Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Trump laid out his budget request for next year. It represents the most draconian disinvestment in our country by any President in modern history, and it is littered with broken promises and fundamental errors in simple math. It is a budget that makes very clear that this President is not fighting for working Americans and their families, and, in fact, he is breaking his promises to make their lives better. It is shockingly devoid of the basic policy details necessary to back up its deficit- cutting bravado. It includes an accounting discrepancy so large--over $2 trillion--that it can only be characterized as willfully hiding the ball from the American public, an exercise in extreme incompetence, or both. The purpose of a budget is to lay out the most complete description of a President's governing vision for the country. By that measure and many others, this budget is an embarrassment. It is no wonder that it has already been panned by Members on both sides of the aisle in this House. My Republican friend, Representative Mike Simpson, was absolutely right when he said of proposals like this one that the House can't pass this budget. Nor will it. It is dead on arrival in Congress because Democrats and Republicans both understand that we can't provide economic security to the American people and keep them safe from threats if we gut our investments in doing both. That is what the President's budget would do. As The Washington Post eloquently pointed out, the Trump budget ``is fundamentally at odds with what Trump told voters.'' President Trump promised middle class American workers he would fight for them and their families. If implemented, his budget would make it harder for them to send their kids to college, access job training to get ahead, or even just stay in the middle class, and devastate seniors' long-term care. The dramatic cuts he makes to nutrition assistance, elimination of heating assistance during the winter months and Meals on Wheels will hit low-income Americans and seniors hard, particularly in rural communities. And those, Mr. Speaker, are just a selection. He is breaking his campaign promise not to cut Medicaid and Social Security, taking $1.4 trillion out of Medicaid over the next 10 years, without offering a policy to achieve those cuts, and slashing funds for the Social Security disability insurance programs that serve 10 million Americans. Frankly, the President made fun of those with disabilities during the course of the campaign, and now he cuts billions of dollars from the ability of the disabled to maintain some degree of dignity and health. President Trump also pledged that the American taxpayer would not pay--would not pay--for the border wall he wants to build. Of course, his budget asks the U.S. taxpayer to pay for that wall. When it comes to keeping Americans safe from threats overseas, President Trump's budget fails miserably as well, cutting the budgets for diplomacy and foreign aid that complement the work of our military in combating ISIS and other terror groups. Additionally, it punishes middle class Federal employees in every congressional district in our country for choosing to serve their country by cutting their pay and retirement benefits. One after another, the budget breaks the President's promises. At every turn, it undermines our long-term security and prosperity by ignoring the critical lessons from past Republican administrations when it comes to basic economics. Like past Republican budgets, the Trump budget relies on discredited theories of how economic growth would result from tax policies. Unlike past attempts, however, the Trump budget double counts its fantasy supply side boost in an accounting error so large it could pay for the Pentagon 3 years over. Mr. Speaker, we know this budget will go nowhere in Congress. I believe there will not be a Republican in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, who will offer this budget on the floor of this House. It does tell us, however, a lot about this President and his priorities. Former Vice President Biden has been known to say: ``Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget.'' President Trump has now shown us his budget, and none of us should be surprised. So now it is up to Democrats and Republicans in this House and in the Senate to work together to agree on a budget resolution and move appropriations bills through regular order. Let us hope we can do that. The American public would expect us to do that, and our country needs us to do that. We must not disinvest in those things that have made America great and will enable us to lay the groundwork for another century of American leadership.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, a young man in my district was killed in what appears to be a vicious crime, probably motivated by hate. U.S. Army Second Lieutenant Richard W. Collins, III, was just days away from graduating from Bowie State University. Richard stood on the threshold of what promised to be a life of service to his country. He has been remembered by family and friends as a kind soul, an angel, and a national treasure. All of us across Maryland were shocked and devastated when we learned of the attack that took his life--an unprovoked attack at a bus station waiting for an Uber to pick him up. An individual came along and asked him to step left--whatever that meant. He said: ``No, I won't.'' And he was stabbed in the chest. We were deeply alarmed to learn that the suspect in Richard's murder belonged to an alleged online White supremacist group. Richard was African American. Richard's murderer must be held to account under the full weight of our laws, and, hopefully, he will be. His life is a reminder of everything that makes our Nation extraordinary. His death is a painful reminder that our work in overcoming hatred in this country is far from over. I have been keeping Richard's parents and family in my thoughts and in my prayers this week, and I will continue to do so. