[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 41 (Thursday, March 8, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1489-H1495]
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 am pleased to yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, for the purpose of inquiring of
the majority leader 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, no votes are expected in the House. On
Tuesday, 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
Wednesday and 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.
Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business
tomorrow.
One worth highlighting is H.R. 4909, the Student, Teachers, and
Officers Preventing School Violence Act, sponsored by former sheriff,
Representative John Rutherford.
Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House were saddened and horrified by
the tragic events in Parkland, Florida. Sheriff Rutherford's bill will
provide local communities with critical resources to upgrade our
schools and keep our children safe. I look forward to the House
speaking with one bipartisan voice next week and passing this important
bill without delay.
Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider several bills from the
Financial Services Committee. This includes two bills sponsored by
Representative Scott Tipton: H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act; and H.R. 4545,
the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act; as well
as H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act, sponsored by
Representative Tom MacArthur.
Taken together, these bills will consider House Republican's work to
create an economic environment that is both pro-competition and smart
and balanced in its regulatory approach.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, additional legislative items are possible,
including potential legislation making further appropriations for FY
2018. I will be sure to inform all Members as soon as any additional
items are added to our schedule.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for that
information.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the last year, we have continually run up
against deadlines on how we were going to keep the government of the
United States operating properly.
The omnibus is currently being discussed. The negotiations for the
omnibus were made possible by the fact that a significant number of
Democrats voted for it, while a significant number of Republicans voted
against it. It was a bipartisan statement proceeding.
That omnibus needs to be passed by March 23. We are not scheduled to
be here, Mr. Speaker, on March 23. That does not mean that we might not
go over, but it means that it needs to pass the House and the Senate
and be sent to the President prior to or on March 22.
Negotiations are, unfortunately, not proceeding as effectively as I
would hope they would. I am hopeful that there will be a clean bill
from either
[[Page H1490]]
side without any riders that would lead either side to oppose that
bill.
Mr. Speaker, let me talk about an issue. First of all, let me say
that the leader has announced a number of bills for consideration next
week. I venture to say that an extraordinarily infinitesimal amount of
the American people have any ideas what those bills do or are urging
those bills to be passed. I do not mean that they are without
substance. I mean that they are not the issues on the mind of the
American people. This is the people's House.
Mr. Speaker, the Speaker appeared on television at a townhall on CNN
some 14 months ago. He made a promise at a CNN townhall to a Dreamer
that asked him a question.
House Speaker Paul Ryan strongly suggested to that young woman that
``revocation on protection for the Dreamers brought here as children
will not be carried out.''
Notwithstanding that, the President of the United States put that
Dreamer and hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers--indeed, close to 2
million Dreamers--at risk by withdrawing their protections, which
Speaker Ryan indicated would not happen: ``Will not be carried out.''
That was some 6 months ago, Mr. Speaker. Not the CNN; that was 14
months ago.
I have talked to the Speaker, I have brought it up continuously on
this floor, and I have been told by the Republican leadership: Don't
worry, we have got until March 5 to do something.
I was told that in October, I was told that in November, I was told
that in December, I was told that in January, and I was told that in
February: Don't worry, we have got until March 5.
March 5 came and went. No action. None.
That Dreamer to whom the Speaker spoke is still at risk, still
worried, and still twisting in the wind. Eighty-six percent of the
American public, Mr. Speaker, say that that young woman should not be
kicked out of the country that she knows: brought here as a child, went
to elementary school, middle school, high school; some to college, some
practicing medicine, some practicing law, some being social workers,
many being teachers.
I was told: Don't worry. They were told: Don't worry, March 5 is a
long way away.
It has come and gone.
And we are told this week that we will consider H.R. 1116, the TAILOR
Act. I am not sure that any of my constituents have talked to me about
the TAILOR Act.
H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act, I doubt that a single
one of my constituents has talked to me about that act.
They are fillers, Mr. Speaker. They are fillers while we fiddle,
while Rome burns.
I have asked, Leader Pelosi has asked, frankly, and leaders of the
Catholic Church and other denominations have asked to put the Dreamer
bill on the floor in the people's House.
The Speaker of this House, when he became the Speaker, said: We will
not duck the tough issues. We will take them head-on. Don't worry, we
have got until March 5.
March 5 is behind us, and we consider these bills, which I think are
filler bills, and controversial bills at that.
We have asked, Mr. Speaker, that the majority party put on the floor
three bills on an issue of vital importance to the American people,
that every American knows about, that the people's House ought to have
the right to speak on, and express the views of the American people and
establish policy they support--86 percent of them.
So I will, again, ask the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to put the
Dream Act on the floor; to put Mr. Goodlatte's bill on the floor; to
put the bipartisan bill, sponsored by Mr. Hurd from Texas and Mr.
Aguilar from California; put them on the floor.
