[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 122 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6572-H6577]
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 rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader the schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), 
my friend, the majority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am 
thankful that he is back with us, but at times I wish he weren't as 
healthy as he is. I am just joking.
  (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCARTHY. 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 p.m.
  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 a.m. for legislative business. 
Last votes are expected no later than 3 p.m.
  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 
tomorrow.
  In addition, the House will consider several bills aimed at giving 
Americans more affordable healthcare choices:
  First, the Protect Medical Innovation Act, sponsored by 
Representative Erik Paulsen. This bill would permanently repeal 
ObamaCare's burdensome medical device tax. Doing so will create jobs, 
promote research, and allow for innovation that could lead to the next 
generation of lifesaving medical technologies;
  Next, the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding 
Health Savings Accounts Act, sponsored by Representative Peter Roskam. 
This package would expand access to lower cost healthcare options, 
encourage healthcare savings, and put a 2-year delay on ObamaCare's 
health insurance tax, which drives up costs of insurance for almost 
every American;
  Finally, the Restoring Access to Medication and Modernizing Health 
Savings Accounts Act, sponsored by Representative Lynn Jenkins. This 
bill would transform and modernize health savings accounts and allow 
for more innovation in healthcare delivery.
  I look forward to the House passing all three of these critical bills 
without delay.
  Mr. Speaker, we also hope to vote on the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 19, 2018, on page H6572, the following appeared: Mr. 
Speaker, we also hope to vote on the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. Speaker, we 
also hope to vote on the conference report to accompany H.R. 5515, 
the National Defense Authorization Act.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 
  This House is committed to rebuilding our military and ensuring our 
  brave men and women in uniform have the equipment and training they 
             need to successfully carry out their mission.
  I want to thank the Armed Services Committee for their hard work on 
this bill, especially their chairman, Mac Thornberry, and I look 
forward to another big bipartisan vote.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, additional legislative items are possible in 
the House. As soon as our schedule is finalized, I will be sure to 
inform all Members.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his exposition of 
the schedule.
  I want to speak briefly to the appropriations process.
  I think the Appropriations Committee is fairly close to the 
completion of its bills. Can the gentleman tell us when the balance of 
the appropriations bills might be coming to the floor and when we can 
perhaps expect the next appropriations bill on the floor?

  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee has now 
passed all 12 bills out of subcommittee. By next week, all 12 bills 
will have also cleared the full committee. By passing the Interior and 
Financial Services bills today, the gentleman knows the full House has 
adopted for the full-year appropriations half of those, six bills, 
making up over two-thirds of the discretionary budget authority.
  House and Senate conferees on the first package are working to 
produce a conference report, and I look forward to continuing work on 
FY19 appropriations in the weeks to come. As soon as the items are 
scheduled for the floor, I will be sure to inform all Members.
  As the gentleman knows, this is a different year, as just last year 
we were able to pass all 12. But what is different about this year is, 
over in the Senate, there is action being taken, which is positive for 
us. That is why we are already into conference.
  I look forward to having those conference reports coming back and 
moving those bills to the President's desk to be signed. I am proud of 
the fact that two-thirds of all the discretionary spending will have 
already passed this floor as of this day.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observation. I 
share his delight that the Senate is moving bills. I would observe that 
they appear to be moving them in a bipartisan fashion, which I think is 
positive for an outcome on the appropriations process.
  In that vein, I know we are in conference on the MILCON and 
Legislative Branch minibus. Does the gentleman have any idea when that 
might conclude and we might be considering that conference?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do not know at this time. I know they are continuing to work. As 
soon as they get their work done, I will advise the Members. I will 
bring it to the floor then.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me just mention, we just had a vote, and, 
obviously, I was disappointed in the outcome. I was the sponsor, 
probably as the gentleman knows, of the Help America Vote Act, which 
created the Election Assistance Commission. The Election Assistance 
Commission bill, the HAVA bill, passed with a big bipartisan vote and 
was signed, as the gentleman knows, by President George W. Bush in a 
very bipartisan effort.
  The premise was that, for 200 years, the Federal Government had not 
participated in assisting the States in running Federal elections. I 
will repeat that. The vote for President, the vote for Senate, and the 
vote for the House were all done through State administrations with no 
participation by the Federal Government.
  In 2002, the Congress and the President made a determination that we 
would contribute to making sure that our elections ran correctly. The 
gentleman will remember the issue of hanging chads and the question of 
whether or not votes were properly counted. It was of great concern 
across the aisle. So we passed the legislation.
  Unfortunately, however, we have not continued to pursue that. And 
today's vote, we have a greater challenge today. The challenge in the 
2000 election was inappropriate administration, domestically, of our 
election. The problem in 2016, as Speaker Ryan pointed out and the 
Intelligence Committee found and the intelligence community has found, 
was that there was clearly an outside attack on America by Russia, and 
perhaps others, to undermine the integrity of our elections.

