[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.
____________________