Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Right. The Keystone bill, however, which I think is a very important issue, was made partisan. The 30- to 40-hour workweek was made partisan. The Regulatory Accountability Act, as the gentleman mentioned--excuse me, the Financial Services--that bill was changed. It was changed without a hearing. It was changed without public testimony, as I had a personal discussion, Mr. Speaker, with the majority leader about the change that occurred from the House bill that was passed. So that bill was made, again, a partisan piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it could have passed on suspension, I think, as it did the year before, had it not been changed. On the pipeline permitting legislation, again, not a bipartisan bill. This bill that we just considered, obviously very partisan, but no hearings and a closed rule. Again, very important issues brought up and, I would suggest to the gentleman, nontransparent. He mentioned the bill that was filed last Friday, the border security bill, which is coming up Wednesday. The committee organized at 10. This bill was passed sometime shortly after 2--or thereafter. Debate started at 2. When we talk about transparency, when we talk about regular order, very frankly, on pieces of substantive legislation, regular order, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the majority leader, is not introducing a bill, then we are off for 3 days, coming back, and the day after organizing the committee without hearings, without any testimony, then passing the bill, and bringing it to the floor, when clearly it is a partisan difference. We will move on, Mr. Leader. I know you are happy about that. As the gentleman knows, after next week, we have two 4-day weeks scheduled in February prior to the President's Day recess. Can the gentleman give me a sense of what legislation will be on the floor in February, again, Mr. Speaker, so that Members can have some knowledge of what might be brought to the floor, so that they can prepare and the public knows what legislation is going to be considered? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman and, again, would emphasize that the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, has made it clear in his statements, both in a book that he and two others coauthored prior to their taking the majority, but he has said numerous times since then about his commitment to transparency, openness, 72-hour rule, which has been 3- day rule--it used to be 72 hours, now 3 days. Three days, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, can be 26 hours. That is the last hour of the third day and the first hour of the third day. I understand that, but that is not regular order. We have all breached that. We all understand that. Having said that, this Congress has started with closed rules, no hearings, and anything but regular order. I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that the majority leader try to adhere to that. As he has observed in the past, if we do that, I think we will have better legislation, greater participation by Members, and reflect better the voice of the American people. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lemon Henry Moses, Jr., a distinguished community leader in Maryland's Fifth District who passed away on December 10, 2014. He was 94 years old. Lemon Moses made history as the first African-American to serve as Chairman of the Charles County Liquor Board. All of us who knew Lemon saw how deeply devoted he was to his family, his community, and his country. He gave so much of himself to all three, and he will be fondly remembered by the many whose lives he touched across Charles County and Maryland. After growing up in Savannah, Georgia, Lemon moved to Pittsburgh in his youth and was a singer and tap dancer in a local Vaudeville troupe called the `Kandy Kids,' where he befriended Gene Kelly before he became famous. Attending Howard University in Washington, DC, Lemon studied mechanical engineering, and when World War II broke out, he joined the U.S. Navy and served his country as a sailor in the Pacific Theater of Operations. When the war ended, he began a career with the U.S. Postal Service that lasted forty-four years, where he served in a number of leadership positions. Lemon became involved in the Civil Rights Movement in 1947, when he worked to integrate his local school district while serving as president of a parent-teacher association. In the Postal Service, he held the role of Eastern Region Vice President for the Postal Service Supervisors and made equal rights a focus of his work there. President Lyndon Johnson later appointed Lemon as an Equal Employment Opportunity Specialist to handle discrimination complaints in Congress. In 1974, he moved to Waldorf, in Charles County, where he became very active in the County's chapter of the NAACP. In addition to a trailblazing service on the Charles County Liquor Board, Lemon also spent five years on the board of directors for what is now the University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center and was active in Chapter 3885 of the AARP. Lemon was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, and great- grandfather. He is survived by his wife of seventy-three years, Elaine Moses, as well as his daughter Yvonne Beatrice Buford and her husband Walter; and his son Mike Moses and his wife Delores. In addition to them, four grandchildren, and eight great-grandchildren, Lemon is survived by a community to which he had devoted so much of his time and energy both before and during his retirement. He was an active member of St. Peter's Catholic Church in Waldorf, where family and friends bade farewell in a moving funeral mass on December 18, 2014. I join in expressing my condolences to Elaine and to the entire Moses family, and I thank them for sharing Lemon with all of us for the many years in which he did so much good for the people and communities of Charles County and for our country. As I remarked at his funeral, Lemon Moses was no lemon--he was a peach, a pear, and an apple, and all of our lives were made sweeter because of his.