[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11773-11776]
[From the U.S. 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 yield to the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, 
for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule of the week to come and 
thereafter.
  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.
  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.
  In addition, the House will consider H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal 
Combustion Residuals Regulation Act, sponsored by Representative David 
McKinley. This bill is essential to protect and create jobs.
  If we do not act, the EPA will replace the existing successful State-
based regulatory program with harmful new regulations that will cost 
hundreds of thousands of jobs and result in billions of dollars in 
burdensome costs for job creators.

                              {time}  1245

  The House will also consider H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food 
Labeling Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Pompeo. This bipartisan 
bill will ensure uniform national labeling of foods from genetically 
engineered plants. By addressing the patchwork of conflicting labeling 
laws, we will fix the growing problem of inconsistent and confusing 
information for consumers.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House is expected to consider the 
conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to 
the legislation for next week.
  As the gentleman knows, we have now passed six appropriation bills. 
Last week, consideration of the Interior bill was postponed. The 
gentleman and Mr. Rogers have both made representations that they hope 
to do all 12 appropriations bills.
  You did not announce any appropriations bills on the schedule for 
next week. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not he expects to bring 
additional appropriations bills to the floor prior to the August break?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yes, it is our intention to get back to the appropriations process as 
soon as possible. As the gentleman does know, there are some very 
serious and sensitive issues involved. We are in the midst of a 
constructive and bipartisan conversation on how we can resolve these 
issues. I will be sure to keep the Members updated as the 
appropriations bills are scheduled for continued consideration.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment, particularly in 
terms of the willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion.
  As the majority leader knows, there is, on his side of the aisle and 
on our side of the aisle, a great concern that

[[Page 11774]]

