[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 179 (Friday, November 3, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8475-H8479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1115
                          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), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the 
schedule for the week to come.
  (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, 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. 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 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. 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 
today.
  In addition, the House will consider H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy 
Modernization Act, sponsored by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers. 
This bill will continue our efforts to improve America's energy 
infrastructure by streamlining the FERC licensing process for 
hydropower projects.
  The House will also consider two good jobs bills: first, H.R. 3441, 
the Save Local Business Act, sponsored by Representative Bradley Byrne. 
This bipartisan legislation will ensure small businesses and franchises 
across America receive fair government treatment rather than confusing 
regulations that harm workers.
  Second, the House will consider H.R. 2201, the Micro Offering Safe 
Harbor Act, sponsored by Representative Tom Emmer. As part of our 
Innovation Initiative, this bill creates a smarter way for 
entrepreneurs to start new ventures or grow existing businesses.
  Now, lastly, Mr. Speaker, additional legislative items are possible 
in the House. If anything is added to our schedule, I will be sure to 
inform my friend and all Members.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that information.
  First, I want to start by saying that the majority leader and I and 
four other Members of the House had an opportunity to visit both Puerto 
Rico and the Virgin Islands last weekend since we had our last 
colloquy.
  First, I want to thank the majority leader for organizing that trip 
and including me on it. It was an eye-opening trip. The majority leader 
and I have done an op-ed, which will be appearing sometime in the near 
term, on our observations.
  One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I know the majority leader and I 
had the opportunity to see, we were in Marathon, where you had housing 
that was built after Andrew and housing that was built before Andrew.
  Now, the difference was, after Andrew, that extraordinary hurricane, 
the building code was changed. We saw the stark difference between 
housing that survived essentially Maria and Irma and housing that did 
not, and the difference was, of course, that the housing that survived 
was built to different standards after Andrew.
  The majority leader and I discussed this matter, along with Mr. 
Bishop, who chairs the committee that oversees both Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands, and I think all of us are convinced that it would be 
penny-wise and pound-foolish not to build back, as Florida did, to 
standards that can withstand storms of this type.
  So I wanted to thank the majority leader for his leadership on this 
issue.
  The majority leader took the extraordinary effort to climb down a 
river bank, go across the river--the river was very low at that point 
in time--and then up a very long ladder, because people were stranded 
on the other side. The majority leader went to see them and assure them 
that we would not forget them.
  We were the first codel to go to the interior of Puerto Rico, as 
opposed to simply go to San Juan or another large city, so I thank the 
majority leader for his leadership on that issue.
  Mr. Leader, let me ask you about tax reform. That, of course, has 
been the big issue for some period of time now, but now we have a bill 
that is not on the floor yet, but was released yesterday.
  It is clear this bill will cut taxes, in our view, for the wealthy. I 
don't know the statistics yet, what the division is, whether it is 80/
20, as the initial proposal was, or perhaps a little less than that 
that goes to those over $900,000 in income. But, in any event, it also 
eliminates tax preferences that the middle class families rely on, and, 
obviously, we think it is going to face hurdles in Congress.
  What I wanted to ask was: When does the gentleman expect the bill to 
be marked up?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
am excited about his question, because I am excited about this bill.
  For more than three decades, we have waited for tax reform. Many 
people know the challenge of what they have with the government taking 
more than they should, and the challenge to see individuals raise their 
paychecks.
  Ways and Means has announced that they will start markups next week. 
I assume that it will take them probably a week to get through the 
entire bill, going through regular order as we do, and then I would 
assume that we would bring that to the floor right after. We would like 
to get this to the American people as soon as possible.
  I am willing to talk about the bill, I am willing to talk about the 
bill in any different manner, because we spent a lot of time working on 
this.
  The very first thing that is going to happen for the American public, 
come January 1, they are going to get more in their paycheck, because 
what we do, we take the standard deduction, because in the current law 
today, a single individual in America, it is only the first $6,000 they 
have are tax free. Well, that is going to go to 12. For a couple, it is 
going to go to 24.

