[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 118 (Friday, July 25, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6844-H6847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  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. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 
p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House 
will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week 
are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a 
complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.
  In addition, the House will consider a package of bills to ensure 
transparency and accountability within the Endangered Species Act. 
Included in this package are H.R. 4315, the 21st Century Endangered 
Species Transparency Act, authored by Chairman Doc Hastings; H.R. 4316, 
the Endangered Species Recovery Transparency Act, authored by 
Representative Cynthia Lummis; H.R. 4317, the State, Tribal, and Local 
Species Transparency Act, authored by Representative Randy Neugebauer; 
and H.R. 4318, the Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act, 
authored by Representative Bill Huizenga.
  The House will also consider House Resolution 676, which provides for 
authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other 
executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that the House may also 
consider legislation to deal with the ongoing crisis on the border.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
  As the gentleman knows full well, we have 3\1/2\ days next week. We 
have, I guess, 9 full days and 3 half days scheduled in September and 
the first couple of weeks in October, assuming that we meet in that 
last week of September.
  There have been some rumors. My Members have been asking me about 
whether or not there is serious consideration being given to not using 
the last week scheduled in September. Does that have any credence?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank my gentleman for yielding.
  Currently, there have been no changes to the schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  In any event, as the gentleman knows, in the very short period of 
time that we have left before the election--and there is a lot of very 
substantive work that, in my view, still needs to be done and that we 
feel very strongly about on this side of the aisle--the gentleman 
posits that we have four endangered species bills on the floor. 
Frankly, they probably could all be done by suspension on Monday, but I 
understand it is going to be under a rule.
  In addition to that, we have legislation which is designed to 
authorize a suit against the President of the United States for trying 
to do things when we can't get the Congress to act on them, so that 
there can be some movement forward on behalf of the American people.
  Does the gentleman believe there is any possibility of bringing up 
comprehensive immigration reform--either a comprehensive immigration 
reform bill that the majority supports, individual bills which are 
passed out of committee, border security which is passed out on a 
bipartisan way out of your committee here on this side of the House--on 
this side of the Capitol, or legislation which we believe would have 
had a direct effect on the crisis to which the gentleman refers may be 
addressed next week?

  It is not scheduled. I understand that the majority leader's party is 
divided on the issue of what ought to be done to meet this crisis, but 
there is no doubt, Mr. Leader, that there are going to be additional 
resources necessary to meet the challenge that we are confronting now.

[[Page H6845]]

  The administration has requested, as the gentleman knows, some $3.7 
billion. The Senate, as I understand it, is suggesting $2.7 billion. 
Part of that, of course, is to meet the needs of fighting wildfires. In 
the Senate bill, there is also money for Iron Dome--to beef up Iron 
Dome in Israel, but we don't have any language, if language is 
contemplated.
  So I am hopeful that language will not be included in any effort that 
is made next week on meeting this. You referred to it as a crisis. 
Whether you refer to it as crisis, challenge, whatever, we know that 
resources are needed. Everybody seems to agree on that.
  Unfortunately, we have not had that bill on the floor now, so we can 
get it over to the Senate and get it to the President before we leave. 
We are at risk, in my view, Mr. Leader, of leaving here without 
addressing this issue.
  Furthermore, last week, as the gentleman knows, I suggested that if 
we included legislative language on that bill, it would be almost 
impossible to get to the administration the resources it needs to 
comply with the law and to meet the challenge that has been presented.

