Legislative Program
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 10:30 p.m.
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. I want to make that clear. That is an acceleration from 12 p.m. We have a lot of business to do next week. We have a lot of appropriations bills, so we want to make sure that we are not meeting late, late into the night.
So on Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.
On Wednesday, the House is expected to meet at 11 a.m. for legislative business.
On Thursday, the House will expect to meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.
On Friday, the House will meet, as usual, at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
The House will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by close of business tomorrow.
In addition, the House will consider at least 7 of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2022.
Recognizing the importance of completing our work well in advance of the deadline at the end of September, I would let the Members know that, unfortunately--well, first of all, let me say, we have marked up all 12 bills, and they have been reported out of committee.
The Senate has not reported out, nor considered a single appropriation bill. And we have 60 days before the end of the fiscal year, approximately, give or take.
The House will consider a seven-bill minibus, H.R. 4502. That bill will include seven appropriations bills: the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill; and Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies; Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
There will be additional bills on the appropriations. There are, obviously, after the seven, five additional appropriation bills that will be available for consideration. Three of those bills, as I understand it, have been noticed by the Committee on Rules for amendments to be filed. So they will be ready to go next week, and I am hopeful that we will be able to move some of those bills next week.
They will be the Legislative Branch appropriation bill; the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriation bill; and the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation bill. That will leave the Department of Defense bill and the Department of Homeland Security bill.
Lastly, additional legislative items are possible. And that will be our schedule for the week to come. I expect it to be long days, which is why we are going in at 11 a.m. on one day and at 10 a.m. on two of the days, which we usually go in at 12. I would hope that that would preclude us from going very late at night, but I think everybody ought to expect that we will be here into the evening.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He is certainly accurate that the Hyde amendment has been in our bills for a very long period of time. What I think is not completely accurate is that it has been a bipartisan support, has enjoyed bipartisan support, and that there were Democrats who obviously supported the Hyde amendment.
And I realize that this has made it controversial, having been left out of the bill. I don't know what the Committee on Rules is going to do; we will have to see what they do. But in any event, I want to tell you that a large number on our side of the aisle believe that a constitutionally protected healthcare matter for women ought not to be determined by their financial ability.
So there is controversy with respect to Hyde. There is also controversy with respect to Federal employees as well, that I know well, because I chaired that subcommittee. We give to Federal employees the healthcare benefit, but then we say they can't use it for some things. Actually, that money is their money; it is not our money. It is given in compensation for their services.
But in any event, so there are controversies, I would tell the gentleman, and I am not sure exactly what the Committee on Rules is going to do and, therefore, don't want to speak for it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman can explain it. I think, frankly, your party is hoist on its own petard. We brought to this floor, with Mr. Katko and Mr. Thompson agreeing on the process, offering to the House an equally divided five-and-five commission; the five Republicans being totally in the ambit of the minority leader. We brought it to the floor; the subpoena power being equally divided between the parties and having to cooperate in accomplishing the issuance of the subpoena. And very frankly, although there was some discussion of it, there was no doubt that the staff would have been resolved. The question of being equal staff on the Republican and Democratic side would have been resolved in the Senate.
I see the gentleman shaking his head. I can tell him, I know it would have been resolved; period. And the Republican Party objected to that commission, equally divided, five and five, with the minority leader strenuously lobbying against it being passed in the United States Senate. It was not passed in the United States Senate.
Press asked me, If it is defeated in the Senate, what are you going to do? I said, We are going to move forward, of course. And that is what we are doing. We are moving forward.
Now, the makeup of that committee, three of the persons who were appointed by the--excuse me--were recommended by the minority leader were accepted by the Speaker. And I am not going to spend a long time going into the quotes of the two or their premise, but all I can say is when asked the question, Ms. Cheney, who I know you folks have kicked out of leadership because she tells the truth.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Well, that is certainly one of the statements, however.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. That is one opinion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Well, I clearly know we don't share that view, but it was referenced that, well she may have told the truth but she ought to stop telling the truth.
And that was one of the references that were made as you replaced her as your third in line because she--from our perspective--and I think from a large perspective of the American people--told the truth, and she continues to tell the truth.
And she was asked the question: What do you think about this nonpartisan investigation? She said, I am absolutely confident that we will have a nonpartisan investigation that will look at the facts; that it will go wherever the facts may lead. There are three members from the minority leader proposed that the Speaker did not object to. She has objected to two members. And the rhetoric around this from minority leader and from those two members has been disgraceful. Thus, this must be an investigation that is focused on facts. And the idea that any of this has become politicized is really unworthy of the office that we all hold and unworthy of our Republic.