  We take seven confusing rates and make it four. It is about cutting 
them. Every rate is lowered except the highest rate.
  Then we go and look at: How can we make America competitive? I 
started my first business when I was 20 years old. Small business is 
the backbone of this country. Small businesses work harder than almost 
anybody else. We lower their rate to 25. That is the lowest it has been 
in 40 years.
  Then all this money that is being pushed overseas that we tax too 
high so people won't bring it back--and there are trillions of dollars 
there--we are going to have that money come back. And what are they 
going to do? They are going to invest in America.
  Now, the name of our bill is Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Just yesterday, I 
was with a company, Broadcom. We went into the Oval Office. I had 
worked with this company for quite some time. They started in America. 
Bell Labs was part of it, and others. Three companies got together. 
They are technology; they were building; they were growing. Then what 
they found was, America's Tax Code was so burdensome on them, that for 
them to compete around the world, they became a company that domiciled 
in Singapore.
  Talking to them just the last month or so, laying out our tax bill, 
they said: You know what, we are so confident in you passing this, we 
are going to announce that we are moving back to America.

[[Page H8476]]

  They have $20 billion a year in revenue. They invest $9 billion every 
year in R&D and manufacturing, those manufacturing jobs we care so much 
about.
  So yesterday, we were sitting in the Oval Office, and this is exactly 
what the CEO said. You know what he talked about? He grew up in 
Singapore. He said: When I turned 18, the greatest engineering school 
in America gave me an opportunity, MIT, but my parents did not have 
wealth, but they gave me a scholarship.
  He comes to America, gets his education, becomes an American, builds 
a company. He said it broke his heart he had to leave. He wants to give 
back to this country that has been so good to him, and he said this tax 
bill is actually doing it.
  So we are creating jobs even before we pass it.
  So I am very excited, but, if I may, I wanted to do a little research 
for you. So we have taken all the IRS tax information, and I broke it 
down in spreadsheets. So any district that wants to know about it, 
please come see me, and I will walk you through it.
  So I take your district, Maryland's Fifth, currently, 47 percent of 
your filers in Maryland's Fifth take the standard deduction. They will 
be better off, because it doubles right off the bat. Another 11 percent 
of those who itemize their deductions won't have to do that anymore. 
Instead of spending weeks on their taxes, they will put it on a 
postcard in minutes. So they are going to get a higher deduction; they 
are going to get more money. That means even before lowering of the 
rates, 58 percent of your district is better off from day one.
  Now, in addition, we repeal the alternative minimum tax, that AMT. So 
that costs 13,000 of your constituents in your district an average of 
$3,750. That is wiped away.
  As we lower all the brackets, we will create a great deal of savings 
for everybody else. So I am excited about this.
  I would love to look forward to working with you on it, because just 
as we just passed the CHIP bill bipartisan and the IPAB with more than 
70 Democrats on that, I think this has been a very good week for 
America.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He 
talks about IPAB. Of course, we add the $17.5 billion to the debt.
  The gentleman did not mention the $1.5 trillion in additional debt 
that the passage of the tax bill will result in, but he did talk about 
some people who are going to be really advantaged.
  So I would like to ask the majority leader: Will those people who 
will be advantaged or, for that matter, disadvantaged have the 
opportunity next week to testify in a hearing on the substance of this 
bill?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
think this is an excellent question.
  So, first of all, you are asking about hearings. I caught you 
yesterday; I caught you on TV yesterday. You were pretty good. You were 
asked about hearings. This is what you said: A hearing is when you ask 
the public to come in and say: What do you think? What are your 
suggestions? How will this impact you?
  Since taking the majority--you know what anniversary it is this week? 
When we rolled this bill out, it was the seventh anniversary of the 
Republicans winning on that election day for the majority. This is what 
we campaigned on.