{time} 1100
Take the issues. I know they are tough. The Speaker said he wants to
take the issues head-on, Mr. Speaker, not duck. Show some political
courage. And not only that, respect this institution and every Member
in it who wants to express their opinion on this legislation of
critical importance to at least 1.8 million Americans, vital to their
future, to their life.
And 86 percent of Americans believe they ought to be protected, just
as Speaker Ryan pledged they would be 14 months ago when he said
revocation of protection for the Dreamers brought here as children will
not be carried out. Mr. Speaker, that bill ought to be brought to the
floor to carry out that representation and that assurance.
I have been patient. I have talked. I have worked. I have come to
meetings. I met with the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker,
with my colleague and friend, the majority leader, and Mr. Durbin and
others, 25 of us sitting around the Cabinet table, Mr. Speaker, when
the President said we will take care of DACA, and he said: You send me
a bill; I will sign it, and I will take the heat.
He was not telling the truth, Mr. Speaker, because we had a bill,
called the commonsense crowd, about 25 United States Senators brought a
bill to the floor. It took care of a couple of the things the President
wanted to take care of, but it wasn't good enough for him,
notwithstanding the fact he said: You send me a bill. You decide, i.e.,
the Congress, the coequal branch of government that now stands
suppliant in the face of saying we will pass something only if the
President will sign it.
That is not what the framers meant, Mr. Speaker. We are a coequal
branch, not a subservient branch of the government of the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, if we brought those three bills to the floor that I just
referred to--the Dream Act, cosponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a
Republican, and Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democrat; and the Goodlatte
bill, sponsored by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and a
bipartisan bill sponsored by many Republicans and many Democrats, Mr.
Hurd, a Republican from Texas, and Mr. Aguilar, a Democrat from
California--if we brought those bills to the floor, the problem is they
know the Hurd-Aguilar bill would pass, which would reflect the views of
86 percent of the American people.
No, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the American people
are overwhelmingly for that, we are going to be considering H.R. 1116,
H.R. 4545, H.R. 4263, ignoring that 1.8 million people, ignoring that
promise that the Speaker made to that young woman that she would be
protected.
The Speaker has told me over and over again: Oh, I want to do this. I
want to do that. I am going to have some task force. I am going to do
this, that, and the other.
March 5 has come and gone. Nothing has happened.
I used to be the majority leader. I could bring a bill to the floor.
If I said something was going to happen, I tried to make sure it
happened.
If I sound angry, it is because I am angry. If I sound frustrated, it
is because I am frustrated. The people's House ought to be given the
opportunity to express the will of the American people on this issue.
There is another issue, and we do have a bill, the so-called
Rutherford bill that we are bringing to the floor on suspension. We are
probably all going to vote for the Rutherford bill.
But we are going to ignore a bill, as we have been ignoring for years
under Republican leadership, a bill that is supported even more than
the DACA, Dreamer bills, and that is comprehensive background checks,
which clearly will save lives, which will close the loopholes, which
will make sure that those with criminal records don't get guns, will
make sure that those with mental health issues don't get guns, will
make sure that terrorists who can't fly on airplanes can't get guns.
Mr. Speaker, we have been urging and pleading for that bill to be
brought to the floor over and over and over again. The National Rifle
Association is not for that bill. I can't understand why. Rather, we
bring a bill to the floor that will help schools--I think that is
positive--do what they can do right now.
Should we help them? Of course. But we ought not to pretend that we
are doing something to make our children safer in their schools, to
make concertgoers safer at their concerts, to make churchgoers safer in
their church, to make people who go to a nightclub safer in that
nightclub, to make people who go to shopping centers safer in those
shopping centers. We ought not to pretend the Rutherford bill is going
to do that.
[[Page H1491]]
Will comprehensive background checks do it all? It will not. There
are other things I think ought to be done. But at a minimum, the
American people think that we ought to make sure that everybody who
purchases a weapon has a background check to make sure that they are
not a criminal, somebody with a substantial mental health problem that
makes them unsafe to own a gun, spousal abusers.
Mr. Speaker, the bills we are going to consider next week I am sure
have some merit from some perception, from somebody's perception, but
the two bills that I have just discussed are on the minds of the
American people, and millions are at risk if we do not pass legislation
dealing with that issue.
I do not criticize the Rutherford bill, but it will not solve the
problem, and everybody knows it will not solve the problem; nor,
frankly, will universal background checks in and of itself solve the
problem, but experts say it will save thousands of lives over time. It
would have saved lives in Charleston, South Carolina, the nine people
killed in Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, I like to work in a bipartisan way, but that requires
respecting one another. My Republican friends wrote a book in which
they were very critical of the way we ran the House because it wasn't
open and transparent. I would ask them to reread that book. I have read
it.
My friend is smiling.
In that book, they really wanted to change the way this House runs,
make it open and transparent, take the tough issues head-on. That is
what the Speaker said.
