Legislative Program
Floor Speech
(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that schedule. I won't discuss any of the bills that the gentleman mentioned on the schedule, but I do want to note a couple of absences. One is, of course, the continuing resolution.
As the gentleman knows, after next week where the CR is not included, we have 9 legislative days left before the scheduled adjournment. As the gentleman knows, we have not passed a single appropriations bill. And without finding fault with either side--because I know each side thinks the other side is at fault--the fact remains we have not passed a single appropriations bill.
So there is no alternative to a continuing resolution, and we must pass a continuing resolution if the government is going to operate on October 1 in the new fiscal year. The limited number of days in session--9 days after next week.
There are reports that the House Republicans are already divided on how long the CR ought to be, whether or not we ought to go into the 115th Congress or not. Representative Tom Cole was quoted as saying, ``Since we're all drawing our checks, we ought to actually do our job and get it done''--meaning the appropriations process and the funding of the government--``and recognize that the next administration and the next Congress are going to have plenty to do and to deal with on their own and not throw additional work at them because we are either too lazy or incompetent to do our work.''
That is Representative Tom Cole, one of the senior Members of this body, a former chairman of the campaign committee, and a respected Member of this body.
Mr. Leader, I believe we ought to pass a CR as soon as possible, consider it as soon as possible. My own belief is that it ought to be short-term. I believe many people share that view. Apparently, Senator McConnell shares that view as well.
It is my understanding the Senate is going to consider such a CR and send it to us. Obviously, it is our responsibility on fiscal matters under the Constitution to move pieces of legislation. They may well amend theirs into a House bill, as I am sure you know that both sides do from time to time.
Can you tell me, A, how long do you expect the CR--first of all, when do you believe we will consider a continuing resolution to fund government past September 30? Secondly, how long do you think that CR will extend? Thirdly, as we did last year, is it your expectation that we will do an omnibus in December in the lameduck?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman and I both know, no appropriations bills have been enacted. As I pointed out, forgetting about who is to blame--and I am sure you and I have different perspectives on that--the fact of the matter is they haven't passed, and they haven't been signed by the President. When I say ``passed,'' that's the Congress. They haven't passed the Congress, and the President hasn't signed any. So there is no possibility we are going to pass one or more of those bills.
As you know, there are 12 appropriations bills to fund government. We haven't passed one of them. It doesn't look like we are going to pass any of them, so we are going to need a CR. So my question relates to the CR. There are three points.
I thank the gentleman for clarifying it.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Well, I presume that. I presume that the majority--and I will say this, that for whatever reasons--and your party is in control of both the House and the Senate. Yes, we have the Presidency, the Democrats, but no bills have reached his desk. Whether they got out of committee or not, no bills have reached his desk.
You and I both know getting out of committee means nothing. Nothing happens because it gets out of committee, other than it is eligible to come to the floor. Beyond that, nothing happens with respect to funding government. And your party is in the majority. It is not a question of blame. It is a question of no bill has passed from the Congress to the President of the United States for signature. He hasn't vetoed any bills because they haven't gotten to him. So we need to adopt a CR.
I think the gentleman is correct that we are not going to go home, I presume, without passing a CR. The government was shut down for 16 days some years ago because we wouldn't repeal the Affordable Care Act. I don't presume that is going to happen this time.
I certainly hope that we address the CR. It is not scheduled for next week.
I am going to discuss another subject in just a second that should have been scheduled, in my view, this week. But we did bills that, frankly, aren't going to pass or be sent to the President. We spent a full week--otherwise known as 25 percent of the time--that is scheduled for us to be here before the election.
Next week, it will make it 50 percent of the time, and still no CR is being brought forward. We left town in July without passing the Senate bill--it passed 68-30, a bipartisan bill--to address the critical health crisis confronting the American people, Zika. You don't schedule that for next week either on your schedule, Mr. Leader.
I am very concerned. I think America is very concerned. Certainly, on this side of the aisle, we are very concerned.
I want to make a representation here publicly, so that America will know and you will know, that I am prepared to say that almost everybody in our caucus--I would say ``unanimous,'' but I haven't talked to everybody--is ready to pass the bipartisan Senate bill, which passed 68-30, which would appropriate $1.1 billion.
Tony Fauci was on the Hill, who is the director of NIH's NIAID, National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, which of course Zika falls within the ambit of his expertise and authority.
He has said as of October 1, he is going to have no money to deal with the development of a vaccine. I know the gentleman is as concerned as I am because we have talked about setting up funds for disasters; and this is a health crisis, obviously a disaster.
Let me ask the gentleman if he expects Zika funding to come to the floor either with the CR or as a separate bill, and again, I represent to him, I believe every Democrat--I haven't talked to every Democrat, but I believe every Democrat will support the bipartisan Senate bill which passed 68-30, which appropriates money and has the virtue, unlike the conference report, which the House added poison pill language that they knew neither the Democrats would support in the House nor the Senate nor would the President support, undermining, frankly, the ability to have health services delivered in Puerto Rico to women, the epicenter of the Zika crisis.
