Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I would thank the gentleman and urge him that we get to agreement pretty soon because if we are going to give some certainty to the business community, as well as individuals, we need to act on that, and we have some approximately maybe 10 days, if we count 3 days for each one of the weeks that is remaining, 10 days in order to accomplish that through the House and the Senate. So it is necessary, I suggest respectfully to the Majority Leader, that we come to agreement on that fairly soon if we are going to have the ability to pass and send to the President that legislation. Thirdly, the third of the items, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which Mr. Hensarling just wrote an op-ed about. I know that the committee has acted or is contemplating action on that. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not TRIA--and I know there has been some discussion about including it in the omnibus. I don't know whether that is rumor or fact that it is being considered. But can the gentleman tell me where we are on the Terrorism Risk Insurance? As the gentleman knows, it passed 93-4 in the United States Senate, so it was not a partisan bill in the Senate, overwhelming support for it, and I would hope that we could move it through the House in a similar bipartisan, overwhelming fashion. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. The Senate bill, of course, is 7 years, as the gentleman knows, and that gives a certain degree of certainty to the lenders and borrowers and those who do business with both lenders and borrowers and in the construction industry. I am hopeful that we could come to an agreement that is longer term so we could give more confidence. I think that would be in the best interest and, very frankly, I think would enjoy bipartisan significant support in this House, Mr. Majority Leader. Lastly, the National Defense Act, authorization bill, which has passed this House, as you know, is pending in the Senate. Does the gentleman have any knowledge as to where that stands now and what possibilities there are to assure its adoption prior to the 11th of December? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Given that expectation of moving on it, does the gentleman expect or know whether or not we will deal with the ``train and equip'' authorization within the framework of the National Defense Authorization Act, or perhaps the omnibus or some other piece of legislation? I yield to my friend.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, last week we lost a dear friend and a distinguished former Member of this House. Lane Evans ably served the people of Illinois's 17th District for 24 years. He had been a public interest lawyer and a Marine veteran when he took office in 1983, and he got right to work fighting for his constituents by standing up for workers' rights, pushing for better care and benefits for those who had served in uniform, and advocating for greater opportunities for middle class families. Lane was known as a champion of constituent services, helping northwestern Illinoisans get the help they needed from federal agencies and ensuring that casework was processed quickly and effectively. And America's veterans will always remember him for his work on behalf of those suffering from exposure to Agent Orange and those disfigured by land mines. When the Rock Island Arsenal faced cuts and closure 10 years ago, he fought with tenacity and determination to keep it open and save jobs across his district. Lane was a self-described populist, someone who always put his fight for the common men and women of America first. He always kept faith with those he served, even after receiving the difficult diagnosis of Parkinson's disease in 1995. While his Parkinson's grew worse, Lane only grew more determined to achieve a better future for his constituents and his country. All of us who served with him were awed by his strength in body and in character as he faced that challenge with grace and resolve. I join with the many whose lives he touched and made better throughout Illinois and across the country in paying tribute to Lane Evans and his legacy. I want to thank Representative Cheri Bustos for organizing this special order in Lane's memory and for carrying his work forward in Illinois's 17th District. The people of Illinois and the United States--and the Members of this House--will not forget Lane Evans, his work, and his unwavering commitment to serving the country and community he so loved.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate and recognize Jim Xinis and his twenty-five years at the helm of Calvert Memorial Hospital. Jim has been a tireless fighter to ensure the best service for the people of Calvert County and throughout southern Maryland. Jim is an honest, confident, creative, and inspiring leader. He's been an effective manager and a visionary. His twenty-five years leading Calvert Memorial Hospital have been a period of growth and change that have increased quality, efficiency, and innovation for the benefit of patients and their families. I will never forget how, in the summer of 2009, when the nation was engaged in a heated debate over passage of the Affordable Care Act, I asked Jim to facilitate a town hall meeting at North Point High School so I could hear from residents of the Fifth Congressional District on this important issue. It was quite a meeting with over 1,500 in attendance--and Jim displayed such grace and tact in keeping the meeting focused over several hours on the issues at hand and making sure everyone had a chance to weigh in. It was no easy task. But Jim has never been one for easy tasks. Recognizing the challenge of rising health care costs and affordability, Jim created Calvert Healthcare Solutions, which serves the uninsured throughout the county. And under his leadership, Calvert Memorial Hospital has been the lowest