[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 98 (Thursday, June 18, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4526-H4528]
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) to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the week 
to come.
  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 no later than 3 p.m.
  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 H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer 
Protection Act, sponsored by Representative Ed Whitfield. This bill is 
essential for families all across the Nation. If we do not act, the 
electricity bills could skyrocket as a result of EPA's clean power plan 
rule.
  The House will also continue the annual appropriations process with 
consideration of fiscal year 2016 Interior appropriation bill sponsored 
by Representative Ken Calvert.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
  I note that the Export-Import Bank, which, of course, expires on June 
30, is not among the scheduled pieces of legislation.
  As the gentleman knows, Speaker Boehner has been quoted as saying 
that, if we don't pass the Export-Import Bank, that there are thousands 
of jobs on the line that would disappear pretty quickly if the Ex-Im 
Bank were to disappear. He then again said, as the Chamber closest to 
the people, ``The House works best when it is allowed to work its 
will.''
  The majority leader knows that I am absolutely convinced that the 
Export-Import Bank is supported by a majority of Members of this House, 
but this House has not been allowed to work its will on the Export-
Import Bank.
  Predecessors of yours and a very dear friend of mine, Senator Blunt, 
said not too long ago that he believed that, if a bill were brought to 
the floor of the House, it would have the votes. More importantly, 
because he is now, of course, in the other body but is among the 
leadership in the other body, he said that the bill had the votes in 
the Senate. I believe he is right on both of those observations.
  I understand the majority leader is not for the bill. It is my 
understanding that the Speaker is. I would hope that those of us who 
support it and, frankly, those who oppose it would have the 
opportunity, as the Speaker indicated, for the House to work its will.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether there are any plans prior to June 
30, when the Export-Import Bank authorization to give loans expires, 
are there any plans to bring that legislation before this House in a 
timely fashion so that the authorization would not expire?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman did say he knows my stance on this issue; and, no, 
there is no action scheduled before the House.
  Mr. HOYER. I apologize. Could the gentleman repeat himself?
  Mr. McCARTHY. There is no action scheduled for this House, no.
  Mr. HOYER. Does the majority leader intend to, therefore, have the 
authority of the Export-Import Bank expire, notwithstanding the 
Speaker's observation and that it will cost thousands of jobs?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There is no action scheduled at this appropriate time.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for repeating his answer. I heard 
that answer, but my question to the gentleman was: Is it his intention 
that the Export-Import Bank expire and, therefore, not bring 
legislation to the floor?
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding for the third time 
with the same question.
  There is no pending action before this House for next week.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for repeating for a third time his 
answer to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply observe, sadly, that the representation 
the House can work its will on an issue of great importance to the 
United States and to jobs in the United States will not be brought to 
this floor, notwithstanding the fact that 180 Democrats have signed a 
discharge petition and 60 Republicans filed a bill to extend the 
Export-Import Bank.

  That is 240 votes, Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker well can add himself. 
Two hundred and forty votes is a majority of this House. They reflect 
in my view, Mr. Speaker, the will of this House.
  It is extraordinarily regrettable that, when the Speaker of the House 
says that, if we don't do something, thousands of American jobs are 
going to be lost--it is particularly regrettable, just after we had a 
vote on a bill that many people believe is going to lose us jobs and, 
therefore, they opposed.
  How sad it is that we don't bring to the floor a bill which will, 
like 85 other countries--85 other countries--help us export goods? 
Those 85 countries, Mr. Speaker, are not going to stop helping their 
countries export goods, so the loss will be to our exporters and those 
they employ.
  I very much regret that that won't be brought to the floor. As the 
majority has told me, it is not scheduled; I know it is not scheduled. 
I lament the fact that it is not scheduled.
  Representative Chris Collins of New York said: I can't figure out for 
the life of me why my party, the Republican Party, that stands for 
jobs, and in every conference meeting, it is jobs and the economy.
  The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is on the floor; he 
talks about jobs and the economy.
  Here I am, says Chris Collins, in the majority of my own Conference, 
fighting to defend the Export-Import Bank, which is the best example of 
creating jobs in America.
  I regret that that is not being brought to the floor. I won't ask the 
question again because he has already told me it is not scheduled, and 
apparently, there is no intent to schedule. I regret that.
  Now, Mr. Leader, if I can ask you, we passed now six appropriations 
bills. Yesterday, the Labor, HHS bill was marked up in subcommittee and 
the Financial Services in full committee.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether it is the intention, whether they 
are scheduled right now or not, to bring all 12 appropriations bills to 
the floor before--well, whenever--all 12 bills to the floor?
  I yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, this is the earliest we have ever started the 
appropriation process. The gentleman is correct that we are halfway 
through the 12 bills, having passed 6 already, and we are bringing up 
Interior next week. It is our intention to do the work that we are 
responsible for in finishing the appropriation process.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that.
  Let me ask him further as he knows what is happening in the Senate 
and whether they can take those bills up: Does the gentleman 
contemplate, as the majority leader, or does he know whether the 
Speaker contemplates any effort to come to a bipartisan agreement as 
was done when Mr. Ryan and Senator Murray met and came to grips with a 
resolution and a compromise on what otherwise would be the sequester 
302(a) allocations on discretionary spending, which the chair of the 
committee, as you know, Chairman Rogers, has called ill-conceived and 
unrealistic?
  Does the majority leader know whether there is any plan to try to get 
us from the gridlock, which we are apparently in one more time on the 
appropriations process, to a place as

