[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 131 (Friday, September 11, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5969-H5971]
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 and Tuesday, no votes are expected in the
House. On Wednesday, 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 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.
Members are advised that, given the shortness of the week due to the
Jewish holiday, Members should be prepared for a full legislative day
on Friday.
Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business
today.
In addition, the House will consider H.R. 758, the Lawsuit Abuse
Reduction Act of 2015, sponsored by Representative Lamar Smith. This
bill will ensure that innocent Americans are protected against
frivolous lawsuits.
Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider two measures that respond
to the horrific videos released throughout the summer on Planned
Parenthood practices. The first is H.R. 3134, sponsored by
Representative Diane Black, which places a 1-year moratorium on funding
to Planned Parenthood while Congress investigates these videos.
Three committees in the House are currently looking into Planned
Parenthood activities, funding, and adherence to the law.
The second will be a bill sponsored by Representative Trent Franks,
which adds criminal penalties to people who violate the Born Alive Act,
for medical providers who fail to provide medical care to a baby who
survives the abortion procedure.
Americans are rightfully outraged by what was depicted in these
videos, and Congress and the American people have a right to know
exactly what is happening.
These two critical bills will ensure that we get all the facts and
protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information.
I would just observe that we share the view of the--you used the term
``horrific'' videos. As I understand it, these videos are heavily
edited. I don't want to get into debate about them; we will have that
debate next week, but we are certainly concerned about, as the
gentleman knows, 97 percent of the health care delivered by Planned
Parenthood has nothing to do with the issues raised in the video,
edited or not.
We would hope that we could come to an agreement on making sure that
those healthcare services that are provided to literally thousands and
thousands of women are not interrupted, but I understand that we will
have that debate next week.
Mr. Leader, you do not include in your schedule a continuing
resolution for the funding of government. As the gentleman knows, we
have essentially, as I count it, 5 full legislative days left. We have
8 or 9 days left, but there are many partial days.
We have 5 full legislative days left before the government runs out
of authority and funds to continue. As the gentleman knows, I have been
urging the majority leader and your side of the aisle to enter into
discussions on levels of funding and funding itself.
We suspended the appropriations process approximately in the middle
of July when the Interior bill was pulled from the floor. Presumably,
it was pulled because there was a possibility of amendments being
offered regarding the Confederate battle flag, but notwithstanding
that, half the appropriation bills have not been brought to the floor.
No appropriation bills have passed the Senate.
I have been urging, for at least 2 months now, that we have
discussions. I discussed with Mr. Van Hollen today there have been no
discussions between Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Price with reference to a
resolution of the funding levels for a CR or the length of term of the
CR.
I had an opportunity to talk to Ranking Member Nita Lowey today of
the Appropriations Committee. She informs me that there have been no
substantive discussions between herself and Mr. Rogers and that Mr.
Rogers, in fact, has no indication of what funding levels will be going
forward or what a CR would look like or the length of period of time it
would be for.
In addition to that, I have discussed with the leader's office,
Leader Pelosi's office--and I know that neither my office nor Leader
Pelosi's office have been in discussion either with
[[Page H5970]]
the Speaker's office or your office in a substantive way with how we
might be moving forward on a CR.
I, frankly, thought that this coming week would be the week for us to
consider a continuing resolution so that given the very, very short
number of days available in September for us to meet, that there would
be time for the Senate to receive a continuing resolution for us to
consider that and pass it so that we would not, again, confront a
crisis of confidence, a crisis in terms of ongoing government
operations, but also a crisis of confidence not only in our country,
but around the world that the United States of America could manage its
finances in a responsible way.
With that said, Mr. Majority Leader, can you share with us some
insight? Again, I know that it is not on the schedule, and this is
about scheduling, but we have 5 full days and 3 partial days and a
ninth day which the Pope is going to be here, and I know we will be
having votes on that day, but we have such a minimal time before the
government runs out of authority and funding for its operations that it
seems to me that it is critical that today or tomorrow or Monday, we
decide how we are going to proceed.