Mr. Speaker, they are not taking the tough issues head-on. They are
hiding from the NRA. They are hiding from some of their hardline people
who want to kick people out of America, who want to take that lamp that
the Statue of Liberty holds high and bring it down.
Yes, I am disappointed. Yes, I am angry. Yes, I am frustrated. I came
to this body to express my opinion on the important issues confronting
my country and to try to make it better.
Mr. Speaker, I would plead with the majority leader to perhaps delay
those four bills. Rutherford's could be on suspension. It won't take
much time. Delay those three bills that a miniscule amount of
Americans, there may be 100, there may be 200 Americans who would be
concerned those bills aren't brought forward, and put on the floor the
three bills I referred to--the Dream Act, the Goodlatte bill, and the
Hurd-Aguilar bill--and let the people's House express its opinion. That
is not an unfair request.
And let the background check, universal background check bill come to
the floor, and let the House vote. I know that there are some
Republicans who don't want to vote on that bill because the public is
so overwhelmingly for it and they may upset the NRA. That is what this
business is about, Mr. Speaker, expressing openly and clearly what we
think the policies of our country ought to be to make our public
better, to make our country safer.
Mr. Speaker, I would end on those two issues, and I yield to my
friend, the majority leader.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Biggs). Members are reminded to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have great respect for the gentleman, and there were a lot of
questions inside there, I believe.
Out of my respect for the gentleman, I am quite concerned that if he
is fact-checked, he is going to get quite a few Pinocchios, so let me
walk through, first, how he started the debate.
The gentleman started and the first question was concerning
government funding to March 23. He then felt that work was not being
done, and he used the phrase--and I may get it a little incorrect, but
he said we only were able to pass a budget agreement because of the
majority of the Democrats, and not the majority on the Republican side,
passing it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time to just make a correction.
I said a significant number of Democrats voted for it and a
significant number of Republicans voted against it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
So I think it would just be helpful on the record to actually state
what the vote was.
There were 167 Republicans who voted for that budget agreement, 67
who did not. There were 73 Democrats who voted for it, but the majority
of Democrats, 119, voted against it, which Mr. Hoyer was in that group,
as well, voting against it. So I would make one point, and that is 71
percent of Republicans voted for this budget agreement.
And just to make the facts correct, Mr. Hoyer's concern about the
appropriations process, this House passed all 12 appropriations bills,
and we did it on time and we sent it over to the Senate. In the
meantime, the Democrats shut the government down before we could ever
get there. So I think history should actually play to facts.
Yes, I am concerned about the March 23 deadline, but I am pushing
hard. I would actually like to take those bills up next week. And as
Mr. Hoyer knows, being a member of the Appropriations Committee as he
was in the past, when you get to this point where we already have the
numbers set, it is really what is called a four corners, the four
leaders.
Now, the committees are all working through it. They are actually
making great progress. There are a few things left to actually close
out. I would like to get it done a week ahead of time, and I hope Mr.
Hoyer's side would as well.
So let's walk through some others.
First of all, I was a small-business owner. The idea is having a bill
on this floor that creates more jobs, that brings more access to
capital. Mr. Speaker, I heard from the other side, the leader, she
thought crumbs was the idea of Americans getting $1,000 in a bonus.
That is about equal to what I am hearing, and I am offended by it. It
is not insignificant that someone wants to create a job and have access
to capital. The gentleman is wrong about that.
Then the gentleman talks about our Speaker. Our Speaker has worked a
great deal, and, yes, he has kept his word.
Mr. Hoyer was in that meeting with me when we were in the White
House. Before we left that bipartisan, bicameral meeting with the
administration, we agreed to work on this issue in four areas, and we
have had numerous meetings in my office about that as well.
{time} 1115
I don't know, maybe you forget to state that we are a rule of law
Nation. In doing so, that is why we are in this position we are today,
because there was a past executive branch that thought they were a
legislative branch and they did something that everyone would agree
they do not have the power to do. So the current President said to move
it to the legislative branch like it should be because there are court
cases coming. In doing so, that is what we are working on.
The courts have now come back, giving further time. The Supreme Court
has now given a timeline that wants to make sure the Ninth Circuit
before there--so this gives us time to solve the problem.
I am more concerned about solving a problem than just passing a bill
for some political favor. I do not want to be back at this place in
another 2 years and having kids sitting here who are questioning where
they are going to go.
I know you raised some issue about individuals. Not one person is in
jeopardy that is registered within DACA. You have been in meetings
where you heard that from the Secretary of Homeland Security, where you
heard that from the Chief of Staff to the President as well.
The President even went further than talking about DACA to even
making the point solving, but he also had three other pillars. As you
know, we need a secure border. You also know the current law does not
treat everybody equally who comes here illegally, so you are going to
perpetuate the problem if you maintain the current law.