[[Page H4527]]

Ryan-Murray got us where we moved ahead in a bipartisan way and, in 
fact, funded the government?
  Although, it was not until December, and we had a stopgap measure in 
there. Is there anything scheduled to discuss that or to pursue that 
compromise?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, there is no gridlock here. We have passed 
half of the appropriation bills already. We have started the process 
earlier than ever before. As the gentleman knows, with just the bill 
before--very bipartisan--more than 46 Democrats joined us in repealing 
the medical device tax.
  I would probably tell the gentleman that his question really goes to 
the minority leader on the Senate side, Harry Reid. In reading some of 
his statements, he wants to create a shutdown, which I think would be 
wrong for the American people.
  I think the best way forward is for the Democrats and the Republicans 
in the Senate to take up DOD appropriations and move that to the 
President's desk.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend.
  There is no Democrat in this House, in the Senate, or in the White 
House who wants to shut down this government. As a matter of fact, we 
have not done that. It was done in '95 and in early '96. It was done 
last year when many in your party said ``shut it down'' if the 
President doesn't change his immigration policy. Any suggestion, Mr. 
Speaker, that Democrats want to shut down the government is simply 
incorrect.
  Now, what the minority leader has said in the Senate, I believe, is 
that, until such time as sequester is changed that it is not useful to 
waste time on bills that will not become law as we did, of course, many 
years during the Ryan budgets, which were never implemented, and they 
were never implemented in the House of Representatives fully--not once. 
Why? It is because, as Mr. Rogers said, they were ill-conceived and 
unrealistic.
  I just want to make it clear to the majority leader that I am 
prepared to work with him and with others to get us to a compromise on 
levels of funding that are realistic and well conceived by Mr. Rogers, 
by Mr. Cochran, and by others.
  Until we do that, we are going to be in a place where we are going to 
be, I predict, in late September, on the threshold of giving some fear 
that the government is going to shut down again, the greatest 
government on the face of the Earth. I am not sure what people around 
the world thought when we shut our government down for 16 days. It was 
not a confidence builder. That is for sure.
  We have another item that we are losing confidence on, the highway 
bill. You didn't mention, Mr. Leader, anything about the highway bill 
being scheduled. I understand it does not expire until July 31, so we 
have about 6 weeks, maybe a little longer than that.
  Does the gentleman know whether there is any compromise being 
achieved so that we can give confidence to States, counties, 
municipalities, contractors, the business community that they will have 
a funding stream to invest in building, repairing, and maintaining our 
infrastructure in this country?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will answer your question, but, first, I just want to make sure I 
clarify as to your earlier question.
  I am just reading here from Politico, as you have been able to read 
other statements. It says here that the Senate Democrats are prepared 
to shut down the government. Leader Reid outlined Senate Democrats' 
obstructionist plan for the summer.
  They have a title and a time for it, obstructionists for the summer, 
warning that, because of the Democrats' plan to block appropriations 
bills, we are heading for another shutdown.
  Unfortunately, as I read in other articles of this same time period, 
I believe the incoming leader on the other side, too--Senator Schumer--
said he was actually working with the administration on this. I do not 
think this is helpful.
  For the history of why we are where we are, sequester was an idea 
from this administration. The President is the one who put that into 
the bill. We are writing appropriation bills to the law. That is what 
our rules are and what we are doing. We are getting our work done, and 
we are hopeful that this Democratic plan of obstructionists throughout 
the summer will not come true.
  Now, you asked about the highway bill. This is a very good question 
and is one that I do want to work with you on because we were working 
together on this, Republicans and Democrats, from our committee.
  Unfortunately, as the gentleman may know, a month or so ago, your 
side of the aisle said they had to stop working with us. Part of the 
reason we were given was that it fell into the obstructionist plan for 
the summer, that it wasn't just about appropriations, but that you 
wanted to somehow shut down transportation, which we do not want to do.

