[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.
____________________