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a very heavy heart to mourn the loss of a young man in my district who was killed over the weekend in a possible hate-crime. U.S. Army Second Lieutenant Richard W. Collins III was just days away from graduating from Bowie State University College of Business when he was stabbed by an assailant while waiting at a bus stop in College Park on the campus of the University of Maryland. He was there to visit friends and celebrate his having been commissioned as an officer in the Army just two days earlier. At age twenty-three, Richard stood on the threshold of what promised to be an exciting life of service to his country, and the Army was fortunate to have such a driven and talented young person so eager to be a part of defending our nation. Richard represented the best of the Fifth District, the best of Maryland, and the best of America. All of us across the region were shocked and devastated when we learned of the attack that took his life. We were deeply dismayed as well to learn that the suspect in Richard's murder belonged to an alleged online white supremacist group with references in its name to Nazism and to the so-called `Alt-Right' movement that espouses xenophobia and racial hatred. The FBI is now investigating, and Richard's murderer must be held to account under the full weight of our laws. In viewing this tragedy, it is easy to get caught up in the details of who perpetrated the crime and why. But the real story I wish to share with my colleagues is Richard's story. The story of a young man who was so proud to put on his Army uniform and had diligently drilled as a member of the ROTC in college. He has been remembered by family and friends as a `kind soul,' an `angel,' and `a national treasure.' The loss of this outstanding young Marylander and young American diminishes us all. I have been keeping Richard's parents and extended family in my thoughts and in my prayers these past few days, and I will surely continue to be inspired by his memory for a long time to come. His life is a reminder of everything that makes our nation extraordinary His death is a painful reminder that the work of banishing hatred from our midst is far from over and will require each and every one of us to share in the task. May God bless the memory of Second Lieutenant Richard W Collins III and watch over his family and his community in this hour of their grief.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor John T. Lewis, the Director of Logistics and Support for the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives, on his upcoming retirement on June 2, 2017. Beginning on June 1, 1978, John spent his entire thirty-nine year career with the U.S. House of Representatives and for over twenty years worked as an upholsterer. Starting as a laborer in the Clerk's office, John moved up the ranks to become a master upholsterer. One of his major accomplishments was learning how to upholster the special type of Turkish chairs used by Members of Congress. Many of these historic chairs remain in use by Members to this day. John was then asked to take on a managerial role, serving as the Supervisor of Workflow Management, which involved developing purchasing spreadsheets and building asset tracking systems. However, after a couple of years in that position, John returned to the trade he loved in serving as the manager of the Textiles Department. In that role, John supervised the day-to-day operations of several shops, including upholstery, cabinet, finishing, drapery, and carpets. Throughout his career, John oversaw several important projects including the redressing of the Lincoln catafalque, the replacement of the House Floor carpet, the re-upholstery of every seat on the House Floor and in the Gallery, the complete refinishing of the House Floor dais, the construction of the lecterns and stenographers' desk, and the total refurbishment of the Speaker's chair. John led or assisted in twenty Congressional transitions and ten Presidential inaugurations. Among his most significant contributions was nurturing the furnishings team and coaching its members to be some of the most talented craftsman on Capitol Hill. In his retirement, I hope John will enjoy time spent with his wife of thirty-seven years, Lisa, and his two daughters, Joanna Emily Caputi and Lauren Elisabeth Lewis, his parents, Bill and Anne Lewis, and other members of his extended family. On behalf of the entire House, I extend my congratulations and thanks to John T. Lewis for his many years of dedication and outstanding contributions to this institution. I wish him many wonderful years ahead.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of the majority leader telling us in-depth the schedule for the weeks to come. (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for those remarks. I want to join him in thanking our colleague, Brian Cooper. I am not sure, Brian, that I adopt the sentiments of the majority leader with respect to what Mr. Thomas could and could not do. Apparently he chose not to, and that is good. But, Brian Cooper, we want to thank you for three and a half decades of service to this House; three and a half decades of service to this House in a role that most people, including Members of this House, would not recognize, but that is critically important to the good management and flow of the people's business through this House. As the majority leader referenced, he will continue to root for the Baltimore Orioles because he is from Baltimore. He is a Marylander, and we are very proud of him. I want to thank him for his service and wish him the very best in the days ahead. I now will go to the schedule. By law, under the Budget Control Act, a budget is supposed to be brought to this floor on April 15. The majority leader would quickly observe that neither Democrats nor Republicans have always met that deadline. However, we are unusually late in the budget process, in my view, and despite months of promising to return to regular order, we have not yet done so as it relates to the budget, and the budget has not been marked up in committee, Mr. Speaker. Monday marked the statutory date by which the Appropriations Committee no longer has to wait to bring bills to the floor of the House because the majority has failed to meet its obligation to pass a budget on time. Now, again, I want to quickly note that both parties have failed to meet that deadline in times past, but I cannot remember us being as late in the session in getting to the appropriations process, because there really has been no direction