[[Page H6573]]

  The vote that we held just a few minutes ago was about the Federal 
Government continuing to partner with the States to ensure the 
integrity of our election system and its safety from outside attack, 
interference, and undermining.
  I hope, Mr. Leader, that we could visit that issue. I hope the Senate 
visits that issue. Perhaps we can visit it in conference, and, 
together, Republicans and Democrats could join together in an effort to 
work with our partners in the States to ensure the integrity of the 
administration of our election and to ensure that votes are cast 
correctly, counted correctly, and reported correctly.
  As the sponsor of that bill that was cosponsored, as the gentleman 
may remember--no, you weren't here in '02--by Bob Ney of Ohio, but 
overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle, I hope that we 
could move ahead, in the weeks ahead, as we move toward the November 6 
election, to make sure that Americans--Democrats, Republicans, 
independents, all others, and not only in this country but around the 
world--have confidence in the results of our election.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the gentleman wants to respond to 
that. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, there is one part of what the gentleman 
said with which I disagree. The vote we just had was a motion to 
recommit. We all know what motions to recommit are.
  The good news about this is, last year in the omni, we fully funded 
the Help America Vote Act. That vote was a different vote. That was a 
vote that moved on to the President and was signed into law.
  Now, of that funding that we fully funded--because we believe, just 
as the gentleman does, that we want to make sure our elections are 
fair, honest, and that people do not try to manipulate them--40 percent 
of that money that we fully funded is still available. The challenge 
here is that we have 19 States that have yet to apply.
  So we should work together to make sure those States are applying, 
because the money is sitting there, and the money has been fully 
funded. We want to make sure, in the Help America Vote Act, that it 
continues, that States apply for that money, and that the elections are 
safe and sound and honest.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observation.
  I would simply be constrained to say, I listened to Mr. 
Frelinghuysen. I listened to his opposition to the MTR. The pretense 
that the amendment that was offered is somehow a procedural or 
nonconsequential amendment is incorrect. Mr. Frelinghuysen didn't even 
try to make the argument. He said it was a good bill; we ought to pass 
it. Fine. The amendment would have not undermined the bill in any way.
  Now, there is a provision in that bill, as the gentleman knows, to, 
in effect, undermine the agreement that was made last year, with 
respect to the funding levels, by putting $500 million into a 
grandchild's or a children's fund by the chairman of the subcommittee. 
It is a little bit like your rescissions.
  The gentleman who put that in voted for a $2 trillion deficit-
creating document and put $500 million in a trust fund to bring down 
that deficit. I know my friend is happy that that will, at that rate, 
take 4,000 years to fill that $2 trillion hole.
  So I disagree with my friend that the amendment would have had any 
adverse effect on the bill that was passed.
  Now, I voted against the bill, but the bill passed the House of 
Representatives. Nothing would have adversely affected that bill. I 
appreciate what the gentleman said about last year's action, which I 
supported, which I thought was correct, and which I appreciated the 
Congress taking.
  Next, Mr. Speaker, we had a vote on ICE. The gentleman can argue it 
one way or the other. I know you criticized us; we criticized you. The 
fact of the matter is, what it did not deal with--and you will indicate 
that there was a bill that dealt with this in a fashion. But, again, I 
would remind you that your pledge, through your Speaker, was to take 
issues head-on, one at a time, discretely, not confuse them.
  I would urge the leader, the Speaker, and the majority party to bring 
a bill to the floor that deals simply with an issue with which we 
believe the overwhelming majority of Americans agree: Do not rip 
children from the arms of their parents. Do not estrange children from 
their parents for weeks and months. Do not traumatize children, perhaps 
permanently, by this policy of separating children.

