Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for taking this Special Order. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for that eloquent and passionate plea to put negligence aside, to put inaction aside, and to understand that in this House, we have an opportunity to take action. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to think of LeBron James' feeling helpless-- one of the greatest athletes of our time and, perhaps, of all time. He is an extraordinarily powerful individual. For him to stand and say, I am frustrated and I feel helpless, in part, that is because he has sent people to Congress. He and 320 million Americans have sent people to Congress to respond and to keep them safe. Can we keep them perfectly safe? We cannot. John Kennedy was speaking to a group of parents of children with disabilities. He stood before them and said: ``Although these children have been the victims of fate, they shall not be the victims of our neglect.'' Mr. Speaker, today, tomorrow, the week after, and for months to come, we do not know how many people will be victims of today's neglect; victims because we took a walk today rather than action on this floor of the people's House. We will never know the price that we will pay, but we surely know there will be a price. Speaker Ryan, upon taking the Speaker's gavel, called for a return to regular order, openness, and transparency; and I would like to read his quote because it was a good quote. He said: ``We need to return to regular order.'' Then he said: ``We will not duck the tough issues.'' Today we ducked. Today we said we are not going to apply our ability to take action. We are going to go home. The American people, Mr. Speaker, ought to know that we weren't scheduled to go home until tomorrow night, and the American people ought to know that the President of the United States asked us, some 5 months ago, to apply resources so as to protect the public health from the Zika plague. So not only have we not dealt with gun violence, but we have not dealt with two simple but profound, commonsense actions. Mr. Speaker, I could walk across to that rostrum where Republicans usually speak. I am at the rostrum where Democrats usually speak. There ought to be a rostrum in the middle where we speak not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans, as parents, as husbands, as wives, as neighbors, as friends to protect and preserve not only the Constitution of the United States but their lives and their future. Congresswoman Beatty said it so well, ``Black lives matter,'' and then she added quickly, ``Blue lives matter.'' And of course she meant those who protect us and are sworn to put themselves at risk so that we may not be at risk. We lost five of them and we lost the young man in Minnesota and a not-quite-so-young man but another man in Louisiana just these past few days. Mr. Speaker, you said, ``We will not duck the tough issues.'' We don't think this is a tough issue, but maybe some people do. We think this is commonsense reason to pass a bill that says, if you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane in America, you are too dangerous for us to sell you a gun. If we accept the premise that we ought to have background checks, which we do, then those ought to be not in just some cases but in every case so that we are not keeping people safe just in some instances but in every instance. ``We will not duck the tough issues.'' The Speaker then said, ``We will take them head-on.'' We have been asking now for years and certainly very directly for a number of weeks now to bring these bills to the floor that provide for universal background checks and for protecting people from people who are dangerous and who would buy guns but are too dangerous to fly on our airplanes. That is all we are asking. We are not even asking that it pass. We will vote for it. We hope a large number of our colleagues will vote for it. Because I tell you, the American people are speaking from that middle mike, which does not exist. But their voice in the middle here is 90 percent of them saying, ``Please, Congress, do these actions.'' The Speaker went on to say, ``We should not hide our disagreements.'' The American people don't have much of an agreement; it is nine to one. ``We should not hide our disagreements,'' he said. ``We should embrace them. We have nothing to fear from honest disagreements honestly stated.'' Bring them to the floor, Mr. Speaker. Tonight, two friends of mine, Wendy Edmonds and Bobbe Frasier, will be with us tonight at 7:30. They lost Sylvia Frasier, their sister, at the United States Navy Yard, just a few blocks from where we stand, by someone who essentially invaded the Navy Yard and killed a significant number of people. But the Congress has gone home. The leadership believes there is no more business left to do before going home to their districts for the next 7 weeks. Tell that to the people of Flint, who 24 months after the lead was discovered which gave such danger to their children and damaged their children--tell that to them. They have been waiting eagerly for Congress to take up legislation providing them with critical resources to recover from the lead poisoning in their water supply. They shall not be the victims of our neglect, but they are. We have gone home. Tell that to millions of Americans in Puerto Rico and across this country who are at risk this summer