Thirdly, the idea that we want to make sure the nuclear family is
closer together sooner--you have got a 30-year wait when someone wants
to come in and petition a brother and sister.
Why don't we help them be able to bring their children and their
spouses in together?
[[Page H1492]]
That is one of the proposals as well.
Then the whole concept of merit. Those are all common sense. I think
they could be bipartisan. And the sooner we solve that problem, we will
solve it for a long term.
So on this side of the aisle we want to get this job done long before
the courts even have to act. I think that would be the proper thing to
do. So, yes, that is what we have been working upon.
Now, another issue you brought up was about guns, and you talked
about this Congress. I first want to give you a few little facts. I
appreciate that you always mention my book. That is why I smile. We
don't get any royalties from it, but the veterans do, so please mention
it as much as you like.
If I take--and let me just give you the numbers. Quorum does this.
Some bright kids out of Harvard created a company and it is all about
data.
There are more bills out of committee, 643 in this Congress; and
there are more bills out of this House, 558, than any Congress in the
last 25 years. And in that meantime, we also passed tax reform that
hasn't been done in three decades.
I know some people on your side of the aisle refer to it as crumbs or
Armageddon, but I will tell you, to those families out there that got
extra money, that are actually fixing their car or actually paying
their hospital bills, or those 1.2 million people who just work at one
company that now have a longer maternity leave, they don't think it is
crumbs, and they don't think having a bill on the floor that let more
people take a risk and create a small business is insignificant.
Now let me talk to you about what we did because we believe
background checks are important as well. Let me give you a little
background. The background check is only as good as the database of
what you have.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, referred to as
the NICS database, is currently administered by the FBI. If the NICS
check indicates a person as being in a prohibited category, the FBI
will signal a deny on the firearm transfer. However, the NICS database
is incomplete and outdated.
For example, on November 5, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the
First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Devin Patrick Kelley
murdered 26 and injured 20 others. Kelly was prohibited by law from
purchasing or processing firearms or ammunition due to a domestic
violence conviction in a court martial while in the United States Air
Force. However, the Air Force failed to record the conviction in the
FBI NICS database.
That is why this House, this Congress, this majority acted. We put
the Fix NICS bill in December--it is sitting in the Senate--which would
strengthen our background check system and make it more accurate. It
would require Federal agencies to certify twice per year that they are
uploading criminal record information to NICS, requiring agencies to
establish an implementation plan to ensure maximum coordination and
reporting of records. Now you are on record to voting against that.
We have another bill on the floor from a former sheriff from
Jacksonville, Florida. He is looking at school violence. Let me walk
you through that one.
As I mentioned, Congress will vote next week on the STOP School
Violence Act. This bill is proudly supported by Sandy Hook Promise, who
note that it will ensure that millions more schools will be trained in
prevention and lives will be saved.
Now, this isn't the only thing we are doing. Just this week, we are
having oversight. We took the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
in this Congress and the Judiciary Committee in this Congress this
week, and brought the FBI in, and they will come back again; because
there is not one person in America who wants to see what happened in
Florida to happen again.
But let's walk through this situation, because I think it is
important that we examine it because we want to solve these problems.
There were multiple red flags that were raised to the FBI about the
behavior of Nikolas Cruz.
The very first red flag: On September 25, 2017, a YouTube channel
host took a snapshot of a comment under his video that said: ``I am
going to be a professional school shooter.'' He sent that comment to
the West Virginia FBI tip center, where all tips are supposed to go,
which deemed it a credible threat and opened an investigation.
FBI agents searched for files on Nikolas Cruz, but they were unable
to identify the individual and did not even reach out to YouTube in an
attempt to recover records on Cruz, so on October 11, 2017, the FBI
formally closed the inquiry. That was one red flag, but that is not
where it ended.
A second red flag: On January 5, 2018, a second tip came via a phone
call to the FBI from a concerned family member. They described in
detail problems with Cruz he was showing with regard to social media,
cruelty to animals, school trouble, and dealing with a recent death in
the family.
When the FBI searched the database again for Nikolas Cruz, the
previous tip popped up. However, despite the call from a family member,
from a previous red flag, from a YouTube comment from the individual
himself that he wanted to be a professional school shooter, they closed
the investigation. The shooting happened on February 14, 5 months after
the first tip.
This House has not stopped to act. This House acted in December. The
background checks have to be fixed. That is why we passed it and put it
into the Senate. That is why we are taking up more action now for the
schools and adding that to what we already took up in this House. Those
aren't insignificant.
I believe there is a path forward. Just as we did all appropriations
bills, just as we have been through numerous meetings when it comes to
DACA, there is not one child in jeopardy today. The only jeopardy that
we will have is if we don't get together and solve the problem.
We have narrowed it to four areas. You and I know what has been said
in those meetings. You and I know where it is. We can find compromise.
We can solve this problem. But let's make a pledge to the American
public that we don't do a bill for the sake of something politically.