  I would hope and urge the majority leader to bring a bill to the 
floor that would deal with that discrete issue.
  Mr. Nadler has a bill, H.R. 6135, to prohibit the Department of 
Homeland Security from pursuing this policy of separating families. 
John McCain has said that that policy of separation offends the dignity 
and decency of the American people. That is John McCain, former 
candidate for President in your party, Mr. Leader, and I would agree 
with him on that issue.
  I would urge the leader to bring a bill to the floor to deal with 
this issue directly, and I believe--perhaps I am wrong--that it would 
receive a very significant majority of support in this House.
  I would ask the gentleman, is there any plan to bring such a bill to 
the floor in the near future?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you voted against the 
omni, correct?
  Mr. HOYER. The omni last year? Yes.
  Mr. McCARTHY. So you voted against the funding----
  Mr. HOYER. I am going to reclaim my time, Mr. Leader, for this.
  Mr. McCARTHY. If I can finish, you had stated at the end of your last 
statement that you voted for that funding. I was just correcting. By 
voting against the omni, you voted against the funding for that.
  Mr. HOYER. Of course, I supported that policy. Now, the reason I was 
going to reclaim my time, very frankly, Mr. Leader, I have done some 
research on bills you voted against. I could go through them and pick 
out this, that, and the other that everybody in the world was for, and 
I could say you voted against it. I have not done that.
  The reason I have not done it is because I don't think that would be 
intellectually honest on my part, because I know that there are things 
I would pick out that you clearly supported but you didn't support some 
parts of the bill and, therefore, indicated your objection by voting 
against them, which is exactly what I did in the omni. The gentleman, 
my friend, knows that to be the case.
  My friend brings up CHIP all the time. My friend knows that I have 
supported CHIP at its very inception and in every step of the way of 
its development and reauthorization. My friend knows that, but he 
continues to pretend, because I voted against the omni, that I voted 
against CHIP. I didn't like the omni. I thought the omni was wrong. 
Very frankly, I think I was correct in that vote.
  Now, the omni passed, and it passed with a very substantial number of 
Democratic votes. I didn't lobby against the omni with my Members. I 
did indicate that I did not agree with things you had left out and did 
not put in the omni, and I, frankly, did not agree with some things 
that were in the omni.
  Having said that, let's not go back and forth. I can get a lot of 
bills the same way and show that you voted against motherhood and apple 
pie in this bill, that bill, and the other bill. You know that to be 
the case. I would hope we can stop doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. The only reason I brought it up is your statement at 
the end was that you voted for it.
  Mr. HOYER. You are correct.
  Mr. McCARTHY. At any time, if I may finish, if I state that I voted 
for something that is incorrect, please bring it up.
  Mr. HOYER. I will do that. I will tell you, you are correct in saying 
that I did not support the omni, but I did support the proposition.
  Mr. McCARTHY. In saying that, you just recently said you supported 
CHIP, but you voted against it because you voted against the omni. 
Also, is it not true, when CHIP was by itself on the floor, you voted 
against CHIP there? Because we brought CHIP to the floor three times.
  But if I could move on, that was the case. So you voted against CHIP 
even when it wasn't in the omni, so there are other reasons to vote 
against CHIP.
  You had a question about a bill.

