Legislative Program

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

I think, as the majority leader knows probably as well as any of us, and maybe better than most of us, we have 4 legislative days left in November and 8 scheduled legislative days in December, assuming we do, in fact, get out on the 13th, which is the last day that we are scheduled to be in session this year.

Having said that, there are a number of pressing items to address. As the majority leader knows, the unemployment insurance protections for folks expire on December 31--actually, I think it is December 28. The SGR provisions expire on December 31. If we do not do something with respect to them, there will be a substantial decrease in the reimbursement to doctors serving Medicare patients.

I know that the majority leader has, and we have, people who are willing to work together to address these issues. Knowing that there is usually uncertainty at the end of a session, I would ask the gentleman if he can give Members a sense of scheduling for the coming month, that is December, and I yield to my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

He mentions the sequester. Of course, almost everybody who has spoken about the sequester, including myself, the majority leader, and Mr. Ryan, has indicated the sequester is not the way to reduce spending. It is a meat-ax approach which is having very adverse consequences to our national security structure. I think almost every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has made that point. Certainly, General Dempsey has made that point. But also, on the domestic discretionary side, the sequester doesn't work, and the proof of that, of course, is that we haven't considered any of those bills on the floor; and the one that we considered, we pulled, the Transportation-HUD bill.

So I am hopeful, and I know Mr. Rogers is, as is Senator Mikulski, the chairs of the Appropriations Committee, have both indicated that they hope to get a number early on, and that is why the 22nd was a preferable date, if we could have reached that, so that they would have a number to which they could mark bills. Obviously, if there is not an agreement on the 302(a), as the gentleman knows, it is very difficult, then, to try to bring those bills together in a conference because they are so far apart.

I am hopeful that the majority leader will use his good offices to urge resolution on the budget conference differences and report out as soon as possible so we can get to that process.

The gentleman I am sure shares my view that the shutting down of government is extraordinarily disruptive, both to the general public and to those who work for the Federal Government, so that it would be incumbent upon us, I think, to try to get out of this gridlock on the budget process that we have been in. I would urge him to exercise whatever, because he has substantial influence to try to get us to a resolution of this issue, and I will tell him I will do the same.

Another issue which you did not mention, Mr. Leader, is immigration. As you know, this issue passed very handily through the United States Senate on a vote of 68-32, and I am very hopeful that we could move this legislation. I think the Senate bill or a variation of the Senate bill would pass. We have introduced an alternative for which we have Republican cosponsorship, H.R. 15, which is a comprehensive immigration bill which incorporates the security provision that was adopted unanimously in this House by the Republican-led Homeland Security Committee. We believe it has bipartisan components to it, and the balance of the bill has bipartisan support in the United States Senate. The gentleman knows, you passed a number of bills out of your committees, and they were passed, of course, with partisan votes. We do not believe these bills are bills that we would support, but we are wondering whether any of them are going to be brought to the floor.

H.R. 2278, which is the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, which allows the State and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration laws, as you know, we think that is bad policy, but it did come out of the Republican-headed committee in the Judiciary Committee. I am wondering if that might be brought to the floor.

I yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, Madam Speaker, and I wish that they had been demonstrated on the farm bill and on the Homeland Security appropriation bill, both of which were reported out of committee on a bipartisan basis but were made very partisan on the floor of this House. I thought that was unfortunate, but that is what happened.

I would like to repeat my question. The gentleman said he wanted to deal with the immigration bill in a very thoughtful, considered way and that he did not support the Senate immigration bill. I was not surprised with that response. The Speaker has also made that very clear; he does not support it. And, very frankly, the majority of Republicans have made it clear they do not support the comprehensive immigration reform bill.

However, Mr. Leader, what I asked you was are you going to bring H.R. 2278 which passed out of the Judiciary Committee, presumably in a thoughtful, considered, discrete way, that is dealing with individual subjects, which is the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, which allows States and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration laws--my question to you, Mr. Leader, are you going to bring that bill to the floor, or any of the other four bills, which I will mention as well, to the floor, because presumably you believe those were considered in a thoughtful way, were reported out of your committee, were reported out with all of your Republican members, I believe, voting for it, at least 20 of them voting for it. My question to you is: Are you going to bring that bill to the floor?