of exposure to the Zika virus. Tell that to the millions of families who have been affected by gun violence and are looking to Congress to enact commonsense gun safety reforms. So I tell my Republican colleagues, the Speaker, the majority leader, there is much work to be done right now. It is irresponsible that the majority would continue to obstruct and delay any action on these three pressing national crises. Instead, we should be remaining in Washington until they are addressed. We saw the other night a bill pass from conference with no debate in just a few minutes--a major piece of legislation. Time is not the problem. Commitment is the problem. Democrats, as Congresswoman Beatty said so eloquently, are ready to stay here and do the hard work. And I am asking the Speaker and the majority leader to commit to doing the same. The American people expect us to do our jobs, not just shrug and go home. We owe the American people that duty and that action. Let us vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, of course, I will not object, but I do want to thank the majority leader and I want to thank the Speaker. We have all joined in this resolution. It is almost exactly like that which we passed for Ronald Reagan--two Presidents who contributed greatly, not only to the wellness of this country and the greatness of this country, but also two Presidents who inspired so many Americans about their country, about their government, and about participation by average citizens in their government. I thank Mr. Chaffetz for bringing this to the floor, and I urge strong support of the resolution. I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, all of us were deeply shocked and heartbroken to learn of the assassination of five police officers in Dallas last night. Nothing can ever justify the cold-blooded murders of those who have sworn to protect and serve. Such an act does nothing to bring back those who were killed by police in previous days--killings that also shocked the conscience of our country. Violence only begets violence, not justice. The killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile at the hands of law enforcement officers were horrifying and unacceptable. Their families deserve a full investigation and for justice to be served-- just as those five fallen officers deserve justice. Justice for all-- those officers who were shot in Dallas and their families deserve that. As we mourn, we remember that the way we bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice is by bending it together. In the days ahead, let us focus on what unites us and on our shared determination to see justice prevail. Black lives matter. Law enforcement officers' lives matter. Justice matters. Life matters.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, normally, the colloquy between the majority leader and myself on the schedule might be lengthier than it will be today. This week has been a sobering week, a sad week. I want to congratulate Speaker Ryan on the comments that he made this morning. He said that ``every Republican and every Democrat wants to see less gun violence.'' He then went on to say: ``Sometimes we disagree on how to get there. Sometimes we disagree passionately on how to get there.'' He went on to say: ``But in having this debate, let's not lose sight of the values that unite us. Let's not lose sight in our common humanity.'' He then said: ``We need to take a moment here for reflection, for thought, for prayer, for justice, for action.'' Mr. Speaker, the majority leader and I have had a brief conversation on the floor. He said to me--and I agree--that we need to sit down together and try to see how we can bring this country and this House together on a way forward to, as the gentlewoman from Texas said, decrease the tensions that exist between citizens and law enforcement officers, to ensure the safety not only of those officers but of Alton Sterling, who lost his life, and of Philando Castile, who lost his life--an instance that appeared to be horrifying and unacceptable. I think all of us in this House and all Americans, Mr. Speaker, like the majority leader has suggested to me--and I have responded--should come together to de-escalate the tensions in our society, the confrontations that we see too often, the rash rhetoric--the hateful rhetoric in some cases--that is being used. I thank the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, for what I believe to be his very sincere and heartfelt thoughts along those lines. So we will not engage in a colloquy today of differences but in a colloquy that will, with prayerful consideration, try to serve the people of this country and each and every individual in this country towards a safer, more assured life in America. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. My hope, Mr. Speaker, is that all of us will be willing to be a part of that solution, not of the problem. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation. I do so, Mr. Speaker, in honor of Shelly Williams, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The chairman and the ranking member know I have been working on the new consolidated Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters project since 2007. This project remains a top priority for the Maryland delegation. Bids, as the chairman knows, on the three sites under consideration were due in on June 22. Two of the sites under consideration for this new facility, Greenbelt and Landover, are located in Maryland. We have been working at the Federal, State, and local levels to assemble competitive bids for our sites. We believe that, in a fair and open competition, Maryland has put forward sites and proposals that will ultimately be deemed a better fit for the FBI. However, as I have discussed with the chairman and the ranking member, I remain concerned about the General Services Administration's recent reduction in the estimated cost of relocating existing Federal facilities at the Springfield, Virginia, site. Since the cost of relocation of these facilities will be factored into the price for the Springfield site, we need to ensure that the GSA produces an accurate number that fully reflects the relocation costs that taxpayers will be asked to cover. My question for the chairman and the ranking member is: Will you agree to work with me to ensure that the GSA accurately reports the cost of any Federal facility relocation associated with these sites? In addition to that, I would ask: Do the gentlemen agree, the chairman and ranking member, that such transparency on the part of GSA is needed to ensure that the process for the siting of this facility is fair and provides accurate information to municipalities and developers competing to construct and house this critically important FBI project?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I certainly rely on that representation and I appreciate it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to Carl Gotzmer of Accokeek, Maryland, in the Fifth District. On June 30, Carl will be receiving his fifty-year pin from the United States Navy in recognition of a half-century of civilian service at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division. Carl is one of our nation's leading experts on energetics, the field of study concerning the movement of energy in a system. This field has wide application in defense technologies, and Carl has drawn on his deep knowledge of it to design systems that help seamen protect our homeland and carry out missions overseas in support of our interests and our allies. He has published more than 100 papers and articles in the field and holds dozens of patents. Furthermore, Carl's analysis of the threat from foreign energetic materials has strengthened our intelligence, and it earned him a Letter of Appreciation from the Office of Naval Intelligence in 2014. Praised for his ability to translate complex energetics concepts into plain English for policymakers, Carl has been an invaluable asset not only to the Navy but also to the other service branches, as well as to the CIA, FBI, and other national security agencies. In 2013, Secretary Ashton Carter presented him with the Distinguished Civilian Service Award--the Defense Department's highest civilian honor. Over the years, Carl has also received three Meritorious Civilian Service Awards in recognition of his having provided the Navy with solutions to difficult, large-scale problems. Many of Carl's innovations and discoveries in energetics have subsequently been applied in industry and benefitted America's economy. He developed and named High Temperature Thermal Radiation (HTTR) devices and invented a new class of rocket propellants. Carl has also been a pioneer in the development of undersea explosives and reactive materials. Undoubtedly, his work at Indian Head has saved lives and aided our troops in countless missions around the world. Before coming to Indian Head in 1966, Carl worked for a year at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. He and his wife Kathleen, who also works for the Navy, run a small business in Accokeek that sells their hand- crafted dulcimers to collectors and musicians throughout the country. On June 30, Carl's family, friends, and colleagues will celebrate his half-century of service at an All-Hands ceremony at the Indian Head Pavilion. Carl has said he intends to continue serving the Navy and our country, with no intention of retiring anytime soon. I congratulate him and wish him continued success in his service to the Navy and to our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, Democrats made a clear and powerful statement that we will not stand silent as thousands of Americans are victimized by gun violence. John Lewis, John Larson, and more than 100 other Democratic Members didn't hold this floor for 26 straight hours--and hold events with thousands of people across the country just last week--just to get a vote on legislation that won't make Americans safer. This week, Republicans will have a vote on a bill that was written by the NRA and would not address the scourge of gun violence. The American people deserve a vote on legislation that will actually keep those under investigation for terrorism from purchasing guns legally in our country, bipartisan legislation like Republican Representative Peter King's no fly, no buy bill. They also deserve a vote on legislation that would strengthen and make comprehensive background checks.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we sit down so we can stand up for America.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the schedule and would ask him, on his last point, on the Zika conference, does the gentleman have any information as to what might be the conference agreement? I don't have any information on that. Does the gentleman have any idea exactly where the conference is going and what we might expect? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let's hope we cannot go home, as we went home one recess, without doing Zika. Let's hope we certainly don't go home this recess without meeting this health crisis confronting our people. I am hopeful that the conference will come to agreement and we can pass it here on the floor. Hopefully, it will be at a level necessary to fund the work that needs to be done to respond to that. The administration obviously has asked for $1.9 billion. The Senate was less; the House was less. Hopefully, we can come to a number that will be sufficient. On the appropriations, the Financial Services bill will be on the floor. Obviously, there has been an announcement from the Rules Committee about when amendments will be received and the deadline for amendments, clearly indicating it would be a structured rule. I would simply, again, express concerns. We had structured rules. The gentleman made that point, and I agree with that point. Very frankly, we went from open rules, which we started out with, to structured rules because, frankly, it was our perception that what we were having is filibuster by amendments--amendment after amendment after amendment-- from your side of the aisle. As the gentleman well knows, the amendment process largely has been more amendments from your side on your bills than from our side. So we clearly have not been doing that. The gentleman mentioned something about abusing the process. Frankly, the Speaker said that as well. I totally disagree with that, and I don't think there is any indication of that. As I pointed out in the Energy and Water bill, a majority of your Members voted against your own bill, largely because it precluded discrimination against LGBT, which some people expressed that was the reason they voted against the bill, which I think is deeply unfortunate. I quote from the Congressional Quarterly: ``The use of a so-called structured amendment rule abandons the open-ended process that GOP leaders had hoped to adopt as part of a return to `regular order' for appropriations bills.'' Again, we did that, but we didn't make a big thing about not doing it. We didn't say that it is the wrong thing to do and the House was acting out of regular order. We did structured rules so we could get the bills done on time. I, frankly, see no evidence--none, zero--that we have delayed consideration of these bills in any way. That was not true, I guarantee you, when I was majority leader of the House. The strategy on your side of the aisle--not you, but on your side of the aisle--was to delay these bills and undermine them. Now, we had a lot of amendments offered by your side that we didn't like. It was very uncomfortable politically for a number of our people. But those amendments were provided for. And you are absolutely correct, when it got to a point where we obviously couldn't get the bills done in a timely fashion, we did go to a structured rule. So I don't criticize so much the fact that you are having structured amendments as I am the fact that you so complained about that not being regular order, and as soon as you had a difficult amendment, the LGBT discrimination amendment, thereafter, within days, you announced that, oh, no, you were going to go to a structured rule because the amendment process was being abused. Now, I don't want to belabor the point any more than I have, but, again, on the Defense bill, we have seen an egregious, tragic, and horrific event. And, Mr. Speaker, this is on policy and what I firmly believe is a mistake that we are making. Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York wanted to offer an amendment to say you shouldn't discriminate against citizens who are members of the LGBT community. We saw a horrific event Sunday morning where a hate crime was committed, a hate crime directed at LGBT members and, perhaps as well, members of the Latino community by an American citizen--not by foreigners, not an international, however he may have been motivated. But it was clear the animus was a hate crime. To the extent that we allow discrimination or do not prevent discrimination, I suggest respectfully that we, in a way, convey that it is okay to discriminate, it is okay to not like these people, whoever these people are, whether they be African Americans, whether they be LGBT, whether they be people born in another land. It is not okay, and I deeply regret that we don't allow the House to work its will. It did work its will. It adopted the Maloney amendment. Then that bill was rejected. You are right. We voted against it. We didn't like the bill from the very beginning. But presumably, it was going to pass but for the adoption of the Maloney amendment--with your votes because it was your bill, a majority bill. We always passed our bill, if you look at the Record, with our votes when we offered appropriations bills to the floor. So I am hopeful that, notwithstanding the fact the rule is going to be structured, the Maloney amendment, which will speak to the very tragedy that occurred this past week--in part, not totally--will be allowed to be made in order so the House can loudly, clearly, and unequivocally say we do not believe in discrimination against fellow citizens because they are LGBT citizens. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and although, as you saw, we had an overwhelming vote for those three bills. We had already passed those. They are in the Senate. Now we have packaged them and repassed them. Mr. Speaker, I would say, with all due respect to the majority leader that, frankly, the events of Sunday would not be affected by those bills. We would hope very sincerely--again, let me reiterate, in the ``Young Guns'' under your authorship and Mr. Cantor's authorship and Mr. Ryan's authorship, that you believed in the book, the three leaders of this House--Mr. Cantor is no longer with us--in openness, consideration of issues, notwithstanding the fact that they may be uncomfortable issues. And, in fact, Speaker Ryan said--and I am sure you are tired of hearing me use this quote: ``But Ryan said he wasn't interested in playing things safe if it came at the expense of an open legislative process . . . we are not going to auto-up the process.'' Structured rules auto-up the process. ``We are not going to auto-up the process and predetermine the outcome of everything around here. I want the House to work its will.'' With all due respect to my friend, I asked a specific question--and I will reiterate that question. It is not about whether we have had 1,000 amendments or 5 amendments or 700 amendments. It is whether or not the Maloney amendment will be made in order on the Financial Services bill. The reason I say that is because we have had, I think, before the horrific incident that occurred on Sunday, a dramatic demonstration that this was, among other things, a hate crime. It was a hate crime based upon prejudice. What the Maloney amendment seeks to do is to put the Congress of the United States on record as being against that discrimination. That is a very important issue. It is a critical issue about what this country is and the values that we have. It is the very kind of issue that it would seem to me to be self-evident to fall into the category of ``I want to House to work its will.'' This is not some number of amendments or this, that, and the other. This is a serious and immediate, clear and present danger to a lot of our citizens. We think it is important for Congress to go on record as saying that we are against discrimination in that regard. We would hope that this amendment would be made in order. We can't offer it because it is not an open rule. We weren't allowed to offer it on the Defense bill. I would hope that Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York is allowed to offer that on the Financial Services bill, and the House can consider it. If the House disagrees with Maloney, then the amendment will lose. But it will be consistent with the rhetoric that has been included for years by, frankly, the majority party, Mr. Speaker, that we will consider issues on their merits. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to yield to my friend, but I hope I convey to you that we don't believe this is a political issue in that sense. We believe this is a serious issue, and we believe that literally millions of Americans are feeling very, very lonely in some respects, threatened in other respects, and hopeful that the Congress of the United States would go on record as saying we will not tolerate discrimination against fellow Americans just because of a category that they may reside in. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman has just said we want to have individuals have the right to offer amendments. Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York wants to offer this amendment. This House voted for his amendment, as the gentleman recalls. A majority of this House supports the Maloney amendment, unless they have their votes changed. They had their votes changed. We came back the following week, and the majority of this House voted for the Maloney amendment. Unfortunately, the bill went down. I say ``unfortunately'' because the Maloney amendment didn't go forward. There were a lot of good things in that bill. A majority of your Members voted against it. Had a majority of your Members voted for it, it would have passed, notwithstanding what we did, because you are in the majority and you have the numbers. So I would simply urge not to talk about we have had 15 amendments or 500 amendments. We would feel it very important that this Congress go on record telling our fellow Americans that we don't believe in discrimination against LGBT citizens, period. If the majority of the House would vote that way, I think the majority of the Senate would vote that way. If the Maloney amendment is made in order, it will have, in my view, the support of the majority of this House. In that regard, therefore, it is certainly not specious, and I would hope that it would be made in order. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a 16-hour filibuster on the floor of the United States Senate. That filibuster was about bringing to the floor of the House of Representatives legislation which is supported by over 75 percent of Americans. First of all, if you can't fly, you ought not to be able to buy a gun. If you are so dangerous that you can't get on a plane, you ought not to be allowed to buy a gun that could kill a lot of people very quickly, as we saw just the other day. And secondly, the overwhelming majority of Americans support enhanced background checks overwhelmingly. Those two issues. I am led to believe, though I haven't done the poll directly, that a majority of those who are members of the NRA--not the association itself, the National Rifle Association, but the majority of the members--when asked, support those two propositions. I would hope that they would be brought to the floor so that the House could work its will, again, on the premise, as you have stated and others have stated in your party, that under the leadership of the Republican Party the House is going to be able to work its will on important issues. That, we believe, is a critically important issue. I would hope the gentleman could assure me that that will be brought to the floor not necessarily next week, but in the very, very near future. I yield to my friend if he wants to respond.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Let me remind him that--although there seems to be some tangential relationship because of the self-proclamation by the killer, the person who created the massacre in Orlando--the person who created the massacre in Charleston, Roof, had no relationship to ISIL or anybody in the international community. He didn't like African Americans. He killed them because of the color of their skin, and we speak out against that, properly so. Had the background check been appropriate in that case, that may have been stopped. We don't know. But it is certainly worth making the effort to ensure that guns do not get in the hands of those who ought not to have them. Again, as I say, a majority of the American people support that. And, yes, the Export-Import Bank was bottled up in committee--we understand you can bottle things up in committee--over 2\1/2\ years. When it finally got to the floor, a majority of Republicans and all but one Democrat voted for it, over 300 votes for it, but it was bottled up in committee. That may be regular order, but it is not openness, and it is not having the House work its will. I would urge that those two items in particular--the no fly, no buy legislation and the enhanced ability to know whether people ought to have guns or not--whether suffering from some sort of mental problem or having criminal records, that they not buy guns. I would hope we can bring that to the floor and have this House work its will, as has been suggested your side would do when and if it was in power, and it has been in power now for some period of time. If the gentleman wants to make additional comments, I will yield. If not, I will yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER. Another vicious attack on me. I thank the majority leader, who is always very kind. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you so much. I always loved so many of you with whom I had the opportunity to serve. I remember a time many years ago when I got into the Members' elevator on floor seven, which my office is on floor seven in the Longworth. I have got an office here, too, obviously, as you know. But anyway, this young kid gets on, tall, dark, nice-looking kid got on, and I sort of looked at him and wondered who he was. He thought I was looking at him as if he shouldn't be on the elevator, which I, by the way, think is a pretty kind of arrogant thing to have. This is a Members' elevator. In any event, I said, ``Hi.'' He said, ``I am Paul Ryan. I am a Member.'' And he has since been calling me ``old man'' for a number of years now, which I highly resent, which I don't think is very bipartisan and not good camaraderie. But in any event, he does it anyway. All of you have seen the House for a long period of time. I came in 1981. Some of you came before, and I have been here since. I remember Jim and I serving together on the Appropriations Committee, others of you--Jo Bonner. Bev Byron I have known since--there was just censorship there. She said, ``All right. That is enough.'' She is like Nancy. I start telling stories about Nancy, and Nancy says, ``Nope. Nope. That is not when it happened. It happened 20 years later than you are saying it happened.'' But in any event, it is lamentable what has happened to the House. You know, we can have a lot of happy talk, and we can talk about all this. It is lamentable--it is manifest, frankly, in our Presidential campaign--and our country deserves better. Elijah Cummings, our colleague, whom many of you know, he says, ``We are better than that.'' And we are better than that. I remember serving with so many of you for such a long period of time where, yes, there was an aisle, but there was much greater diversity of sentiment in terms of working together than exists today--in part, because a lot of Members are new. We have had great turnover. Remember, we talked about term limits. You have got to have turnover. There has been extraordinary turnover. Has it been helpful? I am not so sure. I am not so sure because Members come, and before they get to know people as individuals, as opposed to just Republicans or R's on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle, they want to confront. Now the longer you get to know people--you know, Chris Shays. Sure, he was a Republican, I am a Democrat, but we had an opportunity to sit down and talk. And Jim and Chris are sitting next to one another now. You know, they are friends. We are all friends. I mentioned Jo's name. But a lot of Republicans that I have been very close to--as many of you know, Roy Blunt is one of my best friends, and he was the minority whip and then the minority leader