  Now, we have been working quite some time. Dave Camp has retired, but 
when he was with Ways and Means, he put out a Camp proposal. We have 
been having numerous hearings in those Congresses and this Congress. It 
took us to win the White House, it took us to win the Senate, but, you 
know what, we have kept our promise.
  Let me walk you through the rest of what we have done. Since taking 
the majority, we have held at least 59 hearings on tax reform with 
witnesses from all sides on everything from simplification, to closing 
those loopholes that we have talked so much about together, to creating 
jobs, to accelerating economic growth. That is not to mention the 
countless town halls and the forums of Members who have held them in 
their districts all across.
  Now, if we need further witnesses on the burden of our Tax Code, look 
no further than just me. As I told you, I was 20 when I started that 
first business. You know the three lessons I learned in my first 
business? I was the first one to work, I was the last one to leave, and 
I was the last one to be paid.
  I remember investing all that I had. It was just a deli. I had six 
employees. It was early in the morning, the front was all glass, and 
here pulled up a little truck from the city, and they were knocking on 
the door 2 hours before I started. I thought maybe they wanted to give 
me a key to the city for starting a new business. He wanted to give me 
a ticket for my sign. I thought that was a little odd, because the sign 
was bringing more people in that paid more sales tax that paid their 
salary.
  I learned the challenges of starting a small business.
  What is so great about this bill is there are going to be so many 
more Americans who are going to take that risk, start a small business, 
and be successful, with so many more Americans working.
  So I am excited about this, because that is what we have been hearing 
in our hearings--all those hearings we had, all those town halls, all 
those years we fought so hard to get to this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a good week.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, he did not answer my question, however. Will 
people have an opportunity to testify on this bill? The answer is no. 
No American will have an opportunity to come to a hearing.
  In 1968, the gentleman from California, the majority leader, was not 
here. I was here. We had hearings over months, both sides of the aisle. 
Over 450 witnesses testified not on tax bills that may have been 
offered at some time in the future, including the Camp bill.
  When the Camp bill, Mr. Speaker, was reported--actually, it wasn't 
reported. When it was put on the table by Chairman Camp from Michigan, 
who is now retired, the Speaker's response was, when asked by the 
press, ``What are you going to do with that bill?'' he said, blah, 
blah, blah, blah. In other words, what he was saying was all talk. We 
are not going to do anything with that bill, and that bill never saw 
the light of day.
  It was paid for, Mr. Speaker. It was tough love. I didn't agree with 
everything in the Camp bill, but I congratulate Congressman Camp for 
having the courage to put a bill on the floor that was paid for, not 
creating $1.5 trillion in additional debt that our children will have 
to pay. They are not here to testify either.
  I don't want to really get into a debate on the specifics. We are 
going to have a lot of time to do that next week, and I intend to do it 
next week, but he talked about small businesses being reduced to 25 
percent. They will be if they make over $500,000.
  That is why the NFIB is not for this bill, Mr. Speaker, talking about 
small business. They are the spokespersons for small businesses, and 
they are not for this bill.
  We will talk about the substance, but the process mirrors the process 
for the Affordable Care Act: no hearings, no witnesses, very, very 
little time for the public or the Congress to digest the substance of 
this bill dropped yesterday. It is going to be marked up on Monday. 
That is 96 hours to consider a bill well over 500 pages.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked about process. The reason I asked about process 
and regular order is because regular order provides for input from the 
people we serve, the public, about whether the bill is good, bad, or 
indifferent and how it will impact them.
  We are going to debate it here. We represent those people. But 
regular order is hearing from them before we act, not after we act.
  Yes, we are replicating the Affordable Care Act: put on the table, 
quickly passed, jammed through, sent to the Senate. And it didn't work, 
Mr. Speaker. I don't think this will work either.
  I was here in 1986, Mr. Speaker, when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan, 
Bob Packwood, who was the Republican's chair of the Senate Finance 
Committee, and Dan Rostenkowski from Illinois, the Democratic chairman 
of the Ways and Means Committee, worked together with Jim Baker, the 
former Secretary of State but then Secretary of the Treasury, worked 
with us to

[[Page H8477]]