                              {time}  1315

  Does the gentleman have any expectation that we will consider a 
comprehensive immigration bill that has resources and will be Senate-
passed? We have a bill here, as the gentleman knows, that we introduced 
many, many months ago, which is a bipartisan bill. All the provisions 
have been supported in a bipartisan fashion--some in the Senate, some 
here in the House committee--unanimously.
  Does the gentleman have any belief that we will consider next week a 
clean funding bill at such level as is necessary, at least until the 
end of the fiscal year, and/or some comprehensive immigration bills 
which will meet the issue and establish a process, the lack of which 
clearly is causing people to take actions which we do not approve of 
and not agree with, but are manifesting the frustration of a broken 
system remaining broken?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As I mentioned in the schedule announcement for next week, Members 
should be prepared for possible consideration of legislation to address 
the ongoing border crisis. Once the timing is finalized, the Rules 
Committee will announce a hearing on the measure to determine the 
process by which the bill will be brought before the House.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response.
  Does the gentleman contemplate that that bill will include 
substantive changes in law or will it simply be restricted to 
additional resources necessary to meet the crisis that confronts this 
country?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As I said earlier, you should be prepared for a possible 
consideration. Once the timing is finalized, the Rules Committee will 
announce a hearing to announce the process.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand the process will come from the Rules 
Committee. There is no text, Mr. Leader. We have seen no text to 
apparently amend legislation which was adopted overwhelmingly by this 
House and signed by President Bush.
  We need resources today--and we will certainly need them next week--
and we are going to go on a 5-week recess work period, at which point 
in time we will come back here and meet for a very brief period of 
time, and we don't have any text in this very substantive, very 
consequential area of the law, which obviously was adopted 
overwhelmingly, and we have no text.
  I understand the process in the Rules Committee. There have been no 
hearings, no debate in committee, no subcommittee, no full committee 
hearings on any legislation.
  As I suggested to you last week, Mr. Majority Leader, if you put 
legislation out there, you and I both know that inevitably that 
legislation will not be able to pass within the timeframe necessary to 
meet the crisis.
  So the responsible thing, I suggest to my friend, the majority 
leader, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the resources necessary to meet the 
challenge right now. And then, if hearings show substantive changes in 
the law are needed or further show what substantive changes ought to be 
made and can be considered in a thoughtful, effective fashion, we can 
then move forward at some point in time, perhaps as soon as September, 
on that legislation. But to do otherwise will put at great risk the 
ability of the administration and this country to respond consistent 
with the law that we passed and that was signed by President Bush.
  I yield to my friend if he wants to comment further.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank the gentleman for his passion on the crisis, just as we have on 
this side.
  Since we have taken the majority, we made a pledge to America that we 
post bills with a 3-day process. So, as I mentioned in the schedule 
announcement for next week, Members should be prepared for possible 
consideration of legislation to address the ongoing border crisis. Once 
the timing is finalized, the Rules Committee will announce a hearing on 
the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought 
before the House.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader for that 
information, and I am glad that he brought up the processes that are 
going to be followed.
  I want to quote to him something Speaker Boehner said on January 5, 
2011, when he took the gavel:

       But you will always have the right to robust debate in an 
     open process that allows you to represent your constituents, 
     to make your case, offer alternatives and be heard.

  The gentleman has told me now three times that the Rules Committee 
hearing is going to be open and they will decide the process under 
which a bill is going to be considered. Apparently, I am presuming the 
gentleman does not know what the substance of that process will be. I 
don't know the substance. I don't know any language that is being 
proposed. No Member on our side of the aisle knows what language is 
being proposed. Maybe Members on your side of the aisle know.
  So what you are apparently telling me is that we will have the Rules 
Committee solely for the purpose of learning what substantive changes 
are suggested in the law. And I suggest to the majority leader, Mr. 
Speaker, that if that is the case, we will not be able to thoughtfully 
debate it, we will not be able to have a process that is open, and we 
will not have a process which allows us to make our case, offer 
alternatives, or be heard.
  I would predict, as has happened 67 times to date, this is going to 
be a closed rule. One of my staffers, by the way, suggested that 
perhaps open rules ought to be included in the endangered species bills 
that we are considering. We are doing so many closed rules, open rules 
seem to be an endangered species.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the leader to please report if we are going to 
consider, as I think we should, a supplemental next week that gives our 
country the resources to meet the crisis to which you referred?

