happy to hear that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in reclaiming my time, does the gentleman remember President Trump saying that a good shutdown will be good for government? Do you remember him saying that, when you tell me about how he has been down here lobbying? He said: A ``good shutdown'' may be good for government. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I would, again, reiterate: the majority party can do whatever it wants on this floor. It could have kept government open. It could have kept policies moving with its votes. Time after time after time on critical issues confronting this country, they couldn't come up with a majority. As a matter of fact, on one occasion, Mr. McCarthy was the whip, Mr. Cantor was the majority leader, and Mr. Boehner was the Speaker. They offered a bill to keep government moving. They only got 84 of their colleagues, approximately one-third of their colleagues on their side of the aisle, to vote with them. I don't want to hear about us shutting down government. We can't shut down government. They are in charge. The majority has the votes. You can do whatever you want. We get it. We may not like it any more than you liked it, but we get it. But we voted on the hope that we would get some work done. We haven't moved anyplace except on the tax bill, which we think is bad for this country, in the last 90 days since we passed--and we passed. The CR would not have passed without us. And, yes, we will not be held hostage. Yes, we will oppose what we think is a very, very bad tax bill and we think is an effort to avoid getting the work of this House done. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for taking this opportunity on the Special Order. I think, as an aside, I need to apologize to him for making him wait so long for this Special Order. I also want to tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman who has taken this Special Order is probably the constitutional expert not only in this body, but one of the constitutional experts in our country. He is a great legislator himself. Although he is new to this body, he is not new to being a legislative leader at all. He has been a legislative leader in our State for many years. He is a wonderful teacher and somebody who has great political courage and is willing to stand and say that the emperor has no clothes. He is willing to call attention to the fact that our democracy is at risk, that our due process is at risk. He used the phrase ``trumped up.'' What an interesting phrase that is that we have used for many years. I don't know that it has had as much relevance in years past as it now may have. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Raskin, for leading this Special Order. Our system of government, as he has pointed out, is based on the rule of law. We are a government of laws, not of men. What that means is that it is not personalities, not dictators, not kings that rule our land. It is the law, the law of our Constitution, the law of our legislators, and the common law that we pursue as interpreted by our court systems. Its foundation is the constitutional principle that all are equal under the law. No one is exempt. The appointment of a special prosecutor earlier this year to look into the possibility of the administration or Trump campaign officials colluding with a foreign adversary or obstructing justice falls into a long tradition in our country of using independent counsel to investigate those in the most senior offices of our government. Our Founding Fathers would say that is a check and balance; that is a protection against the usurpation of democracy. The choice of former FBI Director Bob Mueller to be that independent investigator was an extraordinarily wise one; a decision greeted with support from across the political spectrum, precisely because Mr. Mueller is so widely respected for his independence and his commitment to the law above all else. And, parenthetically, although it is not necessarily relevant, he is a Republican. He is not, however, driven by the politics of left or right or Republican or Democrat. He is a man of the law, a man who seeks the truth, a man who has dedicated his career to assuring that we remain a land of liberty under law. We have already seen a demonstration of that commitment in the prompt firing of a subordinate investigator for an act that was not illegal, as the gentleman from Maryland, our constitutional scholar, has pointed out, but, however, threatened to impugn the objectivity of the investigation. In other words, he removed somebody who he thought might undermine the credibility of this investigation because he is so committed to this investigation being objective and unquestionably fair. Mr. Mueller has made it abundantly clear that he will not tolerate any hint of bias in this investigation. So far, it appears that his investigation is bearing fruit, having uncovered serious crimes and secured three indictments as well as guilty pleas from two key subjects. Guilty pleas. This was not a question of: We had a trial and somebody convinced 12 people that he was guilty. This was a case where the individual said: ``I am guilty. I did what was alleged. I know that it is illegal, and I should bear the consequences.'' That included, of course, the National Security Advisor--who was National Security Advisor, I think, for 25 days, or close to that number--Mr. Flynn. As the investigation has advanced, Mr. Speaker, we have seen troubling statements from the President and his advisers seeking to sow uncertainty about the legitimacy of the special counsel's activities and undermine confidence in him. But it is not so much the confidence in him that is critical. It is confidence in the law. It is confidence in the process. It is confidence that, in fact, we are a nation of laws, and whether we are President or peasant, we will be held accountable if, in fact, we break the laws. What is being done to undermine this process threatens the independence