[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 20 (Thursday, February 5, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H834-H837]
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 rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the 
schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, Mr. McCarthy.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House.
  On Tuesday, 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 Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
morning-hour and noon for legislative business.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. 
Last votes of the week are expected around noon.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next 
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business 
tomorrow.
  In addition, the House will consider S. 1, the Senate Keystone bill. 
After 6 years of waiting, this bipartisan bill, which will create more 
than 40,000 jobs, will finally be placed on the President's desk. I do 
sincerely hope he considers his longstanding veto threat and sides with 
the American people by signing this important jobs bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider two critical tax packages 
next week that will provide much-needed certainty for Americans and 
small businesses.
  H.R. 644, the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act, sponsored by 
Representative Tom Reed, will make charitable giving tax provisions 
permanent. This will also include provisions authored by 
Representatives Erik Paulsen, Aaron Schock, and Mike Kelly.
  Together, this package will make a real difference in the lives of 
Americans by encouraging donations of property for conservation and 
enhancing deductions for food contributions for those in need.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 636, America's 
Small Business Tax Relief Act, sponsored by Representative Pat Tiberi, 
with additional provisions authored by Representative Dave Reichert.
  This bill is essential to creating stability for our Nation's best 
job creators, small businesses, by making increased expensing 
permanent.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information he 
has given us. I have some questions on that information, but before 
getting to the bills that we are going to consider next week, I note 
the absence of the Homeland Security bill.
  That continues to, unfortunately, be mired in controversy, Mr. 
Speaker. It is a bill that I would remind our Members, Mr. Speaker--and 
I know the majority leader knows this--has been agreed to, essentially.
  There really is no controversy with respect to the funding of the 
Homeland Security Department. There are no amendments being offered to 
change the numbers or anything of that nature.
  There is, however, the holding hostage, Mr. Speaker, of this bill for 
the purposes of overturning the President's actions which, in our view, 
he was forced to take because of the inaction of this body after over a 
year of even considering the comprehensive immigration reform bill that 
the Senate passed by over 60 votes, with almost two-thirds of the 
Senate, Republicans and Democrats, voting for that bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned and the American people are 
concerned that a bill which is so critically important for the defense 
of our borders, for the security of our country, and the security of 
our people is languishing, notwithstanding the fact that we have 
agreement on the underlying bill. There is no disagreement in my view.
  The Homeland Security bill, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, would pass 
with over 400 votes if it were brought to this floor, but for the fact 
that it is being held hostage to force the President to do something 
that the Senate clearly has indicated they are not going to approve.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge the majority leader to bring to the floor a 
clean bill. By clean, I mean the Republican-reported bill--not our 
bill, but a compromise bill--a Republican-reported bill in December, 
conferenced--conference may overstate it because it was the four 
leaders, Republicans and Democrats meeting--and they brought out of 
that meeting to this floor a Homeland Security bill that could pass 
overwhelmingly.
  Every day that we delay puts us closer to the February 27 deadline 
that was set in December for the funding of this bill, taken out of the 
omnibus appropriation bill that we passed, put on a short-term leash, 
putting our homeland security at risk.
  Mr. Speaker and Mr. Majority Leader, I would ask you: Is there any 
plan at some point in time to say we are not going to snatch defeat 
from the jaws of compromise?
  The leader knows. The leader is very astute. He understands this body 
very well and knows full well that the underlying bill has consensus.
  If there is anything that is frustrating the American people, it is 
that when we have something that we agree upon, we turn it into 
something that we can't agree on.
  I yield to my friend, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of telling me what 
his view is as to when we are going to be able to pass an appropriation 
bill to ensure

[[Page H835]]

that the Homeland Security Department can operate in an effective, 
efficient manner to protect America and Americans.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I share the gentleman's frustration. Knowing the timeline of dealing 
with funding of Homeland Security, Republicans want to make sure it is 
funded. That is why we took up legislation. I agree with the gentleman. 
Why is it being held hostage by the Democrats in the Senate?
  As my good friend knows, the Senate has changed hands. In watching 
what has happened on Keystone, you get open debate. I know you didn't 
have amendments for the last number of years, but now, you have the 
opportunity.