It should have been no surprise that that was not going to be supported, and the President made it very clear he was not going to support it. We need to reach a compromise. The Senate reached a compromise. I urge the majority leader to address this and bring it to the floor. I tell him, he will have my full support and engagement for the Senate bill, which was a bipartisan bill.
I yield to my friend to let us know when he expects to deal with this critical health crisis confronting the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I could get very animated in my answer. The fact of the matter is, what the majority leader represents, in my view, is inaccurate. The Senate sent us a bipartisan bill, and because you think you needed to serve some of your most hard-line Members, you made it a political bill. And we were not going to take it. We are not going to see you eliminate Planned Parenthood, which overwhelmingly is the-- listen to me, Mr. Majority Leader. I listened to you respectfully.
The bill eliminated Planned Parenthood services and funding to deliver services in Puerto Rico, the epicenter of this disease. And you put other legislation in that bill you knew was unacceptable to us. The Senate did not do that because they need 60 votes, which means they need to come to a bipartisan agreement. You rejected a bipartisan agreement on your side of the aisle.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the majority party rejected the bipartisan legislation that came from the Senate with 68 votes. That is more than two-thirds of the Senate. Half of the Republicans in the United States Senate passed that bill over to us, and we could have passed it.
I know some people said we needed the $1.1 billion, but I will tell you, had you brought that bill to the floor without adding political aspects to it that you knew we would not support, it would have passed. You could have passed it on your own, but you chose to make it a political bill. And we are not going to accept that because the American--you are right, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve that we deal with this issue now.
The President asked for this money on February 22. We are now at September 10, Mr. Speaker, and we have not dealt with this except in a way that, frankly, the majority party knew would not be acceptable, would not be bipartisan, would not pass the Senate, and would not be signed by the President.
It is, I say with all due respect, Mr. Majority Leader, not credible to say because we didn't take what you wanted to jam down our throat when we had an agreement--not everybody agreed. I understand some people on my side said, oh, no, 1.1 is not enough, and I frankly don't think it is enough. But it is a very substantial sum that would enable NIH to pursue vaccines and pursue other matters in Puerto Rico and Florida and other places in this Nation to keep our people safe.
So I tell the majority leader, again, bring the bipartisan bill passed to us by the United States Senate with 68 votes. Bring it to the floor as a House bill and we will pass it, and that is why I tell the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that I believe every Member on my side of the aisle will vote for that, not because they believe $1.1 billion will be sufficient to address this problem.
Leader Pelosi makes the very cogent point, Mr. Speaker, the Director of CDC says that it will cost $10 million per child who suffers from microcephaly, which is the result of Zika. Very frankly, in Brazil they found that the results go beyond that. $10 million. If 200 children get microcephaly, that gets to the dollars that the President wants from us to prevent this horrible consequence to the children and to the families of America.
So I say with all due respect, Mr. Majority Leader, you can say all you want--and I know the spin: the Democrats in the Senate are holding this up. I do not accept that. I think it is inaccurate. What is holding it up is putting in items in a bill that is absolutely essential, gratuitously, that you know we will object to as opposed to doing what the Senate did, Mr. Speaker, and that is reaching a bipartisan agreement. It is very tough to reach bipartisan agreements in this House because we have a group in this House who wants to wag the dog. And that is not what the American people expect.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have great respect for the majority leader, and he is accurate. We do sit down, we work together, and we can come to bipartisan agreements. We didn't sit down on this. The conference report was not signed by a single Democrat. There was no doubt that when it came to this House floor, there were no Democrats on that conference report, and we had no debate.
Now, one of the reasons we had no debate--I want to make it clear because the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, is going to make that clear as well--was our side, we thought there was another important issue, but the fact of the matter is not whether it was debated. There would have only been 30 minutes a side anyway, a short debate.
But the fact of the matter is the majority leader knows that the $1.1 billion bill that the Senate passed, even though it is not the President's request, would have passed on this floor, and it would pass on this floor today. And NIH and CDC would have the resources, Mr. Speaker, that they need to protect the American people. Mr. Speaker, that is what we ought to do.
I now yield to my friend, the majority leader.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I understand the majority wants to vote for what they want us to vote for. They don't want to reach a bipartisan----
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I did vote against that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. It is so hard, Mr. Speaker.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield to my friend. I have a comment, but I will yield to him first.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that the major deliverer of health services to women in Puerto Rico is through Planned Parenthood? Is the gentleman aware of that?
I yield to the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, that language was clearly designed, as the gentleman knows, as the staff knows, and as has been publicized, to preclude one of the agencies that delivers health care in Puerto Rico from doing so, and that is Planned Parenthood that gets public funds. This is designed, we believe, to restrict it. But let's put that aside. Let's say we have a disagreement on that. Let's accept that.
What the Senate said, if we have disagreements on these things, we are going to pass a bill that gets that money out the door. And they passed it 68-30, which means approximately one-half of the Republicans voted for it because--and, very frankly--a predecessor of yours, Mr. Blunt, was a cosponsor of that bill--one of my very close friends, as you know--along with Mrs. Murray.