from the administration as to what their budget priorities should be, would be, other than the so-called ``skinny budget'' that was sent down, which, in my view, almost every Member of Congress thought was a totally unrealistic, unadoptable, and unworthy budget priority document; and if it were to be adopted, the security of the United States, both abroad and at home, would be put at substantial risk. So, Mr. Majority Leader, can you provide some indication? I know it is not on the floor next week. And I want to say that I join with the majority leader. The issue of human trafficking is one of the critical issues that confronts us, as a country, and the global community. It puts millions of young women and young men at risk--and not so young men and women at risk--on a daily basis. It is appropriate that we deal with this issue. Hopefully, we will deal with it, as the majority leader said, in a bipartisan fashion and that we will produce more effective ways to stop and to hold accountable those who put human beings at risk by human slavery. But can the gentleman tell me when the Budget Committee will mark up a budget and when we will have such a budget considered on the floor? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. With respect to the appropriations process, as the gentleman knows, there are 12 discrete appropriation bills dealing with national security and domestic spending. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not we still intend to consider, on a timely basis, discretely, that is, one at a time, the 12 appropriation bills? I don't think any of them have been marked up as of this point in time. Obviously, not having a budget would preclude that from happening. I understand that. But, as the gentleman knows and I know from experience of serving on the appropriations process, frankly, it was at the beginning of this month, historically, that we would start to mark up appropriation bills, with the intent to use much of June and July for the purposes of passing appropriations bills so that we might send them to the Senate for consideration and have some chance of getting them done prior to the expiration of the fiscal year on September 30. Does the gentleman anticipate that we will be considering separately the 12 appropriation bills between now and the August break? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I hope that we do, in fact, get that done. Now, Mr. Leader, I was shocked yesterday to learn that the process that, from my perspective and our side's perspective, was extraordinarily accelerated, undermining the opportunity for careful and thorough consideration, the bill that is known as the American Health Care Act, or otherwise known as the bill to attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That bill, as the gentleman knows, was introduced on March 6. It had not a single hearing and was marked up less than 2 full days later in the Ways and Means Committee, on March 8. It was marked up on March 8 and 9 in the Energy and Commerce Committee, in the Budget Committee on March 16, in the Rules Committee on March 22, and brought to the floor with a CBO score on March 23. In other words, in my view, Mr. Speaker, it moved so quickly that no one could have given it thoughtful consideration. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on March 24, that bill was brought to the floor, was subjected to some debate, and then was pulled. The judgment was made that, apparently, it was not ready for prime time. That bill was then brought back to the floor some 2-plus weeks, about 2 weeks later, on Thursday, May 4 of this year. It was passed on a Thursday, notwithstanding the fact it had not been noted for consideration on Thursday at the beginning of the week or in the week prior. It passed on a vote of 217-213, with a significant number of Republicans voting against it and a significant number of Republicans who voted for it saying ``no, I haven't read the bill'' in response to inquiries from the press. That afternoon, Mr. Speaker, there were buses out in front of the Capitol to take my Republican colleagues down to the White House to cheer its passage, an accomplishment of what our Republican colleagues had pledged for 6 years. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine my shock, chagrin, and surprise when I learned yesterday that bill has not gone to the Senate. Apparently, it has gone from one chair to maybe the other chair in the desks before me. It has been held, Mr. Speaker. It has been held because there was no CBO score to ensure that, in fact, it complied with the rules. A lot of talk about regular order, Mr. Speaker. So the bill that was cheered at the White House and the President saying ``I'm so glad this passed,'' apparently, may not have passed this House in a form that is consistent with the rules. And so, my colleagues, I want you to know that you may think you have passed the bill, but it is still here 2 weeks later. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, why we couldn't have waited for a CBO score, other than the political imperative of going home and having Members be able to say, ``We passed the bill.'' Well, it is still here, folks. It is still within the bosom of the House, warmly embraced, aging, unfortunately, not to perfection. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader: When might we pass this bill? Is the bill going to have another hearing? Are we going to wait for the CBO score? And will another vote be necessary to, again, confirm the 217-213 votes? I will not ask you whether or not you think you still have 217 votes, but let me ask you: When might this bill be considered again on this floor? And when might this bill go to the United States Senate, as everybody thought it had on the 4th of May? I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. But he got the point, I am sure.