[[Page H6574]]

  

  Mr. HOYER. Separating children from their parents.
  Mr. McCARTHY. As we all know, America is a Nation of immigrants. 
Almost all of our ancestors came from somewhere else in search of a 
better life in this land of freedom and opportunity, and we want to 
maintain that.
  Mr. Speaker, America is also a Nation of laws. We support 
immigration, but it also must be legal immigration. We must have the 
security, especially, along our southern border. As we speak, our men 
and women at the border are doing their absolute best to maintain both 
order and decency.
  Since 2014, Border Patrol has completed more than 13,000--let me say 
that again, 13,000--life-saving rescues along the border, including 
many children. We would be naive to think that there are not certain 
individuals hoping to enter this country illegally and to do us harm.
  Yesterday, when we talked about ICE, one of the elements that came up 
was the thousands of gang members that they stop. We all know the most 
vicious gang out there is MS-13. We know it because we know it in our 
communities. We see the murders. We see the drugs. We know the hundreds 
of MS-13 members that they have stopped from being a part of our 
communities. That is why we had that vote.
  Simply put, the entire immigration enforcement community deserves our 
support because they work under very difficult circumstances. I think 
everybody would agree with that, which is why, if I can be very honest 
with my friend, I was upset to see many Democrats refuse to stand with 
the men and women of ICE yesterday.
  Why? Six individuals who work for ICE gave the ultimate sacrifice of 
their life. One was murdered by the Los Zetas cartel.
  The gentleman asked if I would bring up a bill. I offered to bring up 
a Democrat bill, but the author of the bill who put it across the desk 
and asked people to cosponsor said he would vote against it.

  What was most shocking to me is the number of people who voted 
``present.'' The gentleman can argue with me all day on things I vote 
``yes'' and things I vote ``no'' on. The only time he will ever see my 
vote up there for ``present'' is a quorum call, because I believe the 
American public and my constituents expect me to make a decision when I 
come.
  I think it was very clear yesterday. You can make a decision. I know 
my friend and his beliefs, but I also know his party has a new 
movement. It is a socialist party, and they are gaining steam. But that 
new party and that new movement in there, I still believe, would want 
you to make a decision one place or the other.
  Just last year alone, ICE made almost 5,000 gang-related arrests. 
They seized nearly 1 million pounds of narcotics and opioids.
  The gentleman knows, those 2 weeks we spent on this floor dealing 
with the opioid epidemic, there will be more than 100 Americans who 
will die today because of opioids, and tomorrow will be the same. That 
is why we did CARA in the last Congress. That is why we came back with 
billions of dollars of funding to combat the epidemic. That is why we 
came back and spent 2 weeks on this floor passing more than 50 bills.