We create law that solves something so we are not back here in a future
Congress taking up the exact same issue putting other people in
jeopardy. That is my promise, and that is what I will continue to work
for.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader talked about a lot of
issues, one of which was NICS. What he didn't say was they put a poison
pill in the Fix NICS bill, which is why so many of us voted against it
on concealed carry. There is a disagreement in this House on that. We
disagree, for the most part, on that provision. We don't think that
makes America safer. There are differences of opinion on that.
My suggestion to the majority leader is, the Rutherford bill is on
the floor. By unanimous consent, let's put the Fix NICS bill in the
Rutherford bill without the poison pill in it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to see if he will be agreeable
to doing that.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
That would be the same outcome that is already sitting in the Senate.
The Senate has the Fix NICS bill now. We will add more to it.
I hope you are just as frustrated with the Senate as I am.
Why can they not pass something?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my question was, will you
agree--you talked a lot about NICS and where it is failing, and we can
fix it. We agree with that.
So what I am asking you--you put the Rutherford bill on. I think most
of us are going to vote for the Rutherford bill. Maybe all of us will
vote for the Rutherford bill, which says let's help schools make
themselves more safe.
Why should anybody be opposed to that?
What I say to you is: you just spent a significant amount of time
talking about how we could make the NICS process work better, but that
many of us voted against it and it hasn't moved in the Senate.
I guarantee you--I don't know that I can guarantee you, but my
thinking is: if you do the Rutherford bill, and if you add in the Fix
NICS bill--not with concealed carry, but the Fix NICS bill that you
talk about in the Rutherford bill--
[[Page H1493]]
I will work with you to get that passed in the United States Senate,
and I think we will be successful.
My question to the majority leader: Will you agree to a unanimous
consent request to add the Fix NICS bill into the Rutherford bill on
the suspension calendar?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to direct their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Let me give the gentleman a few facts. There are 426 bills that have
passed this House that sit over in the Senate. Of those 426, there is
less than 10 that are partisan. The rest of them all have bipartisan
votes.
There are more than 200 votes on bills that sit over in that Senate
that were passed here by voice unanimously. So I am not one to do
something politically just so somebody else feels better that now they
can vote for something because they voted against it before. I am for
making law and saving children.
So from this point, we are going to pass the STOP School Violence
Act. We are going to send it to the Senate, just the way they already
have our Fix NICS bill over there. And let's have the Senate--and I
will take you up on this. Let's work together right now to get that
bill back over here.
Mr. HOYER. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no, because
we want to continue to have that on which we agree defeated by that on
which we do not agree. That is the pattern. And when the gentleman says
all those bipartisan bills, there were some, obviously, Democrat votes
on many of those bills, I am sure.
Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear a word about a bill that has the
majority's support on the floor of the House of Representatives that I
spoke about, and that is Hurd-Aguilar. Mr. Goodlatte, the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee said if Goodlatte was put on the floor, it will
lose 50, 60, 70 Republicans. Mr. Goodlatte said that, and that was
passed out of the Judiciary Committee. It hasn't been brought to the
floor because it would fail.
Hurd-Aguilar, which has not been considered by the committee, but
which has the majority of votes on this floor, that bill has not been
brought up; just as the bill that passed the United States Senate 5
years ago, to deal with so many of the problems that immigration
confronts us with, including security at the border, 5 years, has not
been brought up. March 5, nothing happened. Come and gone.
The majority leader spent a lot of time, Mr. Speaker, talking about
things that are important but were not on the subject because he
doesn't want to deal with the subject. Apparently the Republicans don't
want to deal with the subject and they won't put it on the floor. They
are obstructing the will of the American people and they are putting
thousands and thousands and thousands of people at risk.
The majority leader, with all due respect, is wrong. All of the DACA
recipients are not protected, and many of them are not signing up again
because they are afraid their government will come after them. They
feel they were flim-flammed.
I disagree with the majority leader, Mr. Speaker. Many of us believe
what the President did is absolutely legal. It is consistent with what
Ronald Reagan did, with what George H.W. Bush did, with what Bill
Clinton did, and what George W. Bush did.
{time} 1130
Every President, since I have been serving here, has modified
immigration consistent with their executive authority. There was
nothing mentioned about the quote of the Speaker that was clearly
directed at this young woman to say that revocation of protections for
the Dreamers brought here as children will not be carried out.
Nobody can sign up for DACA protection now under the court order--
nobody. You can re-up, but you can't sign up--1.8 million. The
President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, sent a message down here,
or maybe he tweeted it, they would agree to 1.8 million and a pathway
to citizenship, parenthesis, if you agree with this, if you agree with
that, if you agree with the other.