the 302 allocations to the Appropriations Committee are insufficient to 
meet their responsibilities. Mr. Rogers, as you know, your chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, a Member of your side of the aisle from 
Kentucky, has characterized the sequestration numbers as unrealistic 
and ill-advised.
  The Senate has not passed any appropriations bills, as the gentleman 
knows. It is my hope, and I would like to ask the majority leader 
whether he contemplates any bipartisan discussions with reference to 
how we might come to an agreement so that appropriations bills could, 
in fact, be enacted, sent to the President, and signed by the 
President.
  The President, as you know, sent down a budget which was paid for, 
which had Defense numbers at the numbers that your side of the aisle 
used by utilizing Overseas Contingency Operation funds to bridge the 
gap between the sequester number and the President's number.
  My question to you is: Is there any contemplation, either before we 
break or shortly after we come back--because October 1 will be on us 
very, very quickly--to have bipartisan discussions, a la Ryan-Murray, 
to get to a number that we can agree on and that we can pass 
appropriations bills, have conferences, and send them to the President 
and be signed, hopefully, before October 1, but if not before October 
1, certainly before December 18?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and his continuous 
questions throughout the months on this.
  It is still our intention on this side of the aisle to get our 
business done, uphold the current law which is in place. I know you and 
I have had many debates back and forth that we know that sequestration 
started in the White House, and we continue to play by what the law 
states today and move our bills in a bipartisan manner, with a very 
open process on the floor where any Member can bring an amendment up, 
and we will continue to use that process as we move forward.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  The majority leader, Mr. Speaker, regularly brings up that sequester 
started in the White House. He knows I very severely disagree with 
that. And he voted for a Cut, Cap, and Balance Act which had in that 
bill--which no Democrat, I think, voted for--sequester. And it was 
passed 5 days before our Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, alleged that 
Mr. Lew suggested that to Mr. Reid as a way we could get by the House's 
refusal, up to that point in time, to extend the debt limit, which 
meant we couldn't pay our bills. But I don't think that is very useful 
in discussing how we get by this loggerhead that we have met on the 
appropriations process.
  I served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years before I became 
a leader, and we did pass bills--not always on time, but we had an 
ability, Republicans and Democrats working on the Appropriations 
Committee, working in the Congress, to get our bills done.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you recall. I presume you will 
recall that when we got to a similar impasse, Mr. Ryan, the then-
chairman of the Budget Committee, Ms. Murray, the then-chairwoman of 
the Budget Committee in the Senate, got together and came up with some 
figures that we could agree on on a bipartisan basis. Until that time, 
we had the same kind of scenario that we are now confronted with.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my view that, unless we have such a meeting of the 
minds, we are going to put this country in another crisis of our own 
making.
  We, Democrats, are prepared to enter into some sort of an agreement, 
consistent with Hal Rogers' belief, that we can get to a realistic and 
advised compromise, not this unrealistic and ill-advised--Mr. Rogers' 
words, Republican chair of the Appropriations Committee, not mine.
  And if we don't do so, when we get to September 30, or we get to 
December 18, let's not wring our hands and say, How did this happen? We 
will know exactly how it happened, and it will have happened because we 
refused to sit down, as the majority leader just said a few minutes 
ago, in a bipartisan way to do the people's business in a responsible, 
collegial way in which we can get to an agreement so the bills can be 
passed.
  I think this argument about who is responsible for sequestration--
clearly, we have a different point of view--and a bill that passed 
before the suggestion was made by Jack Lew so we could get by the 
impasse and America pay its bills is really not very useful.
  Mr. Leader, let me go to another subject. The gentleman moved, on two 
occasions, to refer to the House Administration Committee legislation 
which related to the use of the Confederate battle flag. Both of those 
issues are now pending in the House Administration Committee. One of 
them has been there for some 3 weeks now.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any suggested action by 
the committee, whether there have been any hearings scheduled, and 
whether or not we may see that legislation brought to the floor at any 
time in the foreseeable future?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just to clarify before I answer your other question on some of your 
other statements, I am concerned about what the rest of the summer 
looks like. A lot of my concern stems from what I hear on the other 
side of the aisle, especially in the Senate side.
  As the gentleman knows from his years of working for more than two 
decades on appropriations, the appropriations process we have today is 
the most open this House has ever seen. Never in history, while you 
were on the Appropriations Committee, was it as open a process that any 
Member from any side of the aisle could just offer an amendment, not 
even prewritten, just a closed process.
  But your comments about sequester, what I am really concerned about 
is the comments of Senator Schumer, Senator Reid, that they were going 
to have the summer of the shutdown, the destruction, that they were 
going to shut everything down, and I am concerned about some of your 
comments that are leading in that direction. I don't want to go there. 
I want to finish our work as we have been doing here.
  And history, I can't rewrite it. I mean, Bob Woodward, respected 
journalist as we all know from his days back to Watergate, today, in 
his ``The Price of Politics,'' he wrote of the time in history. 
Sequester was not debated here on this floor or created on this floor, 
not even in the Senate as well. You can read it in his book. It was 
created in the White House of this administration. It is the law of the 
land. We will uphold the law of the land and do our work based upon 
those numbers.
  Now, the question you had before me was dealing with what we referred 
to House Administration. I have met with the chair and I have met with 
Members on the gentleman's side of the aisle. We have nothing scheduled 
for next week, but we are currently working towards solving this, to 
me, a very serious and sensitive issue, and I look forward to getting 
it done and working with you to make it happen.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the fact that we might be bringing something 
to the floor so that we can express the opinion of this House. As the 
house and senate in South Carolina expressed its opinion, it surely is 
appropriate for this House of Representatives, representing the values 
of our country, sworn to uphold our Constitution that stands for 
equality of all, that we can express ourselves and take appropriate 
action. I appreciate the gentleman's view.
  I have great respect for Mr. Woodward. Mr. Woodward, shortly after 
that book came out, I called him. He came into my office. We had a 
discussion about that representation. I will tell the gentleman that I 
believe Mr. Woodward was incorrect. He did not have information I gave 
him. I don't mean that he necessarily says he is incorrect.
  But there is no doubt, when you want to talk about history, you 
passed a bill 5 days before the suggestion was made by Jack Lew, which 
was, presumably,