                              {time}  1130

  But think for one moment. If my friend on the other side, his 
colleague, was able to abolish ICE, that would be 1 million more pounds 
of narcotics. And it is more than just opioids. It is fentanyl. A small 
dose will kill you.
  They rescued more than 900 sexually exploited children. They stopped 
thousands of predators. My friend knows that, too, when we were able to 
finally stop human trafficking on the internet.
  Backpage.com is no longer there because this Congress acted, and they 
are being prosecuted. Seventy percent of all human trafficking happens 
online. But do you know what? We can celebrate that that has changed 
because of this Congress.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we want America to remain a land of opportunity, 
but demeaning the individuals who keep this country safe and calling to 
abolish ICE is certainly not the way to do it.
  I thank my friend, and I think we have a difference of opinion, and I 
think a strong difference of opinion, and that is healthy. But 
sometimes when you have a difference of opinion, it is a ``no'' and a 
``yes,'' not just a ``present.'' You might come to the debate, but you 
ought to participate and you ought to take a stance.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks a lot about law 
enforcement, correctly so. We ought to honor those who protect us and 
who put their life and limb at risk daily to do so. We ought to honor 
them whether they are ICE agents, whether they are Border Patrol 
agents, whether they are DIA agents, whether they are members of the 
Armed Forces, whether they are members of the sheriff's departments or 
police departments in our various communities around the country. We 
ought to have compassion for those who are victims whom they are 
protecting and compassion for those whom we lose in the performance of 
their law enforcement duties.
  There is not a Member of Congress who has been at more memorial 
services for law enforcement officers that we have lost through the 
centuries than I have, period.
  Yesterday's vote was because of the patently political nature of the 
resolution that was offered. The majority leader says he wanted to 
offer a bill of one of our Members who suggested the elimination of 
ICE--small number. And that Member, apparently, according to the 
majority leader, told him: Look, I am going to vote ``no'' on that if 
you bring it to the floor, obviously trying to raise a point about 
wanting to stop the policies and practices--not the ICE agency, but the 
policies and practices of ripping, literally ripping children from the 
arms of their fathers and mothers and estranging them at places that 
neither knew where the other was.
  The gentleman talks about the opioid epidemic being on the front 
page. It is there, and properly so, because it is a crisis, and we have 
dealt with it in a bipartisan way, which was correct to do so. We 
believed it was underfunded for some period of time. We have come up 
with some more funds. We are glad about that.
  But he did not answer my question, and he distracted us from the 
focus. There was a bill, which we didn't like, because the bill had a 
lot of other stuff in it, which is why the Speaker said we ought to 
consider things discreetly, individually, one at a time. Don't confuse 
and obfuscate the issue.
  So bring a bill to the floor that says that the policy that the 
President was pursuing, that he then changed--and the courts have now 
interjected themselves; we don't know for how long--to say that we 
ought not, that is not who we are as Americans, Mr. Speaker.
  These 2- and 3- and 4-year-old children whom we see on the front 
pages of our paper, they are not MS-13. There is not a Member on this 
floor who will defend MS-13. There is not a Member on this floor who 
does not want to see the folks who gain some status by being an MS-13 
caught, stopped, and taken out of our country if they are not citizens 
of this country, not a one of us. So that is a red herring dragged 
across this floor back and forth yesterday and today.
  Mr. Speaker, you would think that we could say that America's values 
do not support taking children, small children, infant children. An 
instance was cited on the floor yesterday where a mother was nursing 
her child and that child was taken from her and the mother was put in 
handcuffs.
  Is that America? Is that the compassionate country of which George 
Bush talked? Is it that bright and shining city on the hill of which 
Ronald Reagan spoke? I think not, Mr. Speaker.
  Lastly, I know that flood insurance is going to expire July 31. I see 
the ranking member, Ms. Maxine Waters, on the floor. I know she has 
been working on this with Mr. Hensarling. Does the leader know whether 
or not that bill might be coming to the floor or some extension coming 
to the floor next week?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  To answer his last question first, yes, we will extend flood 
insurance through November 30 as we continue to work through the other 
differences we have. We do not want flood insurance to lapse, and we 
will have that on the floor.
  But the gentleman brought up a couple of other points. If I may, I 
come from a family of immigrants. I come

[[Page H6575]]

from a family in which nobody was a Republican. I chose to be in this 
party based upon its philosophy.
  If you come to my office, I have two Presidents' hanging portraits: 
Abraham Lincoln. The greatest challenge ever to this Nation was the 
Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President. And the 
other one is, the other reason why--both of those men--I chose to, and 
that was Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan did talk about that shining city 
on the hill. There was another President at the time, and I saw the 
difference, and I made my selection.
  But the gentleman talks about the challenges with the rule of law, 
the challenges at the border. Nobody on this side wants children to be 
mistreated. That is why we dealt with the issue, and we brought it to 
the floor. There was an executive order that dealt with it.