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of David Lawrence Levy, a pioneering children's rights leader and advocate for joint parenting, who passed away last month. A longtime resident of Hyattsville, MD, which is in the Fifth District, David had battled cancer for several years with tenacity, determination, and infectious optimism. Sadly, he lost that battle on December 11, 2014, when he passed away at the age of 78. David co-founded the National Council for Children's Rights--now called the Children's Rights Council--in 1985 and served as its CEO until 2008 and President of its Board until 2009. During that time, he fought for policies at the local, state, and federal level that promoted shared parenting with joint custody of children after divorce and encouraged courts to place the needs and well-being of children first. The title of a book David edited in 1994 summed up well the mission of the organization he had built: ``The Best Parent is Both Parents.'' He oversaw the creation of the Children's Rights Council's access and visitation centers--including its flagship center in Prince George's County--which provide neutral locations for separated parents to drop off and pick up their children and a place where supervised visitation can take place. In October 2009, David was named as one of the ``25 Most Influential People in our Children's Lives'' by Children's Health magazine, alongside Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Melinda Gates, and Taylor Swift. David was a native of New York and received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Florida before settling in Hyattsville, which is in Prince George's County. Early in his career, he spent several years working as a copyright lawyer at the Library of Congress. David was also an accomplished author, having published several works ranging from fiction novels to articles in the Washington Post and other papers. He served as President of the Beth Torah Congregation in Hyattsville and later was an active member of Tifereth Israel Congregation in Washington, DC., where family, friends, and local community leaders gathered on December 14 to pay tribute to David at his funeral service. David is survived by his wife Ellen, their daughter Diana and her husband Danny, his son Justin and his wife Ilana, and his granddaughter Corina. He also leaves behind many friends, neighbors, and extended family who will fondly remember David for his warmth, his sense of humor, and his enthusiasm for life. I join in offering my condolences to his family, in mourning this loss to our community and our country, and in celebrating his extraordinary life.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, we will vote against these amendments. But the sad truth is you know, all of you, that if those amendments are put on this bill, the President of the United States will not sign it, and you will therefore have to take it him to court. And I see my friend back there--who is my friend--saying, yes, that is great, he won't sign it, and we will blame him for undermining Homeland Security. In other words, you are going to hold hostage the security, and if he doesn't do what you say, security be damned. That is not the way we ought to be running America, particularly on this issue. Americans expect better of us. More importantly, and as importantly, we ought to expect better of ourselves. The Appropriations Committee has agreed. The Senate and the House have agreed. There is consensus here. Americans are so frustrated by all of us grabbing defeat, obstruction, and disagreement from the jaws of consensus. Vote against these amendments so that all of us can vote to pass this important, critical bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the work that he has done on this bill. I want to thank the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and Mr. Price for working on this bill. This bill is an appropriation bill. This bill funds the Department that is charged with the responsibility of keeping America safe and Americans safe. This bill is an appropriation bill. It is against the rules of the House of Representatives to put legislative language on an appropriation bill. Now, frankly, having served there 20, 30 years, I know that that rule is not always followed; and you, therefore, need a waiver from the Rules Committee in order to effect this end. This is not, therefore, regular order. We just had another demonstration of the clear and present danger to which every citizen in the free world is subject. We saw it in France, and 17 people lost their lives. We, of course, lost over 3,000 lives on 9/11. This is an issue on which there ought to be no difference among the 435 of us who have the privilege and honor of serving in this country