  It is our responsibility to consider it. It is our responsibility to 
give the resources. We passed the law, which is being implemented by 
the administration. We passed it overwhelmingly. It was sponsored by a 
gentleman who just spoke on this floor a short time ago to try to 
prevent and ameliorate human trafficking.
  A number of bills we passed this week on human trafficking were 
passed unanimously. That bill that passed overwhelmingly was also about 
human trafficking. And I tell my friend, we need the resources. It is 
the responsibility of the majority party and the minority party to join 
together to give the administration the necessary resources to respond 
to carrying out the law that we passed.
  If we want to change that law, that is also our responsibility. But I 
tell my friend it cannot be done in the timeframe that is available to 
us. We have delayed this so long, there is no time. And the gentleman 
keeps responding to me that the Rules Committee will decide the 
process.
  The Rules Committee normally does not decide the substance of 
legislation. It decides the process under which we will consider the 
substance. Authorizing committees, as my friend so well knows, decide 
the substance of that legislation.
  But we will have no opportunity to see that, apparently, until 
perhaps this

[[Page H6846]]

weekend, at the earliest, or next week. That does not give us time to 
debate it and it certainly, as everybody knows, does not give it time 
to go to the Senate and be debated. I think they will disagree, 
perhaps, on the language that is suggested. I don't know what it is, 
but there is a high probability of disagreement. Conference will have 
to occur, and then it will have to get to the President. And both the 
Senate and the House are leaving next week for their district work 
period.
  I would urge the majority leader to make every effort with his party 
to bring what I think ought to be our obligation: a bill which provides 
the resources necessary--and we may differ on that number--to carry out 
our responsibilities to implement the law that we passed.
  If the gentleman wants to respond further, I yield. If not, I will go 
on.
  Mr. Speaker, we have five appropriations bills which have not been 
brought to the floor. The Ag bill was on the floor. It was pulled. It 
has not been brought back. The Labor, Health and Human Services bill, 
the Interior bill, the Homeland bill, and the Foreign Ops bill have not 
been brought to the floor, nor has the gentleman indicated any of those 
are going to be brought to the floor next week.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is any plan to bring 
those bills to the floor in the 3 weeks that we will be back in 
September?
  I yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I know we originated this for the schedule for next week. As the 
gentleman knows, the House has passed seven of the 12 appropriations 
bills in an open process.
  To the fact that even one of your Members, Congresswoman Sheila 
Jackson Lee, has had 50 percent more amendments offered on this floor 
than the entire Republican Conference in the Senate for the last year, 
we are very proud of the open process we have brought back to the 
floor.
  While the House is not scheduled to consider a regular appropriations 
bill next week, as the gentleman knows and as I stated already, the 
House may consider a supplemental appropriation request next week.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, but that does not give 
me any clarity in terms of the five appropriations bills. The 
supplemental appropriation bill, of course, is not a part of those 
bills, although, obviously, Health and Human Services is being put 
under a great deal of pressure by carrying out the terms of the law 
that we passed in 2008 signed by President Bush. They need resources. 
The supplemental is to give them the resources.
  This is a scheduling conference. It is not just now, in my view, 
limited to next week, because we are not going to be here for 5 weeks 
thereafter, and Members want to know what they should anticipate as 
substantively going to be on the agenda in the 3 short weeks that we 
will have left, essentially, before the election.
  So I can't tell from the gentleman's answer, Mr. Speaker, whether or 
not any of those five appropriations bills--I know seven have passed--
are intended to be brought to the floor.
  I yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman initiated this with inquiring about the schedule for 
next week. As I stated earlier, in the schedule for next week we do not 
have anything considered in the regular appropriations process, but we 
could possibly have a supplemental appropriation next week.