  But we moved two pieces of legislation dealing with immigration. Not 
one Democrat on the other side worked with us. Maybe there were 
problems. Maybe they disagreed with having greater security on the 
border, having a wall. I understand that, but maybe that is the 
difference.
  But the question you brought forward was the bill on the floor 
yesterday. It had nothing negative in it. It had nothing about 
children. It talked about:
  Do you support ICE?
  Do you support the families of those six individuals who were 
murdered in the line of duty?
  Do you support the stopping of drugs coming across the border?
  Do you stand with those children who get exploited? Those ICE agents 
actually find them.
  Do you stand with ICE when they stop those human traffickers, the 
modern-day slavery of today, and stop those people?
  Well, we had an opportunity for that. I know this other side of the 
aisle and I know the new Democratic Socialist Party feels differently, 
probably feels differently than my friend. They want to abolish it. 
They never put a bill in to reform it. They said, ``Abolish it.''
  If we were proposing a bill that said ``support it,'' I would allow 
your bill to come up as well so we could have a clear choice. But when 
you were given that offer, the author of the bill said, ``I would vote 
`no.' '' The people you asked to cosponsor, ``We vote `no,' '' makes me 
wonder.
  But the most shocking part to me--I know we take tough votes on this 
floor. I know there are tough decisions to be made. But at the end of 
the day, you have to make a decision because that is why the American 
people sent you here.
  I have never been in a debate, in a primary or a general, where they 
ask me: If a bill came to the floor, will I vote ``present''? I have 
never been asked that by my district. Republican or Democrat or 
Independent or Green Party: ``I want you to go to Washington. I want 
you to be on that floor. I want you to make a strong debate down in the 
well. And when you get the opportunity, you press that `present' 
button,'' never, never have I heard that and never would I have thought 
I would see that. I have never seen so much color on that board as I 
saw yesterday.
  And if you truly felt your convictions of what you said, your own 
``present'' vote made it pass, then go back to the individuals you talk 
to, go back to that new Socialist Party and tell them what you did, 
because I didn't see convictions yesterday. I saw you play politics.
  Our issues are too important. People have lost their lives, and you 
vote ``present.'' Now, we have more work to be done. We take this job 
seriously.
  Ronald Reagan talked about that shining city on the hill, about 
everybody rising up. This is the exact same debate we had when we 
wanted to pass tax reform. Not one person on the other side of the 
aisle could vote with it, but there are 1 million more Americans 
working today.
  When I look at the last 49 years of America--because there are a lot 
of people in this Chamber who are younger than that--there has only 
been 7 months where unemployment has been below 4 percent. And do you 
realize that 2 of those months, you just lived through it in April and 
May? You have never seen the opportunity that you grasp for today.
  And do you know what happens with that opportunity? More people want 
to come, and that is good for America. But we should come legally.
  We know our system is broken, and I know my friend knows it, too, 
because we spent hours talking and trying to work something out. So, 
yes, we brought a bill to the floor, and we had a pretty good idea that 
probably it wouldn't pass. Why? Because nobody on the other side of the 
aisle wanted to step forward.
  You know the process; it would go to the Senate. Maybe it is not just 
perfect, but I think this country is too important to vote ``present,'' 
and I am going to take risks and I am going to bring bills to the floor 
that take risks.
  So I thank the gentleman for the question. But what I really ask--the 
election is still a ways away. Stop playing politics. Be a part. That 
voting card, I don't even know why we have a ``present'' button here.
  We want quorum, let's just all say it. But the idea of something so 
important that people have lost their lives over, what do you think 
those families felt like today? What do you think those families felt 
like?
  Or what do you think about that young child who got saved from being 
exploited or got put back to the family and saved?
  What do you think about the drugs that didn't come through, the 
number of lives that continue to live today because of that?
  Or what do you think about those men and women, a part of ICE, who 
question does this government even support them. And every day they 
risk their lives for that.
  It is not a day to vote ``present.'' If you disagree, if you are part 
of the Socialist Party, stand up and take a stance. Let the American 
public know where you stand.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows damn 
well that is not the case, and I am tired of hearing him demagogue 
about that. I expect him to do it between now and the election, but the 
gentleman is not honest when he does it, and he knows that, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. McCARTHY. May I ask the gentleman what am I not saying correctly? 
Were there ``present'' votes in that Chamber?
  Mr. HOYER. He says something about the Democratic Socialist Party--it 
is my time. It is my time, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dunn). Members are reminded to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McCARTHY. May I ask the gentleman--the 133 ``present'' votes, did 
they not take place yesterday?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is my time.
  This is the most autocratic Congress in which I have served. It has 
had the most closed rules. And the majority leader brings to the floor 
his version of what he wants to say and how he wants to characterize 
it. No consultation with us, no amendments allowed, and then we say we 
are not going to vote against ICE agents. We honor the work that they 
do. We honor the sacrifices they make. We honor the critical role they 
play in defending our country and enforcing our laws.