and in this Congress. Mr. Hensarling raised his right hand to preserve and protect, yes, the Constitution and laws thereof, but also to preserve and protect the general welfare of all of our people. That is what this bill seeks to do. Mr. Chairman, there are many compelling reasons why the House must pass a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security without delay. I have spoken to some of them. We saw one of those reasons all too clearly last week, as I have said. Our Homeland Security agencies are hard at work every day to prevent incidents like those from occurring here in the United States, and how extraordinarily successful they have been since 9/11. Again, Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Lowey, I want to congratulate you for coming together and agreeing on a bill, agreeing on funding levels, and agreeing on the objects of expenditures to keep Americans and America safe. But with only a continuing resolution to fund it, as has happened in December, the Department does not have the full flexibility necessary to respond to every threat to the best of its ability. This leaves us vulnerable at a time when we cannot afford to be vulnerable. That is why it is so unfortunate that House Republicans have chosen to play political games. If this is, in fact, unconstitutional, the courts are set forth, in article III, to resolve this issue. If you feel so strongly that you are right, that is where relief should be sought. But let us not hold America's national security and the safety of our people hostage to that political difference. In doing so, you have managed to snatch partisanship from the jaws of consensus. We have agreement. The underlying bill before us will have the support of over 400 Members.

Mr. HOYER. Over 400 Members would support the underlying bill. Wouldn't it be wonderful to show to the American public that we come together not in a partisan way, but as Americans to make sure they are as safe and secure as we can make them? But, no, we have denigrated this debate to a political debate about a difference between the President and the Congress. Now, that is a significant debate to have, but not on this bill, not where we have consensus, not where the American security is at risk if we fail. Two of the amendments are solely designed to undermine the executive actions President Obama took to address our broken immigration system. We think they are appropriate; you don't. That is fine. That is a political difference. Do not defeat consensus because we have differences on an unrelated issue. You will say it is related because this is, after all, the agency that deals with immigration and border security. I get that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend, as I observed, I think there is a legitimate question here. No one wants to see you silenced. Everyone thinks you have the right. You are a party, and you individually and collectively have the right to bring up this issue. What we urge you not to do is put at risk the passing of a Homeland Security bill which gives funding for a year's period so there will be stability and the ability to manage the national security of our country while, at the same time, on a parallel basis, raising legitimate questions that you want to take. So no one denies or wants to preclude you from the opportunity to do so. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of our own, Joe Strickland, the Chief Reporter of Debates, on his retirement from the House after more than 21 years of service. Joe Strickland is a native Texan. He came to the House in 1993, 2 years after graduating from court reporting school. He quickly distinguished himself not only as an excellent court reporter but as a very capable manager. In 2000, the Clerk of the House promoted Joe to Deputy Chief Reporter and made him Chief in 2005. Joe has participated in seven State of the Union addresses by three Presidents, and he has developed a global reputation as a leader in reporting parliamentary debates. Joe has represented the House abroad on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, including participating in the World e-Parliament Conference in Johannesburg. Here at home, Joe has addressed the national convention of the National Court Reporters Association three times, and he has served on the board of the Greater Washington Shorthand Reporters Association. Mr. Speaker, the House has lost a great resource and role model for the 43 dedicated professionals Joe manages. One of the reporters, of course, is on the floor reporting this now, and we thank her, and we thank all of those who have to listen to us and report what we say. That is a tough job. But I know that Joe will continue to inspire those who serve in the reporting office. I join, and I know all of my colleagues join, in honoring Joe Strickland, thanking him for his service to this House. We wish him a very happy retirement, full of time spent with his husband, Tom, and their son, Kevin. I thank him for his service to the Congress and to our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And lastly, Mr. Leader, if I could ask you about the border security bill. It is my understanding that the border bill could be coming to the floor this month. And I know that the gentleman from Texas, Chairman McCaul, has said that Republican leaders are getting close-- and I am quoting--to having a separate border policy bill ready to go. I know they, referring to the Republican leadership, want Homeland appropriations on the floor next week, as we have already discussed. So what is going to be tied to that is unclear at this point, but we are working on a border bill right now. Now, as you know, Mr. Leader, the McCaul border bill passed out of committee either on voice vote or unanimously, with both parties agreeing. And, in fact, the Democrats in the last Congress, in the comprehensive immigration bill that we introduced, included dropping the Senate border security bill and putting in the McCaul bill, as the gentleman undoubtedly knows, because we believed that was the better approach. Can the gentleman tell me, will the McCaul bill, as passed in the last Congress, be the border bill that will be reported? Or does the majority leader know that at this point in time?