cost hospital in Maryland for twenty consecutive years, with a reputation for providing a full range of services at a very high quality of care. At the same time, he has worked to preserve its warm community spirit, where patients can feel comfortable, cared for, and empowered. Jim's good humor and positive attitude have surely contributed to his effective leadership and his reputation for excellence. I wish him well in retirement and thank him for his extraordinary service to Calvert County, to Maryland, and to our nation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Anacostia Watershed Society, a nonprofit organization based in Maryland and Washington, DC tasked with restoring the Anacostia River for the health and enjoyment of its watershed communities, is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. Since its founding, it has been cleaning the water, recovering the shores, and honoring the heritage of the Anacostia River for the benefit of all who live in its watershed and for visitors. Founded in 1989 by Robert Boone, the Anacostia Watershed Society overcame early challenges as it sought to raise awareness of the deteriorating health of the river and its watershed after nearly two hundred years of urban settlement and industrial activity. Mr. Boone worked with local activists and attorneys to take steps to turn the situation around by working to relocate plans to build a new football stadium away from the river, to stop the Navy Yard from dumping toxic waste into the water, and to end the flow of sewage into the river--a project that will be completed in 2022 with the opening of underground tunnels built to capture and treat sewage overflows. During this time, Mr. Boone and program manager Jim Connolly were also working to raise consciousness in the local community about the river. Mr. Boone and Mr. Connolly hosted trash clean-ups, tree plantings, and numerous public events to get Marylanders and Washingtonians engaged with the river and to promote it as a source of outdoor recreation. The programs and events they developed in the early days of the Anacostia Watershed Society set the stage for the many important activities the organization undertakes today. Over the next twenty-five years, the Anacostia Watershed Society grew to become a powerful advocate for the river, its watershed, and the communities it benefits. The organization has expanded to include four departments essential to its success: Stewardship, Education, Advocacy, and Recreation. The Anacostia Watershed Society engages local residents of all ages in the cleanup and restoration of the river while involving the community in advocating for policies to reduce and regulate the pollutants entering its waters. I have been proud to serve as an advocate for the Anacostia and its watershed throughout my time in Congress. My first association with the Anacostia Watershed Society was as a cosponsor of an Earth Day boat tour of the river, aimed at gaining attention in Congress for the Society's advocacy efforts. Later, I was proud to work in Congress to promote policies authorizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to help restore the Anacostia. Throughout my involvement with the Anacostia Watershed Society, I have met many engaged and energized local activists who are deeply concerned about the future not only of the river but of our region as a sustainable place to raise healthy families. The Anacostia Watershed Society's vision for the future includes a river that is fishable and swimmable--as per the Clean Water Act--and serves as an urban oasis and destination for those in Maryland, Washington, DC, and visitors from around the country. I congratulate its members on twenty-five years of service to the communities of our region, and I look forward to continue to work with them to advance the Society's mission for many years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I thank Mr. McKeon for his leadership. We will see today a bipartisan action, bipartisan action on behalf of America, on behalf of its security, on behalf of our international partners in confronting terrorism. Madam Speaker, today, the House is fulfilling one of its most important responsibilities: to protect our national security and defend our interests overseas. Among those interests is to prevent the dangerous ISIL terrorist group from spreading and threatening American personnel, our allies, and innocent civilians. The amendment before us will authorize the President to train and equip moderate Syrian opposition to degrade and destroy ISIL in Iraq and Syria. No sanctuaries, no place to hide. ISIL is already threatening Americans and our allies in the Middle East and Europe; and, if left unchecked, it will surely threaten us here at home. This amendment is Congress' opportunity to demonstrate unity in support of the President's strategy and provide him with the authorization he needs to help train and equip our regional partners to go on the offense against ISIL. ISIL has already murdered and captured soldiers, innocent civilians, and journalists, including, of course, two Americans, and members of religious communities have been targeted, targeted for their faith. They are no more than a collection of criminal terrorists bent on imposing their fanatical objectives on others by force, violence, and barbarism. ISIL constitutes a dual threat. They pose a counterterrorism threat to the United States and our regional partners and they represent a destabilizing force in the region. Madam Speaker, we cannot ignore the challenge that ISIL presents to America and to the world. There is no question that there will be challenges. But we know empirically the cost of doing nothing is far too great. The President was right to wait until a government had been formed in Iraq that is ready to move forward against ISIL. Americans don't want American women and men on the ground, but Americans do want ISIL