                              {time}  1145

  But, Mr. Leader, we are not going to take it or leave it. We are not 
going to vote ``no'' on a resolution that purports simply to honor our 
ICE agents. If it were simply that, it may have been a different 
matter.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the majority leader would stop 
talking about--there are some people in his party who say absolutely 
absurd things at the very highest level of his party, and I haven't 
brought them up.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked a simple question. The Speaker of this House 
said he was going to bring issues to this floor individually, vote them 
up or down. I asked the leader: Will you bring a bill to the floor 
which will stop the separation of children from their parents? He says 
he did. 113 of his colleagues on his side of the aisle thought it was a 
bad bill and voted ``no.''
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, they didn't vote ``present.''
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, they didn't vote ``present.'' I voted 
``present'' because I wanted to say to the leader, Mr.

[[Page H6576]]

Speaker, I am not going to take it or leave it.
  He wants to make me look like I am not for law enforcement when I 
have been for law enforcement in the 50 years I have been in public 
office, without fail--without fail.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, then why did he vote ``present''?
  Mr. HOYER. I voted ``present,'' Mr. Speaker, because I was not going 
to take it or leave it. I was not going to just take what the majority 
leader wanted to shove down my throat and the throat of others. 
Because, Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric in that bill--and let me say to the 
leader, Mr. Speaker, he and I worked on a lot of resolutions regarding 
Israel, and we want to keep the Congress united on Israel, and we keep 
the Congress united on Israel.
  How do we do it, Mr. Speaker? We work on the language. We work on the 
language of the whereas clauses and the resolved clauses so that we can 
create a broad majority. We could have done that with the ICE bill, 
easily--easily--an overwhelming support for their role and for their 
courage and for their character.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I asked about the bill that deals with flood 
insurance. I think the gentleman has told me that that is going to come 
to the floor, and I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I know he misspoke earlier on a couple of things, and I 
think he may have misspoken again. He made a comment. He said we are 
autocratic. He said we are the most closed. So I just want to go to 
facts.
  This Congress has a 20-year high for bills enacted with bipartisan 
cosponsors, a 20-year high. Those are not my words. That is from 
Quorum, a company that only deals with data and measures all. So that 
means we are the most bipartisan Congress in more than 20 years.
  Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman want to know something else, just on 
facts? He said we close everything. There have been over 1,650 
amendments. 745 of those were Democratic amendments. So I looked back 
to Speaker Pelosi. She allowed less than 1,000 amendments in the entire 
111th Congress.
  So, I am sorry, those statements were not correct.
  Now, we can have differences of opinion. He has a right to vote 
``present.'' If he gets mad about it, he can get mad about it, but that 
is what the Record shows.
  And he said because what were the resolved clauses. Mr. Speaker, the 
gentleman knows that bill was on suspension. The rules of suspension 
have a higher threshold to pass, but it also means there are no 
amendments.
  If you want to be fair, instead of just the bill that was coming 
forward, I offered to bring a Democratic bill up that would abolish 
ICE.
  So, for the American people to know, let's see what the resolved 
clauses say, because this made so many Democrats vote ``no'' or 
``present.''

       Resolved. That the House of Representatives expresses its 
     continued support for all United States Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement, ICE, officers and personnel, who carry 
     out the important mission of ICE;
       Denounces calls for the complete abolishment of ICE; and
       Supports the efforts of all Federal agencies, State law 
     enforcement, and military personnel who bring law and order 
     to our Nation's borders.

  That is what the resolved said. That is what moved the other side to 
vote ``present.'' That is what we voted on.
  He may be upset. I am upset he voted ``present,'' too. But I don't 
know what in this clause drove all the Democrats here, because you know 
on suspension he helped it pass.
  But is it because that announcement denounces calls for the complete 
abolishment of ICE, because that is the bill he put across the desk? If 
that is what he is asking for, he can stand with his convictions. Don't 
put a bill across the desk, cosponsor it, and then when he has 
something on the floor that is only positive, that is only standing 
with the people of ICE, say he has to vote ``present.'' I don't know 
where the courage is there.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't know who ``we'' is. Somebody who 
introduces a bill on either side of the aisle doesn't make it a ``we'' 
bill.
  And the reason they brought the nonbinding resolution to the floor, 
when they really wanted to bring the bill to the floor, is because it 
wouldn't have served their political purposes because everybody on our 
side of the aisle would have voted ``no.'' He knows it. That is why he 
didn't bring it to the floor, for politics; not for principle, for 
politics.