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have had a similar conversation before, and the majority leader would love to rely on the hearings that were held before this bill that we passed was introduced. The 113 hearings were on the repeal. This bill, as surely the majority leader knows and Members who voted on it know, was not repealed. It does not repeal. Now, it is said that the gentleman is correct that the insurance industry has been very badly roiled, and confidence in the marketplace has been very badly undermined by this administration since its first day in office, and badly undermined by the Republicans' continued attempts to repeal, and passage of repeal legislation that didn't become law, and so insurers have, in fact, lost confidence that the marketplace will be stable, an absolutely critical component of pricing their product correctly. The administration continues, as does the House itself and the Republican leadership in the Senate, to undermine the confidence that there will be a market. So, yes, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is correct. The insurance market is not as stable. But almost everybody who speaks to that--and there is a Los Angeles Times story today, relatively lengthy on that--in terms of what steps the administration has taken from the very beginning, starting with the IRS, don't worry about the mandate. Don't worry about the fact you have insurance. It is like the automobile people saying, don't worry about having automobile insurance; there is going to be no penalty. Well, if that was the case, I bet you a lot of people would not have automobile insurance, and if they hit you, you would be exposed to the expense yourself. Now, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader says he wants to follow the rules. They want to follow regular order, and, of course, they will do that. My, my, my. Mr. Speaker, on May 4 of this month, why did we not have such a CBO score? He says we didn't send it because the rule will not allow us unless we have a CBO score. Frankly, I think there are some additional reasons because they are not sure that they are complying with the Byrd rule in the United States Senate, and they have got to see. So they may have to pass this again, to which the majority leader did not address himself. But there was no reason not to wait other than politics, other than to have those buses go down to the Capitol and cheer one another. They had no idea what CBO is going to come up with next week. So they did not wait, consistent with the rules. We should have had a score when we passed the bill. But that was not convenient for the politics of repeal. Now, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, has not told me when we are going to consider that bill again or if we are going to need to consider that bill again. And perhaps the honest answer is the majority leader does not have that knowledge as to whether he is going to have to bring that bill to the floor again because he is going to need the CBO score to make that determination. I understand that. And we should have waited, Mr. Speaker, not rushed to judgment. He talks about hearings. There were no hearings on this bill. One reason there were no hearings on these bills is because my Republican colleagues have been having town meetings, and they are hearing about the public's thoughts about their bill. And some of them are not having town meetings because they don't want to hear any more than they wanted to have hearings here in the House to hear what the public thought. So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the majority leader will be able to, perhaps at some point in time in the relatively near future, give us a clear picture as to when we may either consider this bill again or when we are going to send it to the United States Senate; flawed, though, it may be. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to yield to my friend, the majority leader, if he would like to say something further. If not, I will yield back.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I listened to his comments with interest. I want to touch on a number of comments he made, however. First of all, in a very partisan vote from 3 a.m. in the morning until 6 a.m. in the morning, my Republican colleagues passed a bill in a partisan fashion--there were a few Democrats; not many--that passed part D prescription drugs for seniors. We voted against that. And then we took the majority. And what did we do, Mr. Speaker? We acted in a way to ensure that the part D prescription drug package that the Republicans had passed in the previous Congress did, in fact, work; and it is a success today because we did that. That is exactly the opposite of what our Republican colleagues did, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Affordable Care Act, as my friend knows and polling now shows that over 55 percent of Americans believe that the Affordable Care Act ought to be kept; and 75 percent of them, three out of four Americans, believe we ought to fix the Affordable Care Act, not repeal it. That has not changed, however, the Republicans' attempt and rhetoric to repeal. Now, there were a number of things that the Republicans did, contrary to what we did with respect to the prescription drug bill for seniors, to undermine and create this situation of which the majority leader speaks where there are some insurance companies that have pulled out, that are not doing as well as they should have and we wanted them to have. One thing, many Republican Governors refuse to join the Medicaid expansion program, adversely affecting millions of Americans. Secondly, they did not find the risk corridors. We knew when we established this problem that there was going to be a very tough time in making valid judgments on what costs were going to be two years into this program. We did not fund it. The CO-OPs also did not receive the support that was contemplated by the statute. The cost-sharing subsidies the administration has put at risk. Now, we were assured just before the bill passed that: Oh, no, we are going to pay for the cost-sharing subsidies. But the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, filed suit, and the court said: Oh, no, you have to appropriate those moneys on the cost-sharing subsidies. The majority leader knows--certainly everybody on the Energy and Commerce knows, and every Member ought to know--without those subsidies, the insurance companies will have mispriced their product, for deductibles and copays, in particular. That, Mr. Speaker, is what I speak of, in terms of the actions that have been taken over the last 6 years to undermine the confidence of the marketplace. Everybody knows that confidence is an important factor in any marketplace. I am sure we are going to debate this again. Mr. Speaker, again, I would simply ask: Is this bill coming back to the House? Will we expect another vote on it? The CBO report is due next week. I believe that if, in fact, we are going to schedule that, we ought to at least be given notice that that either is or may be a piece of legislation that will be on the floor next week, prior to our break for Memorial Day. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hurd for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to work with him on it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It will not be a controversial bill. It will not make the front page of the paper tomorrow. People will not be seized of this bill passing. But this bill may well have a very great consequence to it and to the efficiency and effectiveness of our Federal Government. Last July, I outlined a series of reforms to renew America's faith in their government, which included modernizing government technology. Not long after, I introduced the Information Technology Modernization Act to achieve that goal; and, of course, Mr. Connolly was a cosponsor with me on that bill. I am glad that this bill on the floor today includes my legislation. It would be a major step toward ensuring that our government is using the latest technology systems, is well protected from cyber threats, and can serve the American people more effectively. Mr. Hurd came over to me on the floor and we talked about our two ideas. As the gentleman from Virginia has said, they were complementary, and I am pleased that we could work together to put these bills together and that we now have agreement with the Senate. We passed a bill through the House. Last week's major global cyber attack was yet another reminder of how critical it is that our government's technology systems are upgraded to the latest and most secure technology. If any lesson was needed, we got it. Americans count on government agencies to protect their personal data, and our security agencies rely on our government systems to safeguard classified and sensitive information. Unfortunately, our government technology systems are now far behind the latest technology and are in desperate need of upgrades. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly) for her work on this effort. What this legislation does is authorize the creation of a technology modernization fund to finance rapid upgrades of government technology systems similar to funds that are available in the private sector so they can move quickly and seize the best and latest technology available. It would prioritize the systems that are the most vulnerable, and it would implement best practices from the private sector. In other words, those that are working least well will be the first addressed. Once upgrades are completed, agencies will pay back into the fund from the savings achieved through greater efficiency, i.e., a revolving fund, making it possible then to finance additional projects in a way that is self-sustaining after the initial investment. All of this would be done in a way that is transparent and accountable. Once this bill is enacted, we must take the next step and provide, of course, that initial funding. I have been proud to work across the aisle with Majority Leader McCarthy, Chairman Chaffetz, Mr. Hurd, and, of course, my dear, dear friend from Virginia, my colleague in the Washington metropolitan area, Representative Connolly on our side. Representative Kelly, whom I just mentioned, and Congressman Ted Lieu have also been champions of this effort, and I thank them for their input and their strong support as we worked to bring it to the floor in a bipartisan fashion. Again, I want to say how pleased I am to work on these issues with all of my colleagues, but particularly with the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, my friend from California, and thank him for his leadership. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Modernizing Government Technology Act, and I hope the Trump administration will include investment to capitalize this new fund in their fiscal 2018 budget.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New York, the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee for yielding. I thank Mr. Kinzinger for his leadership as well as his statement. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation, which will impose tough sanctions on entities aiding the Assad regime in Syria. Bashar al-Assad is brutal murderer. Very frankly, there are too many countries facilitating and complicit in the murders that he perpetrates. He has gassed his own people and waged a civil war that has displaced millions from their homes and their country. Recently, Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of meeting some of the White Helmet civil defense workers who are risking their lives daily to rescue civilians caught in the crossfire and targeted by government forces; facilitated, I might say, by Mr. Putin's troops in Syria. The Assad regime is being propped up by Iran and Russia in a dangerous and destabilizing geopolitical game. There are reports that the Assad government is now cremating victims of mass murder in an attempt to hide the evidence of its numerous crimes. While this is taking place, Americans watched in disbelief; frankly, as President Trump met in the Oval Office with those who are protecting, aiding and abetting Bashar al-Assad and those committing atrocities by his command and in his name. Not only does that show how little this President understands about the conflict in Syria and its broader complexities, it also reminds us that he has articulated no clear strategy on how to end that conflict and to defeat ISIS. Having said that, let me congratulate the President for taking the actions against the airfield after the chemical attack. But, frankly, that was a significant, but small, step. The continuation of the war that the Assad government is waging against its own people only makes it harder to defeat the terrorists who threaten America, the region, and the world. Today's legislation will help address this problem. I see on the floor, my friend, Chairman Royce, who is a great leader on issues relating to our foreign policy and to human rights. I congratulate him for