[[Page 11775]]

coming out of the White House, to Mr. Reid, the majority leader. Five 
days before that, you passed, on this floor, a bill which was called 
Cut, Cap, and Balance, which had sequester as your fallback policy.
  So you are right. You can't change history. That is history. I have 
said that a number of times. The gentleman has not corrected me. I 
presume that, therefore, he believes that I am accurate in that 
representation of the timing.
  But very frankly, that history is irrelevant. What is relevant, as 
the gentleman and I, I think, both agree, if we don't get to an 
agreement on a number that is as we did in Ryan-Murray--we have done 
this before. We have done this before. Now, my view is we did it 
because you didn't want to have your Members vote on legislation that 
had numbers that were draconian before the election, but that may be 
only my personal perspective.
  But the fact of the matter is the American people expect us to get 
their work done. Getting their work done, at minimum, means funding the 
government at appropriate levels. And, again, I would say that Mr. 
Rogers does not believe the sequester--I agree with you. It is the law 
of the land. I think it is wrong. I think it is a bad law. It was not a 
law that was intended to go into effect. It went into effect simply 
because the supercommittee that was established in that same 
legislation couldn't come out with a solution.
  In 13 months, the Congress couldn't come out with a solution, and, 
therefore, on January 1, 2014, we were confronted with these draconian, 
ill-conceived numbers, according to Mr. Rogers. Let's not be confronted 
with those numbers 60 days from now on October 1 where we are unable to 
do our business. So I would urge my friend, and I would be glad to work 
with him toward that end.
  We just passed a bill, Mr. Leader, which I voted for. We passed it on 
a bipartisan basis--the majority of my Members voted for it; the 
majority of your Members voted for it--a highway bill. It was, however, 
I know on our side, and I know that in discussions with you, your 
feeling as well, that it is not what we ought to be doing.
  What we ought to be doing is passing a long-term, at least 6-year 
reauthorization bill for the highway program so that Governors, mayors, 
county executives, local officials, contractors, and construction 
workers would all have some confidence that there would be a revenue 
stream to fix our roads, repair our bridges, and build roads where they 
are needed.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether he believes that there is a plan to 
get to the--and I know he and I have discussed it--but a plan to get 
to, before the December 18 date that the present bill calls for, a 
long-term highway reauthorization?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
his work and help on passing the highway bill this week.
  As the gentleman knows, nobody in this House wants to pass a short-
term highway bill. We want certainty. We want to make sure the money 
goes the furthest and in the most efficient and effective way.
  The reason why we are going to a short-term, December 18, is because 
it is our plan and our intention, together, to be able to find the 
resources to have a highway bill that can be 5 years.