come up with a bill that could be passed. And it was passed, Mr. 
Speaker, with overwhelming votes from both sides of the aisle. It was 
the last time we passed tax reform. Since then, we have just passed tax 
cuts.
  Under Ronald Reagan, we passed a tax cut in 1981. The deficit 
increased under Ronald Reagan 189 percent. Under George H.W. Bush, the 
deficit increased 55 percent in 4 years, 189 percent in 8 years. Under 
Bill Clinton, the debt increased 36 percent; George Bush, 87 percent 
after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and we were promised that they were 
going to energize the economy and dynamic scoring would come into 
effect and the country would be rolling in clover. Seven years later, 
we had the deepest recession anybody serving in this body has 
experienced, Mr. Speaker, and the debt exploded.
  Barack Obama, just by contrast, inherited the worst economy any of us 
has seen--the worst economy--hemorrhaging 787,000 jobs per month in 
January of 2009. We had to bring the economy out of that deep 
recession, and we invested dollars. But even given all that necessity 
and the $700 billion bill that we passed, that George Bush passed, 
where two-thirds of Republicans were opposed and which kept us out of a 
depression, Barack Obama increased the debt by 1 percentage point more 
than George Bush.
  I say to my friend, the reason for having hearings, the reason for 
having economic experts like Mr. Bartlett, who worked for Ronald 
Reagan, who said that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They say $1.5 
trillion. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker--I may not be here when we can 
find this out--this is going to be far above $1.5 trillion in 
additional debt, and my children and my grandchildren and my great-
grandchildren will be exposed to paying that bill.
  It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have extensive hearings on 
this bill in the House and in the Senate. My judgment is the Senate 
doesn't expect to have hearings on this either. They are just going to 
try to jam it through, Mr. Speaker, and that is not good. That is not 
good for this institution. Much, much more importantly, it is not good 
for the present generation or generations to come.
  We will debate, Mr. Leader. I know you are passionate about the 
substance. You are very knowledgeable about the substance. We talked 
about it in private, and I admire the passion that you have and the 
information that you argue. I may differ with your information, but we 
will have the opportunity to debate that, I think, next week and the 
week after.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the first lesson, if you ever take debate, if you cannot 
win the argument on the substance of the bill, argue about process; go 
to process.
  But you know what? This is not the beginning of the process. This is 
the end of the process. For 31 years, we have been working to get here. 
We had hearings upon hearings. We have gone to the American people. We 
went to the American people 7 years ago this week, and they made a very 
big decision: to change the direction.

  We went back in 2014, and they made another big decision, and they 
made one just a short time ago.
  I heard you talk about a lot of Presidents, but I think you missed 
one. Really, this bill is about growth in this country, about job 
creation, about raising somebody's paycheck.
  The history of America, from the beginning of time until 2006, we 
always averaged more than 3 percent growth. If you just take the last 8 
years, if you take the very best year under Barack Obama--and I will go 
apples to apples. Let's take Bill Clinton. The growth year under Bill 
Clinton's worst year is higher than Barack Obama's best year. That is 
why the middle class is hurting. That is why this tax cut helps the 
middle class.
  What is most interesting, you want to talk about debt? You talked 
about a lot of Presidents. You can add up all those Presidents, and you 
know what? Just one President, Barack Obama, added all that money and 
more to the debt.
  What is more interesting to me, if my friend is concerned about the 
deficit, I want to ask you this: Why did you vote for a budget that 
increases the deficit by $6.8 trillion over 10 years? Why would you do 
that this year? Why would you, as a party, bring that forward as your 
plan.
  Do you know what we are bringing forward? We are going right through 
the rules. We have gone all through the hearings. We know, even before 
this bill passes, just as yesterday, that the companies are coming back 
to America; $20 billion a year in revenue, one company has already 
announced. They are going to put $3 billion every year into research 
and development and $6 billion into manufacturing.
  I think the debate on process is over. This bill is less than 500 
pages.
  You talk about us bringing it up? Yes, so the whole American public 
can see the bill and read it. It is much different than when we talk 
about your ACA--more than 2,000 pages, and I was here. I watched what 
was brought right to the floor and jammed through. And you are right; 
the ACA doesn't work.
  We believed in doing something different. We made a promise to the 
American public--3 days for public viewing. It is longer than 3 days.
  We made a promise to the American public that we would make sure you 
keep more of what you earn, we would create more jobs. You know what 
happened after that last election? We just went through the second 
quarter of 3 percent growth.
  You and I just talked about the number of hurricanes we just watched, 
the devastation. People say it probably knocked off 1 percent of 
growth. You know what the Atlanta Fed just came out with? They are 
predicting, they think we are going to go to 4\1/2\.
  Do you know what? The best days of America are in front of us because 
of the work we have done. Let's not argue about process, because we 
know we have been through this process for 31 years. We know what the 
American public has said. We know in the hearings what they have told 
us, and we have listened. Now I think is the time to have the courage 
to lead. Let's take what we heard in those committees and put it into a 
bill, exactly what we just did.
  To have the returns before the bill is even passed of jobs coming 
back, to me, like I said earlier, this is a good week, but this is 
going to be a great month.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are going to debate the substance of the 
bill; we are going to debate it fully. We think it will not hold up 
well under that debate. Therefore, we will have a significant 
difference.
  He is right. The best economy anybody in this House has experienced--
the best economy--was the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, 
period. Guess what we had? We had a little bit of a tax increase. We 
increased the gasoline tax, and we tried to pay to for infrastructure. 
We haven't increased it since then.
  The Republicans said: You do that, oh, the economy is going to go 
down the drain. The best economy any Republican has experienced in 
their lifetime is under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget 4 years in 
a row under Bill Clinton, the only President you can mention that 
balanced.
  It never balanced under Ronald Reagan. It never balanced under George 
H.W. Bush. It never balanced under George Bush. As a matter of fact, as 
soon as they took office, they made sure we wouldn't have further 
balances because they cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, but they didn't cut 
spending.
  He talks about President Obama. I know the majority leader will be 
interested in these statistics. I didn't count January of 2017 because, 
after all, that was the Obama economy. Trump had not done anything on 
the economy, but let's start with February 2017.
  Under Donald Trump, 232,000 jobs were created. That is great. That is 
good. I would say that the Obama economy is still working.
  Same exact month a year earlier, not 232, but 237,000 jobs were 
created under Barack Obama.
  March 2017, 50,000 under Trump. March 2016, 225,000 jobs created 
under Barack Obama.
  April 2017, 207,000 jobs. Barack Obama was a little down that month, 
153,000 jobs.
  145,000 under Trump, 43,000.
  Then June of 2017, 210,000 under Donald Trump, 297,000 jobs under 
Barack Obama.
  July of 2017, we are getting more recent. Under Trump--now he has 
been in