confronted. Congress has an important role to play in this effort, and this amendment ought to be a strong and clear message to the world that the American people, through their elected representatives, will join those in the region to prevent the terrorist group ISIL from running rampant across the Middle East. It is a message to our allies and regional partners that our Nation is prepared to train and equip those who are working to stop ISIL's advance. And it is a message to the world that we are united in our resolve to meet this threat. We clearly may have differences on this House floor, but we are Americans when it comes to defending our people and our country. Madam Speaker, with regard to the underlying bill, the continuing resolution, let me make some brief comments. House Republicans have chosen not to repeat their government shutdown from last year. I think they are making a wise decision. There are things I would change in this bill, just as I know there are things my friends on the Republican side would change in this bill. That is compromise. That is the legislative process. That is what our Founding Fathers envisioned. That, in fact, is governing. I am hopeful that this continuing resolution will give Congress the time it needs to complete work on appropriations for the fiscal year 2015 that meet our obligations to the American people and to America's future. We need a budget that embraces fiscal sustainability while investing in job growth and competitiveness so that we can grow our middle class. While it is important that Congress move forward with this 72-day funding bill, I am disappointed, Madam Speaker, that we are not extending the Export-Import Bank's charter for multiple years. Not doing so is another example of undermining our competitive position for the world and the competence of our job creators.

Mr. HOYER. As CNBC pointed out last week: At first glance, it might seem like a congressional deal to extend the Export-Import Bank's charter through June would be good news for the beleaguered institution, which supports American exports with loan guarantees and other credit assistance. In fact, it is the exact opposite. An extension to June could be a death sentence for the bank. I sincerely pray it is not. Congress has a responsibility to make sure the bank's charter is extended beyond June. We need a multiyear reauthorization along the lines of the one proposed by Ranking Member Waters and Representative Denny Heck. The Export-Import Bank is instrumental in helping small businesses access foreign markets, and uncertainty over its future has already cost American businesses lucrative trade deals. I urge us between now and June to come together in a bipartisan way to move forward with legislation that achieves this goal. I believe if the House is allowed to vote, we will achieve that objective, as we have in the past. While I oppose this provision, I will vote for the amendment and for final passage of the continuing resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I think it is in the best interest of America, the best interest of our national security, and I urge this House to act in a way that will make our constituents proud and safer.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, sadly, the majority is pressing forward later this week with two partisan messaging bills cloaked in the rhetoric of creating jobs and expanding opportunity, bills that actually do neither. We will today and tomorrow, for the most part, I think, proceed in a bipartisan fashion, where we will have views on both sides of the aisle that agree and that disagree with the actions we will take on the continuing resolution and the amendment that will be considered to give authority to the President of the United States to train and equip those who are confronting ISIL. However, after we consider that, we will proceed again on the partisan messaging bills of which I spoke. This, unfortunately, has been the pattern throughout the 112th and the 113th, this Congress. The American people are rightfully disgusted--in some cases, despairing--and certainly tired of the partisan games that lead only to gridlock that have made this Congress the most unproductive Congress in which I have served. This is my 17th Congress. The American people are tired of watching the Republican majority walk away from their responsibilities to govern in a bipartisan way. They are tired of Republicans walking away from our middle class when they have refused to raise the minimum wage, which has a majority of votes on this floor for passage. The minimum wage today, if it were in 2014 dollars and 1968 levels, would be $10.77. That means those at the lowest ranks of earners in America have seen their buying power degraded by over 40 percent since 1968, and yet we won't even bring it to the floor. When I say ``we,'' the Republican majority won't even bring it to the floor for a vote, and it has a majority of votes in my opinion. They won't bring a bill to the floor that ensures equal pay for equal work. Every woman in this House and every man in this House except for the leadership are paid exactly the same thing irrespective of their gender. Americans believe that is the right thing to do. We can't get a bill to the floor. We need to make higher education more affordable. Student loans have the ability to be refinanced just as mortgages can be refinanced. We can't get such a bill to the floor. They are tired of Republicans' obsession with undoing the patient protections and cost savings of health care reform. We spent 4 years pretending that we were going to repeal it as opposed to fixing that which could be made better on behalf of the American people. They are tired of watching Republicans walk away from every opportunity to get our fiscal House in order, as they did with the Biden talks; the Boehner-Obama negotiations; the supercommittee, composed of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats; walked