[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5128-5130]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)


                  Welcoming the Honorable John Dingell

  Mr. HOYER. Before I yield to my friend, the majority leader, for the 
purpose of informing us of the schedule, I would like to note the 
presence of the longest-serving Member of this House in history, one of 
the best legislators in the history of this House, and one of the most 
decent human beings I know. We are so proud to have him on the floor 
with us once again. His successor, whom he knows very well, Debbie 
Dingell, is here with him as well.
  John Dingell, Mr. Chairman, we welcome you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, back 
to the House of Representatives. We are so glad to see you.
  Mr. Chairman, the beautiful Deborah is doing a wonderful job 
representing your district.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, 
for the purpose of informing us of the schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. McCARTHY. 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, 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 of the week 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 the close of 
business tomorrow.
  In addition, the House will consider H.R. 1195, the Bureau of 
Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act, authored by 
Representative Robert Pittenger. This bipartisan bill, which enjoys 
significant support from the Financial Services Committee, including 
the ranking member, will ensure that there is appropriate input given 
on actions being taken by the CFPB.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider two critical 
cybersecurity measures: H.R. 1560, the Protecting Cyber Networks Act, 
authored by Chairman Devin Nunes, and H.R. 1731, the National 
Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act, authored by Chairman Mike 
McCaul. These bipartisan bills will improve cyber threat information 
sharing between the private sector and the government and ensure that 
America can meet cyber challenges now and into the future.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information. Initially, I 
would like to just bring up a question with reference to the Bureau of 
Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act. The gentleman talked 
about bipartisan legislation. This, as the gentleman may know, was a 
very bipartisan bill, with one of your Members and one of my Members, 
Mr. Heck, on my side, joining together in committee overwhelmingly in 
favor of setting up an advisory board so that there would be input from 
small business. Unfortunately, as the gentleman knows, there has 
subsequently been added a funding source which undermines, from our 
perspective, at the same time that we are trying to add an advisory 
board, the operations of the Consumer Financial Protection advisory 
board.
  Mr. Leader, it is somewhat ironic that we just passed $300 billion in 
reduced revenues without paying for them and are now worried about $9 
million. The Bible has something to say about the mote in one's eye 
being the object of attention. But it seems somewhat ironic, and I 
would hope that we could return this bill, which is a very admirable 
bill, to a bipartisan condition and not undermine the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau at the same time that we are trying to give 
it some additional advice and counsel.
  I would be glad to yield to my friend with, hopefully, perhaps a 
suggestion where we might return this bill to its bipartisan and 
overwhelmingly supported-on-both-sides-of-the-aisle condition.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, the only change in this bill is to make sure 
that the taxpayers are protected and not increase the debt. It is just 
a simple pay-for as we move forward. It has got bipartisan support 
coming out of the committee, and we hope that we could be able to move 
forward on the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
  I think the gentleman knows that I am one of the biggest proponents 
of paying for things, which is why I voted against your two tax bills 
on the floor today. They are not paid for, and $300 billion of revenue 
will be reduced. That will exacerbate the deficit. That is why we have 
PAYGO. So I am supportive of PAYGO, but I would like to see if we can 
reach a bipartisan agreement on a pay-for which does not undermine the 
operations of the consumer financial protection board. I know your 
side, with all due respect, Mr. Leader, does not like the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau and would like to repeal it and reduce its 
funding greatly. We disagree with that. We have a great disagreement on 
that proposition.
  So all I am saying is we have a bill on which there is bipartisan 
support. I see my friend, Mr. Lucas, on the floor on the ag bill. We 
had that on his bill, and he gave one of the most eloquent statements 
on the floor that I have heard about. Look, we have a bipartisan 
agreement; don't look bipartisanship in the eye and say ``no.''
  So we are turning a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill not because 
we are against paying for it--we are for paying for it. But we are 
against undermining the ability of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau to protect consumers, as it was designed to, and we need to 
adequately fund it without adding responsibilities and reducing its 
resources to protect the public.
  If the gentleman wants to say anything further, I will yield to him. 
If not, I will go on to another subject.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate 
his comments. But as the gentleman knows, most every American has had 
to, in the last few years, cut back based upon the economy. I do not 
believe it is too difficult to find $9 million out of a $600-million-
per-year budget, and I would think the consumers would expect that of 
the organization as well. We can all tighten our belts to make sure 
that the taxpayer is protected, and I look forward to continuing to 
work with you. I do believe, knowing you think things should be paid 
for as well, that there is an opportunity here that we can find 9 out 
of 600.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what I hear is we are not going to reach 
bipartisan agreement on that, and that is unfortunate.