I will be pleased to yield to my friend, the majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As the gentleman knows, the fiscal year does end on September 30. As
the gentleman knows, we have had this discussion often because our
intention was always to solve this problem very early. As history
shows, this is the earliest we have ever started the appropriation
process for Congress.
I had grave concern during the summer, reading many of the headlines
from some on your side of the aisle and over on your side of the aisle
in the Senate, that it was a strategy to make sure the appropriation
process would not work.
When votes came to the floor, very strongly, you were able to hold
many of your Members. Counterpart with the number two on the Senate
side, Senator Schumer, his whole strategy for the summer, he was much
more effective where none of them came up.
We know the number of days we have left. We are continuing
conversations on government funding, and we will inform Members when
action is scheduled in the House.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, there are 5 days--full days--left to go. You
are right; we have been discussing this for some period of time, but
with all due respect to any strategy that we have, you only brought six
bills to the floor and passed six bills through this House, and that is
only half of the appropriation bills.
The MilCon bill got 255 votes; the Energy and Water, 240; the
Legislative Branch, 357; the Commerce, Justice, Science, 242; T-HUD,
which we didn't like and, apparently, a lot of your Members didn't like
either, 216 votes; and the Defense bill, 278 votes.
There was nothing on our side that stopped the appropriations process
from going forward. You chose not to bring six of those bills to the
floor. I don't take any blame on our side of the aisle, whatever our
strategy might be.
Our strategy has been consistent with, very frankly, the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee strategy, and that is to have funding
levels on both the defense and nondefense side of the ledger which were
rational and reasonable.
I repeat ad nauseam, as you know--and you are tired of hearing me
repeat it, I am sure--Mr. Rogers' comments that the sequester levels
given to the Appropriations Committee to meet their responsibilities
were ill-conceived and unrealistic. That is Mr. Rogers' quote, not
mine, not our strategy.
That was what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on your
side of the aisle characterizes the funding levels that you have
provided the committee for--I don't mean you individually--the House
has provided the chairman with to write his bills up.
As a result of being unable to do that, every time you brought a bill
to the floor, it has gotten a majority of the votes. Forget about us.
We can't control. We have 188 Members. You can pass anything you want.
The appropriations bill process came to a dead halt for two reasons.
Number one, it is because there are no negotiations for a well-
conceived and realistic alternative to sequester. That is what Hal
Rogers says--not me--your chairman.
I continue to be extraordinarily disappointed that we have not
undertaken any discussions--I mentioned Mrs. Lowey on the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Van Hollen on the Budget Committee,
Leader Pelosi's office, my office--any discussions which have allowed
us to come to some agreement so that we might in a bipartisan way move
forward.
Now, I understand there are a lot of members on your side of the
aisle who won't vote for anything if it funds Planned Parenthood. I get
that. They don't come close to making the majority of this House.
{time} 1300
Until such time as we start acting with the majority's will
prevailing as opposed to a faction's prevailing, I think we are going
to be in this gridlock that is undermining the confidence of our
country, of our government, and of our international partners.
I would hope that, in the next, perhaps, few days, Mr. Leader--and I
am prepared to spend time today, this weekend, Monday, and Tuesday--I
know we are not coming back until Wednesday--to try to work with you
and with the relevant committees, with the Speaker, and with the leader
of my party to try to get us to a point where we can do exactly what
you want to do and what we want to do, and that is not have this
government by crisis that we have now. This is the third time on an
unrelated issue where there has been a problem with funding government
as is our responsibility at whatever levels we agree upon. I would hope
that we could pursue those discussions. I have been urging that for
months now, and we haven't done that.
You also did not mention something that I have discussed with you and
discussed with the Speaker that I bring up all the time. As a result of
our failure to fund the Export-Import Bank and to reauthorize the
Export-Import Bank, we are losing jobs, and we have lost a substantial
number of jobs already. Speaker Boehner indicated in a quote not too
long ago that, in fact, there are thousands of jobs on the line that
would disappear pretty quickly if the Ex-Im Bank were to disappear.