away from averting the sequester; shut down the government; and several missed opportunities to pursue fiscal sustainability. The American people are, as I said, distressed, dismayed, and, indeed, angry at the Congress, all of us, because they see their board of directors of the greatest country on the face of the Earth not working. They are tired of Republicans' failure to move forward with bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. That, again, has the votes on this floor to pass, but they don't bring it to the floor. The Republican Congress has made it clear that their message to America is: You are on your own. You are not earning enough minimum wage? You are on your own. You lost your unemployment insurance? You are on your own. Sandy comes and visits the Atlantic Katrina visited. And what did we do on Sandy? We said, You are on your own. A majority of Republicans-- an overwhelming majority of Republicans--voted against helping those who were struck by Sandy. Export-Import Bank. You are in a business that is trying to export goods. You are getting a little help. You are being competitive with the rest of the world. What does this Congress say? You are on your own. Yes, we are going to extend it for a short period of time, but there are a majority of votes on this floor to extend it for a number of years, which will give confidence to the economy and to exporters and lenders that it will be in place. But what did we say? You are on your own. You want to buy a home? Well, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee wants to eliminate Fannie and Freddie and say, Yes, you are on your own. You need terrorism risk insurance to build and get a loan for commercial construction? It is not on the floor. You are on your own. The American people are upset with us--and rightfully so. I am upset with us. This Republican Congress has made it clear that it is about political messaging and nothing else. That is what they said to women when they voted against the Violence Against Women Act, an act which had passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion when it was adopted and when it was reauthorized, but this Congress could not get a majority of the Republicans to vote for it. It passed after 8 months of delay because Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it--what they said to small business owners when they voted against that Sandy relief, and it is what they told unemployed workers when they voted not to extend emergency unemployment. While House Republicans are using September to continue sending messages to the American people, House Democrats are talking about lifting up the middle class, giving a jump-start to the middle class. This month will be one of sharp contrast and, yes, next month and, yes, November. There are choices to be made, a sharp contrast. The overwhelming majority of the American people are for every one of the issues that I have just mentioned. Poll after poll after poll shows them to be so. There will be a contrast between obstruction and progress--between Republicans who have said their number one priority is winning an election and Democrats who want to win the battle for economic equality and economic opportunity for the American people. The American people deserve a Congress that is on their side. House Democrats are committed to doing what is necessary to jump-start our middle class, create good jobs, and open doors of opportunity for all Americans. Jump-starting the middle class means helping more of our businesses make it in America and create jobs that pay well. We, by the way, passed yesterday ``Make It In America'' legislation--good legislation, bipartisan legislation. It was done on a voice vote. The reason it was done on a voice vote is because there was some concern that a large number of Republicans might vote against it. That would have been a bad vote for them, so we passed it on a voice vote. It means equal pay for equal work and greater access to affordable child care. It means access to higher education, spanning job training and opportunity. It means enabling more Americans to own a home, save for retirement, and know with certainty their children will be better off than we are and that they were. That, Madam Speaker, is what the American people expect us to do. It is so sad that we haven't been doing it. It is so sad that we cannot have the House work its will, which is, of course, what the Republicans said in their pledge to America. That is what the young guns told us they were going to do. We have had more closed rules than any Congress in which I have served. That means that ideas can't be put forward. Madam Speaker, the American public will have a choice between a stark contrast of who is on their side. Let's hope the next Congress is a Congress of which the American people can be proud.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman and I have discussed this, and I believe he has taken the appropriate action in this instance, and we certainly support his determination.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information. Before asking him questions about the schedule for the week to come, I want to commend the gentleman. We had a meeting just a few minutes ago in which almost all the Members of the House rose in a moment of silence, Mr. Speaker, to remember those not only who lost their lives on 9/11 13 years ago, but also those who acted so heroically to save lives. We certainly remember those brave individuals that knew what was going on and took that plane down in Pennsylvania that we believe was undoubtedly directed towards the dome of the Capitol to decapitate the symbol of the world's greatest democracy. I want to thank the majority leader for leading us in that time of silence to remember that horrific event and to say, as he said just a few moments ago, we are still threatened by those who would use terror and barbarism to attack their own people and others around the world. So I thank the gentleman for his leadership on that issue, and I also thank him for his comments about the fact that we came together on 9/11 not as Democrats and Republicans, but as Americans. We now are at a similar time where there is a great threat posed to us and to others. The gentleman's suggestion that we would meet that with the same kind of bipartisanship is welcomed on this side of the aisle as well, so I thank the gentleman for that. Now, with respect to the schedule, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether or not--and it may not have been decided yet--whether or not the President's request to which the gentleman referred in his announcement and the CR would be considered together or separately? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Let me ask further--and I know the answer to this question is that we will have to see, but I have put our own Caucus on notice, Mr. Leader-- if we may need to be here for the week after the break for the holy days. Is that consistent with your thought? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. With respect to the Appropriations Committee and the CR, it is our expectation that the CR is scheduled to have a date of December 11. I notice Senator Cruz has made another suggestion. To clarify, is December 11 still the date that the majority is looking for to run the CR through? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Lastly, I would say that the majority leader and I have had discussions about this, and so he knows our strong conviction on this side of the aisle that we are still very hopeful that we could have a longer term extension of a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. We believe that it is very important to give some stability and competence to the marketplace, to lenders and borrowers and manufacturers, large, medium, and small. I hope the gentleman would continue to consider with his caucus the possibility of having a longer term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which, as the gentleman knows, expires on September 30. I yield to my friend.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, September should be a particularly important month for this House. It will be a month of contrasts. It will be a month in which the American people will be able to see that the Republican message to the American people is, ``You are on your own,'' while Democrats say, ``We are on your side.'' All right. Well, what does that mean? The Republicans' announced agenda for this month ought to be no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the gridlock in Congress. Instead of focusing on the issues that matter--creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, fixing our broken immigration system--they are planning to reintroduce partisan messaging bills the House has already passed. So we are repeating what we have already done, as little as that may be. Mr. Speaker, it appears as if the Republican House majority in the 113th Congress will go out much as it came in: fixated on a single goal. The Republican chairman of the Rules Committee, Pete Sessions, summed up that goal late last year when he said--and I quote Congressman Sessions, Republican chairman of the Rules Committee: ``Everything we do in this body should be about messaging to win back the Senate.'' Not about creating jobs, not about making America more secure, not about energy, not about the minimum wage, not about immigration reform, not about making sure that women get equal pay for equal work, not about any of those things. The chairman of the Rules Committee that controls how we consider legislation on this floor said it is about messaging so we can take back the Senate. All of us should remember that when Senator McConnell was asked a few years ago in the first term of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, he said, when asked, What is your major objective? his response was, To ensure that President Obama is a one-term President. Again, not about jobs, not about the economy, not about growing the middle class, not about making sure voting rights were secured, but making sure that President Obama only served one term. He failed in that objective, but the fact of the matter is they have stayed on that messaging and objective. Central to achieving that goal Republicans believe is to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act. And it comes without a shock to anyone that this month will also feature--as a matter of fact, this week--the 53rd vote to do just that. However, Mr. Speaker, the American people are obviously tired of partisan gridlock. All of us hear that and all of us on both sides of the aisle say we don't want partisan gridlock, but we have seen wasted opportunities in this House over and over again for Congress to make headway on the challenges that we face as a nation. Many are asking what happened to the promise Republicans made in 2010 when, in their pledge to America, they wrote--and again I quote--in their pledge to America: a plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty--by the way, they are the ones who threatened to default on the debt twice and who shut down the greatest government on the face of the Earth and the greatest country on the face of the Earth, shut down its government for 16 days at a cost of $24 billion. A plan, they said, to create jobs and economic certainty--it was uncertainty they created--and make America more competitive. They said that must be the first and most urgent domestic priority of our government. That is what they said in the pledge, but Chairman Sessions said, of course, messaging to take back the Senate was their major objective; therefore, that was a promise forgotten. Throughout September, House Democrats will be outlining how Republicans have failed to focus on the issues Americans care about and what