Legislative Program
Floor Speech
(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.
Today, we considered a third appropriations bill. It was a structured rule, which is not uncommon on both sides of the aisle to have a structured rule.
But next week, the gentleman has announced the Defense appropriations bill, and I am wondering whether or not that will be an open rule so that amendments will be able to be offered by Members without constraint of being limited?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, does the gentleman mean by ``structured rule'' that we will simply require amendments to be filed as of a certain time, but that there will be no restriction on amendments that will be in order?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, to further clarify, my understanding, therefore, is that the majority leader expects the Rules Committee to choose which amendments will be made in order on the bill. Is that accurate?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I understand what the gentleman is saying.
And it appears to me that it is an abandonment of the Speaker and others' representations that when appropriations bills are brought to the floor that they will be brought to the floor with an open rule or a rule that will allow any and all amendments that seek to be offered by Members on both sides of the aisle to be offered.
From the gentleman's explanation, I believe that is not the case and a deviation from the announced policy at the beginning of the year. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that it is a pragmatic judgment that some amendments are making it difficult on the gentleman's side of the aisle.
As someone who has been here for some period of time, that has been my experience when we were in the majority that the gentleman's side, under open rules, offered a lot of very difficult amendments that we had to confront. The Maloney amendment obviously was a difficult amendment for Members to confront on the gentleman's side and led to the defeat of apparently one of the bills, the Energy and Water bill, which failed on this floor.
Would I not be correct in saying that this is a policy that is now being pursued that is different from that which was represented at the beginning of the year where the floor would be open to any and all amendments and would be considered by the House on their merits?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Of course, 130 of his Members voted against that bill; 130 of his Members rejected that bill. I am hard pressed to think that the majority leader believes that our ``no'' votes were political and his ``no'' votes were principled. That defies logic from my standpoint. The fact of the matter is that bill lost because the gentleman's Members didn't support it. The gentleman has 247 Members.
I do remember being majority leader. Very frankly, I remember getting 218 Democrats for almost every bill we brought to the floor. So we passed them with our votes.
If 130 of the gentleman's Members had not voted against their own bill, it would have passed. And there should be no, Madam Speaker, misrepresentation or misinformation about how seriously Mr. Maloney cared about his amendment. There should be none whatsoever. In point of fact, it enjoyed ultimately the majority of support here on this floor.
I will tell the gentleman, I have been here for sometime. He is correct on that, and I do offer amendments from time to time to improve bills that, even as improved, I don't like. So, in the final analysis, although I have improved them and been successful in adopting an amendment, I still do not think the bills are appropriate to pass and go into law.
This conversation started with the fact that we need to be able to offer ideas. Very frankly, I understand the gentleman's position.
Today, we just voted on two bills that aren't going anywhere, a sense of Congress that you are not going to bring to the floor. They have no chance of passage. What did you want to do? You wanted to play politics. I don't mean you personally, Madam Speaker, but it was a political effort solely to bring two bills to the floor to express some sense of Congress, both of which I voted against because I thought they were playing politics.
So the accusation somehow that we are playing politics because we offer amendments that we care deeply about, that we want to see no discrimination allowed in our bills and that we want to defeat those constraints on an executive order that says to people who do business with the Federal Government, you can't discriminate against people, I will tell my friend, yes, we are going to continue to try to do that. Now, of course, on this last bill, we were not allowed to do that. We were shut down and shut up and precluded from voting on that particular piece of legislation.
So, when I tell my friend that this session started with a pledge for open rules on appropriations bills, I understand the gentleman's problem. Frankly, we had structured rules when we were in charge as well. We had not made any great representation about open rules; therefore, we, too, wanted to get the business of the House done.
Yes, I remember well 2007 when we were confronted with a filibuster by amendment. At some point in time, after 10 bills had been very difficult to pass, on the last two bills, we did have structured rules.
I tell my friend that I hope that he will accord to Mr. Maloney or others the sincerity of their objectives, notwithstanding the fact that their amendment is adopted and articulates what I think is proper policy for our country, that is, not to discriminate. Everybody in our country apparently doesn't believe that, but Mr. Maloney does. And I want to make it very clear that he was very sincere in that amendment. Those of us who voted for it were very sincere in that amendment. It was not politics; it was values.
Moving on, I want to congratulate the majority leader on his work on Puerto Rico. That was a difficult issue for us both, a difficult issue for our caucuses, a difficult issue for the executive department. We worked together. We got a bill done that certainly was not our favorite.
The bill included a lot of stuff in there that we didn't like, but I will tell the gentleman that we didn't play politics on that. We only lost 24 votes on a bill that was largely constructed by the gentleman's side of the aisle in terms of some of the issues unrelated, per se, to restructuring of the debt, which was the intent of the bill.
So I want the majority leader to know--he and I have a good relationship. I have great respect for him--we are going to intend to try to work together on issues like that that are difficult but are necessary for the American people.
Toward that end, can the gentleman tell me what the status of the Zika issue is with reference to getting resources as quickly as possible to confront this challenge to our country's health?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Obviously, this is an emergency confronting our country. Dr. Frieden of the CDC, Dr. Fauci of the NIH, and so many others have raised this as a critically important issue for us to confront and confront now.
So I would join the majority leader in whatever efforts are necessary to accelerate this process and give to the administration and our health officials the resources they need to protect the American people.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I rise to say that we have lost a great American, perhaps one of the most famous Americans in the world in Muhammad Ali.
Muhammad Ali was, for a portion of his life, reviled for the decisions he took. But through his life, he reflected a commitment to principle that all of us could well follow, an example of even in the light of extraordinary opprobrium from his fellow citizens who said, This is what I believe, this is where I stand, and I am prepared to take the consequences.
Many of us believe he was probably the greatest fighter that ever lived. As he fought so successfully in the ring, he fought successfully for his principles and his convictions.
I know that the American people and the House of Representatives would reflect the respect and affection for a great athlete and a great human being and a great American. If my friend wanted to make a comment, I will yield to him.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source