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And I hope that we can, as we did in the first iteration of the McCaul bill, have a unanimous bipartisan agreement because all of us want to make sure the border is, in fact, secure again, as we want to see that the Homeland Security Department has its full complement of resources to protect the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. So at this point, I am pleased to yield to my friend from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information he has given us. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the majority leader for bringing to the floor in a timely fashion the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which we passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion. I think that it was very, very important that we got that through the House early. As the majority leader knows, the Senate has already passed that bill, and it is on its way to the President. That, obviously, will raise the confidence level of those who are going to create jobs and enter into construction projects. It is very important for our economy and for our communities. So I thank the majority leader for his quick action and leadership on that issue. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful the majority leader can inform us of what form the Department of Homeland Security appropriation bill will come to the floor. And what I mean by ``what form,'' the committee bill, obviously, will be supported almost unanimously on both sides-- certainly on this side of the aisle unanimously--if, in fact, it is the funding levels that resulted from the agreement between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and passed overwhelmingly, known as the Ryan-Murray budget numbers. The committee marked up its bill, reported it out. It was included in the omnibus. But it was included, as the gentleman knows, only until February 27. Can the gentleman tell me whether that will come to the floor as reported out of committee? And when I say ``committee,'' I mean the House Appropriations Committee. Or when reported out, will it be considered under a rule? And if considered under a rule, will that rule allow amendments? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I am pretty sure I understand exactly what the gentleman said. Therefore, those amendments will be offered on the floor and will not be incorporated in the base bill?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. When will the hearing on the rule be held so that our Members can know; so that if they have amendments they would like to offer, they can appear at the Rules Committee? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that, and I will make sure that our Members know that. Mr. Speaker, I know the Speaker just held a moment of silence--and I will be saying something in a few minutes--on the tragic events that have happened in France, the loss of life in the initial incident, in the hostage-taking, and of the law enforcement officer. Clearly this was in France, but we know that we are all vulnerable in all of the free world. I would urge the majority leader to ensure that the Homeland Security bill passes this House in a bipartisan fashion. And what I mean by that is, I know there are going to be amendments offered. I know his side of the aisle is very concerned and believes--and he has asserted--that the actions taken by the President were unconstitutional. We do not share that view, as the gentleman knows, that they were unconstitutional. We believe the executive was within his authority and prosecutorial discretion on the executive side of the government. But we also know that that issue is going to be an issue of substantial debate, discussion, and I am sure other legislative actions. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the majority leader to--I think it is in the best interest making sure the Homeland Security bill is passed so there is no doubt as to the resources that the Homeland Security Department will have to protect all Americans, to protect our homeland, and to coordinate extensively. Secretary Johnson has made statements this week that the failure to have full funding for the Department of Homeland Security has already impeded his ability and the Department's ability to act fully on behalf of the security of this country. So, Mr. Majority Leader, I know that all 435 of us are committed to making sure that we do everything we can to keep our homeland safe and our people safe. And I would hope that we would have nothing included in the bill which would be very controversial, reflecting our differences, when the