  Mr. HOYER. Maybe I can just print that out and I will just read it, 
Mr. Speaker.
  We have an Export-Import Bank that is going to expire very shortly. 
It is of great concern to many people on both sides of the aisle. 
Forty-one Republican Members, Mr. Speaker, have signed a letter urging 
that this be brought to the floor. It is a very timely, critical issue 
for the competitiveness of our country. It has been twisting in the 
wind for this entire year. I worked, Mr. Speaker, with the leader's 
predecessor to see whether or not we could get this bill to the floor.
  I know what the schedule is for next week, so he doesn't need to 
repeat that for me--and I thank him very much--but does the majority 
leader have any idea whether we are going to consider the Export-Import 
Bank before the election?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As my friend, the gentleman knows, this is in regard to the schedule 
for next week. And it is not scheduled for next week. If there will be 
any consideration, we will notify you.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask the majority leader any 
more questions because I am not going to get any answers.
  The American people have a right to those answers. The American 
people need to have transparency, which was going to be brought to this 
body, frankly, by the young guns, and they need a right to debate, 
right to anticipate, right to participate, but the answer I get is, 
It's not scheduled for next week.
  Mr. Speaker, I know it is not scheduled for next week. Critical 
legislation was not scheduled last week, the week before that, the week 
before that, the week before that, the week before that, and every week 
before that--critical legislation supported by the overwhelming 
majority of the American people.

                              {time}  1330

  I am simply inquiring of the majority leader: Is there any 
contemplation of bringing that legislation to the floor before this 
Congress leaves for the election so the American people who are going 
to either reelect this Congress or seek new leadership have an 
opportunity on which to make an informed decision, which, of course, is 
what the Speaker said we would have?
  Certainly, we ought to have equal consideration for the American 
people as well so they have the right to robust debate and an open 
process and so it allows them to understand what we are doing.
  I regret that the majority leader in critical issues, like the 
Export-Import Bank, which relate to the competitiveness of this 
country, and like Make It In America legislation that we defeated last 
week on suspension, which we agreed upon--the majority leader voted for 
it and I voted for it. I presume--I will ask him anyway. I said I 
wasn't going to ask him: Is there any contemplation of bringing that 
bill, which got 260 votes on this floor, back to the floor, under a 
rule which provides again for America's determining whether or not we 
can find additional rare earth, which is so necessary to be competitive 
in international markets?
  I know it is not on the schedule, so he doesn't have to repeat that 
litany to me, because I get it. I have heard it now four or five or six 
times. I get it that it is not on the schedule for next week.
  So the question I ask is: Is there any contemplation of bringing that 
bill, which has 260 people who voted for it, back to the floor, under a 
rule, so we can provide for a better opportunity to make it in America 
and to be competitive internationally?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, this colloquy is always based upon the 
schedule for next week, and I would very proudly like to lay out the 
schedule for next week.
  As the gentleman raised the question, he very well knows we did agree 
on that bill just as we agreed on quite a few bills. As of today, there 
are 333 bills that have passed this House that have gotten stuck in the 
Senate. Of those 333 bills, 40 of them are jobs bills. We know we 
linger in a very tough economy, and the gentleman voted for a few of 
those 40 bills. So let me repeat: the 40 jobs bills are still stuck in 
the Senate. We want to encourage economic growth and innovation. We can 
ensure a robust American manufacturing sector and put Americans back to 
work.
  As the gentleman knows, as we sat down to lunch, we want to work 
together on that, but as of right now, it is not scheduled for next 
week. It was on this week. Unfortunately, it did not pass, but I look 
forward to continuing working with the gentleman, and, hopefully, we 
could work together to make the Senate move on those 40 jobs bills and 
those 333 bills that the American public would like to see move 
forward.