Essentially, in terms of new loans and new products that could be
sold abroad, the Ex-Im Bank has disappeared as of July. I have had
discussions with the Speaker, and I think he has been quoted publicly
as saying he thought the Ex-Im Bank was, in fact, in some form, going
to be considered on the floor this month.
I ask my friend, the majority leader, as it is not on the schedule,
but, again, it is not as if we have months to go--we have 5 days to
go--before the end of the fiscal year and that funding for the Ex-Im
Bank expires. Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any
possibility of that being considered within the next 5 or 8--if you
want to count 8--legislative days we have left in this month?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank my friend for yielding.
I would not feel these colloquies were complete if I did not get this
question. I admire the gentleman's consistency in asking it, but my
answer remains just as consistent. There is no action scheduled in the
House on Ex-Im.
Mr. HOYER. With that answer, the gentleman can be assured that I will
keep asking the question, and I keep asking the question not to vex the
majority leader. I keep asking the question because the Speaker and I
agree that we are losing jobs. We are putting ourselves in a
noncompetitive position with the rest of the world.
By not bringing this up to the floor, Mr. Leader--I haven't counted
specifically, but I will bet you, however, that there are over 275
votes on this floor to pass a reauthorization and extension of the
Export-Import Bank. The failure to bring it to the floor is not because
it doesn't enjoy a majority of support--it does. When it last came to
the floor--when Mr. Cantor and I worked on the legislation and brought
it to this floor--it got well over 300 votes. Now, I understand there
are some in your party who don't like it; but, very frankly, we have
got to get over, because some in your party don't like
[[Page H5971]]
things, that we gridlock the Congress of the United States and make
America uncompetitive and undermine confidence in this country.
Yes, Mr. Leader, you are very tolerant, and I will keep asking the
question because I think it is critical for our economy, and it is
critical to get us off this gridlock where a small minority of the
Congress of the United States is holding good policy hostage.
Now, let me also ask you: On October 29, the highway bill will lose
its authorization, which we have been extending in very short periods
of time. The gentleman knows no Governor, no mayor, no county
commissioner, no contractor can possibly plan infrastructure
improvements--highways, bridges, sewer systems, whatever--on the basis
of 90-day or 60-day extensions of authority and funding.
The gentleman didn't mention it. It is not coming up next week. I
understand that we have a longer time--but not a long time--between now
and October 29 when the highway bill will expire. As the gentleman, I
am sure, knows and agrees, the failure to do that will have a
significant adverse effect on jobs for Americans and a significant
adverse effect on the infrastructure of this country.
Can the gentleman tell me whether or not he expects a highway bill to
come to the floor anytime within the timeframe prior to October 29?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As the gentleman did mention, the highway program is currently
authorized through the end of October. The relevant committees are at
work--I met with them today--developing the best path forward, and I
will keep you apprised, as well as the Members, and I expect it to be
done before the deadline.
Mr. HOYER. That is good news that the highway bill, at least, will be
done before the deadline.
I will tell my friend, like the majority leader, I had a discussion
today with Mr. DeFazio, who is the ranking Democrat on the relevant
committee, Mr. Shuster being the chairman. I know they have had some
discussions, but I also know that they are not very close to an
agreement. I know that neither one of them likes the Senate bill that
was sent to us. The majority leader and I had discussions on that. We
didn't take that up. I thought that was probably the right thing for
the majority leader to do, to not take it up.
Again, the majority leader says he is engaged. I would hope he uses
his good office to get us to a place where we can pass a bill in a
bipartisan fashion as, during my 34 years, has normally been the case.
That extends for a significant period of time--no less than 5 years--at
levels that are necessary to meet the infrastructure needs of this
country, both from an economic standpoint and a national security
standpoint.
I yield to my friend if he wants to say anything further. If not, Mr.
Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________