[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.
____________________