[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 80 (Thursday, May 19, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2867-H2869]
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. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
schedule for the week to come.
  Madam Speaker, I thought I saw the whip. I am prepared to yield to 
someone to tell us the schedule for the week to come.
  Pending someone telling me about the schedule for the week to come, 
let me observe, as someone who has served, Madam Speaker, in this House 
for a very extended period of time--some 36 years--I was here in the 
era not too long ago, but long ago--when, if we had done to the 
Republicans what was done to us, what was done to switch votes so that 
discrimination could prevail, there would be outrage expressed long 
into the night from our Republican colleagues who would accuse us of 
undermining democracy, undermining this House, and making the House 
less than it should be.
  217 people stood up and said: We ought not discriminate. And then, 
very frankly, Mr. Speaker, the leadership on the Republican side 
started its activity. And I have been the majority leader, I have been 
the whip. I understand that process. And they reached out to people and 
said: No, let us be able to discriminate. Let contractors be able to 
discriminate.
  Mr. Speaker, seven people who had voted not to allow discrimination 
decided perhaps that principle was not as important as they thought 
just a minute or so before. I have a list of those names here--a 
lamentable list of people who did the right thing, who stood up for 
nondiscrimination, and then were opportuned to change their vote. And 
the Record reflects, Mr. Speaker, sadly, that they changed their vote.
  I won't characterize those votes, because that would not be in order 
on this floor. And they will have themselves to look at tonight in the 
mirror and explain to themselves whether their first vote was a 
principled vote, or whether they had a Damascus Road experience in the 
few minutes that transpired between their voting not to allow 
discrimination, until they later--just a few minutes later--at the 
opportuning of some of their leaders, voted to allow discrimination. A 
sad day, Mr. Speaker, in the history of the House.

                              {time}  1215

  I still see no leader, unless Mr. Dent, who I have great respect for, 
wants to tell us what the schedule is for next week. I would be glad to 
yield to him for that purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the majority leader is not here. The 
majority leader has a very happy day today, and I congratulate him. His 
son is graduating from Georgetown, and he obviously needs to be there.
  I was hoping someone else could tell us the schedule.
  At this point in time, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to politely offer a 
viewpoint. I believe that we do not view that the issue was 
discrimination. We have the viewpoint that, earlier in the week, we

[[Page H2868]]

brought forth a bill that passed 40-2 in the Committee on Armed 
Services, and that bill was brought forth to the Rules Committee, and 
we held hours and hours and hours and hours of hearing that Republicans 
and Democrats were not only welcome to attend, but did attend. The 
debate that we had on the issue was very full and was brought forth not 
only at the Rules Committee, but also on this floor. A decision therein 
was made. There was an opportunity for our Members to vote, and that is 
exactly what they did.
  And I am sure the gentleman would want every single Member to vote 
and have time to think about that vote until the time that the vote 
closed, and that is exactly what happened.
  So a characterization that this was discrimination would not be, in 
my opinion, fair or correct, from our perspective.
  And I appreciate the gentleman allowing me a chance to amplify that 
every Member of this body is entitled to their vote, and every Member 
of this body, without questioning, in my opinion, that vote, should be 
afforded that opportunity.
  So I stand on behalf of Republicans to say that we followed 
processes; we are following procedures; and we are following the 
opportunity for a Member of Congress to vote as they choose, and try 
not to impugn or to test that with applying the word 
``discrimination,'' which I feel is not accurate under our intent.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. And the gentleman 
will observe, I have neither mentioned the names, nor did I impugn 
their integrity or their motivation.
  What I said and what I will repeat is, initially they voted for an 
amendment that said there shall not be discrimination by contractors 
who get government money. That is what the amendment said. And they 
voted against discrimination, and for that amendment.
  But in a short period of time, they changed that vote, resulting in, 
not becoming law yet, but this House saying to the administration: You 
cannot require contractors not to discriminate. That was the effect of 
it. And characterizing the effect of a vote is what our debate is 
about, what our country's values are about, what our country's future 
is about, and the respect we have for every citizen in this country, 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And we ought 
not preclude those through discrimination.
  That I can characterize without impugning motives. But the effect of 
the vote, we had 217 people for nondiscrimination right up until the 
last moment. And by the way, the last moment was far beyond what 
Speaker Ryan has said ought to be the end of votes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. If I could just finish my sentence, I will certainly do 
that.
  I talked to the Parliamentarians. Interestingly, the presiding 
officer did not ask: Does any Member want to change his vote? Because 
once that, as I understand it, is intoned, then the ability to change 
one's vote, except to come forward and be seen in changing your vote, 
was not stated, which I suggest to the chairman of the Rules Committee, 
who knows the rules very well, is unusual--perhaps not against the 
rules--but unusual.
  And the vote was an extended vote. The Speaker, Speaker Ryan, has 
talked to us from the rostrum, saying that we want to keep votes to a 
limited period of time. Particularly, I would suggest, we all want to 
keep votes to a limited period of time when it is a so-called getaway 
day.
  But in this instance, that did not occur. In this instance, to change 
from 217 to a lesser number that was a losing number--215-214, I 
believe, was the final vote--excuse me, 212-213, 212 ``ayes.'' So five 
votes were switched, net. However, one person voted late. Again, seven 
people changed their vote.
  You are correct. They had a right to do that, but the consequences of 
that vote are subject to debate. And I raise for you, for this House, 
and for the American people, that the changing of those seven votes 
resulted in this House saying to the President of the United States: 
You cannot tell contractors that they cannot discriminate.
  That, I think, was unfortunate.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much.
  First of all, let me state this: I am a Republican. We do not 
discriminate. We attempt to follow the law, and the gentleman knows 
that.
  We make laws, and those laws can be subject to interpretations of 
what is and what is not, but we follow the law, and the gentleman knows 
that. And we follow the law, and my party follows the law.
  Secondly, the decision had previously been made the night before. We 
were not trying to do that today. It was, once again, allowed under the 
rules because the gentleman accurately--whether it is appropriate or 
not, that is up to him--brought forth, under an open rule, a limiting 
amendment.
  But we had decided this the night before. And when people recognized 
what had happened, that this was a vote that had happened the night 
before, off of a committee vote out of the Committee on Armed Services 
that was 40-2, there were people who then recognized what they were 
doing.
  It is not unusual to have people vote and then change their vote. I 
have done that also. But the rules were followed despite, perhaps, 
different procedural ways in which a person is in the Chair.
  So I will tell you, I respect the gentleman, and you know me well.
  Mr. HOYER. I do.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would not stand up here if I were for fear of one 
second of not being able to understand you and you understand me. I 
understand you.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SESSIONS. And I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  But let me make an observation. I wish the gentleman would stay in 
the well because he might want to respond.
  I did not accuse the Republican Party of discriminating. I will not, 
at this point in time, hazard an opinion on that fact.
  However, I want to recall to the gentleman that, in the Armed 
Services Committee, after due consideration, the Armed Services 
Committee voted not to discriminate, not to discriminate against women, 
not to say to women: Yes, you can serve, but you don't have to sign up 
for the draft.