[[Page 5129]]

  The cybersecurity bill, as the gentleman mentioned, will we consider 
the two cybersecurity-related bills together or separately? We have 
heard some information over here about whether they may be joined 
together or whether we are to consider them discretely, each one of 
them. I think they are relatively noncontroversial in some respects. 
But would the gentleman tell us how they might be considered?
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, I usually don't like to get 
ahead of the Rules Committee, but we will consider these bills separate 
but then joined together and sent to the Senate.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
  The gentleman also has brought up the issue of--well, I don't think 
you brought it up, but let me talk about it. As we know, April 15 
occurred yesterday. The budget was supposed to be adopted as of 
yesterday. As the gentleman and I both know, when my party was in 
charge, as when your party is in charge, we haven't met that April 15 
deadline. But I know the gentleman has talked about reconciliation 
instructions.
  The Senate bill, of course, does have reconciliation instructions to 
the Finance Committee and to the HELP Committee, the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee, but none others. The House apparently 
has left itself room to have instructions to every committee.
  Can the gentleman tell us, A, when he expects the budget conference 
to report back and when we might consider that conference on the floor? 
Then, secondly, whether or not he believes that there will be 
reconciliation instructions beyond the Affordable Care Act. We 
understand that that is contemplated. But beyond the Affordable Care 
Act, does the gentleman expect reconciliation instructions on other 
matters?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, since my side of the aisle has taken the 
majority, we have done a budget every single year. We have passed the 
budget on this floor. We have voted this week to go to conference, we 
have appointed conferees, and we were actually excited about the change 
in the Senate and their moving a budget, so we are very hopeful that we 
will get this done very quickly. I do not want to get ahead of the 
conferees working, but I am hopeful that they will get back soon. 
Seeing how far they go, I am hopeful that they will be able to give as 
much flexibility as possible when it comes to reconciliation.
  Mr. HOYER. So the gentleman contemplates going beyond reconciliation 
instructions on the Affordable Care Act to other matters? For instance, 
in the House budget, we replace seniors' Medicare guarantee with a 
premium support voucher. Would the majority leader expect a 
reconciliation instruction on replacing seniors' Medicare guarantee 
with such a premium support voucher?
  Mr. McCARTHY. As the gentleman knows, I do not like to get ahead of 
the conferees. I will let them work forward and see what comes back. As 
soon as their work is done, we will notify everyone and have it back on 
to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. I know that you don't want to anticipate, but, obviously, 
our Members are concerned about what they ought to be considering and 
planning for and making themselves aware of the facts about. Does the 
gentleman expect a reconciliation instruction on the part of the budget 
that was passed by the House that turns Medicare into a capped block 
grant reducing the funding by approximately one-third?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I appreciate the gentleman's going line by line, but if 
I can be very clear, I do not want to get in front of the conference. 
As soon as they get their work done, there will be plenty of time to 
notify all Members of what comes before the House, and we will notify 
them at that time.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I hope that is 
the case. And I would hope that we did not have that. We talked about--
I have talked about and you have talked about--just now, 
bipartisanship. I would hope that we would pass a budget that then the 
Appropriations Committee and other committees would be able to work on 
so that we could have a bipartisan product, as opposed to another 
confrontation that would go way past October 1 of this year, and we 
would be back in the position of having to have a continuing resolution 
on which there would be a confrontation and the threat of shutting down 
government.