  If people disagree with the House bill, all they have to do is take 
the bill up. As my good friend knows, what is happening in the Senate 
day after day is the Senate Democrats are voting now to allow the bill 
to come up. If you disagree with the bill, you can't offer amendments, 
you can't change the bill.
  I would say to my friend: I share your frustration. I think our 
direction should be at the Senate Democrats and getting them to allow 
the bill to come up because nobody wants Homeland Security not to be 
funded. That is why we took the bill up very early, so the Senate could 
have time.
  It is unfortunate that they play these actions in a time and place--
as you said, the American people want to see this done, and we want to 
see it done in a bipartisan manner as well.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, Mr. Speaker, but, 
frankly, the American people ought not to be confused. There is a 
bipartisan agreement. We did not send, however, the bipartisan-agreed 
bill to the Senate.
  We did, as we so often do, add to a bipartisan agreement something 
that does not have agreement, and that undermines the ability of this 
Congress to work on behalf of the American people in an effective way.
  Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader knows that. He knows 
it because I have had discussions with him. He knows it because, 
publicly, the President has said, Democrats have said: We don't agree 
with the provision you're adding to something that has been agreed upon 
in a bipartisan fashion by the Senate and by the House.
  The majority leader knows full well that if we sent a clean bill that 
has already been agreed upon by the Appropriations Committee in the 
House, by the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, by Republicans 
and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee in the House and by 
Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee in the United 
States Senate, already agreed to--now, let me, Mr. Speaker, read you 
some comments by someone who I had a great opportunity to serve with in 
this Congress.
  Secretary Tom Ridge--the first Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security, a Republican--and Michael Chertoff, who was also a 
Republican Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, joined 
with Secretary--now president--Napolitano. The president wanted great 
educational institutions in our country; she was then Secretary and 
former Governor of Arizona.
  All three of them said:

       Funding for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy 
     by the debate about immigration.

  Again, I remind you that this is Secretary Ridge, former Republican 
Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the former Republican 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Michael Chertoff, 
former Republican Secretary of the Homeland Security Department; as 
well as Secretary Napolitano.
  They said:

       It is imperative that we ensure that the Department of 
     Homeland Security is ready, willing, and able to protect the 
     American people. To that end, we urge you not to risk funding 
     for the operations that protect every American and pass a 
     clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill.

  I agree with Secretary Ridge. I agree with Secretary Chertoff.
  When my friend says, ``Oh, it's the Senate,'' I disagree with my 
friend. It is the Senate who has not passed a bill. Of course, 
complaining about the 60-vote requirement after having required the 
most number of cloture votes in history in the last Congress by the 
current majority leader of the United States Senate when he was 
minority leader is a little difficult to understand. I choose my words 
carefully on that.
  The fact of the matter is we are putting at risk the security of the 
American people. We have seen in Canada, we have seen in France, and we 
have seen in the Middle East horrific terrorist acts. This Department 
was created to prevent such acts.
  By God's grace and their work, America has been very fortunate since 
September 11, 2001.

                              {time}  1200

  The Secretaries are saying don't put that at risk.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge once again not only the majority leader 
but the majority party in this House to accept the fact that we do not 
have agreement on immigration.
  I accept the fact that they believe the President has acted 
incorrectly. What I do not accept, Mr. Speaker, is that they are 
holding hostage the budget for the Department of Homeland Security in 
order to make their point on immigration. I would hope that the 
majority leader would urge his side of the aisle to not do that.
  I close on this particular issue with this quote. When asked what was 
going to happen when time ran out on February 27 on this funding of the 
Department of Homeland Security, John McCain, former Presidential 
candidate on the Republican side of the aisle, former Republican Member 
of this body and now the Republican chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee in the United States Senate, said this when asked what was 
going to happen on February 27. He said: ``Your guess is as good as 
mine.''
  What do you think our adversaries think when, on the Department of 
Homeland Security, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee says: 
``Your guess is as good as mine''?
  He goes on and says this: ``I believe in one fundamental principle; 
that is, we cannot shut down the Department of Homeland Security.''
  Unfortunately, the Republican whip, my friend, observed that, well, 
we maybe just can do that.
  Now, the theory is, Mr. Speaker, that because it is funded out of 
fees and because they are critically important employees, that we won't 
shut down the Department in one sense. But in another sense, we will 
preclude it from being empowered by the bipartisan bill passed out of 
the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, and which we considered in December, to perform its duties.
  I will yield to my friend, Mr. Speaker, if he wants to make an 
additional comment. If not, I will go on to some of the other 
legislation that needs discussion.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding because 
I listened a long time.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate it.
  Mr. McCARTHY. But you also very well know, the votes in the Senate 
that just took place for the last 2 days were to bring the bill up. And 
that quote you gave from John McCain? He is frustrated because he would 
like to get on to the bill.
  There are two different Chambers. If it is, as you say, a strong 
bipartisan vote over there, the only people holding up bringing this 
bill to the floor are the Senate Democrats. It is unfair to claim 
anything other.
  They have denied for 2 days straight. If they want to make an 
amendment, if they want to change the bill--but they deny the American 
people the chance to even bring the bill up.
  So let's be honest with the American people on where we are because 
nobody on this side of the aisle wants Homeland Security in any 
trouble.
  We passed the bill early. We sent it to the Senate early. For 2 days 
in a row, the majority has asked to allow the bill to come to the 
floor, and for 2 days straight, the Democrats have said ``no,'' not 
even to debate it. That, to me, is unacceptable.
  If you have a difference of opinion, you debate the opinion. But to 
deny the American public the chance to have that debate, that is 
unacceptable, and I will not stand for it.
  Mr. HOYER. I am glad to hear the majority leader will not stand for 
it.