That is not what was said at the White House, Mr. Speaker. I agree
with the majority leader. He brought up some other points, said we need
to agree to discuss those. I agreed to discuss them. I didn't agree to
agree to them, nor did anybody else in that room. And the President of
the United States, 25 Members of the House and Senate sitting around
the Cabinet table, said: Are we agreed that we are going to solve the
DACA issue first?
Not a single Member demurred. Not a single Member said no--not a
single one, Mr. Speaker, yet we can't get that bill to the floor. And
the majority leader says: Oh, well, we are bringing up a bill that will
create jobs.
I am for doing that. And, frankly, if we do that the week after or
the week after that--frankly, I don't know the bills well enough to be
speaking about them with much depth of information as to how they were
voted on in committee, but my inkling is that the majority Democrats--I
don't know what is in there, in these bills--may well have voted
against them. Most of those bills coming out of committee are pretty
partisan.
We didn't discuss the three bills that I brought up. The majority
leader didn't mention them. They have bipartisan support on two; and
one, the chairman of the committee admits, does not have the votes on
this floor. He would get no Democratic votes, and he would lose a
substantial number of Republican votes, and the majority leader knows
that, Mr. Speaker.
And we talk about NICS. I want to fix NICS. I don't want concealed
carry to be part of that. And I regret that the majority leader would
not agree to let's fix NICS and put the Rutherford bill through. That
would pass the Senate, but he has got a bill over there he knows won't
pass the Senate but maybe it makes a good talking point.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what we have to do. We have been waiting a
long time, not just the 6 months since September, waiting for March 5
to come and go. We have been waiting for a long time to have bills on
the floor with an open amendment process so we can, in fact, do the
people's will on immigration and on protecting our students and our
families and our citizens from the irresponsible use of guns.
We are not against the responsible use of guns. We believe the Second
Amendment protects people on owning handguns and hunting guns; but the
Supreme Court, in the Heller decision, said there are things that the
community could do. There are things that the government can do to
protect its people and to make sure that gun use, within the framework
of the Second Amendment, is responsible.
I don't know what we have to do, Mr. Speaker. I don't think anybody
doubts that the Hurd-Aguilar bill has the majority votes in this House.
I would urge people to, if they believe in this issue, sign a discharge
petition. They refused to bring the Export-Import Bank bill to the
floor for 1\1/2\ or 2 years. Some of the leadership weren't for it. As
a matter of fact, the two highest weren't for it. But 127 Republicans
to 117 Republicans, they were for it, and over 300 votes were for it,
and they would not bring it to the floor short of a discharge petition.
That is not transparency; that is not openness; that is not taking
the tough issues head on. That is obfuscating. That is undermining
democracy in the people's House. If the gentleman wants to respond, I
will yield to him. If not, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
actually have the same question. I don't know what we have to do.
You know, we come here quite often to have these colloquies. They are
supposed to just be for what is happening the next week, but we talk
about more issues. For a long time, I heard: What about the Children's
Health Insurance Program? You know what, this House brought it up
early. We tried to work through committee. The Speaker knows how many
times I went on the other side.
They wouldn't even let their committee work on it. So what did we do?
We took the ideas that the Democrats had, we put it in the bill; we
passed it bipartisan; they still said no. They didn't say no once, they
said it numerous times to the Children's Health Insurance Program. And
I sat here wondering: What more do we have to do?
[[Page H1494]]
Disaster relief. I know, Mr. Speaker, the heart of the minority whip.
We went together to Puerto Rico. We went together to the Virgin
Islands. We went to Florida. What more do we have to do? Then we
brought it to the floor, and he still said no. But you know what? We
still got it done.
Government funding. He started this whole discussion about government
funding. He misspoke and said it was because of the Democrats that we
were able to make this plan. He said a majority of them; and it was not
a majority, it was a minority.
Mr. HOYER. I did not.
Mr. McCARTHY. It was a majority of the House.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. With all due respect, Mr.
Speaker, I indicated to the leader what I said, and I knew what I said,
and I know what the facts are. The Republicans could not pass that bill
on their own. There were over 60 Republicans who voted ``no'' on that
bill, and they got 167. You may have given me--or 170.
That is, Mr. Speaker, almost 50 short of passage. Mr. Speaker, I will
tell you, when I was majority leader, we didn't get much help from the
other side, and we always had 218 to pass what we wanted to pass on our
side. Seventy-three of our Democrats voted for it, which is why it
passed. Not the majority, because the majority of us were so
frustrated.
Again, the majority leader has not spoken to the bills. He has spoken
about what we have passed. And the CHIP bill, by the way, was brought
up weeks after its authority expired. Weeks after it expired.
Mr. McCARTHY. Legitimately, may I respond?
Mr. HOYER. He says it was because of our committee. I will tell you,
Mr. Speaker, we can't stop anything in committee. They have a majority
on every committee and can bring a bill up tomorrow--the next hour if
they decide to do so.