Congress should be doing instead. House Democrats are ready to jump-start the middle class. That is not just a phrase. We know the middle class is shrinking, and we know to the extent the middle class is shrinking, America will not be doing as well. We need to expand the middle class, giving opportunities for those who are not in the middle class to climb ladders of opportunity to get into the middle class. We need to move our economy beyond recovery and into prosperity. We are for raising the minimum wage and ensuring equal pay for equal work. The overwhelming majority of Americans are for that. Poll after poll after poll shows that over 70 percent of America is for those two propositions. In my opinion, both have majority votes on this House floor. But Americans must be surprised that those two issues are not brought to this floor for action so that the people's House can speak. Now, there may be differences of opinion. Many Republicans may want to vote against the minimum wage, but America deserves to have a vote on that issue, and it has a right to have a vote on making sure that women get paid equally to what men get paid for the same job. They do that in the House of Representatives. Women are paid exactly what men are paid. That is right. That is what ought to happen. We need to fix our broken immigration system. My friend, Mr. Cantor, who is no longer with us, and I had colloquies, week after week after week, in which Mr. Cantor said, We understand the immigration system is broken. I said, We agree, it is broken. And we have done nothing to fix it. The Republicans have passed some five or six bills to fix it. They haven't brought their own bills to the floor so that the House could work its will. I don't believe that is the kind of Congress, Mr. Speaker, that America wants. We need to fix that system in a way that secures our border and brings millions out of the shadows. Mr. Speaker, we need to bring to the floor bipartisan Make It In America jobs bills designed to grow our manufacturing base, help our businesses to compete, and attract jobs that pay well and open doors of opportunity to workers and their families. The Republican-led committee passed out a bill sponsored by Mr. Lipinski almost unanimously--I think it was on a voice vote--a bill that passed in the last Congress with over 300 votes. I have been asking for the last 10 months that that bill be brought to the floor. All it says is America needs to have a playbook, a plan, a strategy, if you will, to grow our manufacturing sector, create more middle class jobs and compete with the rest of the world. We cannot get that bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that is the kind of Congress America wants. These are the issues that the American people want Congress to focus on, not undoing the patient protections and cost savings that health care reform has brought, not rebranding an antiregulatory and antiworker platform as a jobs package that would add--Mr. Speaker, Americans are going to be astounded, legislation we are going to consider this week will add $560 billion to the debt. Now, we passed most of those bills and created a larger debt by more than that $560 billion already, but we are going to do it again--not wasting taxpayers' money and time on partisan lawsuits and investigations, not giving the American people the least productive, and least open Congress in modern history. The pledge to America talked about transparency. We have had more closed rules in this Congress than any Congress in which I have served. Mr. Speaker, Americans want leaders who are on their side, not ones who have broken their promises. They need and deserve a people's House that is truly on their side.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in today's paper, there is an op-ed. It is written by the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the new majority leader. And in that op-ed he said: ``I have always believed that you must win the argument before you can win the vote. In Congress, committees act as idea factories for policies from both sides, and as majority leader, I will commit to the committee process and regular order.'' Apparently, he didn't start yesterday doing that. And we don't start today doing that. This legislation has not been considered by committee, subcommittee, and none of us have seen it at this point in time. I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma say that the legislation is going to do this, that, and the other. We haven't seen it. It is 10:15. We haven't seen it. No regular order. No exercising of responsibility. We saw irresponsibility rampant yesterday in the House of Representatives. We saw a few months ago, shutting down government if you don't do it my way. I will tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, none of the leaders of the Republican Party have reached across to say, how can we do this in a bipartisan way. And so, because of their unwillingness to do that, Mr. Speaker, the Senate is gone. What we do today will be useless, a show, a form without substance, a pretense, a political message to their base of how hard they can be because they are moving in exactly the opposite direction of trying to create bipartisanship. So I urge my colleagues, stand up for doing the right thing and giving the resources necessary to meet the challenge that America has and America ought to be meeting today and yesterday and the day before.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we would like to work on that. As I said, no option has been given to us for that. Secondly, you are not following regular order on the legislation. What is needed now are resources. And the reason the Senate didn't act is because no Member of your party would support action. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have taken two bad bills that failed to meet the challenge of the humanitarian crisis on the border and made them worse. They are worse for children. They are worse for women. And they are worse for those who were brought here as children, grew up here, and know no other home than America. These bills do not reflect America's values and our highest ideals. The bills that were put forward yesterday had no chance of seeing action in the Senate. Neither do these. In fact, Representative John Fleming is reported to have said that the supplemental bill is ``political cover'' and that ``not a single Republican in the House believes it'll be signed into law.'' I believe that statement to be absolutely accurate. Chairwoman Granger, my friend with whom I served on the Appropriations Committee, said, just a few minutes ago, doing nothing is not an option. And I very politely suggest to her what we are doing tonight is nothing. What we do tonight will not pass, will not solve a problem, will not change policy, and it will not give the needed resources that are necessary. Republicans have once again embraced their ``my way or the highway'' attitude, the same attitude that led to last year's shutdown, instead of reaching across the aisle and working with Democrats on bipartisan legislation that can address this crisis and be enacted. We are debating a bill that is not only bad in substance, but that was brought to the floor in near secrecy in violation of the Republican majority's own 3-day rule. How ironic. How ironic that Majority Leader McCarthy said in an op-ed in the Washington Post today: I will commit to the committee process and regular order. This is neither the committee process nor regular order.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the House action tonight does not reflect those words from this morning's op-ed. Mr. Speaker, we ought to have a responsible, bipartisan measure to provide the needed funds to address the border crisis, but we also must see this as a reminder of why we must pass comprehensive immigration reform. Speaker Boehner, himself, said the House would act, saying last May: The House remains committed to fixing our broken immigration system. This is not a fix. But tonight, we must address the crisis before us. Our Republican friends should work with Democrats on a solution that can pass the House--this probably can--pass the Senate--this cannot-- and be signed by the President. Nobody here, as Congressman Fleming indicated, believes that will be the case. Tonight will be a loss for rational humanitarian action and a victory for partisan, negative policy. How sad. How wrong. How disappointing to the American people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Madam Speaker, I was going to ask my friend from Pennsylvania whether he had talked to the Senate and thinks this has any chance of moving this week; and the answer I think I would give is no, it does not. So I agree with him. It would be tragic not to act. It is tragic that we are acting in a partisan fashion, which almost ensures inaction on this, the last day that we are going to be here. We should be acting in a bipartisan fashion, as I have urged the majority leader to do. What is a bipartisan fashion? A, considering the emergency need today and funding the resources necessary to respond to that; B, taking under consideration the substantive legislative changes that can be affected that will help this issue, will send the messages that the gentleman wants to send. He is my dear friend and a good Member of this body, but I will tell you, this bill has had no hearings, no committee consideration. Yes, there was a partisan task force, but this has had no consideration in this legislative process. The majority leader, last week told me that there would be no bill that did not get 72 hours' notice. The gentleman knows you have a bill on the floor, which is contingent, of course, on the passage of this, which has had a few hours' notice, at best. Last night, I think at 10 o'clock the Rules Committee met on DACA. So I will tell my friend that, had we acted in a bipartisan fashion, A, at whatever level of funding we could agree, pass a bill to meet the immediate crisis, B, have hearings on the ramifications of the law that passed with only two votes in opposition--over 405 Members voted for the 2008 legislation. We are changing that without a hearing either in subcommittee, committee, or full committee. That is not the way we ought to be working. That is not good for our country. It is not good for this institution. It is not fair. I would urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.

Mr. HOYER. I believe, once again, we find the Republican Party divided. Because they are divided, they are trying to cobble together some of their hardest-line Members so that they can get them to vote for this supplemental. And they put on a bill which has had no notice to the American people or to Members of Congress. It is ironic that people are supporting this who demanded that we read the bills. There was no bill to read until this morning. How sad for the American people. We have a humanitarian crisis that must be addressed without delay, and the way to address it without delay is to give the resources necessary and then pursue the legislative process, not together. It will slow it down, and I predict it will not pass the Senate. I think the gentlemen and ladies on this side of the aisle know that the Senate is not going to pass this bill. So if you really think we ought to act now, do so in a bipartisan fashion, and then let us debate the legislation before us. Mr. McCaul just said this is a real crisis. He just said it just minutes ago, Mr. McCaul, the chairman of the committee. This is a real crisis which demands action. The recommendation that has been made to us will undermine action by this body in the face of crisis. We should not pass this legislation. We ought to pass a very simple resource to the crisis now and legislation later. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?