of the investigation and those who are undertaking it. It is dangerous to our democracy and to our freedom. Now, in recent days, we have heard calls by the President and his allies to launch a counterinvestigation of the special prosecutor's investigation. Those of us who know history know that that is so often the defense of those who seek authoritarian power, of those who believe they are above the law, of those who believe they can intimidate others so that they will never be held accountable for wrongdoing. This preposterous suggestion has but one purpose: to cast a shadow of doubt over the findings of Mr. Mueller's inquiry by attempting to frame it in a partisan way. In fact, Mr. Mueller was appointed by a Republican-appointed Deputy Attorney General. It is tactics like this one that we see so often overseas in countries ruled by dictators and those seeking to become dictators. This willful effort to erode confidence in any institution that must be seen as impartial is harmful because if nobody and nothing is impartial, if everyone and everything is tainted by politics and interest, then no one can possess the moral authority to hold accountable one who wishes to be entirely unaccountable. That, Mr. Speaker, is the reason I think that the President has also attacked the fourth estate, the newspapers, the broadcasters, the people whose duty it is to bring facts to the people so that they, the people, can make a rational judgment in a democracy, for it is in their hands that the power ultimately resides; and if you undermine those who give them the facts, then you undermine their ability to make decisions. This ultimately is what the special prosecutor's work is all about: accountability, ensuring that every person is held to the same high standard of behavior under the laws of our Nation. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in both parties--this is not about party. This is about country. This is about patriotism. This is about the rule of law. If we lose that respect for law, we will lose our country. It will be a different, lesser country. I urge my colleagues, from both parties, from every ideological corner, let us not forget the most fundamental principle that binds us together as Americans and as public servants: That all are created equal; that all of us, all Americans, are equal under the law. That doesn't mean we are the same, but it means, in the eyes of the law, we are equal as we stand to be held accountable, or to be held innocent, or not involved, or not owing somebody else for wrongdoing. We need to uphold it by our words and by our deeds. The special prosecutor's work must continue unimpeded, and it must continue to be respected. Yesterday, in the Judiciary Committee, that was not the case. To defend the indefensible undermines respect for law. I want to thank my friend again, Mr. Jamie Raskin, from Montgomery County, Maryland, for this Special Order. As I said, he is a great constitutional scholar and teacher, a great legislator. More importantly than that, he is an individual who loves his country and, throughout his life, has fought to make the country all that the Founding Fathers meant it to be. I thank him for coming to this floor and for his efforts to ensure that Mr. Mueller's investigation can continue to be seen as impartial and with its objective unquestioned, and that is accountability, accountability and justice, and equal justice under the law. That is our bedrock. That is our touchstone. That is our guiding star. That is what Professor Raskin, Congressman Raskin, Citizen Raskin is talking about today, and we all ought to thank him for that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we should not shut down the government of the United States. Democrats do not want government to shut down. It is, however, not in our hands. It takes a majority to pass any bill in this House: 218 votes. Our Republican colleagues have over 240 votes. We have 193. So it is not in our hands, Mr. Speaker. The Republican Party has been given the responsibility and the duty to enact legislation to ensure the proper functioning of government. As the governing party, they can pass whatever they want to pass on this floor. Indeed, as the governing party, they have a responsibility to use their votes to keep the government running. They control the House, they control the Senate, and they control the White House. All the levers of power of legislating are in their hands. But, we are here, Mr. Speaker, on the verge of a shutdown because of a familiar pattern where Republicans cannot unite as a party. They cannot agree among themselves on spending priorities. This has happened again and again and again. In fact, each time Congress has successfully enacted a funding bill since the majority took the majority in 2011, they had to have Democratic votes to pass that legislation every single time. When we passed the continuing resolution in September, just about 3 months ago, we did so because Republican leaders asked for more time to work on the priorities that confront this country and, responsibly, keeping government working. They had 3 months to do so, yet here we are with 1 day remaining and nothing to show for it. Instead, they have spent the past 3 months--on priorities that I will outline in just a minute--working on a tax bill that is reckless, deeply unpopular, and harmful to the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans and the economic well-being of our country that I call a death tax because it will explode the debt of the United States; a bill that would raise taxes on 78 million middle class households and kick 13 million Americans off of their health insurance coverage; a bill that would increase, as I have said, the deficit by $1.5 trillion-- indeed, much more than that, because we have to pay interest on the money that we are going to borrow to do the tax cut, while we fail to pay our bills--a bill that would trigger an automatic cut of Medicare by $25 billion next year; a