So I don't blame you, and I probably would have taken the same reaction as you have taken. But very frankly, from the Speaker's perspective, and from others, this needs to be a commission that does in fact commit itself to going where the facts lead and determining the who, what, where, when, and why.
I have some very strong feelings as to why the insurrection, or as some say, the tourist visit--on your side of the aisle, Mr. Whip--the tourist visit that resulted in the death of a number of people, terrorizing Members of this House who thought their lives were in danger because people were trying to break into the House Chamber.
The rationalization of that activity has been rampant by many on your side of the aisle. We have some strong feelings on this, and we are going to get to the facts. And the American people will make the ultimate judgment, obviously. And we want to see that commission, again, hoist on your own petard, the overwhelming majority of you voted against a commission. Five Republicans appointed by the minority leader--appointed by, not recommended by--and five Democrats; subpoena power shared, and notwithstanding the fact that some of you, apparently, don't agree. I guarantee you, it would have been equal staffing. That would have been resolved. That was not a really big issue.
It was a make-up issue to vote ``no'' in the United States Senate because, in our view--so you understand--Donald Trump didn't want the commission.
So, Donald Trump was saluted, and we didn't get a commission, which was a commission that almost exactly to the jot and tittle, as Mr. Katko said, what the minority leader asked for.
So, you don't like the result now. I get it. But I believe, as Ms. Cheney said, this is going to be a factfinding select committee. Witnesses will say what they are going to say.
By the way, one of the people that was rejected by the Speaker may well be, and maybe both, witnesses before the select committee. I don't know that. Nobody has told me that. But that may be the case.
So, we are going to proceed. I know there is disagreement. That is not surprising. But you looked the opportunity that you asked for in the eye and rejected it, so here we are.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is that a quote about Mrs. Greene?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we passed said the Speaker would appoint all the members. These Members were not kicked off; they never got on.
Liz Cheney was asked whether that was the appropriate thing to do, and her response was--you had her quote: ``I agree with what the Speaker has done.''
Now, the reason she agreed--yes, they have raised questions, and on your side, you wanted to raise questions. You wanted to look at everything but January 6. Maybe January 6 as well, but you wanted to look at this incident, that incident, the other incident, the incident over here. Are they relevant incidents? Sure, they are; but not to January 6.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Clearly, when you were in charge, you didn't look at some of the incidents that happened while you were in charge that were similar in nature. Very frankly, I think those incidents ought to be looked at, but not by this commission because they were incidents that did not involve insurrection; did not involve stopping the work of the Congress of the United States; did not terrorize Members of this House.
Now, I know that some of you have had pictures taken of you in this House. You looked pretty terrified to me. You thought there was something serious happening. This stuff that this was a tourist visit is absurd.
The issue of dissembling is not new. President Trump put that in an art form. If he didn't like what was going on here, he created something over here with a tweet or a comment or an action that he took. That is the shell game.
The issue is: What happened on January 6? What was the insurrection about? Why were people coming into the Capitol saying: Let's hang the Vice President of the United States--not of our party.
People shake their heads. I am not sure why they are shaking their heads. They saw it on television. They see it on the tapes over and over and over. They see people being convicted. I happen to think the sentences are too short. It was treason. It was treason based upon a lie.
We need to get to the bottom of it. What the Speaker has done is make sure that we are going to get to the bottom of it, notwithstanding the fact, and I will repeat again, all of you had the opportunity to vote five--five--shared subpoena, and the leader was empowered to appoint anybody he would want.
The legislation that passed this House said the Speaker would appoint--the Speaker. Did she consult with the minority leader? She did. Did she disagree with two that he appointed? She did, and she did not appoint them. That was in her power. And I agreed with her, and Liz Cheney agreed with her.
Why? Because that would have been dissembling, not looking for facts. Mr. Jordan has said over and over again that he believes the election was stolen. Court after court after court after court said no proof. No proof.
So, we are where we are, and we are going to proceed. We are going to proceed, and if the Speaker decides to retain the three and name two others, so be it.
We are going to proceed. We are going to proceed, and we are going to get the facts, and we are going to get those facts known to the American people. It is going to be widely covered. There are going to be a lot of witnesses. We are going to find out the who. Maybe that is the problem: the who, the what, the where, and the why.