                              {time}  1300

  It is our intention to be able to have that.
  We have a plan, I believe, we are working towards, and the first step 
was extending highways to the December 18 date. All we have next is to 
pass the Senate.
  If they pass our highway bill, we will be in the right place, 
prepared to have it done before December, a 5-year that we could all 
work together in a bipartisan manner to have done.
  Mr. HOYER. I hope we do that.
  In the short term, however, we have done another item which we have 
not reauthorized, and that is the Export-Import Bank.
  Senator McConnell believes that that has the votes in the Senate, and 
he believes that the highway bill that we have just sent them is a 
vehicle to add that Export-Import Bank proposal to. And my presumption 
is it will be in that bill when it comes back to us.
  Hopefully, it will come back within the next few days because, of 
course, the highway authorization ends at the end of this month, in 
which case there will be no authorization to spend money on the highway 
program.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether or not, if that comes back, it will 
be on the floor? I have heard some discussion about the fact that the 
Speaker says it will be on the floor, but the Export-Import Bank would 
be open to amendment.
  Would the gentleman tell me whether or not there are any plans along 
those lines.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me one more time.
  The gentleman is well aware of how I feel about the Export-Import 
Bank, and we have a difference of opinion. I am one who has always 
believed in the principle that you should just deal with the subject 
that is before you.
  We have passed the highway bill. The best advice I can give to the 
Senate--it is a clean highway bill until December 18--is to pass a 
clean highway bill and move it to the President.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand that that is the gentleman's desire. I know 
he is opposed to the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization.
  As you know, we passed it in a bipartisan fashion when the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) was the majority leader, and the gentleman 
voted for it. He has changed his mind. Certainly many of us do that 
from time to time.
  But my question to him is: If they don't do what the gentleman 
suggests--i.e., a clean highway bill--and they send it back, as, 
apparently, Leader McConnell thought that they would do, consistent 
with his representation to the Senator from Washington State and 
others--if they add the Ex-Im Bank to that bill and it comes back--I 
know the gentleman is reluctant to speculate. But we have a very, very 
short period of time left in this session before the August break.
  Does the gentleman believe that, if it comes back and is in the 
highway bill, that we would make the Export-Import Bank portion of that 
bill at least open to amendment?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And if I just may correct the gentleman, he took the liberty of 
saying whether I changed my mind. I did vote for the Ex-Im Bank 2 years 
ago, but I voted for an Ex-Im Bank that had reform in it. I have not 
seen that reform. I did not change my mind. I kept my principle. The 
same principle that I have is my best advice to the Senate.
  I know you want to talk hypotheticals, and I know our colloquy is 
about next week. But none of that is scheduled for next week.
  But to the gentleman and to the Senate, my best advice for them is to 
pass our clean highway bill and send it to the President.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem with the suggestion the majority leader 
makes is the Export-Import Bank will be out of business. If that 
happens, Speaker Boehner has said it is going to adversely affect jobs 
in America. It will adversely affect the ability of small, medium, and 
large businesses to sell our goods overseas by people working here in 
America.
  The Export-Import Bank is about jobs, and to simply let it twist in 
the wind and let it be unauthorized simply because of inattention, when 
it has the majority of votes on this floor? Mr. Speaker, I have said 
that over and over again and have not been contradicted.
  There are 60 Republicans who have sponsored the Export-Import Bank's 
reauthorization. There are 188 Democrats--or at least 185 Democrats who 
will vote for it. That is 249 votes. All you need is 218. There is no 
doubt that the Export-Import Bank has the votes to pass this House and 
the Senate, and, yet, we fiddle while jobs are being burned.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not good policy for our country. It is not good 
policy

[[Page 11776]]

for our workers. It is not good policy for our businesses, for our 
exporters. It makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Sixty 
countries have a similar facility. I know in a perfect world perhaps 
that wouldn't exist. But 60 of our competitors around the world have 
such a facility that make their goods cheaper than we will be making 
ours.
  That is not good sense. It is not good policy. It is not the 
expectation, I think, of the American people. And it is not the will of 
this House.
  I regret that we have not addressed this already. But I certainly 
hope when the Senate--as I expect them to do--adds it to the House 
highway bill--and I am not sure whether it will be our bill or their 
bill or our bill amended--we may have to go to conference or we may 
have to get to an agreement.
  But one way or the other, we ought to adopt the will of this House 
and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank so that we will protect jobs.
  It was Speaker Boehner who said that it was shortly after we took the 
action we took on June 30 and allowed the Export-Import Bank to expire 
that we would lose jobs. In fact, that is happening. So I would hope 
that that would not be the case.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the majority leader this: I 
get a lot of rumors on my side. I know you get a lot of rumors on your 
side. And I sort of smile at them and I say, ``I think not.''
  But I have had 20 Members today ask me, Mr. Speaker, are we not going 
to be here the last week of July that is presently scheduled. And I 
would like to clear that up.
  I yield to my friend for a definitive answer on the schedule for--
this is a scheduling question, by the way, as to whether or not, in 
fact, we are going to be here the last week of July.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I smile because the only rumor I heard more of was about Taylor Swift 
in the Capitol the other day.
  I think this is just wishful thinking of the Members. But the 
American people expect us to get our work done. We have a lot of work 
to get done. No, we will be here, as the schedule says, and we will 
finish it. But we will not be leaving early.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the majority leader's clarification. My 
Members will not necessarily appreciate it, but I understand it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________