Providing for Consideration of the Senate Amendments to H.R. Usa Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

I am going to argue, and I want to talk about this rule and the bill to which it applies, but I will take a minute, not much more, perhaps a little more than that, to talk about what apparently the Republicans want to talk about: proxy voting.

I will tell my friend that not a single one of my constituents, not one, voted for me so I would vote in this machine. Not one. Not one of them voted for me to vote in that machine. What they want me to do is vote to represent them, and they really didn't care how I did that as long as it was accurate.

Very frankly, I think that side of the aisle is promoting form over substance. Of course, the gentleman mentioned Philadelphia, September 1787, the miracle at Philadelphia. You remember the debate as Member after Member got up and said we cannot use Teams; we cannot use our cell phones; we cannot use Webex. Remember that debate? They said you can't use any of that, and you certainly can't use a rotary telephone. You heard them say that. You can't do that. You need to be in this room. Well, that room was in Philadelphia. Or you needed to be in this room. Well, that room is in New York.

My friends, you have magnified form over substance. Our constituents voted for us to vote their interests, and there are many ways we can do that.

They had not the technology. That is why they couldn't schedule a vote in 48 hours, because the horses did not fly. Form over substance.

You don't want us to meet. And the man who would be king does not want us to meet. I get that. Because you do not like the substance, whether it is the Affordable Care Act, whether it is trying to help renters and mortgage people, whether it is trying to help people in line. I get it. You don't want us to meet.

But we have an obligation and a duty to the American people to do so, to make sure that the man who would be king is not king because our Constitution, the people who met in that Philadelphia room, they had had enough of kings. They wanted to have people who would represent them. And they didn't care whether they voted on this machine, that machine, that machine, or, very frankly, as you are sitting in the aisle and you can't get by and you ask your friend: ``Put it in the slot for me, will you?''

I am not going to ask you to raise your hand if you have ever done that. But that was virtual voting. But it reflected your view, my view, representing my constituents and your constituents.

Now, let me speak about this rule and this bill because I am appalled, chagrined, disappointed at what is happening. We worked very hard to deal with a very difficult subject, Mr. Blunt and I from the House and Senator Bond and Senator Rockefeller. Ms. Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, and I was the majority leader of the House. It was 2008, and we were trying to deal with extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to keep our people and our country safe.

Probably not very many of us on this floor know more about the Intelligence Committee than our Speaker. She is the longest serving member of the Intelligence Committee ever.

Mr. Nunes and Mr. Schiff, they work together. Mr. Nadler and his ranking member work together. Just about 2\1/2\ months ago, we came to this floor, and we were all present. I don't mean we had 100 percent of membership, but we were mostly present. We debated that bill, and we voted on that bill.

We did what the American people so pined for us doing. We voted together as Americans; 67.7 percent of the Republicans voted aye, and 66.9 percent of the Democrats voted aye. And America said amen. That is what they want us to do, reason together and do for the American people and our country what is best for our people and our country.

We sent that bill to the United States Senate; 126 Republicans and 152 Democrats voting together. Two-thirds of the House sent that bill to the United States Senate.

I talked to Mr. Schiff and I talked to Mr. Nadler, and they said this House bill has the support of the United States Senate. I talked to leaders--I won't name them--in the United States Senate who were surprised that the Senate did not pass the House bill but sent an extension because they didn't really vote on the House bill. They sent it after we had left. We didn't pass that, and the Intelligence Committee made do.

So, the Senate did, in fact, take up the bill. What did they do? Two people who spoke, Mr. Burgess and Mr. Woodall, who voted with the majority, with the two-thirds of Republicans who said this is a good bill, this is a good bill for our country, for America's security, and America's safety--as did Mr. McCarthy; as did Mr. Scalise; as did Mr. Thornberry, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee; as did Mr. Rogers, the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee; as did Ms. Cheney, your Conference chair; as did Mr. Cole, the ranking member of the Rules Committee; and 120 other Republicans.

Now, there were, of course, as is not surprising, differences. This is, as the Speaker said, a very controversial bill. It is always a controversial bill.

My friend, Mr. McGovern, and I, who vote together most of the time, are going to vote differently on this bill. I am going to vote for it. He believes there are not enough protections in here. But there are more protections in here than when those named voted for it and 80 Members of the United States Senate voted for it, including 48 Republicans.

Now, what was different when they voted on it and 48 Republicans in the United States Senate voted for it? There had not been a snap of the fingers, ``Vote `no' ''; not an order from on high, ``Vote `no' ''; not a President who has been beating the drum and, frankly, his supporters have been beating the drum that somehow the law enforcement community-- the FBI, the CIA, the other this and that and the other law enforcement agencies--broke the Constitution.

This President shows less respect for law enforcement than any President I have seen at the Federal level. So he said, ``Vote `no.' ''

My friend with whom I work, the majority leader, called me the other night and said: You ought to pull the bill--the minority leader.

You know why I do that? Because we were all in the majority when we passed this bill. It wasn't a majority-minority bill; it was an American bill.

My friend, the minority leader, said: Pull this bill.

Now, I won't go into the rest of the conversation because we have private conversations about where we are going to go and what we need to do.

The only thing that has changed, Madam Speaker, is that Donald Trump has said ``Vote `no' '' to 126 people who voted with 152 Democrats for America.

By the way, the people who are voting ``no'' also voted for America. They voted for civil liberties, which we honor.

We can respect every person who voted because they voted out of conviction, not out of party loyalty, not out of a ``Yes, sir.'' They voted their conscience, they voted their conviction.

I wish this Chamber were full, but we have to be distanced. I hope some of my colleagues are listening on both sides of the aisle.

This bill is like every bill, not perfect, but as the Speaker said, it must pass. Why? To protect America.

We need to continue to keep making it better. My friend from Massachusetts will make sure that we focus on that, and I honor him for it.

So I ask my friends: Vote your convictions. Remember how critical you were of a candidate for President who said, ``I first voted for it and then I voted against it,'' how critical you were. But your flailing around to find a rationalization for your change of vote is sad.

Madam Speaker, vote ``yes'' on the rule and on the bill. Vote for your country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source