underlying bill, I think, is not controversial, when the underlying bill is something on which we can almost unanimously, I think, agree and is something that ought to be passed and ought to be signed by the President and ought to give the Department of Homeland Security the full resources it needs to keep America safe. And I would be glad to yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with him next week to hopefully achieve the passage of a bill that will not prove controversial in the Senate or with the President of the United States so that this can be effective, as the gentleman observed, as quickly as possible. I appreciate him bringing it to the floor, and I also appreciate the fact that the amendments are going to be considered separately. And I would hope that we could join together in opposing amendments which will undermine the bipartisanship of the legislation. We have 3-day weeks coming up now. We will have a couple of short weeks when the Republicans go to their retreat, their issues conference, and then when the Democrats go to their issues conference. I would ask if you could give me a sense of the legislation that will be on for the remainder of the month. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. ``No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. ``The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise, as I know all Americans would rise if they were here, to express our solidarity with, our sympathy to, and our convictions for a strong alliance with the people of France. The despicable and tragic murder in Paris on Tuesday of journalists and those who protected them ought to be a reminder that we cannot and must not take for granted the freedoms we enjoy living in a democracy. The men and women who were targeted in Paris on Wednesday were cartoonists whose job was to use humor to make people question their leaders and their most cherished principles. Freedom of speech, protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which was read today on this floor, means nothing if that speech can be intimidated and shuttered by violence. The principles that we speak of were part of a long tradition in France and in this country of bringing the loftiest of people and ideas down to Earth through the power of satire. Freedom of the press and free expression of ideas are a necessary check against tyranny and oppression. They are as much a part of democracy as the right to vote and due process in court. Mr. Speaker, in attacking these journalists, the terrorists made their target clear, and that is freedom itself--freedom in America, freedom in France, freedom throughout the world, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent. The taking of innocent hostages at a kosher market today further demonstrated the terrorists' utter disregard for the ``liberty, equality, and brotherhood'' that are the foundation of the French democracy and the American democracy. The democratic nations of the world must continue to stand up to those who wish to stifle the basic freedoms that all people deserve. I know that all 435 Members of this Congress are united in that conviction. I join with all of my colleagues in offering my condolences to the families of the victims and to the French people. Mr. Speaker, in that regard, I articulate what has just been demonstrated by all by standing in silence, just as President Kennedy declared, ``Ich bin ein Berliner,'' and newspapers around the world after 9/11 read, ``We are all Americans.'' Today, all freedom-loving people around the world join together in solidarity to say, ``We are all Charlie''--``Nous'' sommes tous Charlie.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. As a result, up to half a million Americans would become uninsured, and this bill would increase the deficit by $53 billion. There is not enough time to really explain all the nuances of the adverse consequences of this bill. I ask my colleagues: let's have a decent and honest debate, let's have an honest debate and honest discussion so that, yes, Mr. Young, we can protect those workers that we all should be able to protect, and then I will expect that to be accompanied with a minimum wage bill and the unemployment insurance extension.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Save American workers. Make sure they don't lose purchasing power. Let's make sure that those at the bottom end of the employment spectrum are saved. That is the message. I presume the minimum wage bill will be on the floor next week. Perhaps you are going to want to extend unemployment insurance next week. Perhaps you are going to really want to do something that will save the workers and give them the purchasing power they had in 1968. The chairman said it well: We go from creating 29ers to 39ers. This bill will allow you to work 10 more hours without health care. Isn't that wonderful? I am sure every American worker is saying: Thank God the Republicans are going to have me work 10 more hours before I can get health insurance. Aren't you generous? The American worker needs help, not to be misled by a rhetoric which pretends to do something for them but leaves them stuck, not just for 5 years, but for 10, 15, 20 years, as those at the top of the ring get better and better off--and we are among most of those 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, we are now in the first days of the new Congress, with an opportunity to turn the page and write a new chapter of bipartisanship and cooperation. We are not doing it today. It is unfortunate that the Republican majority has instead chosen to replay the highlight reel from the last Congress by bringing back to the floor a piece of partisan legislation that would undermine the Affordable Care Act and cause approximately 1 million Americans to lose their employer-sponsored insurance coverage. Not something that Mr. Young says may happen or is extrapolated to happen, but there is no doubt that this would happen--1 million people. Well, so what? This bill is a solution without a problem.