[[Page H8478]]

office a little longer--138,000. What was it under Barack Obama? 
291,000 jobs--double.
  August of this year, just a few months ago, 169,000 under Donald 
Trump; 176,000.
  Last month we had hurricanes. I will give the majority leader that. 
We lost 33,000 jobs. Under Barack Obama, same month a year ago, 249,000 
jobs created.
  As a matter of fact, under Barack Obama, we created 11,773,000 jobs.

                              {time}  1145

  Under George Bush, 2 million--excuse me--lost under George Bush, 
private sector jobs, a loss, after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, lost 
1,159,000 jobs. The last 12 months of the George Bush administration, 
2001 and 2003 tax cuts, we couldn't change economic policy. We were in 
charge for the last 2 years, couldn't change it, lost 4,568,000 jobs.
  Now, as a matter of fact, I have done a little thing for 68 years. 
Over 68 years, we had 36 years of Republican Presidents and 32 years of 
Democratic Presidents. Under Republican Presidents, from Truman to 
Obama, there were 35,448,000 jobs created, Mr. Leader. Under Democrats, 
in 32 years, 62,669,000 jobs.
  Now, I would like to go on to another subject, as we could go on 
debating this all day, but I will yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, because you did ask 
a question in there.
  When you talked about Bill Clinton, you asked: What did he have?
  Well, when he first came in, he had Democrats in the majority, but 
all that growth happened because he won a Republican House and a 
Republican Senate. That is when we turned it around with John Kasich as 
the budget chair. That is when we balanced the budget in those 4 years.
  We had to send him welfare reform how many times?
  Three times. He vetoed it all the other times and claimed some glory.
  But also there is another question you asked. I love a good debate. I 
love to pick just facts when you don't want to look at the whole 
picture. The best thing to even just look at if you want to go: Did the 
election matter? Did the election matter to the American public?
  Well, I heard a lot of pundits on the other side say: Oh my God, if 
President Trump got elected, the market is going to crash.
  You know what? Most everyone in America that invests for retirement 
invests in the market, and President Donald Trump has given them all a 
raise because we set new records, more than 60 times; that is because 
of the belief of what they think he could achieve.
  When you look at what he has been able to do with regulation, 
unbelievable.
  The few headlines you didn't announce during Obama, when you were 
doing those jobs, you didn't say anything about Nabisco leaving the 
country, or Burger King went and domiciled someplace else. Why?
  What was the answer that President Obama would have when companies 
were leaving America because the taxes were too high? We will pass a 
law to say they can't.
  You know the difference that election has made?
  We just proposed a tax bill. Companies are now coming to the Oval 
Office to say: We are coming back. And all that means is more jobs, 
more money for Americans.
  I understand that we are going to probably have a philosophical 
difference of agreement. I believe Americans should keep more of what 
they earn. I know what you said a few weeks ago. My friend cast his 
vote in favor of a budget that calls for ``$3.9 trillion in revenue 
enhancements.''
  You know who I think needs the revenue?
  The American public. That is why we doubled the standard deduction, 
and that is for every American. On day 1 they will get more in their 
check.
  Small businesses, lowest tax in 40 years. All that money that those 
companies were being pushed out are going to come back.
  We can argue all you want about this, but for 31 years we have had 
this argument. I think the American public is waiting for us to lead.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, you noticed that he didn't talk about any of 
the statistics I mentioned about job creation under Barack Obama. He 
didn't talk about the 62 million jobs that were created in 32 years, as 