bill premised on a falsehood that tax cuts magically pay for themselves. That is what the past 3 months have been wasted on, Mr. Speaker. Not a single appropriations bill has been enacted by this Congress, not a single one. There are 12. They control the House, they control the Senate, and they control the Presidency. Now our Republican colleagues, Mr. Speaker, are asking for 2 more weeks. Two more weeks, they say. Republicans are asking us for 2 more weeks because they claim they haven't had time to write a funding bill they can pass. Ninety days. Every Democrat voted for what I call the ``no drama'' CR in September. Ninety Republicans voted ``no'' on an agreement we had to use the next 90 days to address the priorities of America. But 90 Republicans voted ``no.'' They have had time to write and rewrite and rewrite and rewrite again a tax bill that advantages the wealthiest in America at the expense of the majority of Americans. That, Mr. Speaker, is how they have spent their time these past 3 months. Write a funding bill to avert a shutdown? No. Reach an agreement that is responsible to fund the priorities of America? No. Write a tax bill that kicks millions off of their health coverage and raises taxes on millions more. That is what they have done for 90 days. That is what they chose to do. Two more weeks? If they want 2 more weeks, they have 240 votes to give themselves more time. But I am certainly not going to vote to give them 2 more weeks simply to work on the tax bill, which they have pledged to pass by Christmas. However, if they passed it a year from now, it would have the same impact on America's taxes. The critical they have ignored and delayed. The political has been their sole focus. I say to my Republican friends, Mr. Speaker: You won control of the government. Govern, govern. Be responsible. Focus on that which is critically important to the American people. Don't say you haven't had time to do the most important job you had. You had time. We voted-- every one of us--to give you 90 days, to work either in a partisan sense, as you have done so much of the year; or in a bipartisan sense, which was much more positive and would have been much more productive. There is a to-do list, Mr. Speaker, of critical legislative items that this House has to complete before the end of the year. It is a long and compelling list. Six of them have hard deadlines and must be done before we leave for the end of the year. For 90 days we didn't do them. None of the six is a surprise either. Neither are any of the others that the American people expect us to do by the end of the year as well. The majority has had months to work on bringing legislation to the floor on each one of them--months--yet here we are, in December, pushed up against the wall of a funding deadline. And Republicans want 2 more weeks so they can focus on passing their tax bill before Christmas? Not the priorities of America, but a tax bill, a deeply unpopular, appropriately so, tax bill. Mr. Speaker, let me list what we need to do, what we ought to do, and what we should have done over the last 90 days. Let me just share with the American people who sent us here what the Republican majority has not gotten done in all of the months they have had complete control of the government: Keep the government open and functioning by passing funding bills and sending them to the President for signature; Reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program so that millions of our children will not lose healthcare insurance; Provide funding for VA Choice to help care for our veterans, which must be done; Reauthorize the flood insurance program, which is so critical to so many millions of Americans; Extend expiring health programs, such as community health centers, on which so many others rely; Reauthorize portions of the Intelligence Act to protect America's security, which will end before the end of the year. Ninety days we have had to consider all of those items. The American people also expect us to: Provide the necessary resources to address the opioid addiction crisis, which they had 90 days to do that; Reach an agreement on spending levels for critical priorities of the American people. We call it dealing with sequester, which is somewhat jargon, but we haven't done that; Pass funding to keep government effectively serving our people. Ninety days to do that, and here we are; Pass the Dream Act to provide certainty for those young people who were brought here as children and have grown up as Americans; Take action to stabilize our health insurance markets. We haven't done that. We had 90 days; Extend the expired Perkins Loan Program so college students, with the most need, can complete their degrees. We haven't done that in the last 90 days; Reauthorize fire grants so that our domestic defenders and our first responders can have the resources they need for training, for personnel, and for equipment to keep our communities safe. We had 90 days to do that; Prevent nearly 1 million people from losing access to Medicaid in Puerto Rico; And I will end with: making sure that the people of Texas, the people of Florida, the people of Puerto Rico, and the people of the Virgin Islands have resources to rebuild and restore their communities devastated by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. All of this we need to do by December 31. What do we focus on? A tax bill. When will that tax bill take effect for taxes in 2018? When will you pay those? By April 15, 2019. Yet that is what we spend all of our time on. That is what we have spent all of our time on, not the priorities that I have just read, but a tax bill that will hurt America, hurt its financial status, hurt its middle-income workers, and, most of all, hurt the children who will pay back the money we will borrow to give the wealthiest in America a tax cut, those people making over $900,000 a year. That crowd will get 62 percent of the resources, yet the Speaker says that we need to help struggling Americans. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is not a person at any one of my town meetings who came up to me and was worried about the people making $900,000 or more--not one. Maybe it has happened to you, Mr. Speaker, but it hasn't happened to me. Why are we at this point? Because we have a governing party that refuses to govern; because we have a majority that has failed to do the business of the American people, even for something as fundamental as providing for the operations of government. Mr. Speaker, we Democrats welcome the opportunity to sit down with our Republican colleagues and reach a compromise agreement to meet our responsibilities and address many of the pressing issues I have outlined earlier in this address. My time is about up. Had we utilized the 90 days that we all voted-- we on our side of the aisle, the Democrats voted--with our Republican friends, although 90 Republicans voted ``no,'' but we all voted ``yes'' to take 90 days to meet our responsibilities to the American people. It hasn't been done. We have no confidence that giving 2 more weeks will make it happen. Let's get to work right now. Not on the tax bill. That could be passed at some point in time. I am against it. I will vote against it. I hope it fails. It is a bad bill. But let's address these priorities. That is not what the intent of these 2 weeks are. It is to give 2 weeks so we can pass a bad tax bill that will hurt America, will hurt our children, and will hurt the middle class.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for yielding. Normally, of course, we would have a scheduling discussion tomorrow at the end of business, but in light of the fact that we are not meeting tomorrow, we will not have that colloquy. Mr. Speaker, can the leader give us some indication of what might be considered next week? As we know, there are numerous items that need to be resolved before we leave here this year, and we need to obviously have some BCA, Budget Control Act, numbers arrived at so that the Appropriations Committee can move forward either on an omnibus or appropriations bills. We need to do flood insurance. We need to do FISA section 702. We need to do, obviously, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and other matters. Mr. Speaker, can the leader, who has just said that we will be in--is he anticipating 4 days next week? Four days next week, and presumably 4 days or 5 days the following week? So let's say we have 9 legislative days. Mr. Speaker, can the leader give us some idea of how we might accomplish the work that needs to be done in that timeframe?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I hear the majority leader's hope that we will move appropriations bills on the Senate side. Obviously, one of the things that we have been trying to work on for the last 90 days, Mr. Speaker, has been trying to get to an agreement on the numbers that will replace the sequester numbers that certainly many people on your side don't want for the defense side of the budget. Obviously, we believe that we had an agreement over the last 4 years for parity in spending. We would hope that we could reach an agreement similar to that agreement. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Mr. McConnell, the majority leader, could bring appropriations bills to the floor, and he has not done that. We don't control the Senate, and those bills have not been brought to the floor. You can't pass them if they aren't brought to the floor. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, they need to be bipartisan bills, because the history is that the majority party, Mr. Speaker, has not been able to get a majority of votes. They did today, but the history is, since 2011, that has not happened; therefore, failing that, you need to work in a bipartisan fashion, Mr. Speaker, the Senate does, in order to get these bills done. Mr. Speaker, in addition, I won't go into all the pieces of legislation that are pending that need to pass for the welfare of our country, the security of our country, and the assistance to our people. I would hope that we could proceed and proceed now. Frankly, I am available tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure others are, to start talking about how we reach agreement on these critical issues, because 9 days, as we all know, is not very much time. We have had 90 days. We unanimously voted for a continuing CR. Ninety of your members voted against it. I say respectfully, the reason we got 90 days to hopefully reach agreement on a number of critical issues, critical to us, and I think critical to you, was because every one of us on this side of the aisle voted for the CR, and 90 of the Republicans voted against it. It could never have gotten to a majority but for our votes. I would hope that now that we have another 2 weeks that we start sitting down together, reaching agreement, and are prepared next week to start voting on bipartisan bills that both sides can support. Neither side will get all it wants, but that is the way I think that this House will proceed as a credit to the House and a credit to the American people.