Mr. HOYER. As of this time, without being timed, I really miss my magic minute; I want to tell you that, Mr. Speaker. Since the Affordable Care Act became law, 10.8 million new jobs have been created in the private sector, and it has not led to a shift to part-time work. That is what the statistics tell us. You want to save the worker, but under your economic policies in the last decade, we had the worst loss of jobs in this country in my lifetime. In fact, part-time workers, as a share of all workers in our economy, have fallen--have fallen--have decreased, are less since the enactment of the health care reform bill. Unfortunately, this bill's sponsors have chosen to ignore these facts because they don't support their argument. Their legislation would allow employers to deny health care reach to those working even as many, as I have said, as 39 hours. That means the slightest reduction in hours could be used to deny employees the coverage they ought to be earning through their work, so the rest of us do not have to pay their bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding. I appreciate her work. I also appreciate the work of Mr. Neugebauer for bringing this bill to the floor. This bill could have been--should have been, as Mr. Capuano said-- passed a long time ago with an overwhelming vote. I brought this up on regular conferences and colloquies that I had with Mr. Cantor and more recently with Mr. McCarthy, but it is always timely to do the right thing. Today, we are doing the right thing, and I rise in strong support of the passage of this bill. Reauthorizing the Terrorism Risk Program Reauthorization Act will provide much-needed certainty to businesses and insurers, certainty that will help our economy and prevent harm to job creation. I believe Congress has the responsibility to reauthorize the TRIA program, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting to do so today. This program expired at the end of 2014, and Congress must take action on TRIA without delay. I would reiterate that this program as incorporated in this piece of legislation has had well over 250 votes for at least the last year and a half, but it is never too late to do the right thing. The longer Congress waits, the worse the effects will be on our economy and job creation. I want to thank Ranking Member Waters. I want to thank Ranking Member Velazquez for her work on this as well and, as I said, the leadership on the majority side that finally got us to a point where we could make an agreement last year. We passed a bill last year. I regret that the Senate didn't pass it, but I applaud the majority's bringing it to the floor as one of the first pieces of business that we do. All sides deserve, therefore, credit for their efforts to help restore certainty to businesses and protect against the slowdown in job growth that would result from not reauthorizing TRIA. So, today we do the right thing; we do it in a bipartisan fashion. Let's hope we can continue to do this.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to many of the representations that Mr. Sessions made with reference to our economy, but we can all agree that our most important responsibilities as Members of Congress is to grow this economy, create the kinds of jobs that Americans need so that they can succeed and support themselves and their families. I want to speak about a couple of things in this rules package. Traditionally, Democrats will vote against and Republicans will vote for because traditionally this is a partisan vote. I urge the Rules Committee chairman to adopt a couple of changes which I thought would make this rules package a better one. First, I ask the House to move to ban discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. We provide in our rules that you cannot discriminate against people based upon race, nationality, gender, and other arbitrary distinctions. We should have added this as we have in so many of our laws. Currently there are no protections for a congressional staffer fired or refused promotion simply for LGBT status. I regret that the Rules Committee was unprepared to offer such a protection to our employees. Secondly, since Republicans assumed the majority in 2011, Delegates from the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands as well as the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico have been denied the opportunity to vote in the Committee of the Whole. They can vote in committees, and the Committee of the Whole is of course a committee of the House. It is not a final arbiter. When I was majority leader, I offered that amendment in the rules. It passed. My Republican friends took it to court, and the court said that it was sustainable and sustained it. This effectively, unfortunately, denies representation to nearly 5 million Americans, Americans, one of whom is on the Republican side of the aisle