[[Page H6847]]

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority leader and I have worked together, and we 
have sat down for lunch. We agree on the bill that I mentioned, Mr. 
Swalwell's bill, to try to make America more competitive by producing 
more rare earth here in this country--so essential in the electronics 
industry and in other places.
  I can't control the Senate, Mr. Speaker. The majority leader cannot 
control the Senate. What the majority leader and I can do is control 
what we do here in this House to which we were elected. We can control 
either urging or, in the majority leader's case--and as the former 
majority leader of this House, I can tell you I could put a bill on the 
floor if I thought it was important for the American people and in the 
best interests of our country. I think the Export-Import Bank falls in 
that category. I think minimum wage falls in that category. I think 
comprehensive immigration falls in that category. I think jobs bills 
fall in that category. I think make it in America--the Swalwell bill--
fell in that category.
  We cannot control what the Senate does, but we can control what we 
do. We can move in a responsible fashion, which the American people, 
Mr. Speaker, expect us to do and not blame some outside group, whether 
it is the administration or the United States Senate, for our lack of 
addressing important issues.
  TRIA is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. It is not on the schedule. I 
presume, if I asked the majority leader about TRIA, he would tell me it 
is not on the schedule next week. That would not come as a news flash 
to me, Mr. Speaker, because he has told me that now seven times.
  I believe, if the House is going to act in a collegial manner and in 
a constructive manner and in a manner that the American people want us 
to act, that we will exchange information not just on what is on next 
week--there is not much on next week, Mr. Speaker. I know that. There 
is, in my opinion, a political bill to sue the President of the United 
States. The American people don't think that is a very good idea. That 
is on the calendar. So we are using the few short minutes that we have 
available to do the people's business on four bills, to send a message, 
that we could pass in, frankly, a very short period of time on Monday 
night on endangered species. We are filling time. We are treading 
water, Mr. Speaker.
  I will conclude with this. You have put the possibility that we are 
going to have a bill on the floor next week dealing with the crisis--
your word--at the border. When will we see text of that legislation 
that might possibly be on the floor?
  I yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
appreciate the gentleman's concern on the crisis. It is not just my 
word. It is the American word.
  If it were not a crisis, we would not have three Presidents from 
Central American countries here today to talk about the crisis. We 
would not have three Presidents who are asking to reunite their 
children with their families in their countries. If it were not 
a crisis, you would not have a task force that was introduced by this 
Speaker on this side to address it. If it were not a crisis, you 
wouldn't even have Members on your side of the aisle partnering with 
their Senators from another party, sitting in the Senate, to address 
the crisis.

  Now, many Members of this House have gone there to see the crisis. 
Some in the administration have not. This House is committed to 
addressing it as soon as it is available.
  We take great pride in changing this House. As the majority leader 
knows, he cares about the institution; but when the majority changed 
over here, one of the number one things we said we would do is a 3-day 
process, as you would know in importance, so people can read the bill, 
because too many times I have been to this floor when thousands of 
pages have come out at 2 a.m. and have been voted on that day. We made 
a commitment to the American people, and we have kept our commitment 
just as we will keep our commitment that we will end this crisis no 
matter what it takes. This House will act.
  Mr. HOYER. When it is available. That was the answer to my question. 
We don't know when it is going to be available. We don't know what it 
will be. We don't know, really, whether it will be considered, because 
the majority leader tells me, Mr. Speaker, that it may be on the floor. 
We know that it hasn't gone to committee. We know that there is no 
subcommittee hearing that has been held. We know that there is no 
committee hearing that has been held.
  The gentleman talks about thousands of pages. We can get into that 
debate at some other time. I know which he refers to, a bill that had 
literally more consideration than any other bill I have seen considered 
by the Congress of the United States--the Affordable Care Act, which is 
having, in my view, a very positive effect. We don't need to debate 
that today.
  I would tell the majority leader, if the crisis were going to be 
addressed, the first step is having the resources necessary to carry 
out the law, then, if the law needs to be changed, deciding how it 
should be changed, having debate on that, bringing it to this floor out 
of committee, and considering that legislation. There are differences 
of opinion on that. I recognize that. The gentleman has pointed that 
out. That would be the way to do it. That is the regular order of which 
you spoke and you promised.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that that could be followed. There are many of us 
who believe it is not being followed, and that is to the denigration of 
not only this body but to the American people's ability to see what we 
are doing, how we are doing it, when we are doing it.
  Unless the gentleman has something further to say, I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                          ____________________