for a while, and we worked very closely together. You know what I tell my staff? I say, when they leave--all to make more money than I am making, for the most part, or that you made when you were here. I say, ``I let my staff go off the payroll, but not off the staff.'' You are off the payroll. But I hope none of you--and obviously your presence here in this Chamber reflects that you think you are off. And that is what Paul was talking about. Paul was talking about those of you who have served. Connie and I--and Connie and I were on different sides of the aisle in our State; but Connie and I have been good friends, with great respect for one another. And I know that Bev and Connie are good friends. They represented sort of the same part of our State, the western part of our State. We have lost that. And, frankly, I want to tell my Republican former colleagues that your side of the aisle now is having great difficulty working together with one another--forget about the other side of the aisle--and that is why John Boehner wasn't speaking to you today. John Boehner ultimately said, look, if you don't want to work with me, I am out of here. Not to us. John and I worked very closely together. We had a great relationship. And I think a lot of Paul Ryan, but he has got a lot of Members who think that they are not part of a team but they are part of a different group that is outside, that wants to confront. I don't want to be too negative here, but we would be silly and we would be Pollyannaish if we didn't look at this and say this is a problem for our country and we need to resolve it. We need to let our citizens know that, yes, each of us has ideas in our own districts, but we come here in a body of 435 people. It wasn't that large when our Founding Fathers constructed it, but they constructed it so that it would be a crucible to which we could bring all the differences and different perspectives and different interests that we have in the country and try to bring them together, sort of grind them up so they would come out as a positive substance together. Barb is shaking her head. Barbara and I came in special elections, and we came just sort of back-to-back in special elections. Bev was already here. Some of you were already here when I got here. We were able to work together. I tell people, you know, even in the Gingrich years, when it was perceived to be really--you know, Gingrich came in on fire, and he worked us about 9,000 hours a week. My Republican friends were coming over here and saying, ``He is going to kill us.'' I mean, we were working around the clock, some of you who were here. But the fact is there was a large number of people who were in the body at that point in time who were used to working together. Of course those of us who served on the Appropriations Committee, on the Appropriations Committee, it was pretty easy to make a deal. You know, if you have got $100 and you are in the majority, you get $60, the minority gets $40. There is not a philosophical issue here. It is easy just to divide it up. On the authorizing committees, it is a little tougher. But, frankly, all the committees now, as you have seen, have become sort of partisan confrontations--not good for the country, not good for the Members. By the way, the working conditions of Members has been sorely tested. And I will tell you--and I tell my Republican friends, if I were the Speaker or the leader, I would work very hard to get earmarks back, make sure that Members get COLAs so they don't have to be living in their offices, and make sure that we go back to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. Not only have Members not gotten COLAs for 7 years, but they are paying $4,000, on average, more for their health insurance, because Grassley thought it would be a fun thing to do to say, okay, you want the Affordable Care Act, all of you guys are going to have to be in, in effect, the D.C. small market. So, Members, when you see Members, they are getting $4,000 or $5,000 less in take-home pay because the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program is no longer available to them. We are not serving Members well or this institution well. My view, as a leader, was to try to protect Members from themselves. I am serious. You know, if a leader can't take the heat and say, look, this is what we are going to do for Members who cannot take the heat because they will be demagogued by taking a 1.5 percent COLA--what a lot of baloney that is. We don't have the press here, but I say this publicly. Members are feeling put upon--I don't mean some of the ideologues who think it is great to beat their chest and wear a sack cloth and black ash all over them. But we need you to speak up on that because you can speak up on that, and you can say, if you don't have respect for your Members, you are not going to have respect for your institution. I forget which Member said--we were talking about pay at one point in time. He said, ``Well, pay then was probably, you know, maybe $120,000 or something.'' And I said, ``Well, you may not think I am worth it, but the job is worth it. And elect somebody you think is worth the job.'' I think former Members can do a great deal, given your perspective, given your experience, and given the fact that it no longer has political consequences for you, that you can speak up to make the institution stronger by respecting our Members