  Many of us felt that if you are going to ask young men to sign up for 
the draft, young women ought to be treated equally. We felt not to do 
so was discrimination.
  That amendment passed in the committee and came to the Rules 
Committee--my understanding is--without a vote, without discussion. The 
rule that was issued from the Rules Committee said that, upon adoption 
of that rule, the adopted amendment in the Armed Services Committee, 
without a singular vote on this floor of the House, would be defeated.
  That, I say to the gentleman, was neither regular order, nor was it 
giving us an ability to make a decision on that issue. And I believe, I 
personally believe, that it results in continuing discrimination 
against young men and young women, one of which has to sign up, the 
other whom does not; but they both have to serve, or can serve 
voluntarily in the Armed Forces of the United States.
  So we may have a difference of opinion on whether or not that was, in 
fact, discrimination. But I will tell the gentleman that I was not 
happy, and I am still not happy that we did not have a vote on the 
floor about what we perceive to be discrimination.
  And I regret that the Rules Committee chose to hide in its rule the 
repeal of what the Armed Services Committee adopted.
  If the gentleman wants to respond, I will yield to him.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will concur that I, in fact, did offer in the bill a 
self-executed portion. Not trying to take advantage of the gentleman, 
it had nothing to do with the draft. So I will agree that I did take a 
piece.
  And to save this body, because a number of people who did vote for it 
in committee--which became a voice vote--did wish to change their 
opinion. But it had nothing to do with the draft, sir.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, it seems what the gentleman is saying 
is that people vote not to discriminate, and then some time a little 
later on, they have an epiphany that perhaps discrimination is okay. 
Perhaps that is what the gentleman said.

[[Page H2869]]

  

  Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask an indulgence. It had nothing to do with 
discrimination. It had to do with a new policy.
  And it is true that I did rule and put a self-executing rule in that 
did answer the question about the desire of the committee to handle 
this issue, and I did it accordingly. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears that no one is going to be able to tell me 
what the schedule is for the week to come. I will tell you that that is 
unfortunate.
  I hope there is a schedule for the week to come because there is a 
lot to be done. We haven't finalized Zika. We passed a bill here which 
we think was inadequate.
  We haven't dealt with Flint.
  We need to pass Puerto Rico restructuring. I think they have made 
some progress on that. I congratulate the Speaker and the leader for 
facilitating that progress.
  We don't have a voting rights bill scheduled. We need to do that.
  There are a number of other serious pieces of legislation this House 
needs to consider. We are going to go out next week, and we will have 
no colloquy next week, Mr. Speaker. There will be no opportunity to 
discuss the schedule for, obviously, the break, and we will have no 
schedule for June or the weeks thereafter to do some of the serious 
business that confronts us and to help some of the people in this 
country who need help.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that nobody on the other 
side is going to have any response.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________