Mr. McCARTHY. May I ask the gentleman: Are you stating that we
brought CHIP up just weeks before it expired?
Mr. HOYER. No, after.
Mr. McCARTHY. After?
Mr. HOYER. It expired on September 30. You didn't bring it up until
weeks after that.
Mr. McCARTHY. With all due respect, I think you might want to ask
your staff before you put that on record, with all due respect. Well, I
am not sure you are correct because we brought it, and it passed this
House.
Mr. HOYER. I have consulted with the staff person for whom you have
great respect and affection, and she says that I am right. Now, she is
my staffer, so maybe she is somewhat biased, but I will tell you that
we believe we are right on that.
But that is not the point, Mr. Speaker. The point is not what we have
done in the past--particularly what we have done. And we all are for
CHIP. That is not the point. The point is we have two critical pieces
of legislation this House must address and that the overwhelming
majority of the American people think we ought to address and think we
ought to pass and are for. And I don't mean 51 percent or 52 percent of
them. I mean 86 percent of the people or more. It is not a close
question.
And rather than talking about, well, we did this, we passed 5,950
bills, I am not talking about those bills. I am talking about bills we
haven't brought to the floor, Mr. Speaker, that we haven't allowed the
House to consider; that we have hundreds of thousands of kids, young
people who we respect and who are teachers, are doctors, are workers in
our factories making a difference, working in restaurants and hotels.
I was with the Chamber of Commerce in Maryland just the other day,
and three different CEOs came up to me and said: We have got DACA
people working for us and doing an excellent job, and they are worried
that they are going to be kicked out of the only country they know.
But we talk about NICS, and we talk about this, that, and the other.
Bring those bills to the floor. That is what we are asking for. We want
that respect. We want that respect for this institution.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to the majority leader again. It is
those two bills that we believe would pass with significant majorities
in this House--the three bills, and we can choose between them. We have
offered the queen of the hill, with the explanation for those who may
be watching and not bored stiff. One of those three bills that I have
mentioned, one a Republican bill, the other two bipartisan bills, Ros-
Lehtinen-Roybal-Allard bill and the Hurd-Aguilar bill, both of those
bills are bipartisan. Certainly one of those will get a significant
majority of this House, and I am not denigrating the bills.
I may or may not be for them that are on the schedule, but there are
no issues that the country feels are more important right now than
background checks, and there is no issue more timely than fixing--as
the Speaker pledged to do 14 months ago, putting at risk that young
woman and hundreds of thousands of other individuals in our country
similarly situated. That is what we ought to be doing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know
you reclaimed your time the time before, but let me finish what I was
saying.
With all due respect, what do we have to do? Yes, we have Fix NICS
sitting over in the Senate. And, yes, we are going to add to it for
school violence. We know that it does not have to be partisan, but the
background check system is broken. Let's not make it partisan. Let's
get it done.
When it comes to the challenge for DACA, we are just down to four
items. Border security. Not one person in here would probably argue
against that. And I know my friend across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, I
know his heart. He is a good man. He was, as he stated earlier,
majority leader. They had the majority here. They had 60 votes over in
the Senate. They had a lot of Members in the Senate, and they had the
Presidency. Same problem at that time, too. They did not fix it.
I don't want to be in that same place in the future. My commitment is
to fixing this problem. So let's sit down. Let's talk about border
security, but let's make sure our borders are actually secure.
When I look back--and people talk about that Gang of Eight bill--you
put more money in there for border security than was even being
requested today. But people still, on the other side, say no, Mr.
Speaker.
But the other point, too, is, if somebody comes from Mexico or Canada
and illegally comes across the border, why are they sent back to their
country but everybody else is not? Let's secure the border correctly.
Then, when it comes to really protecting the nuclear family, why don't
we make it a little faster that you could have your children and your
spouse with you? And do you know what that would do? I think that would
make everybody a little stronger.
When it comes to the idea of coming to America, should it just be the
luck of a lottery, or should it be merit? I think merit is a fairer
process for everybody's opportunity.
Now, I don't think anybody out there that is listening or can hear
this later would say those are partisan ideas. But when we sat in the
White House and we discussed it and we said let's narrow it to those
four items, I know the way our government is designed.
{time} 1145
It is not designed that one person gets all their way. It is based
upon compromise.
This city, our capital, was because of a compromise. The creator of
the banking system, Alexander Hamilton, made this our capital. George
Washington, our first President, never served here. He was sworn in on
Wall Street and served his second term in Philadelphia.
As my good friend knows, Mr. Speaker, when a bill comes out of
committee, it gets worked on, then it is brought to the floor. That is
exactly what is happening with Mr. Goodlatte today, so we can bring
something to the floor and pass it, that everybody, hopefully, can vote
for.
This Congress has acted on so many items, but so many times this year
it has felt like the election has never ended. I know the heart of many
of the Members on the other side. They wanted to vote for disaster
relief. They were so frustrated that they shut the government down.