and making it affordable for all but the rich to serve here. So I thank you for staying in touch, for staying on the staff--not on the payroll, but staying on the staff--and for making sure that the public understands what a great institution this is. And I tell people the Congress of the United States, right now, in my view, is less than the sum of its parts. And I tell people there are great Members on both sides of the aisle, but together we are not, as a board of directors for the greatest country on the face of the Earth, doing what we need to do for our country and for our people. Thank you for staying involved. Thank you for raising up the message of what a great institution this is and how critically important it is to have respect for our institutions if our democracy is going to be all that we want it to be. God bless you. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER. I am glad I got here to hear the Speaker talk a little bit. And I am so glad that you guys have brought calm and consideration to us junior Members. I happen to be one of the old junior Members, as all of you know--I am older than some of you--but I am still here.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I tell my friend, Bradley Byrne, I would love to have a discussion with him on that issue that he raised, but I don't have the time to do it now because I want to speak about the bill. First, let me thank Chairman Frelinghuysen, who is the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and Mr. Visclosky. They have worked together. They worked positively, and America can be proud of their leadership. Both of them have been extraordinary advocates for our military and men and women who serve. This rule presents a rejection, however, of the regular order Speaker Ryan promised in the House. He promised it. That is the issue, not a question of how many. What he said was this was going to be open. As soon as it became clear, however, that the House Republicans might have to take an up-or-down vote again on whether to ban discrimination against LGBT Americans, they shut the open appropriations process down. And, in fact, when we adopted that amendment, a majority of the Republican Members voted against their own bill. That was the abuse of the system, I tell my friend, not anything we have done over here. No transparency, no open process, no regular order, no scruples about denying Americans' Representatives the chance to add their input in this Defense bill, simply because they want to allow discrimination against LGBT Americans. That is what this is about. That is how we got to this closed rule or structured rule. Make no mistake about it. In rejecting the Maloney amendment last month and now closing the process as a result of losing the Energy and Water bill because it did not allow discrimination, House Republicans are feeding the same kind of anti-LGBT sentiment that makes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans feel unsafe in our country and creates an environment which furthers racism, homophobia, and xenophobia. That is tough language. I get it. Speaker Ryan had said he would allow the House to work its will. That was his pledge. He told Roll Call in November that the Republican leadership would not ``predetermine the outcome of everything around here.'' Well, in this instance, the House is being steered in a very deliberate direction by the Speaker and the leader. The Republican leadership, once again, is more concerned with keeping its Members from having to vote on LGBT discrimination than on maintaining the open process that it promised. Each and every Member of this House ought to be not only willing but eager to cast their votes to say, unequivocally, we are against discrimination. Let me be clear. There are many provisions in this bill that I support, but there are a number about which I have serious concerns. My concerns include the dangerous act of setting up a funding cliff next year that would put our troops in danger. In their attempt to get around the funding caps both parties agreed to last year, House Republicans pretend that they are keeping the deal we made, but, in reality, they are raiding the account that provides our troops with the resources they need to do their jobs safely. This bill also includes restrictions on the Pentagon's ability to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees as well as, once again, abandoning military-civilian pay parity in cost-of-living increases. The American public, Mr. Speaker, ought to know it costs $5 million per incarceree at Guantanamo, $5 million per person. How many terrorists have escaped from American prisons? Zero. Zero. Now there is a Republican amendment to ban DREAMers from serving in uniform, a discriminatory provision in this bill. Because the process has been shut down, Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been severely limited in our ability to put forward amendments to improve this bill and address these concerns. We will continue, however, to push hard to ensure all our troops have the tools they need to succeed at their mission and come home safely, and we will keep asking the House to take a vote to end discrimination. We must not rest until all Americans are truly equal under the laws and Constitution our men and women in uniform put their lives at risk to defend.

Mr. HOYER

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