opposed to the 35 million jobs, just half of what we did in less than 4 
years than they had as President of the United States.
  And what he didn't talk about was--he said: You know, we Republicans 
were in charge of the Congress the last 6 years of the Clinton 
administration.
  That is right.
  And what Bill Clinton said: Let's save Social Security first. Let's 
not cut out revenues that we need to invest in the education and the 
growth of our economy.
  They weren't for that, but they couldn't do anything about it.
  Then, guess what happened. They took the Presidency. They had the 
House and they had the Senate.
  Why couldn't you do what was done under Bill Clinton then, when you 
controlled everything, I ask my Republican friends, Mr. Speaker? Why 
couldn't you, when you controlled every organ of government, do what 
you say was done under the Clinton administration, because you were in 
the minority, very frankly, or you were in the majority and controlled 
things? Why couldn't you do it when you controlled everything? Why did 
you leave us with 4.8 million hemorrhaging jobs as you came out of 
office, and your economic program was still in place that you put in 
place in 2001 and 2003, and the deepest recession you and I have 
experienced in our life times?
  And I am older than you are. You didn't answer that. You continue to 
talk about what is going to happen.
  I tell the story about the guy who comes in and he wants to be the 
left fielder for the Nats, and he says: You know, I am going to hit 350 
next year.
  I said: But you hit 260 last year.
  He says: Well, yeah, I know, but this year I am going to hit 350.
  And the other guy comes in and says: I would like the same job. I hit 
325 this year and I hit 324 last year. Who do you think you hire?
  The whole point is, Mr. Leader--I say to the Speaker--is that 
performance counts, not just talk, not just promises. Because I will 
tell you, Mr. Leader, I have been here a long time and I heard the same 
language in 1981 from David Stockman. He now says it was baloney. I 
heard the same talk in 2001 and 2003. It didn't work out so well.

  So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to go on to another subject because we 
need to go to another subject, but we need to have this debate because 
it is critical for my children, my grandchildren, and my great-
grandchildren, and for generations to come as to whether this country 
is, like we did it under Clinton, on a fiscally sustainable path where 
we are balancing budgets, or whether we are going to go back to the 
deep deficits.
  He didn't respond, 189 percent increase in the debt under Ronald 
Reagan. One person in America, Mr. Speaker, can stop spending: the 
President. He can veto spending bills.
  In my 37 years, we have never had a veto overridden of a President 
who vetoed a bill because we spent too much money; not once in the 37 
years I have been here, Mr. Speaker.
  But I want to go on to another subject that ought to be less 
controversial because I think the majority of Republicans and I think, 
unanimously, the Democrats want to see us do what the President, 
apparently, has asked us to do. And that is, protect the DACA students, 
the DACA doctors, the DACA teachers.
  We have a Dream Act that has been filed. Every Democrat supports it. 
We want that to come to the floor in this transparent, open process, 
and I have talked to the majority leader about it.
  The President, contrary to Speaker Ryan's advice, rescinded the 
protections for the childhood arrivals who arrived here through no 
fault of their own. He said to the Congress, it needs to be done in 
legislation. He didn't say it needs to be done in legislation with a 
lot of other things. And the Speaker has said we are going to take one 
issue at a time. I won't bring out that quote, but the majority leader 
has heard me use it before.
  So I urge the majority leader because I believe he does not want to 
send these mostly young people who don't know any other country but 
America, who see themselves as Americans, who have