[[Page H836]]

Over a year ago, the United States Senate passed, overwhelmingly, a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill. The reason they are holding 
hostage the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Speaker, is because 
they don't agree.
  But the majority leader has just said, Bring it to the floor. Let us 
vote. Let us offer amendments. We have asked that the Senate bill on 
immigration reform--which the House Republicans apparently don't agree 
with but on which the overwhelming majority of Americans in polling are 
saying yes, they agree with it.
  So the majority leader complains about a bill not being brought to 
the floor. The minimum wage bill is a very, very important bill that 
the overwhelming majority of Americans support. In five States on which 
it was on the ballot, it was passed, in some red States and, yes, some 
blue States, mostly red States, by the way, and there is a refusal to 
bring it to the floor.
  So, Mr. Speaker, when I hear the majority leader complain about not 
letting that bill come to the floor, the majority leader knows, and 
everybody in this body knows, that if that bill should squeak by the 
Senate, it would be vetoed by the President. And I guarantee the 
majority leader, that veto would be sustained here.
  I would remind him the reason the Secretaries say bring a clean bill 
to the floor, your Secretaries, as well as one of mine on our side of 
the aisle, the reason they say that is because they know that what I 
say is absolutely correct.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I tell the majority leader, who is my friend and 
whom I have great respect for, that complaining about not bringing 
bills to the floor, we all need to look in the mirror, because if the 
issue is comprehensive immigration reform and you don't like what the 
President is doing, bring a bill to the floor.
  Show us what you want to do. Let us vote on it. Send it to the 
Senate, see what they do, and then if they pass it, send it to the 
President.
  But don't hold hostage the Department of Homeland Security. Don't put 
Americans at risk. Don't turn a bipartisan consensus agreement into 
partisan gridlock, which the Americans hate, and which puts them at 
risk.
  I will go on to other matters, unless the majority leader would like 
me to yield to him one more time.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I would ask that you yield
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman.
  We were talking about looking into the mirror. Twenty-two times the 
President said he did not have the power to take the action that he 
did. From the time he said that to the time he took that action, what 
changed? The Constitution did not.
  I will remind the gentleman, because he was at the lunch that I was 
at with the President. I reminded the President, after the election but 
prior to being sworn in, we had this discussion with him, with Senate 
and House leaders.
  The President had the opportunity, when you were majority leader, he 
was President, and the Democrats controlled the Senate, to deal with 
immigration. They did not.
  We asked the President: Would you even give us 1 day in the majority 
to deal with it? He did not.
  So when we look into the mirror, I will gladly look into the mirror 
because I think the idea should win at the end of the day.
  But if the Senate Democrats will not even allow you to bring the bill 
up to debate, I think it is very hard for your argument to stand 
ground.
  This is a time that we want to make sure Homeland Security is funded. 
We took the bill up early. Just as the Constitution says, the House has 
their position, the Senate can have theirs. It doesn't say whatever 
the Senate says they can and cannot do we should just follow. No, we 
should lead, and we have. And I look forward to solving this problem 
before the 27th.

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Is the gentleman prepared to bring a comprehensive immigration bill 
to the floor?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And if you looked 
at our committees, we are working on it, just as we say this body 
should. It should go through committee, have debate on both sides, and 
be open.
  I believe this immigration system is broken, and I think that is the 
process we should take, not the action that the President took.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information, but I would 
observe that we have spent the first 4 weeks considering an awful lot 
of legislation that didn't go to committee at all--no hearings, came 
right to the floor through the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I am confounded by the representative of the majority 
party complaining about what the Senate Democrats have done and saying 
we are not for this bill when, more than at any other time in history, 
his party did that in the last Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, there are other pieces of legislation I am concerned 
about. Let me ask the leader, if I can, with respect to the apparently 
seven bills which the Ways and Means Committee has considered, are 
those bills going to be considered, Mr. Leader, seriatim, one by one? 
Or is the expectation, as apparently I think I am reading in the 
comments you made, going to be packaged? And if so, does the gentleman 
know how many bills are going to be in which package and how many 
packages there are going to be?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman brought up about how we bring the bills to the 
floor, the gentleman remembers that there was a bipartisan agreement 
toward the end of last year with the Senate and with the House. It gave 
greater certainty, and it was going to be into one package.
  Unfortunately, the White House disagreed, so we did not get that work 
done. In essence, it got stopped, saying it was too big.
  Our intention next week is to bring them up individually, have the 
opportunity for the debate, listening to the White House. Whether they 
want a bill too big, too small, I am just trying to get the American 
public moving forward, so I took that advice and did it individually.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment and the 
information.
  There are six or seven bills. Does that mean we will consider each 
one of those individually?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. No, they will be in the two packages.
  Mr. HOYER. In the two packages.
  I know that it is usually the practice in both bodies, or in both 
parties, not to have open to amendment. Is that your expectation, that 
neither of the packages will be open to an amendment?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for asking. You asked a question 
similar to this last week.
  It is always my intention to yield to the Rules Committee their 
jurisdiction to decide on the format of the bill coming to the floor 
and the number of amendments, whether it has a structured rule or an 
open rule. That is their job, and as soon as they make that decision, I 
will notify all.
  Mr. HOYER. Same question, same answer
  Mr. McCARTHY. Consistency.
  Mr. HOYER. When I get an answer, I will stop asking. How about that, 
Mr. Speaker?
  In terms of the deficit, I know your side is very concerned about the 
deficit. My side is very concerned about the deficit, and I certainly 
am very concerned about the deficit, as the gentleman knows. I have 
worked in a lot of ways to try to bring this down.
  One of my propositions is that we need to pay for things. Whether we 
spend money or reduce revenues, we need to offset that.
  Does the gentleman know whether there is any intention to offset that 
so we do not exacerbate, make the deficit worse?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know you are 
concerned with the deficit. I am very concerned, especially with this 
administration adding more debt than all the other Presidents combined. 
That is why we are trying to spur the economy.
  I firmly believe that if government takes less, that is more in the 
hands of