[[Page H1495]]
Do you know what? We have all learned from that lesson before. It is
not productive.
I also watched people when they talked about health facilities. They
wanted that funding, but they couldn't vote for it.
Then they said the whole problem was, when we brought all 12
appropriation bills to the floor, that they couldn't vote for them
because they needed a budget agreement. They needed more money. So,
yes, it took a long time to work that out because you want to hold that
with other issues as well.
Finally, after the shutdown, that was able to be broken apart. But
when we finally got that budget agreement that really is negotiated by
both sides, even the individual on the other side of the aisle, Mr.
Speaker, came to the floor and said she was going to vote ``no,'' but
she negotiated and wanted to tell how she got victories inside the
bill.
That is not compromise. You can't sit in a room and say, ``Okay, I
will give here and you give there,'' and based upon the formation of
our government, with the Senate as well, we come to an agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what goes on in people's minds and why they
wanted to be there. I will make this promise to the American public: I
will stay in the room, I will take the ups and downs, but at the end of
the day, I want to solve a problem. I don't want a political bill.
I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. I have been in the room many times
with this President. He said on this very floor, he went beyond DACA.
For those in the American public must understand. It is a much higher
number. And for him to find that compromise, he just asked for three
other things. That doesn't mean we are going to get them all, but that
does mean we could find compromise in those three.
Mr. Speaker, the one sad part, if we had this debate with the
American public, they would find compromise with those three items.
They would probably find it very fast. They would want their borders
secure; they would want the nuclear family closer together sooner; and
they would probably want to see some merit.
So I know there are times here that we get heated, but the majority
of bills that pass this floor are bipartisan.
As I stated earlier, more than 200 of those more than 400 bills that
are sitting in the Senate passed by voice, all the Democrats and all
the Republicans.
We are going to differ on some items, and that is right. I want you
to keep your principles. But there is a window, and there is an
opportunity. And I know, as the days get closer, the election will be
sooner, but let us make a promise to one another. Let's keep that
election on the outside, and let's find solutions on this side, in this
House.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the leader spoke in a very calm and reasoned
way. I will do the same.
As an aside, I will tell you the CHIP bill passed on November 3, over
a month after its authorization expired.
Mr. Speaker, the majority leader talks about coming to compromise. I
went down to the White House. Mr. Durbin and I talked about whether we
would go to the White House. We went to the White House out of respect
for the Presidency, out of a hope that the discussions that we had at
the White House would lead to resolution of a serious issue threatening
hundreds of thousands, indeed, close to 2 million individuals who know
America as their country and who 86 percent of Americans think ought to
stay here in America.
In that meeting, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States
said--and he said it on television. You don't have to take my word.
There is a video record of what the President said. What he said is we
would take care of the DACA issue, consistent, Mr. Speaker, with what
Speaker Ryan said to that young woman when he said that the revocation
of protections for Dreamers brought here as children will not be
carried out.
There was no parenthetical addition, if we do X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, W.
There was no parenthetical phrase. He said: We will not put you at
risk, young woman, and those similarly situated.
We have a bipartisan coalition on this floor, but the leader speaks
about going into a room--if you want to have a pejorative, a back room,
privately--to try to resolve issues not directly related to the DACA
protectees.
They are here. The President said they ought to stay here. And the
President made a representation, Mr. Speaker, that if we passed a bill,
he would sign it. But as the Senate considered a compromise piece of
legislation, agreed to by Republican Senators and Democratic Senators,
just a few hours before it was brought to the floor, the President said
he would veto it. That was not what he said on television in the White
House. He said that he would take the heat, if heat there is, and sign
the bill that we sent down.
Now we have a Speaker of the House and a majority leader of the
Senate who say we won't send something down to the President unless he
agrees to sign it, meaning that the House and Senate will not act
independently of the President's imprimatur. How sad a position it is
that the people's House and the United States Senate have subjugated
themselves to the President of the United States.
I presume, Mr. Speaker, that prolonging this discussion apparently
will make no difference. But, Mr. Speaker, our side of the aisle
represents just short of 50 percent, maybe 48 percent, of the American
people. Mr. Speaker, we are saying let us consider. Let us have on this
floor--not in a back room, not in somebody's office, not somewhere
privately--on the House floor, the people's floor, let us vote.
Let the American people see who raises their hand ``aye'' and ``nay''
on propositions that have been worked on in committee, the Goodlatte
bill, and for months between Republicans and Democrats, bipartisan
bills. Let the people speak through their Representatives. Don't bottle
it up in somebody's office. Let the people's House work its will. Have
the courage to pursue that which you said you would do and take the
tough issues head-on, not duck them.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope, on behalf of that 86 percent of the
American people who support the Dreamers, and even more who support
comprehensive background checks, that we have the ability to consider
those bills and consider them next week.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________