[[Page H8479]]

been educated in our schools, serving in our communities, positive 
participants in growing America like so many immigrants before them, a 
nation of immigrants. Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled 
masses.
  We should have the DACA bill on the floor before we leave for this 
Thanksgiving. Mr. Leader, I said this with respect to the Export-Import 
Bank, that a majority of your party would vote for that if it came to 
the floor. We got it to the floor and, as I predicted, a majority of 
your Members voted for it.
  I believe that very close to, if not all, a majority of your party 
will vote for this, and the overwhelming numbers in this House will 
vote for that bill.
  I would urge my friend to bring it to the floor before we leave for 
the Thanksgiving break on the 16th of November. I would urge that 
because we are going to have some very messy 8 days after Thanksgiving, 
with great workload on our desks; not the least of which is how to deal 
with the sequester, how to deal with funding government for the balance 
of the year, what to do with flood insurance, and so many other issues; 
not to mention our supplemental that we need to do with respect to 
Houston and Florida and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
  So I urge my friend to work with us to bring the Dream Act to the 
floor, or bring your alternative to the floor. But let us not leave 
these people, who the President says he loves, who are positive 
Americans in everything but paper, who have been here almost all of 
their lives. Some came at 2 or 3 years of age and know no other 
country. Let's bring a bill to the floor that we can end before we go 
on the Thanksgiving break, in a united way--we are going to be divided 
on the tax bill. We understand that--but in a united way on this, where 
even Rush Limbaugh says we are not going to send these kids home.
  I would hope that you could do that, Mr. Leader. I believe you have 
it in your heart to do it, and I would hope that we could do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have 
great respect for the gentleman.
  It is true, we just recently traveled to look at the hurricanes and 
we had a lot of discussions. We disagree philosophically at times, but 
I think there is a place that we can find agreement upon.
  I listen to you when you speak. I did just hear you ask right before: 
``Why couldn't you do it when you controlled everything?''
  I kind of ask my friend the same thing. When you controlled 
everything, the White House, the House, and the Senate, you had a self-
proclaimed master legislator as Speaker. You had an opportunity.
  But I know this is the window, and I know President Trump wants to 
get it done. That is why he put out things that he wants to see done as 
well. We talked about chain migration. We talked about border security.

  We have been meeting--the Speaker and I just had a meeting yesterday 
with a number of Members about this. We would like to solve this 
problem overall, and I think it is a place everybody can work together, 
to secure our border, work on the chain migration problem, and solve 
this problem for others.
  Now, I know there is a 6-month time period here, and I don't want to 
confuse issues because I would like to focus on this issue as well, but 
I don't want to have the government shutting down over an issue. You 
and I know we both discussed things like that, and I never think that 
is productive with whatever we do; but I look forward to continuing 
working with you to solve this issue.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me remind the leader that we passed the 
Dream Act through the House of Representatives. We brought it to the 
floor. We had a vote on it.
  I know you and the Speaker said there was going to be a working task 
force on this issue, and it has been, I think, going on for nigh on to 
a month, but we haven't seen anything on the floor.
  Mr. Leader, what I am saying is that I think we agree on this issue. 
Let us not confuse it with things on which we do not agree. Don't hold 
hostage these 800,000 young people who are positive--because if they 
are not positive they couldn't get into the Dream Act--I mean, they 
couldn't get into DACA. They had to have a sterling performance, be in 
school, be working, be in the Armed Forces. This is not a free pass to 
people.
  We agree on this, I think. Maybe I am wrong on that, but it seems to 
me that we agree. The President seems to agree.
  Wouldn't it be--as we have done in the past some bipartisan things, 
and we thought that was good for the institution and good for the 
American people to see us work in a bipartisan fashion. I think we 
agree on this issue.
  Some of the things you want to attach to it, we are going to have 
disagreements on. Why don't we enact what we agree upon?
  By the way, this has been pending for a long period of time, as 
opposed to your tax bill. I know you think we have had hearings on it, 
but, very frankly, that bill changed from Tuesday to Thursday of last 
week.

                              {time}  1200

  We think your bill is a pretty new bill and we would like to have 
hearings on it. But nevertheless, on DACA, I think we have an 
agreement. If you bring it to the floor, I think it will get a majority 
of the votes, a significant majority. I think it will get close to 300, 
if not over. So I would just urge my friend to see if he, as the 
majority leader--I was the majority leader--as the gentleman knows, I 
could bring a bill to the floor or I could keep it off the floor. This 
is a bill that ought to come to the floor. We ought to give peace of 
mind to these 800,000 of folks, and we ought to pass this bill and give 
the House an opportunity to work its will.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not want to say anything further, 
I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________