[[Page H837]]

the public, and they are able to spend, and more revenue will come in, 
and history has shown that.
  So I firmly believe that our actions taking place will actually bring 
greater revenue, greater job creation, and help lower the deficit.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I can't help but observe, however, 
that this President inherited the deepest recession that you and I have 
experienced in our lifetime and, as a result, we had to respond to 
that. We responded to it vigorously.
  Unfortunately, it made the debt worse, but what it also did was grow 
our economy better and faster than any other economy on Earth. We now 
have an economy that is growing, creating jobs, 58 months solid.
  We have increased, however, the debt by about 70 percent--too much. I 
will tell my friend, he may not know this. That is a percentage of GDP 
that--under Ronald Reagan, who could have vetoed every spending bill, 
the debt increased by 189 percent, almost three times as much.
  Now, in real dollar figures, it is easy to say that, like saying 
$7.25 is much higher than the minimum wage of 1968, when actually it is 
reduced to 46 percent of its purchasing power.
  So the numbers, per se, but as a percentage of our wealth, as a 
country, this President has increased the debt, having to respond to 
the deepest recession since the Depression, almost about a third of 
what Ronald Reagan saw in his Presidency, the increase of our debt as a 
percentage of the GDP.

                              {time}  1215

  I would tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to come together, 
work together to make sure that this country is on and remains on a 
fiscally sustainable path, and I look forward to working with him 
toward that end.
  But if we pass tax bills, as we did in 1981, 2001, and 2003, and 
pretend they are going to pay for themselves, it doesn't happen. We 
know it doesn't happen. And we look at it, and it doesn't happen.
  Frankly, many of us on this side are for a number of the bills that 
are going to be in these packages. Some of us will be constrained to 
vote ``no'' because we don't want to make the deficit worse.
  If the gentleman has a comment, I will yield to him.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This has been the slowest recovery. If you compare the recession 
during Ronald Reagan's time and how fast we came out of it, there is no 
comparison.
  The participation rate in America today is 62.7 percent, the lowest 
it has been since 1978. When you give up on participating, you give up 
on your future; you give up on your dreams. That is not an economy that 
we want.
  When you look at the tax package that we are bringing forward, 
charitable contributions, maybe people on your side of the aisle think 
government should solve that problem. I see charitable contributions 
back home in my own community solving a lot of problems locally very 
fast and very direct. And I think these are things that could be 
bipartisan, so I look forward to it.
  As you talk about the deficit, yes, I want to work on it. I looked at 
the President's budget. I do not believe government needs an 11 percent 
increase. That is how much new in taxes that he would give to the 
Federal Government. I think people keeping that would be better. And I 
think that lowering how we spend our money here in Washington would go 
a long way, and I welcome the opportunity to work with you on that.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Just so that the American people are clear on the record, Mr. 
Speaker, Ronald Reagan, about whom the gentleman spoke, didn't get to 
5.6 percent unemployment until his eighth year as President of the 
United States. And he did not confront nearly as deep a recession as 
this President inherited from his predecessor, in which 4 million 
people had lost their job in 2008 and 878,000 people lost their job 
when he took office in 2009. So it has been a tough time.
  But the good news is--not the bad news--that we have increased our 
economy faster, better, and more sustainably than any other country on 
Earth. That is good news, and we ought to tell the American people that 
is good news.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________