Legislative Program

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

Members are advised that debate on amendments to H.R. 3055, the appropriations bill, could begin as early as 3 p.m. on Monday.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour debate, and 12 p.m. for legislative business. Again, we will meet at 10 a.m. Tuesday and Wednesday.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business today.

The House will complete consideration of the appropriations bill, H.R. 3055, which entails Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2020.

The House will also consider H.R. 3551, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2020. That will be the tenth appropriations bill that we will consider and is another step toward the House doing its work to avoid a shutdown at the end of the fiscal year.

The House will also consider H.R. 2722, Securing America's Federal Elections Act. This legislation will protect elections for public office by providing financial support and enhanced security for the infrastructure used to carry out such elections.

Lastly, additional legislative items may also be considered, including legislation related to humanitarian assistance at the border and the legislative appropriation bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me say that I am pleased that the gentleman refers to the Antideficiency Act and that, in this instance, the administration will not spend money on an object that was not designated for by the Congress of the United States. This is for helping children.

Obviously, when it wanted to build a wall, it did exactly that. It tried to shift money that was not appropriated for. I am glad that, in this instance, we are honoring it, number one.

Number two, let me say that I think the Senate's action was helpful. It was, as the gentleman pointed out, bipartisan. I think that will probably be helpful to us here as well.

I want to say to the gentleman that I know for a fact that, certainly within the Appropriations Committee, there have been bipartisan discussions all along. There was a time when they were very close to agreement on what the bill would comprise.

It is my hope that as a result of both these actions, as I said, my expectation is that we will pass something next week. That is my hope, and I know that work is being done on it as we speak. I know it will be done over the weekend, and I am hopeful that we will get there because this humanitarian relief for the children and for adults, for giving the proper treatment to people who are in our country and in our care, is very important, and we are working very hard to get that done. My hope is that it will be done.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I understand that this is a critical issue that we need to address, but I believe that the gentleman is not accurate.

HHS employees are going to get paid. This money that is being appropriated is for the special, additional services that we need to make sure are available. I don't think there is a question of HHS employees not getting paid.

More importantly, it is an issue as to whether or not the services are going to be available to provide the humanitarian treatment that the gentleman talks about, and I think we are in full agreement.

I will say again that I think the Senate's action is helpful. It was bipartisan. Very frankly, I think it, hopefully, is going to help us get to some bipartisan agreement here.

Frankly, I will tell the gentleman, we thought we were pretty close to a bipartisan agreement with the Republicans, and the Republicans and Democrats have been working on this in the committee, as the gentleman knows. We were pretty close to agreement. We didn't get there.

They got to it in the Senate, which meant the Democrats went along with what the majority could support because they are the majority. Hopefully, we can do that here and get a bipartisan bill.

I will tell the gentleman that I am working very hard and am very focused on getting a bill done so that we do not leave here without a bill having been passed to provide this humanitarian relief that is so essential.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I want to make a comment on what the gentleman just said.

I think most of us are parents. I have had three 12-year-old daughters. All were 12 years of age at one point in time, and I wouldn't send them unless I thought their lives were at risk, unless I thought they were in great danger by remaining with me, unless I thought the alternative of staying was worse than the risk.

That is why they come here, because they are terrified that their child is going to be taken from them by death, not by trying to get to an America that is the light of the world, that they think is the land of opportunity. That is why they come here. That is why they take this risk.

Very frankly, we should have passed comprehensive immigration reform a long time ago so that there was a safe route and an open door and so that people seeking refuge and asylum, which is under American law, would be able to do that.

I agree. Sending these children has to be wrenching for a parent. But the alternative they find to be even more wrenching, more dangerous, and riskier for that 12-year-old child, and so they send them here. They send them here because the reputation of America is that we will treat people humanely, thoughtfully, and safely. And it is our responsibility to do that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to correct myself. The gentleman was correct. I have just been informed because they are funded, the employees, specifically under that account, the gentleman is correct and I was incorrect, and apparently, they would not be paid.

Obviously, the general Labor-Health bill that we passed up until September 30 of this year funds almost all employees. But apparently, because these funds are segregated in this account, my friend is correct that they would not be paid.

In any event, while I am concerned, and maybe some of those folks live in my district, while I am concerned about them being paid, I, frankly, share my friend's concern, which is a much greater concern, that people who come here under and consistent with U.S. law, seeking asylum from the danger that they face at home, need to be treated in a humanitarian way. So I certainly agree that we want to make sure people get paid.

We shut down the government for 35 days, and 400,000 people did not get paid. Actually, 800,000 did not get paid, and 400,000 people had to work.

We offered numerous bills which, very frankly, the gentleman's party voted against on a regular basis, which would have opened up the government and paid those employees. So, I wish we had been more concerned, during those 35 days, with them getting paid.

But the real concern--and I know the gentleman and I share this view--is the humanitarian treatment of the people who are here in our care.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would just say, as the gentleman knows because I have talked to him about it, I have been trying to get an agreement on caps since January.

I talked to Senator McConnell; I talked to Senator Shelby; I talked to Ranking Member Granger; obviously, Mrs. Lowey, the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee.

I have worked almost ceaselessly on trying to get a caps deal, which I think all of us think is absolutely essential.

Very frankly, I think there are those down at the White House--and I specifically reference the Acting Chief of Staff, Mr. Mulvaney--who believed that a caps deal was not the policy they thought ought to be proceeded on and would have preferred and talked about having either a sequester, which I think neither side thinks would make much sense, either on the defense side or the nondefense side--but that a CR was a preferred alternative and, frankly, a negotiation at the very latest moment was a strategy.

I witnessed that, as the gentleman knows, the Republican Senators tried to negotiate with the White House so that the Republican White House and the Republican Senators tried to negotiate a caps deal and could not. So, it had nothing to do with Democratic participation at that point in time.