For the first time in history, Americans, Trump signs waving, stopped the business of the Congress of the United States--an insurrection and, from my view, a treasonous act. So, we are going to proceed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman believe that the three Members that the Speaker accepted and was willing to appoint would not have asked those questions?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Your side had an opportunity to support the Capitol Police. Your side had an opportunity to support law enforcement. Your side had the opportunity to increase the capability of the Capitol Police to respond to insurrectionist, violent, and criminal agents.
Your side had that opportunity, and what did it do, to a person?
It voted ``no,'' and we passed it. We passed support of the Capitol Police. We passed support to strengthen our defenses. We passed legislation to try to make the Capitol more secure and our Capitol Police safer. We passed that legislation with not a single one of your votes. It went to the Senate, and it sits. You read what that is doing to the morale of the Capitol Police along with some of your comments about the Capitol Police.
So you had that opportunity.
I will say to the Speaker, Republicans had that opportunity. Just as they rejected the five and five, they rejected support of the Capitol Police.
Seventeen of them voted against giving them a Gold Medal.
Why?
Because the insurrection was mentioned in the resolution, and, of course, there was no insurrection. It was a tourist visit, as they ambled politely through the Halls of the Congress saying how appreciative they were of the efforts being made by their Democratic Representatives.
If you saw it that way, if you believe that, it is impossible for me to understand why.
So I tell the whip, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican Party has had two opportunities to have an even, fair commission. They rejected them, apparently, according to what the whip says, because we didn't want to look at Seattle, we didn't want to look at this city or that city or the other city or this, that, and the other.
By the way, President Biden made it very clear that those who committed criminal activities were not demonstrators, they were criminals. Biden said that, and I agree with him.
What they didn't want to look at is who recruited the crowd that came in here, who riled that crowd up, and who deployed them to the Capitol of the United States for the specific objective of stopping the steal, and what he meant, of course, is our acting.
His Vice President, whom he talked to on numerous occasions about stopping the election, concluded that that was not legal, that was not within his authority, and so he acted consistent with the law. That really annoyed Mr. Trump.
So here we are. We should have had a bipartisan commission. We should have moved that forward, and, yes, we should support the Capitol Police by adopting the supplemental.
By the way, the Senate supplemental is more in terms of dollars than the House supplemental. So it is not a question of we spent too much money to do this to make the Capitol safe, to make the Capitol Police armed, to give them the opportunity to get the intelligence that they need to proceed.
But what a distraction that the Capitol Police weren't prepared.
The question is not: Were they prepared?
The question is: Why did American citizens try to commit insurrection and treason in the Capitol of the United States and stopped our work?
Not for very long. We came back, we did our work, and we got it done to the benefit of our country, our democracy, and our image around the world. Our democracy was resilient.
Nobody was angrier, I will tell you--and I think Mr. Scalise, you were there--Mr. Speaker, nobody was angrier about what was happening that night than Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Senate, who said he believed subsequent to his voting against impeachment, but notwithstanding that, he believed the President bore responsibility, as the minority leader said, not all responsibility, but bore responsibility.
So we are going to look at this. You can talk all you want. Your leader has now decided he is going to withdraw the three and not participate. We regret that. But it is not going to stop us. It is not going to stop our getting at the truth. It is not going to stop our having the American people know the who, what, where, when, and why of the first time since 1812 when a foreign power invaded our Capitol that the Capitol of the United States was invaded by people who were seeking to undermine the democratic processes under our Constitution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
You had an opportunity to support the police and you voted with those who wanted to defund the police. All of you had an opportunity, just a few weeks ago while we had a bill on the floor, to support, to fund the Capitol Police to make them safer, more effective, and better able to enforce the law, and you all, to a person, voted ``no.'' You had the opportunity, and you voted with those who you say on our aisle didn't want to do that. But it passed.
Why did it pass?
Because the overwhelming, overwhelming, overwhelming majority of Democrats--it is the only reason it passed--voted to support the police, our Capitol Police. I will tell you that is also true of our Members in terms of supporting law enforcement at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Are there some who say some things?
Yes. There are some people who say some things on your side--I have quoted a couple of them--that I am sure you don't support. But having said that, the proof is in the eating of the pudding. We had a bill on the floor that supported the police. You voted against it, every one of you.
Mr. Speaker, you can talk all you want about supporting them, but, very frankly, the bills you are going to be voting on next week support the police. They are not defunding.
Unlike the Trump budgets. If you look at the Trump budgets, who cut law enforcement funding?