from American Samoa. So this is a bipartisan concern that I have. Unfortunately, this rules package put forward by the Republican majority does not include either change. In addition, this rules package does not live up to the responsible governing the American people expect and deserve from Congress. Mr. Sessions spent a long time talking about scoring, static scoring versus dynamic scoring. Dynamic scoring I would suggest to the American people is a gamble. It is a gamble that your projection is correct. If your projection is not correct, as it has so often been, then you end up putting the deficit even higher because you bet on the come. The more conservative policy, I would suggest, would be to get the money first and then decide how you are going to apply it. Don't gamble on the fact that you are going to get the money, which is what dynamic scoring is. The gentleman admitted--he did not argue--that cutting taxes always paid for themselves. In fact, Alan Greenspan said exactly that in the last decade. What it means is the Republicans will be able to hide the true cost of tax cuts behind a debunked mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not. This provision will allow them to explode the deficit as they did the last time they were in charge. The last time the budget was balanced was not under the Bush administration when you had a Republican Congress, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. It was when Bill Clinton was President of the United States. For 4 years we had a balanced budget. It also threatens to politicize the Congressional Budget Office, which has maintained its role as impartial and nonpartisan arbiter on budget scoring for four decades, which makes us be honest, which is what the American public expects. Rely on the figures that are not political figures but are independent analytical figures on which we can rely. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rules package. It can be a better package; it should be. And if it is defeated, we can adopt a better, more fair package. Mr. Speaker, we are at the start of a new Congress, and we have an opportunity to right two wrongs in the rules of this House. I wrote to the Chairman of the Rules last month asking that two changes be made in today's rules package. First, I asked that the House move to ban discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. Currently, there are no protections for a Congressional staffer fired or refused a promotion simply for LGBT status. Second, since Republicans assumed the majority in 2011, delegates from the District of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, have been denied the opportunity to vote in the Committee of the Whole House. This effectively denies representation to nearly 5 million Americans. Unfortunately, this rules package, put forward by the Republican majority, does not include either change. In addition, this rules package does not live up to the responsible governing the American people expect and deserve from their Congress. First, it includes something called ``Dynamic Scoring.'' What it means is that Republicans will be able to hide the true cost of tax cuts behind a debunked mantra that ``tax cuts pay for themselves.'' They do not--and this provision will allow them to explode the deficit, as they did the last time they were in charge. It also threatens to politicize the Congressional Budget Office, which has maintained its role as impartial and nonpartisan arbiter on budget scoring for four decades. The rules package also extends the Benghazi select committee, placing conspiracy theories above fact. At least three committees--two led by Republicans--exhaustively investigated the Benghazi tragedy. Everything has been reviewed; a million dollars in taxpayer money last year were wasted. And, furthermore, these rules would limit the ability of Congress to reallocate resources between Social Security trust funds, making it more difficult to prevent automatic cuts to Social Security disability insurance. We can do better--and should do better--in this House for the 114th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this rules package, and I call on Chairman Sessions and his Republican colleagues to work in a bipartisan way with Democrats to enact rules that enhance the work of this House, protect LGBT employees, include all of the voices in our democracy, and set guidelines that facilitate greater cooperation, not more partisan gridlock.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker and Members, ever since the conference report was reported out, Leader Pelosi and I have told everyone how objectionable the two provisions that have been discussed are on our side of the aisle. We think they should not be in an appropriations bill. We think that they should be considered on their merits or demerits. Unfortunately, they are in the bill. I rise in support of the bill, notwithstanding my vigorous objection to these two provisions. I rise because I, frankly, think that pursuing CRs, continuing resolutions, on a continuing basis is harmful to our economy, harmful to the growth in jobs, harmful to our national security. I regret that the Homeland Security bill has not been included for a year as well. We undermine national security by that limitation. But, nevertheless, in a world of alternatives, I have concluded that it is better for us to pass this CR/Omnibus, as it is euphemistically referred to, than it is to defeat it.