  And to his credit, I understand the Speaker didn't want to bring it 
to the floor either. At least that is what is reported in the papers.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, my question has still not been answered.
  There have been more closed rules in this Congress than any Congress 
in recent memory, during the time I have served. Now, there have been a 
lot of bills passed, and we passed them on bipartisanly. We had about 
six, seven, eight, or nine naming a post office the other day.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, that is a lot less than under his 
leadership.
  Mr. HOYER. Isn't that wonderful.
  I voted for all of them, either by voice vote or by card. They were 
bills that we all agreed with.
  But more closed rules on this floor, including today's bill that we 
passed, than any Congress in recent memory.
  My question to the majority leader was: Will he bring to the floor a 
free-standing bill which provides that children will not be separated 
from their parents--which John McCain says is inconsistent with the 
decency of the American people--so that we can vote on that proposition 
and that proposition only. The majority leader has not answered that 
question.
  He talks about voting ``present,'' which he didn't like. I am sorry 
he didn't like it, but I would vote ``present'' again to express my 
opposition, the only way it was possible to do, because, unlike his 
characterization, I did not want to say to ICE agents, ``I do not 
respect you.'' Therefore, I did not want to vote against a resolution, 
the resolved clause of which I agreed with.
  But it didn't deal with the most critical issue. It could have--it 
didn't--and it is nonbinding. To argue about that is to dissemble about 
the question that I asked.
  I am prepared to end this because I don't think we are going 
anywhere. I don't think I am going to get an answer from the majority 
leader, and I don't think he will bring it to the floor, free-standing, 
any more than he will bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill, 
which is so necessary to this country, to the floor, no more than he 
will bring a Dreamers protection act to this floor.
  He is gesticulating, Mr. Speaker, as if: What do you mean by that?
  He brought a bill to the floor that he said solved the problem that 
113 of his Members voted against. It got over 300 votes against. That 
is not a viable option to bring to the floor. He knew it was going to 
fail. He knew it was another message bill.
  So I asked him: Will he bring that bill to the floor individually, 
discretely, to protect these children, or not? I haven't gotten an 
answer to that.
  The second thing I asked him, which he did answer, is that we are 
going to bring a bill to the floor, apparently, hopefully, to protect 
those who live in flood zones and who are going to have trouble getting 
flood insurance on August 1. He says he will bring that to the floor.
  Now, I am prepared to close and to yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman to yield because I 
just think the Record needs to be corrected.
  The gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, that we brought two immigration 
bills to this floor that would solve the problem. The gentleman also 
knows there was an executive order signed that stopped this action 
being taken before this even went forward.

[[Page H6577]]

  But I also heard the gentleman say that he voted ``present'' because 
he didn't want the ICE agents to think he didn't support them, and that 
he supported those things in the resolved. Prior, he said that is why 
he voted against it.
  I read what was in the resolved. I don't understand how anybody in 
America looks at voting ``present'' with an idea you support it. That 
is the only thing that I question.
  Now, the gentleman also knows that this is the most productive 
Congress in modern history. It has passed more bills out of committee 
than any Congress in the last 25 years. It has passed more bills in 
this Chamber than any one in the last 25 years. He sees the openness to 
the number of amendments; and it is not just the number of amendments 
to Republicans because there are hundreds upon hundreds for Democrats.
  The gentleman also knows that the immigration bills that came to this 
floor had an opportunity. But what is interesting to me is that people 
want just one that they can support.
  Earlier, I heard he voted against CHIP because it was in the omni, 
but CHIP was on the floor by itself and he voted against it then.
  He can vote for the post office bills and that didn't deal with the 
immigration either, but he can vote for that. But then when it came to 
supporting ICE, the majority of Democrats voted ``present.'' That is 
not a profile in courage. That is walking away from a situation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this has gone on longer than it should have. 
But it has given us time to look at a MILCON-VA vote on May 15, 2008, 
in which the majority leader, on a substantive vote, not a resolution 
that was nonbinding, but a substantive appropriations bill, voted 
``present.''
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that to be true.
  Mr. HOYER. Voted ``present,'' Mr. Speaker, voted ``present.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________