his leadership. Working with his partner, Mr. Engel, we have taken significant steps to raise both the moral and the foreign policy issues that need to be raised. The efforts are bipartisan and reflect hard work on the part of the ranking member, the chairman, as well as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I thank them for their efforts, and I urge my colleagues to join in strong and, hopefully, unanimous support of this important resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Republicans now control all of our government. Whatever happens to our healthcare system will be their responsibility, including what has already happened since January with the destabilizing of our insurance markets and health plans announcing rate hikes due to uncertainty. They will be held accountable for what happens. Today, Americans will have an opportunity to see exactly where their Representatives stand. This vote is a simple one. It votes to kick 24 million Americans off of their health insurance coverage. I don't say that; CBO says that, which is perhaps why we don't have a CBO report on the amendment. It includes 7 million people who are covered through their employers. It is a vote to make coverage unaffordable for one in four Americans with preexisting conditions and ration care through high-risk pools. It is a vote to impose an age tax on older Americans, some $1,700 to $14,600. That is quite a hike. It is a vote to force Americans to pay more for less, to raise premiums 24 to 29 percent, on average, over each of the next 2 years. CBO says that, not me. And no matter how Republicans try to spin it, healthcare advocates from the AMA to AARP, to everybody that follows, have said that it ends protections for those with preexisting conditions. I repeat: It ends protections for those with preexisting conditions. I repeat again: It ends protections for those with preexisting conditions. It takes away essential health benefits, like doctor visits, emergency room visits, and prescription drugs. So this, Mr. Speaker, will be a very instructive vote. It will show the American people if Republicans stand with those who don't want to lose their coverage, some 55 percent now and 75 percent saying fix it, don't repeal it--or if they stand with a President who wants to claim a victory, but doesn't even seem to know what his own TrumpCare bill says. I recommend, as a political strategist who is concerned about 2018, that you once again withdraw this bill. Instead, we ought to work together to make sure that the Affordable Care Act works for all Americans, and deliver on the promise that President Trump made--and made from that rostrum--when he said that he wanted ``insurance for everybody;'' not kick 24 million off, ``for everybody;'' not make seniors pay more, ``for everybody;'' not to put Medicaid at risk, ``for everybody'' that is ``far less expensive and far better.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues: Come to your senses, defeat this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a very special event taking place next week in my district. Maryland's Fifth District lost a number of brave and extraordinary military personnel since 2001 in Iraq and Afghanistan or in support of our operations there. One of them was U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Christopher W. Swanson of Rose Haven, in Anne Arundel County, who fell in action on July 22, 2006, in Iraq's Anbar Province. Staff Sergeant Swanson gave his life to save his fellow soldiers when insurgents ambushed their patrol. He had been serving there with the 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division. On Friday, May 12, family, friends, neighbors, and state and local officials will gather in Edgewater, Maryland, to rededicate the South River Bridge in Staff Sergeant Swanson's memory, a moving tribute to a young man from our area who lived by the highest ideals of our country and made the ultimate sacrifice under our nation's flag. His parents, Kelly and Gary Swanson, and his brother Kenny and his family, will be on hand to witness the renaming of the four-lane bridge, which connects southern Anne Arundel County with the state capital of Annapolis across the South River--a major thoroughfare serving commuters and commerce in the area. While so many in Rose Haven and its surrounding communities have known for years about what Staff Sergeant Swanson did for our country, now thousands of Marylanders will pass by the sign each day bearing his name and noting his extraordinary service and sacrifice. I hope they will take a moment each time to remember him and all those who were killed in action wearing our nation's uniform. Staff Sergeant Swanson was proud of his roots in Southern Maryland. He graduated from Southern High School in 1999, where he had been captain of its soccer team, and enlisted that summer in the U.S. Army. It just made sense to him to serve, particularly given that both of his parents worked in law enforcement. Throughout his youth, he had often volunteered with the First Baptist Church in Upper Marlboro to go on service missions to Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia to help communities in need. At school, he gave his time to help out in the administrative office, and his teachers and peers alike saw him as a natural leader. It surprised no one at all that Staff Sergeant Swanson was on his third tour of duty in Iraq when, after being injured by an improvised explosive device, he insisted on going back into combat with his fellow soldiers instead of taking medical leave. As soon as his wound was stitched and he was given permission, he was right back with his unit, on the front lines. It was less than two weeks later that Staff Sergeant Swanson was killed in action. He had served with distinction in Kosovo as an Army paratrooper and was later among those who participated in the initial stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now, he rests among heroes in Arlington National Cemetery. His parents and brother launched a service organization in his memory, the SSG Christopher W. Swanson Support Charity for Veterans and their Families, which, among other projects, funds scholarships for the children of local fallen, wounded, or active duty soldiers to attend summer camp. I hope my colleagues