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my presumption is that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who voted against the CR in September, did not do it because he wasn't for funding the troops; did not do it because he didn't want to protect the security of our country; did not do it because he wanted to shut down the government, I presume. None of us did either. We did it because we are very concerned about the fact that 90 days ago we voted for a CR that was noncontroversial, notwithstanding the fact that 90 on your side voted against it. It was noncontroversial, however. The President agreed to it. You agreed to it. I agreed to it. We had an agreement. But the fact of the matter is that we have not used those 90 days productively in a bipartisan way to get to constructive resolutions of these issues. I agree with the gentleman, we ought to do that. I will pledge to the gentleman that I and my leadership here and our Members will come at least 50 percent of the way. You are in charge. You have the responsibility. We understand that. But, as we have in the past, almost every time, whether it was Speaker Boehner or Speaker Ryan, it was this side of the aisle that kept the government open. It was this side of the aisle that made sure we didn't default on our debts. So I want to be constructive. There is no point in further argument on this. It is to say, however, to all of us, I have talked to some of your Members privately. They are shaking their heads. Why are we in this position? We ought not to be in this position. Every one of us who sits in this body--every one of us ought to be saying to ourselves: we need to act constructively. Confrontation is not constructive; the failure to reach agreement. You say you passed SCHIP. I pleaded with the gentleman not to put a partisan bill on the floor. We had agreed on the authorizing side. Unfortunately, we couldn't agree on the funding side because you wanted to cut things we thought ought not to be cut. Clearly, we could have gotten to an agreement. In fact, you passed a bill on IPAB, $17.6 billion unpaid for that would have paid for all of that. So, Mr. Leader, I will yield to you, if you want to; but I just plead with every one of the Members of this body: This is not good for the American people. You say you don't want a CR. You had 90 days to come to an agreement with us or with yourselves. You have 218 votes. You just showed us.

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear my friend saying that when John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the whip asked for votes to keep the government open. They got 84 of their colleagues on your side of the aisle to join them, making a total of 87, and the majority of your Members voted against your own leadership on the bill that they were proposing. So don't lecture me about voting ``no.'' I voted ``no'' because I think we should not have had a CR. I voted ``no'' because I think there are too many things left undone. I voted ``no'' because the American people expect us to get our work done, not to twiddle our thumbs while Rome is burning. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Nadler for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, that is just the way it is. Since the start of 2017, more than 14,340 people have been killed by gun violence in the United States, more than any other country on Earth. That is just the way it is. More than 29,150 have been wounded. More than 680 of those have been children. In October, 58 people were killed and 515 wounded in Las Vegas in the worst mass shooting in our Nation's history. But we don't have a bill on the floor to prevent the creation of machine guns, which are illegal, by bump stocks. Just 5 weeks later, a gunman entered a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, and killed 26 worshipers, while wounding 20. The majority's response? Bring to the floor a bill that makes America less safe, more replete with people carrying and concealing weapons in our communities. This bill says: If you want to carry a concealed weapon in a State that doesn't allow it constitutionally, no problem. Get your concealed carry license in another State that does. In other words, every State, no matter their own judgment, talk about States' rights, no matter their own judgment, must be subjected to the policies of the least protective State in the Nation. Instead of addressing the very serious problem of rampant gun violence in a constructive way, the Republican majority is bringing to the floor a bill that makes it easier to hide dangerous weapons in public. Newtown, Aurora, Orlando, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, and community after community after community. What will it take for this Congress to act? What will it take to face this challenge instead of ignoring it? How many more will not live to see the new year or begin it with debilitating injuries they will carry for the rest of their lives? How many times will we have a moment of silence and a year of no action? Mr. Speaker, defeat this bill. Its rational provision of NICS, making sure people report, does not justify the danger it expands. Support the rights of States to protect their residents from hidden firearms. Do not ignore the crisis that confronts our country. Have a moment of action, a moment of legislating more safety, not less; not simply a few seconds of silence to lament the loss of life, whether it be in Las Vegas or Orlando or in our own communities. Defeat this bill. Come back and do some positive, constructive work that makes America safe again.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neal for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as he well knows, is one of my favorite Members. He is a good friend. He is a man of great integrity. But, Mr. Speaker, both the House and Senate bills are bad bills, and this is a sad day in the House. Hypocrisy is on stark display. Responsibility is absent, and politics--and donors--have subverted policy. This conference is a sham: an attempt to make it appear that the House and Senate are going through regular order. Sadly, we have not gone through regular order. The thought is we will reconcile the two versions of the dangerous Republican tax increase and deficit bill. I call this a death tax because it will explode the deficit, as happened in 1981, when, under Ronald Reagan for 8 years, we increased the debt of this country 189 percent. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee mentions Mr. Obama, who increased it 88 percent, or less than half of the Reagan increase in the debt. And we were promised then, as we are promised now, that cutting these taxes would grow the economy. It would if that were the case. But there won't be any real regular order in this conference, just as there hasn't been throughout this entire process. There will only be further closed-door, backroom antics by Republican leaders on their own, asking Republican Members to take it or leave it. And this motion to instruct, of course, will be defeated. But Democrats are offering it because, from the very beginning, we have made clear that we are here to work toward the kind of tax reform that the American people want: tax reform that I worked with in 1986. And they don't want an elimination of the deduction for State and local taxes, which our motion would instruct the conferees not to do. The deductions for State and local taxes support schools and first responders in our communities, and the American people don't want to kick 13 million people off of their health insurance coverage. So our motion would instruct conferees to take that dangerous provision out. But no motion to instruct can address all of the ways that the Republican tax bill has put our people, and our future, in danger. The Senate bill raises taxes on somewhere around 78 million middle class households, not as a pejorative, but as an income spectrum. Why? To offset massive tax cuts for those not with whom we are at war, but who are doing very well and don't need our help. It plunges our children and grandchildren--of which I have a number-- an additional $1.7 trillion in debt--and I think that is the minimum-- making them pay tomorrow for what Republicans refuse to pay for today. And for what? For what, Mr. Speaker, are we being asked to do all of these things? For economic growth? For jobs? We know it won't grow our economy in any substantial way faster. Why? Because almost every economist tells us that. And we know that the few jobs the Senate bill would create--and listen to this: that they claim that they will create--will cost $1.9 million per job. The vast majority of Americans won't benefit from this plan; but those who are already extremely wealthy will benefit greatly--as a matter of fact, 52 times what the gentleman will tell us.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that Texans like to use: ``That dog won't hunt.'' It doesn't do what it is purported to do. It doesn't take Einstein to predict what will happen this time around, when he defined insanity as ``doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'' I have been here. I have seen this. I have heard this argument. It has always resulted in the same thing. I have more to say, but my time is up. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the committee--he is going to tell me how much people in my district get a tax break--tell me about my children and my grandchildren whose debts he will pile on them to borrow money from China, or someplace else, to give this tax cut that they will then have to pay off in their time. Tell me how much my children will have their taxes raised. He apparently doesn't know. That is sad.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding. As the majority leader knows, we have 9 days remaining under the present schedule. I understand that an extension of that to the 22nd may be contemplated, but we have 9 legislative days remaining. The gentleman has now just indicated that we are going to be voting on Monday. I would join the gentleman in urging every Member to be present on Monday. We are going to be casting very consequential votes over the next few days. Whether we are voting on them in a timely fashion or not, they will all be critically important, so I would urge all my Members to be here. We have much that needs to be done in the days that remain, as the gentleman knows. I want to raise two issues. Obviously the gentleman has indicated that we are going to vote to go to conference on the tax bill if the Senate passes the tax bill. In addition to that, of course, there are two major pieces of legislation and, frankly, many more, and I am not referring to, obviously, the omnibus or a CR so that we can keep the government funded, which everybody on this side of the aisle and I am sure everybody on that side of the aisle wants to do. I hope we are able to keep the government funded in a nondramatic way. But as I have indicated to the majority leader on numerous occasions, we feel very strongly, as the gentleman knows--and we have had positive discussions on this--that we need to also pass before the end of the year--and many of my friend's Members have raised that issue as well and urged that we pass before the end of the year a resolution for the children who were brought here as minors, some as young as 1 or 2 years of age and who know no other country but the United States of America, that we resolve their status before the end of the year so they do not continue to twist in the wind and agonize about whether they are going to be sent to a place they do not know and they do not perceive as their country. They perceive themselves to be American. So I would hope that we can deal with that. In addition, my friend and I have had a discussion--there has been much over the last 11 months--about healthcare. I think one of the things that I think the gentleman and I agree on in a bipartisan way is that we all believe that the children of our country ought to have assurance of access to affordable, quality healthcare. We passed the CHIP bill through the House. As the gentleman knows, it was passed not in a bipartisan way. It sits now in the Senate and has not moved yet in the Senate. I would hope that those two issues at the very least--and there are many others, including the fiscal bills and the omnibus--that need to be moved. I would hope, whether we are 9 days or 13 days, however many days that we have remaining, that those two issues in addition to others will be resolved before we leave. I thank the gentleman for his announcement and giving us a heads-up about Monday, but I would hope that we would also in the few days that remain to us work very hard to try to get those issues and others resolved before we leave for the year. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time.