  We want to get to a 5-year plan, and we were working with you on 
offsets to be able to pay for this throughout the rest of the year. 
Unfortunately, when the Democrats decided to stop this program, we had 
to just go to July.
  We know we have some time left, and we are very committed to getting 
this done. We think it is important for America to keep them working, 
and we hope you will come back to the table and work with us because we 
will be more than willing to work with you.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation. I think that is 
my reputation, that of wanting to work to constructively achieve joint 
objectives--in this case, the highway bill.
  Mr. Ryan is on the floor, but I won't ask him to yield for a question 
as to whether or not the Ways and Means Committee has come up with a 
way to finance the highway bill.
  I know he said that there is not going to be a gasoline tax, which, 
historically, Republican Presidents have been for. I am not suggesting 
this be it, but maybe tax reform, as my friend has said publicly for 
that.
  I will repeat, Mr. Leader, there is no Democrat who wants to shut 
down the government. I hear what you said. I know the quote. What they 
have said is they are not going to shut it down indirectly as you want 
to do. Now, you have done it directly.
  I do not mean you, personally, but the only two times that I have 
served in the Congress of the United States over the last 34 years when 
the government was shut down as a policy was in 1995 under Newt 
Gingrich and in the last Congress. Those were the only times, and I 
have been here 34 years.
  Has it happened inadvertently for a couple of days? Yes, it has, 
because the legislation was not agreed to or we couldn't get it to the 
President in time or things of that nature.
  Let me say something because, on your side of the aisle, you love to 
say this. You love to place sequestration at the feet of President 
Obama's. Now, my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, has not been 
here as long as I have, but sequestration originally started certainly 
in Gramm-Rudman--or it may have even started before then--with Phil 
Gramm, a Republican from Texas, and Mr. Rudman, a Republican from New 
Hampshire. That is when it started. Then we see all the time the 
across-the-board cuts--the 1 percent, the 2 percent, the 3 percent. 
Now, we have defeated them, but that is a part of sequestration.
  More importantly, on 7/15/11, your side, in charge of the Congress, 
offered a bill that you called Cut, Cap, and Balance. Now, this was 5 
days or 6 days before your allegation that Mr. Lew went to the majority 
leader then, Mr. Reid, and said maybe sequestration will help get this 
bill through.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, we were confronting the failure to 
reauthorize the payment of America's bills, the debt limit. That was 
what we were facing. What Mr. Lew was suggesting was that the 
Republicans liked sequestration, so maybe if we put that in the bill, 
even though we don't like it, they will vote for not defaulting on the 
national debt.
  In fact, that is what happened; but if you look at your Cut, Cap, and 
Balance bill--your bill I voted against--the fallback that you 
suggested was sequestration. That was about a week before Mr. Lew said 
to Mr. Reid that maybe that will get our Republican friends to support 
paying the national debt.
  That passed, by the way, on the July 19, 2011. It was 6 days later 
that Mr.

[[Page H4528]]

Lew, in trying to get something done to make sure that America did not 
default, suggested to Mr. Reid maybe putting that in the bill will get 
the Republicans' votes so that we will pay our debts.
  The problem is, if you know the facts, you get a little frustrated 
with hearing this representation, the President was for sequester. 
Let's just, for the sake of argument, say that nobody here was for 
sequester. Then let's get rid of sequester. If you are for sequester, I 
get it. You don't want to change it.
  There are a lot of your Members who certainly don't want to change 
it. I tell people all over this country when I talk to them that 
sequester is a complicated word. It starts with an S. It stands for 
``stupid.'' It is a policy unrelated to opportunities, to challenges, 
and to needs. It was a number pulled out of the air.
  I would hope, Mr. Leader, that we don't talk about ``you did it'' and 
``you did it.'' Let's talk about how we solve the problems confronting 
our country. Ex-Im is one of them. Appropriations bills that we can 
agree on is another and highway bill funding to give confidence to our 
economy and to our entities that have to keep people moving and 
commerce moving.
  Let's give them confidence. Let's sit down. Let's get these done. 
Let's bring it to the floor. As Speaker Boehner said, let this House 
work its will.
  The gentleman referred to the 46 Democrats who voted with him and his 
party on the most recent bill, which was a tax reduction and which is, 
as are all of the tax reductions that you have brought to the floor, 
unpaid for.
  Very frankly, as the father of three daughters, as the grandfather of 
three grandchildren, and as the great-grandfather of three great-
grandchildren, I don't like the fact that the expectation is they will 
pay the bill. They don't vote, of course, so they can't vote for or 
against us.
  My daughters can, notwithstanding the 46 people who voted for it on 
our side of the aisle because they are for the policy. I will tell you 
I have talked to a lot of them, and they are not for not paying for it, 
but they were put in the position of either being for something, 
therefore, or being against something because it is not paid for and is 
hurting future generations.
  The only reason I mention that is the gentleman brought it up, and I 
will tell him that there is very broad, almost unanimous sentiment on 
our side that we ought to pay for things, and when that policy was 
in place, we balanced the budget for 4 years in a row.

  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Hopefully, I can 
take from the gentleman's comments that he is willing to work with us 
on highways and on coming back to the table. I appreciate that.
  We may disagree on whether the administration put it in the bill in 
sequester, but I think history will prove me right. I look forward to 
it just as we worked throughout this week and passed two bills today on 
a bipartisan level.
  You may have disagreed with one, but 28 on your side of the aisle 
agreed with it, so did your President. We look forward to getting this 
work done for the American people. We work within the current law. That 
is what we look to do, and I look forward to continuing to work with 
you.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's observations.
  I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that in that spirit, there are 240 
people in this House who think the Ex-Im Bank ought to be extended and 
reauthorized. I hope we will follow that process. I would reiterate, 
yes, I am willing to work with the gentleman on highways or on anything 
else which will benefit the American people and our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________