[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 116 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5451-H5453]
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), my friend, the majority leader.
  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 in the House.
  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. 427, the Regulations from 
the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015, sponsored by 
Representative Todd Young.
  Last year Federal regulations burdened job creators with trillions of 
dollars in costs. This bill, commonly referred to as the REINS Act, 
will ensure that Congress has a say in whether

[[Page H5452]]

major rules should be imposed on the American people.
  The House will also consider H.R. 1994, the VA Accountability Act, 
sponsored by Chairman Jeff Miller.
  Getting the best possible service to our Nation's veterans starts 
with having the best possible personnel in charge VA programs.
  This critical bill will give the administration additional tools to 
turn things around at the VA and ensure veterans have the kind of care 
they deserve.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information with reference 
to the two bills that will be considered next week.
  We are coming now to the end of the scheduled work period, and we 
will be going into the August break. We just passed a bill, Mr. Leader, 
which dealt with a tragedy--or purportedly dealt with a tragedy--that 
occurred in San Francisco.
  Every Member of this House believes, I think, that a mistake was made 
by the sheriff in San Francisco in releasing this individual who had 
been convicted of numerous felonies.
  We also believe, if we had passed a comprehensive immigration reform 
bill similar to the one the Senate passed in the last Congress, that 
this problem itself would not be solved--because we believe that the 
sheriff should not have released this individual irrespective of the 
status of immigration reform--but we believe this would go a long way 
towards enhancing the ability of both law enforcement and of 
communities to deal with the immigration issue as well as giving 
confidence to people of their status.
  Does the gentleman believe that there is any possibility of a 
comprehensive immigration bill being considered in the next work 
period?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank my friend for yielding.
  What happened in San Francisco was not just a mistake. This 
individual had seven felonies. It is not miscommunication. Kate lost 
her life and should not had to have.
  Sanctuary cities are made up of individuals who believe they can make 
their own law and disregard the law of the Federal Government.
  I think today's bill was a good first start. I do look forward to 
continuing the conversations on both sides of the aisle on immigration 
reform, but I have nothing scheduled at this time.
  Mr. HOYER. Just to make it clear, the mistake was the sheriff's. He 
should not have done what he did. It was a tragedy. We all agree on 
that.
  Very frankly, we don't think that he was compelled to do so by the 
sanctuary law that San Francisco had in effect.
  I will tell the majority leader that we had a difference of opinion 
in a previous bill, the Violence Against Women Act, where you did not 
include protection for immigrants when they came forward to law 
enforcement authorities and complained of domestic violence.
  We had a disagreement on that, and the disagreement was that we 
thought they ought to be protected, which is why so many law 
enforcement officials opposed the bill that was brought forward.
  I will tell you again, Mr. Leader, that we do not believe that the 
statute that was in San Francisco compelled or led to the actions of 
the sheriff in releasing a felon who had committed the numerous 
felonies and should not have been released. It was a tragedy.
  Let me go on, Mr. Leader, to the appropriations process.
  There are no appropriation bills listed on your schedule for next 
week. We have after next week some, I think, 16 legislative days left 
between now and the end of the fiscal year.
  Again, for the next period that we are going to be back and in light 
of the fact that we know what it is going to be at least--and I will 
have some questions on some things that may be on, but we know what is 
scheduled for next week--does the gentleman believe that our Members 
ought to anticipate the further consideration of appropriation bills 
prior to the end of the fiscal year?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As I mentioned last week, yes, it is our intention to get back to the 
appropriation process as soon as possible.
  As the gentleman knows, we are halfway done. We should finish our 
job, but I will make sure to keep the Members updated on the 
appropriation bills as they are scheduled and continue to be 
considered.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader. I am pleased to hear that.
  I know the Speaker observed--and I think he is probably right--that 
there will have to be a CR. In light of that, I would hope that the 
majority leader, in league with the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, perhaps with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
and with the Speaker, would initiate the conversations now in 
preparation so that we would not have a crisis on September 30, but 
would, in a logical and, hopefully, a cooperative way, have gotten to 
what action would be taken with respect to a CR. I would urge my friend 
to pursue those discussions.