I yield to my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader.

I said I wanted to mention the other bills because we understand, A, you would like to talk about health care without focusing on anything else. I get that. We have a disagreement. We will see whether the American people believe that making sure that affordable, quality health care is available to all Americans is something they are for or whether they are against. We will see on that. That issue was joined in the last election. The last election didn't have much effect in this body in terms of the issues that were contended in that election.

But let me ask you about H.R. 2131, which is the Supplying Knowledge Based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM Visas Act.

As the gentleman knows, there are a lot of people very interested in this issue. This would eliminate the diversity visa program, transfer 55,000 green cards available under that program to a new STEM program that employers can use to hire foreign workers with advanced STEM degrees--master's degrees, Ph.D.s, et cetera--from universities. It was being marked up and, I understand, passed out 20-14. Again, that was with an overwhelming Republican vote, if not unanimous vote. Again, the gentleman indicates we want to consider the immigration issue in a thoughtful, discreet, and, as the Speaker has said, bill by bill way.

Is there any expectation that the gentleman has that that bill will be brought to the floor before we adjourn for the year?

I yield to my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I think the majority leader knows, and I know, he has 218 votes on his side of the floor. As a matter of fact, he has substantially more than that.

If the last bill was so good, bring it to the floor and pass it. That is what the Speaker says you want to do, you want to pass bills item by item. What is happening is you are passing bills out of committee and they languish there, just as the farm bill, to which the gentleman referred in the early part of our discussion, languished in the last Congress and was not reported to the floor.

I yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that point.

He passed a Homeland Security bill that he knew the Senate wasn't for. He passed appropriation bills that he knew the Senate wasn't for. He passed, Madam Speaker, the farm bill amendments that he knew were not going to be supported in the Senate.

Madam Speaker, we think immigration is a critically important subject. We believe immigration is, in fact, broken. We have an alternative. He doesn't like our alternative. I understand that. We understand that on this side. Perhaps the American people will also understand. They don't like our alternative.

It passed with 68 votes in the United States Senate. He now says people have changed their mind. Maybe that is the case, but it passed with 68 votes in the United States Senate. They don't like it. Madam Speaker, I understand that. I get it.

They don't like the health care bill. By the way, Madam Speaker, I am starting to get that message. I am pretty thick and it takes some time, but on 46 votes to repeal or to undermine, I get it. You don't like that bill. You think it is a bad bill. We have a disagreement on that, Mr. Leader.

However, apparently we don't have a disagreement on the fact that the immigration system in America is broken. What I am asking you--you have passed out of committee the Agricultural Guest Worker Program. It creates a new Temporary Agricultural Worker Program. That also passed on a partisan vote. None of these votes were bipartisan. There was no effort to work with the Democrats on the committee to bring a bipartisan bill, unlike Mr. Lucas or Mr. Carter, who brought bipartisan bills to the floor and saw them turned into partisan pieces of legislation with the help, frankly, of the majority party.

I am asking you regarding the Agricultural Guest Worker Act, are we going to bring that to the floor? Again, a discreet, thoughtful, I am sure on your side of the aisle, addressing of a broken program, but if we don't bring it to the floor, we don't consider it, we can never get to conference, which is what the gentleman says he wants to do.

I yield to my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations.

I must say I am somewhat amused, Madam Speaker, because there are few people in America who believe it is our party that is my way or the highway. There are few people in America who didn't see 198 Democrats vote to keep their government working. It is not my way or the highway. We didn't get what we wanted. We didn't want that number that was passed. 198 Democrats, without exception, voted to keep this government open; 198 Democrats voted to pay the bills of the United States of America. It wasn't a question of my way or the highway. It wasn't a question of repeal or I will vote to shut down the government. 147 Republicans, Madam Speaker, voted to keep the government shut down because they didn't get their way. 147 Republicans, including in both instances, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, voted to not pay the bills of the United States of America. And they voted against the majority leader's advice and against the Speaker's advice. That is a problem. I agree that that is a problem.