So, they achieved the objective in the United States Senate of doing exactly what I think you are actually correct, Mr. Speaker, in saying, and that is that the people want us to act.
It is not on the schedule this week. It is not on the schedule next week. And it ought to be on the schedule for consideration, and it ought to be in a bipartisan way, which means that both you and I could say that, yes, our sides can support this. Without, we have some very significant differences, Mr. Speaker. We all understand that. The American people understand that. And we ought not to try to deal with those in something as critically important.
That is what the Senate decided to do. That is what Roy Blunt decided to do. That is what Senator Murray decided to do. And that is what 68 Members of the United States Senate decided to do.
Now, let's, just for the sake of argument, agree that we have a disagreement on the interpretation of what that does, but if we have a disagreement, that means that we are not able to pass that bill. You may disagree with our reasoning, but that is the fact. And that is the conclusion the United States Senate came to, Mr. Speaker. So they did a bill that they could agree on in a bipartisan way.
And I tell you, Mr. Speaker--I will reiterate it once again--bring the Senate bill. It wasn't our bill. This is a Blunt-Murray bill. Mr. Blunt is the former majority leader and majority whip and minority whip of the House of Representatives. The Senator from Missouri, a Republican leader in the Senate, sent us a bipartisan bill.
Let's take that bill, and whatever other differences we have, let's debate them, Mr. Speaker. Those provisions can be brought to the floor separate and apart, without undermining the need to immediately fund the Zika public health efforts.
So, I, again, say to my friend, those two issues--and I might also add, perhaps in closing, that we ought to be dealing with Flint as well, another public health issue that has been pending, Mr. Speaker, for over a year.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I do. That is why we didn't have a lot of debate because we were asking for Mr. King's bills to be brought to the floor, as I recall. So I do believe in that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, they are not blocking anything. They passed a bill 68-30. They sent it here, and it was blocked from coming to the floor. And it would have passed.
If you believe, as you asked me, do I believe, should we consider things, the answer, of course, is yes.
And I said, as an aside, Peter King, the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee has two bills that are supported by over 85 percent of the American public. Bring them to the floor on the premise, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to debate, consider, and vote. Bring them to the floor. Bring Mr. King's bills to the floor. Bring the Senate bill. You know the Senate bill has 68 votes.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the majority leader that, had he brought the Senate bill to the floor--we were precluded from voting on the Senate bill, Mr. Speaker. The majority leader just said, Oh, we ought to bring the bill to the floor. Isn't that the right thing to do? Well, if it is right for the Senate--and we can't control the Senate, but we can control the House. And, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was the majority leader, and I could decide whether to bring the bills on the floor or not bring them on the floor. The majority leader has that authority.
Bring the Senate bill to the floor. If, in fact, as the majority leader just said we ought to have debate, we ought to consider it, and we ought to vote, and if it goes down, fine; if it passes, that is the will of the House--will of the Senate, you said. If that is a good premise in the Senate, it is an even better premise in the House of Representatives.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend, the majority leader, to bring that bill to the floor. Let's vote on it. That is what he said his premise was and what we were committed to. I agree with him.
I don't like the filibuster. I don't like the 60-vote rule in the Senate, I will tell you that. The 60-vote rule undermines democracy. If a bill has 50 percent and a committee reports it out, it ought to come to the floor. I agree with the majority leader on that. And Mr. Reid and I have had some discussions on that. My colleague Senator Cardin and I have had some discussions on that.
But if it is good for the Senate, it is good for the House. And the House does that. The majority can rule in this House. And if he brings that bill to the floor, it will pass. It will pass on Monday, I guarantee the gentleman.
And I know we need to conclude this. In all consideration, Ms. Kelly is coming over to explain to me schedules.
But this is serious, and I don't say this--the majority leader and I do work together. But let's pass this Zika bill, as the Senate passed it, and then have the arguments on stuff that we don't agree on. We do agree on the Senate bill, at least to the extent it goes, and there are things that we don't agree.
To make an aside, you stripped the Confederate Flag amendment from the conference report on the MILCON bill because you didn't want your guys to vote on it. Mr. Speaker, I understand that. That is why it was done. I didn't like that, but that passed the House, stripped out of the bill, not by the Senate, but by us. But that is an aside.
It is an aside because, you are right, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is right, that doesn't affect Zika. What affects Zika is that $1.1 billion that we can get to them on Monday, Mr. Speaker. If the majority leader will bring it to the floor, we can pass it on suspension.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority leader's discussion on this matter, but we have some critical issues, Mr. Speaker, that we need to deal with: funding government, getting Zika passed, helping the people in Flint, funding opioids. We passed a bill. It was a good bill. The President signed it. We passed it in a bipartisan way, but we didn't fund it. Another health crisis.
We need to address these critical matters. These other bills may have merit, but they are not a crisis.
Mr. Speaker, unless the majority leader wants to say something further, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source