  I would be glad to participate with him in those discussions with 
others on our side who will be involved in that process--our ranking 
member on the Appropriations Committee, our ranking member on the Ways 
and Means Committee, and our ranking member on the Budget Committee.
  I yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment.
  Mr. McCARTHY. No.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman and I have had discussions about highways. We know that 
next week the highway authorization ends. We are planning on leaving 
here, if the schedule is kept, on Thursday of next week.
  Will the gentleman tell me what he believes is the status of the 
highway bill?
  I know the Senate is discussing a longer term highway bill. Neither 
the majority leader nor I are very enthusiastic about that bill as I 
have learned in my discussions with you.
  Will you tell me what your plans are with respect to the highway bill 
so that we don't leave here without some sort of authorization having 
been passed?
  I yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. McCARTHY. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him 
for his discussions with me regarding highways. Just last week, we 
passed a bipartisan bill that would ensure critical infrastructure 
projects continue throughout the year.
  I know the Senate has their debate. Our bill goes to the end of the 
year with a long-term solution. The Senate currently is debating a bill 
that is not funded long term. I think the best bit of advice is to urge 
the Senate to accept our bill.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Lastly, as the gentleman knows, I have been very much involved with 
the authorization of the Export-Import Bank through the years. As the 
gentleman knows, Mr. Cantor and I worked together and came up with a 
bipartisan proposal in 2012 that passed this House overwhelmingly with 
approximately 140 Republicans and about 185 or more Democrats, so it 
passed overwhelmingly.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is any possibility of 
assuring that the majority of this House can work its will and the 
majority of the Senate--and I say that because Mitch McConnell, the 
leader of the Senate, is quoted as saying the supporters of the Federal 
Export-Import Bank have the Senate votes to revive it and will get a 
chance to do so.
  Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, It looks to me like they have 
the votes--and I am requesting to give them the opportunity. McConnell, 
who opposes the Bank, said he expects supporters to try to attach the 
reauthorization to a highway bill.
  Assuming that we get a bill from the Senate with the Export-Import 
Bank attached to it, does the majority leader believe that we will have 
the opportunity--and I think the majority of the Members of the House 
would vote in favor of it--will have the opportunity to vote on the 
Export-Import Bank before we leave here on Thursday?
  I yield to my friend
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I thank my friend for his weekly questions. I think you may have 
asked these questions actually more times than we repealed ObamaCare, 
but my answer remains the same.

[[Page H5453]]

  Mr. HOYER. I could not possibly stand on this floor long enough to do 
that.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. My answer still remains the same to the gentleman. 
There is no action scheduled in the House on Ex-Im.
  Mr. HOYER. I keep asking that question, and I keep getting the wrong 
answer. I will be faithful to asking that question.
  I say that with humor, but the gentleman knows that I believe this is 
an extraordinarily serious issue. The gentleman knows I agree with the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Boehner, that we are 
losing jobs right now as a result of our failure to extend the 
authorization of the Export-Import Bank past June 30.
  The gentleman knows I believe that 165,000 jobs are at risk. The 
Indian director of their export-import bank is quoted as saying in the 
paper, just the other day, that he believes they are going to pick up 
jobs and orders because of the failure of the Export-Import Bank to be 
reauthorized.
  I think this is not something that is not real. It is a loss of jobs 
and a loss of competitive status for our country if we do not 
reauthorize this and do so as quickly as possible.
  I will keep asking the question because I feel it is so very 
important to our country and to our competitiveness, but I appreciate 
the gentleman's faithfulness in his answer. I am hopeful that it will 
change.
  Mr. McCARTHY. We will keep repealing ObamaCare.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I didn't notice that ObamaCare had been 
repealed. I simply noticed the Supreme Court said it was a 
constitutional piece of legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________