No matter how much, Madam Speaker, the majority leader says it is the President and the United States Senate that are undermining, in fact, the United States Senate has been passing time and after time after time bipartisan bills and has sent them to the House, where they have languished or been opposed, and finally, they were supported. That was true in the Violence Against Women Act. It was true on a bill that the majority leader and I were for, Madam Speaker, and that is for giving Sandy relief. He couldn't get more than 25 percent of his party to support that.

All I am saying is that, if immigration is a problem and we all say it is, and you think it needs to be dealt with in a discrete way, and you have passed bills out, why don't you bring them to the floor? H.R. 1772, the Legal Workforce Act, makes E-Verify immigration status programs for prospective employees mandatory. Again, I presume that this is one of Mr. Goodlatte's thoughtful, considered steps to fix a broken immigration system.

All I am asking is--now for the fourth time--will you bring one or more of these bills to the floor? We may not be for them, but at least they put, as the gentleman keeps saying, a bill before the House so the House can work its will. Frankly, if they are defeated, then it would be incumbent upon us to move in a different direction, but if they are just sitting there without consideration by the House, without the ability of the House to work its will, then it continues to cause inaction on a subject that all of us have expressed needs action.

If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I will yield. If not, I will go on to another subject. I am going to go on to another subject.

Rather than go on to another subject, let me urge the gentleman, again, because when the gentleman says, ``Let the House work its will,'' that is a wonderful phrase. Hopefully, it resonates with the American people. But the House is not allowed to work its will. Ultimately, of those bills I have just referenced, we did work our will, and we worked our will, frankly, with mostly a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans joining together to pass critically important legislation for this country. We couldn't get the majority of your party to vote for many of those bills.

I would ask the gentleman that if he really wants the House to work its will, and he believes that H.R. 15, the comprehensive immigration bill, is a bad bill, bring it to the floor and see if the House thinks it is a bad bill, see if the House believes that it is a bill that is not worthy to be considered and passed as a fixing of a broken immigration system.

I urge my friend to bring that bill to the floor. He has the power to bring that bill to the floor. I urge him to do so.

I yield to my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. In closing, Madam Speaker, let me simply observe that this is somewhat ironic because the gentleman has repeatedly said he doesn't like the Senate bill.

I hear that. He then says, we need to consider a more thoughtful way of doing this. I get that.

I have then pointed out that the committee, which is headed by Mr. Goodlatte, Republican leader of the Judiciary Committee, has passed a number of bills, presumably, in that quest for a more thoughtful consideration to fix a broken system.

The gentleman has not said he is going to bring any of those bills to the floor, so he knows what he is against, Madam Speaker. He knows what his party is against, Madam Speaker, but he cannot tell us what he is going to do to fix a broken system because, apparently, the four bills that I have asked about are not being brought to the floor, are not part of the solution of which the gentleman speaks, and that is regrettable.

Let me say, in closing, Madam Speaker, I hope we can work in a bipartisan fashion. It didn't occur after the election, where the very issue was whether or not we ought to extend affordable health care to millions of people, some 30 to 40 to 50 million people who did not have health care security.

They continue to be scared. They continue to be presented with a message that this is a failed program, frankly, before it even starts.

Now, it has started. In terms of access, it doesn't start, as the gentleman knows, until January 1. But for some people, for some people it has started. For some parents with children with a preexisting condition, who could not get insurance, it is working.

For young people who couldn't find a job but needed insurance and were less than 26 years of age, they could stay on their parents' policy. It was working.

For seniors who were confronted with a doughnut hole that put them deeply in debt for prescription drugs they needed for lifesaving and life quality, it is working.

It is working for those people who did not go bankrupt and won't go bankrupt in the future because there are not the limits that can be imposed upon them when they get really sick.

So, yes, we will have a debate on that, but it ought not to simply divert us from all of the other issues that we need to deal with.

The budget--we need to get this country on a fiscally sustainable path. I know the leader agrees on that.

We need to fix a broken immigration system. I know the leader believes that as well. We need to invest in growing our country, to get rid of the sequester because the sequester is going to hurt our country. And, frankly, I think the leader agrees on that. We may not agree on how to do it, but I think he agrees on the objective.

So, Madam Speaker, on all of those, we ought to be giving our best efforts, not in a partisan way, but in a bipartisan way, as Americans, not as Democrats and Republicans.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Source