Trump budgets.
Check me on that, and then come to the floor and say: Hoyer is not telling the truth. Check me.
You had an opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, the minority had an opportunity to support the police. They all voted ``no.'' The Senate is doing the same. It is a shame because it is undermining the morale of the Capitol Police. You have seen that reported in the newspapers. This is not me saying it. They don't understand why.
Mr. Scalise is absolutely right. The Capitol Police have kept him, in particular, and others who were attacked by a crazed, apparently left- wing, but crazed bad person, he may be mentally defective, but he did a very bad act, and he was targeting Republicans. We all stood up when Mr. Scalise was in the hospital and thanked the Capitol Police for protecting him and others on that site. That was a terrible, terrible, venal criminal act. The guy was probably a Democrat. I don't know. We have called him out for being that. That is what we ought to all do.
On January 6, some very bad criminal people acted in this Congress and in this Capitol against our democracy and against our Constitution, and we want to study it. We want to get the facts so it doesn't happen again and so we know who is fomenting this insurrectionist psychology and who rationalizes it on this floor now.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We have brought them to the floor. We are going to continue to bring them to the floor, and we hope Republicans support them.
We created 3 million new jobs; more jobs in our first 5 months than any administration in history--the gentleman forgot to mention that figure--double the monthly rates of the 5 months prior to that under the Trump administration.
The average number of new unemployment insurance claims has been cut in half. Last week, that number was about 400,000. The same week last year, it was 1.5 million under the Trump administration. Small business optimism has returned to its 2019 average. The economy grew at 6.4 percent in the first quarter. Independent projections from CBO, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, OECD, and many others all forecast America this year reaching the highest level of growth in nearly four decades.
Furthermore, as the gentleman knows, the Director of the Federal Reserve has opined that he thinks, yes, there is a surge in inflation. Yes, we are concerned about it. The Federal Reserve is watching it. We are watching it. We want to keep inflation in check.
The gentleman referenced that we are paying people not to work. Let me remind the gentleman, we had four bills which did similar things which were passed in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion last year, overwhelming bipartisan fashion, and none of them would have become law without the signature of President Donald Trump.
Now what happened? Donald Trump left, and bipartisanship left with him; not because he was so bipartisan, but he thought that what we were doing was good for the people, and therefore, I think he thought, good politics. I think that is accurate.
The fact is that this economy is now doing exactly what we want it to do. It is growing. Now it surged. There is no doubt about that, and that surge has resulted in inflation hiking at a higher rate than we would like, including the products that the whip mentioned, Mr. Speaker.
We need to contain inflation because it does rob those particularly on fixed incomes. But the multitrillions that were spent last year, one of which, the CARES Act spent--was almost a unanimous vote in this House--$2 trillion. So we did that because we believed that the magnitude of the challenge confronting us by COVID-19, both to the health of our people and the health of our economy, demanded such a robust response.
One of our Members who had been vaccinated--some Members hadn't been vaccinated--has come down with it. Now, hopefully, the vaccinations that he has will moderate any adverse impact of this delta virus. But I would say to the gentleman, it is a little bit like the commission, that we want to focus on the bad news, not focus on the good news. The gentleman wants to focus on other news, not the central news of the insurrection, and I understand that strategy.
But there is a lot of good news happening in America. There is some bad news, too. Part of it is because people haven't gotten vaccinated. The gentleman's State has that problem; Mississippi has that problem; South Carolina and some other States have that problem; my State has that problem. Not to the extent of some other States, but all 50 States are seeing a surge. So giving up and getting off the field at this point in time is not appropriate.
I think that we are going to find that the President's program that he suggests, as he says, and I agree, will have a generational impact for decades to come in making sure that our economy continues to grow; that our people are educated; that we expand the middle class; lift people out of poverty, as we did with children who are now 50 percent of them are going to be lifted out of poverty. That is good news for America. It is good news for all of us. Those kids are going to be better educated and make more productive contributions to our society.
So I hope a number of Members will support pieces of legislation that will carry that vision of the President into fruition, and we will work toward that end.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It was not radical spending in 2020, because Trump signed the bills. Trump left, and it became radical spending. That is situational ethics, Mr. Speaker. I will leave it at that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. As he knows, the President of the United States has strongly expressed support of those who are seeking freedom and liberty in Cuba. He said that shortly after the demonstrations occurred. He has maintained that position. I share that opinion with him, and we are discussing what action we might be taking here in this House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source