                              {time}  1230

  Obviously, to the extent that we can, as I suggested with respect to 
the Consumer Financial Protection Board, to the extent that we can have 
bipartisan agreement--the gentleman that was just with me was Senator 
McConnell.
  Noting the passage of the sustainable growth rate bill which dealt 
with community health centers and dealt with the children's health 
insurance program, Senator McConnell said: The American people expect 
us to do work.
  He used the SGR example as a way that we did work in a constructive, 
bipartisan fashion, making compromises on both sides of the aisle, with 
Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi representing the two parties, came 
together and worked, and my staff and I think your staff participated 
as well, and we came to an agreement.
  I would hope that we would be able to do that with respect to the 
budget and appropriation process. Obviously, the budget was not that 
way. All Democrats voted against the budget. We don't like the 
sequester. We think the sequester undermines the national security and 
undermines the investments that America needs to make in its 
infrastructure and its education, its health care, its environment, its 
basic research, and other items that are of critical importance if we 
are going to grow the economy and create jobs.
  I would hope that we could on these issues--while I understand the 
gentleman is saying that we will be noticed of it, but I would hope we 
could have some discussions about it so that we could come to, frankly, 
as we did with SGR, an agreement.
  That agreement, as you know, passed with 392 votes. You worked hard 
on it; I worked hard on it; the Speaker worked hard on it; Leader 
Pelosi worked hard on it--392 votes in this House. That was one of the 
best days we had this year. As a matter of fact, it might have been the 
best day we had this year.
  The items that I raised are of, obviously, great concern. Hopefully, 
we could have discussions about that before being simply informed that 
those would be in reconciliation instructions.
  Let me go, if I can now, the gentleman made a very eloquent statement 
yesterday. That statement was on the 150th anniversary of the 
assassination of one of the greatest Americans in history; that, of 
course, was Abraham Lincoln.
  Abraham Lincoln helped cure one of the blackest blots on America's 
reputation and America's moral commitment by issuing the Emancipation 
Proclamation. However, Mr. Leader, as you know, subsequent to the 
adoption of the 13th Amendment, which the gentleman also referenced, we 
had vicious segregation. We had policies put in place that prevented 
African Americans from registering, much less voting.
  The gentlemen and I have had the opportunity to walk across the 
Edmund Pettus Bridge together where Alabama State troopers were sent by 
Governor Wallace to stop people from simply going to register to vote.
  Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers and our friend John Lewis, one of 
the great heroes of the American civil rights movement, have 
cosponsored a bill--Jim Sensenbrenner being the former Republican 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers being the ranking 
Democrat--have sponsored a bipartisan bill which would return the 
protections that were undermined by the Supreme Court decision in the 
Shelby County v. Holder case.
  I believe it is important--and I think the gentlemen share this 
view--that we absolutely protect the rights of every

[[Page 5130]]

American to register and to vote and to ensure that the policies 
adopted by any State or any county or any municipality are not such 
that it undermines the ability of citizens to register and to vote. 
This is bipartisan legislation.
  I would ask the majority leader respectfully, and one of the great 
attributes to Abraham Lincoln who talked about a nation divided against 
itself, talked about a nation who did not give equality to all of its 
citizens, talked about a nation that needed to respect the inclusion of 
all people irrespective of their race, I would ask respectfully that 
the legislation cosponsored by Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers and 
John Lewis be brought to this floor so that we can, in fact, ensure 
that every American--every American--has the right to register, to 
vote, and is protected by their Federal Government from the 
discrimination and exclusion that we know historically has happened too 
often.
  I urge my friend, the majority leader, to bring that bill, that 
bipartisan bill, to the floor for debate, open to amendment and 
discussion and a vote.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I thank him 
for his comments regarding Abraham Lincoln as well.
  Yesterday was the 150th anniversary of his passing. It was also a 
significant day yesterday, as well, of the Jackie Robinson anniversary 
of breaking the color barrier in baseball.
  As the gentleman knows, as we have walked across that bridge many 
times with our good friend John Lewis, the difference that it has made 
in those last years from when he first was beaten across that bridge 
and how far this country has come, and this country can go much 
further.
  The bill is before the committee. It is not scheduled for the floor 
next week. We will watch as the committee continues to work. The 
gentleman and I can continue to work on the issue to make sure we get 
this done.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________