will join me in remembering Staff Sergeant Christopher W. Swanson, in thanking his Gold Star family for their sacrifice and charity work in tribute to him, and in paying tribute to all those from Maryland and across the country who gave their lives in service to our nation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I agree with almost everything the Speaker just had to say, and I may repeat some of it. What I do not agree with, however, Mr. Speaker, is that we didn't notice. I noticed. My staff has noticed. My staff has not only noticed, but appreciated the extraordinary work that Lydia has done for this House--yes, for your office, yes, for the Republican side of the aisle, but for this House and for the American people. Lydia and I have a great relationship, but probably more importantly, she has a great relationship with Shuwanza Goff, who runs the floor on our side of the aisle. What a privilege it is to rise and say to Lydia, thank you--not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, but as an American who appreciates the role that you have played, Lydia, in making a difference. I always say that, when the House runs well, it is the staff's work. When it doesn't do so well, it is the Members' responsibility and fault. So you have been absolutely terrific. And Jeff and Graham and Evie, I join with Speaker Ryan in saying that your mom is a great American, a wonderful human being. You know that personally. You see it every day in your own lives. But for the past 9 years, Lydia has been a presence on this floor first in the Republican Cloakroom as an assistant, later as a staffer with the Rules Committee, and then, as the Speaker just pointed out, deputy floor director for the Republican side of the aisle. They are the majority party, so Lydia's responsibility really is institutional--not partisan, but institutional--and she has performed that in the best traditions of the best of this House. It is a testament to Lydia's skill and professionalism that she has earned the respect not only of her own colleagues on the Republican side, but also those who work on my staff and the Democratic leader's staff on this side of the aisle. That is why, Lydia, I said we have noticed, we have appreciated it. In many ways, Mr. Speaker, public service is a family affair for Lydia Strunk. She grew up around it when her father worked in the George H.W. Bush White House handling legislative affairs. Her dad is a good friend of mine, so perhaps I am not objective. I am also the father of three daughters, so perhaps I am not objective. Nick Calio is one of the great people with whom I have served through the years. I think he is here in the gallery somewhere with his wife. Thank you, Nick, for your service, and thank you for being such a wonderful example for your daughter. She has brought that same kind of cooperative, collegial, inclusive spirit to her work that you brought to yours not only working in the public sector, but also in the private sector. Let me end. She grew up in a great State: Maryland. Again, perhaps making me more subjective than I otherwise would be. After she began as a Cloakroom assistant, she met and later married Jeff Strunk, who then worked on Speaker John Boehner's floor staff, also very effectively and productively. And when Jeff left Capitol Hill in 2013, Lydia was promoted to take his place, a somewhat incestuous operation, but it worked extraordinarily well, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful. We ought to all be grateful. The American people ought to be grateful for her efforts, her know-how, and the dedication she brings to the task of ensuring that our work, Americans' work, the American people's work here on this floor and on behalf of all of us can continue smoothly each day. Lydia, thank you. We wish you the very best. We know that whatever you do, you will be extraordinarily successful in doing, and that you will be perceived by your colleagues and by those with whom you work in the same very positive and very appreciative way that we view you today. Godspeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation. I want to thank Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mrs. Lowey, and all the subcommittee chairs and ranking members for the work that they have done to get us to this place. This vote we are about to take represents an example of how Members of this House can work together to reach a reasonable compromise and deliver a product that reflects both rationality and reasonableness. It is clear from recent history that Democratic Members' participation is absolutely essential if we are going to pass fiscal bills and appropriations bills. I am glad that the Republican leadership and negotiators came to that conclusion and worked with us to advance this omnibus to the floor. I will support this omnibus funding bill. It is not a perfect bill, but no bill is a perfect bill. It is, however, a compromise that includes provisions that Democrats and Republicans want to see passed. It does not include poison pill riders that would prevent Democratic support or, frankly, Republican support. It does not fund President Trump's border wall which, of course, he had promised the American people they would not pay for. Furthermore, it includes critical funding for health benefits for America's coal miners and their families, and it funds Puerto Rico's Medicaid program. This omnibus also adds additional funding for the National Institutes of Health, something that all of us ought to support, including former Vice President Biden's Cancer Moonshot, as well as Pell grants, disaster relief, international famine aid, and funding to fight opioid addiction. It is the product of frank and thorough negotiations conducted by Ranking Member Nita Lowey and Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, both of whom are positive leaders of the Appropriations Committee and of this House. I congratulate them and their staffs for their hard work to reach this funding agreement. The Congress should not have waited this long to act, Mr. Speaker. It is now 7 months into the fiscal year. We should not allow this to happen again. It has happened too often, and it has happened under both parties, but it is not the way to run the greatest enterprise on Earth: the Federal Government of the United