Now, what we have done, as the gentleman knows, is we have, in effect, adopted a level of spending to which we have marked our bills. That level of spending, I will tell you, on the defense side, I have reason to believe is agreeable to many Republican leaders at the top level on the gentleman's side.

The domestic level of spending was consistent with the raise in defense and domestic, as we have done in prior deals.

The prior, most recent deal, as the gentleman knows, was reached between Speaker Ryan and Senator Murray. I would be hopeful that we would reach such a deal.

Obviously, if the gentleman reaches a deal, the President has to be part of that, because you have got to amend the sequester law by statute, and the President has to sign it.

But we are moving ahead. This is our alternative. We are going to be passing 10, 11 of our bills, we hope, next week, and we will send them over to the Senate.

The Senate will, presumably, at some point in time, act upon its bills. If there is a different number, we will have to reconcile the numbers, in conference, in the regular order, and hopefully pass those bills in time so that there will not either be the necessity for a continuing resolution, which really is a recognition of the failure to get the appropriations process done, which has happened often on both sides of the aisle, so it is not a question of just--but, that the Congress has not reached agreement, as it should have.

So, we are proceeding. We are proceeding in a timely fashion. We are going to send at least 10 or 11 bills to the Senate, and we will send the Homeland Security bill, hopefully, at some point in time, or reach agreement between the two parties, and the two houses, so that I think we have done everything we could possibly do, absent the ability of, frankly, the gentleman's side to get agreement among itself on what the gentleman thinks the cap numbers ought to be.

I was hoping, in discussion with Senator McConnell, that between the two parties we could reach agreement, but that has not happened. But, hopefully, at some point in time it will happen soon because, ultimately, it has to happen, because the sequester is not an option, and the CR ought not to be an option either.

We are doing our work, considering amendments. We are in the regular order. This is the way it should be done. I am proud that it is being done this way, and I am hopeful that it will result in agreement and a signature on appropriation bills by the President, so we do not shut down the government or have to operate under a CR.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, it is interesting the gentleman says these bills aren't going to become law.

That had no restraint on the gentleman's side of the aisle when that side was in charge in the appropriations bills the gentleman passed in a totally partisan fashion, I would observe.

We didn't think they would get past the Senate. They didn't get past the Senate. They didn't become law. There was a compromise made.

The gentleman did the same thing. Why? Because the gentleman thought that was, from a policy standpoint, the correct thing to do.

We are doing exactly the same thing. Will we have negotiations between the House and the Senate as to levels of spending and other, as the gentleman points out, provisions in the bills? Of course we will.

But the assertion that: Why are you passing bills? They won't pass the Senate. I would hope they pass the Senate. I think they are excellent bills. I think they provide for the national security, both on the defense side and on the domestic side.

Very frankly, we put defense and labor-health together. Why? Because the gentleman had made that a way to proceed.

Why did the gentleman make it a way to proceed? Because those on the other side, for the most part, are hesitant to vote for the levels that we expect are necessary for education and the health of our people.

Having said that, when the gentleman says it won't pass the Senate, the gentleman's bills didn't pass the Senate. The gentleman passed them because he thought they were good policy. We are passing them because we think they are good policy.

And I, frankly, think, but for the fact that I think the gentleman has expressed a policy on his side of, ``Don't vote for these bills,'' we would have gotten a significant number of Republican votes on a number of these bills. We did get some votes.

But let us hope that we get to a deal on what the spending levels ought to be. And, as I point out, without any Democratic participation, the Republican Senators can't get a level with the White House. They tried. They worked at it. It was publicly reported.

The gentleman has been unable to get an agreement within his own party on those levels. My view is, I think Mr. Mulvaney doesn't want a deal. Mr. Scalise says he wants a 2-year deal. I hope he is right. I hope the gentleman is right that Mr. Mulvaney will, with Mr. Mnuchin, come to grips with doing a 2-year deal to give us some degree of stability.

The gentleman is correct. He didn't have to get a budget because we made a 2-year deal. It couldn't have gotten through the Senate if we hadn't agreed on it. But we made a 2-year deal. It wasn't exactly at the levels we wanted.

Senator Murray led that negotiation on our behalf. We reached it, and we had some degree of stability. And that is why the other side was able to pass their bills without a budget, because we already had a number. They didn't need a 302a number.

Now we are getting into jargon here, but suffice it to say, yes, we are passing bills at levels we think are appropriate. Many on the gentleman's side disagree with that. The Senate may disagree.

The way we get to a resolution is we have a conference and we come to an agreement. Hopefully, that will happen, and we will not shut down the government of the United States, which we did, partially, for 35 days. That is the way this institution ought to work, and I hope it does work that way.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I agree with the Republican whip that these were productive meetings between Prime Minister Trudeau and members of his cabinet: the finance minister, the ambassador, the foreign minister was there. I think they were productive.

I think our side has made it very clear that we want to get to yes. We believe that the USMCA is an improvement over existing NAFTA, and it also accommodates for changes that have occurred over the last 30 years or so.

We very much want to see, however, that we have enforcement provisions in the new agreement which apply to workers, their safety, their standard of living, and to the environment, as well as some concerns about pharmaceuticals and biologics.

But we want to get to yes. Our friends in labor want to get to yes. We believe this is an improvement.

I am hopeful we can get enforcement provisions. I know that Speaker Pelosi has made it very clear what we need to get to a yes, and I am hopeful we get there because, personally, I think it will be in the best interest of the country because it is an improvement over the existing NAFTA.

That doesn't mean it is perfect. None of these agreements are perfect. But it was a productive discussion and, hopefully, it will lead to solutions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source