States of America. We must get back to dealing with appropriations bills in a timely and discrete manner, appropriations bill by appropriations bill. It is important that we segue from these successful negotiations into talks in the same spirit of compromise to pass appropriations bills through regular order for fiscal year 2018 before the end of September. We are very late in doing this process. I was very much alarmed by President Trump's tweet yesterday suggesting that he would welcome a government shutdown. It is this kind of flippant, uninformed, and irresponsible approach, as opposed to what ought to be a serious, bipartisan process, that puts us again and again at the eleventh hour, often months past the original deadline, trying to keep the government open. We ought to do better. We must do better. I hope the bipartisan process that brought us to this omnibus bill will show us that we can do better. In that context, I want to again thank Mr. Frelinghuysen, with whom I have served for a long period of time both on the committee and as a colleague in the House of Representatives. I want to thank Mrs. Lowey, with whom I served for 23 years on the Appropriations Committee and with whom I have served in my capacity as leader and herself as a leader on the Appropriations Committee. This represents, today, what the Congress ought to be, how it ought to work, and what the American people expect. As we vote today on this bill, let us say to ourselves: let us continue this kind of cooperative, positive, constructive work.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for tomorrow, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would hope the majority leader might give us some idea. Obviously, everybody in this town and around the country believes the possible legislation that might come forward is a version of, revision of, the American Health Care Act that has been pending for some time not necessarily on the House floor, but in this House. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not Members ought to prepare for a debate on that bill tomorrow? And if so, does the gentleman know whether there will be a CBO score on the bill that might be brought to the floor, and thirdly, the timing for tomorrow so that Members might plan on what the schedule would be? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I asked a question, though, you did not address. If, in fact, the healthcare bill were brought to the floor tomorrow, would it have a score from the Congressional Budget Office? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I presume, therefore, Members ought to be prepared for that bill to come forward, and what we hear, we don't know, is in a revised form. Mr. Speaker, we hope, if it comes forward in a revised form, that it is accompanied with a Congressional Budget Office score so that Members on both sides of the aisle might know the ramifications of the changes in the bill. Unless the gentleman wants to say anything further, I will yield back, but I hope that we can get as much notice and information as possible, Mr. Leader. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, freedom to make less. What could be wrong with that? Freedom to make less. Now, I am an employer, and I tell my employees, you have the freedom to either work for time and a half or just take comp time. One employee says: Well, I will work for comp time. The other employee says: Mr. Boss, you know, I need that money. Well, the person I will choose to work will be the person who will do it for comp time. I don't know whether there is a provision to pay FICA on comp time or not in this bill, but I presume there is not. I presume there is an extraordinary saving to the employer, an incentive to the employer to choose the employee who doesn't need the extra money. Maybe their spouse makes a lot of money. Maybe not. This is the freedom to make less bill, and I rise in opposition to it as I did when it last came to this floor. Instead of requiring employers to provide their workers with overtime, as currently amended, this bill would allow them to replace overtime with comp time. Now, I have run a business. Most businessmen would not say it was a business because it was a law office. But I had employees, and I had to pay them. I wanted to pay them. I needed to pay them. When they worked overtime, I needed to pay them overtime. In other words, this bill provides if you work more than 40 hours a week, instead of getting time and a half for overtime, your boss can tell you no. Instead, you get paid time off, but you don't get to choose when you get to take it. Now, if you only have one employee, that is not a problem because they have a choice. But if you have two employees and one employee makes the choice, as I pointed out, of getting comp time, such a deal for the boss. And, yes, probably a pretty good deal for the person who can afford to just take comp time and doesn't need that time and a half. The problem is, of course, as the previous speaker on our side said, we are having trouble getting people to a wage on which they can live and support themselves and their families. They need that time and a half. And while we say it is voluntary and their choice, as a practical matter, as I have just pointed out, it is not.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. HOYER. Where it is is not articulated in the bill, but you don't say if there are two employees in the example I have given, Madam Chair, whether or not the employer can say: Employee A, you are going to take some comp time, so would you work an hour and a half or 2 hours overtime? But Employee B, I know you can't afford to do that, you have got to be home with your child, and if you are going to work, you need the overtime to pay, perhaps, for the extra childcare. There is nothing in your bill that precludes the employer from doing that; is there? I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. HOYER. I understand that. My example was totally a voluntary commitment by someone who will work for comp time. This is a bill, as I said at the beginning, you can work more and get less. Mr. Speaker, we ought to defeat this bill because employees and every employee organization that I know of has been articulating opposition to this bill because they know it will hurt employees.