Legislative Program

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Before I yield to my friend, the majority leader, for the purpose of informing us of the schedule, I would like to note the presence of the longest-serving Member of this House in history, one of the best legislators in the history of this House, and one of the most decent human beings I know. We are so proud to have him on the floor with us once again. His successor, whom he knows very well, Debbie Dingell, is here with him as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information. Initially, I would like to just bring up a question with reference to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act. The gentleman talked about bipartisan legislation. This, as the gentleman may know, was a very bipartisan bill, with one of your Members and one of my Members, Mr. Heck, on my side, joining together in committee overwhelmingly in favor of setting up an advisory board so that there would be input from small business. Unfortunately, as the gentleman knows, there has subsequently been added a funding source which undermines, from our perspective, at the same time that we are trying to add an advisory board, the operations of the Consumer Financial Protection advisory board.

Mr. Leader, it is somewhat ironic that we just passed $300 billion in reduced revenues without paying for them and are now worried about $9 million. The Bible has something to say about the mote in one's eye being the object of attention. But it seems somewhat ironic, and I would hope that we could return this bill, which is a very admirable bill, to a bipartisan condition and not undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at the same time that we are trying to give it some additional advice and counsel.

I would be glad to yield to my friend with, hopefully, perhaps a suggestion where we might return this bill to its bipartisan and overwhelmingly supported-on-both-sides-of-the-aisle condition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.

I think the gentleman knows that I am one of the biggest proponents of paying for things, which is why I voted against your two tax bills on the floor today. They are not paid for, and $300 billion of revenue will be reduced. That will exacerbate the deficit. That is why we have PAYGO. So I am supportive of PAYGO, but I would like to see if we can reach a bipartisan agreement on a pay-for which does not undermine the operations of the consumer financial protection board. I know your side, with all due respect, Mr. Leader, does not like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and would like to repeal it and reduce its funding greatly. We disagree with that. We have a great disagreement on that proposition.

So all I am saying is we have a bill on which there is bipartisan support. I see my friend, Mr. Lucas, on the floor on the ag bill. We had that on his bill, and he gave one of the most eloquent statements on the floor that I have heard about, Look, we have a bipartisan agreement; don't look bipartisanship in the eye and say ``no.''

So we are turning a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill not because we are against paying for it--we are for paying for it. But we are against undermining the ability of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers, as it was designed to, and we need to adequately fund it without adding responsibilities and reducing its resources to protect the public.

If the gentleman wants to say anything further, I will yield to him. If not, I will go on to another subject.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I think what I hear is we are not going to reach bipartisan agreement on that, and that is unfortunate.

The cybersecurity bill, as the gentleman mentioned, will we consider the two cybersecurity-related bills together or separately? We have heard some information over here about whether they may be joined together or whether we are to consider them discretely, each one of them. I think they are relatively noncontroversial in some respects. But would the gentleman tell us how they might be considered?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The gentleman also has brought up the issue of--well, I don't think you brought it up, but let me talk about it. As we know, April 15 occurred yesterday. The budget was supposed to be adopted as of yesterday. As the gentleman and I both know, when my party was in charge, as when your party is in charge, we haven't met that April 15 deadline. But I know the gentleman has talked about reconciliation instructions.

The Senate bill, of course, does have reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee and to the HELP Committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, but none others. The House apparently has left itself room to have instructions to every committee.

Can the gentleman tell us, A, when he expects the budget conference to report back and when we might consider that conference on the floor? Then, secondly, whether or not he believes that there will be reconciliation instructions beyond the Affordable Care Act. We understand that that is contemplated. But beyond the Affordable Care Act, does the gentleman expect reconciliation instructions on other matters?

I yield to my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. So the gentleman contemplates going beyond reconciliation instructions on the Affordable Care Act to other matters? For instance, in the House budget, we replace seniors' Medicare guarantee with a premium support voucher. Would the majority leader expect a reconciliation instruction on replacing seniors' Medicare guarantee with such a premium support voucher?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I know that you don't want to anticipate, but, obviously, our Members are concerned about what they ought to be considering and planning for and making themselves aware of the facts about. Does the gentleman expect a reconciliation instruction on the part of the budget that was passed by the House that turns Medicare into a capped block grant reducing the funding by approximately one-third?

I yield to my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I hope that is the case. And I would hope that we did not have that. We talked about--I have talked about and you have talked about--just now, bipartisanship. I would hope that we would pass a budget that then the Appropriations Committee and other committees would be able to work on so that we could have a bipartisan product, as opposed to another confrontation that would go way past October 1 of this year, and we would be back in the position of having to have a continuing resolution on which there would be a confrontation and the threat of shutting down government.

Obviously, to the extent that we can, as I suggested with respect to the Consumer Financial Protection Board, to the extent that we can have bipartisan agreement--the gentleman that was just with me was Senator McConnell.

Noting the passage of the sustainable growth rate bill which dealt with community health centers and dealt with the children's health insurance program, Senator McConnell said: The American people expect us to do work.

He used the SGR example as a way that we did work in a constructive, bipartisan fashion, making compromises on both sides of the aisle, with Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi representing the two parties, came together and worked, and my staff and I think your staff participated as well, and we came to an agreement.

I would hope that we would be able to do that with respect to the budget and appropriation process. Obviously, the budget was not that way. All Democrats voted against the budget. We don't like the sequester. We think the sequester undermines the national security and undermines the investments that America needs to make in its infrastructure and its education, its health care, its environment, its basic research, and other items that are of critical importance if we are going to grow the economy and create jobs.

I would hope that we could on these issues--while I understand the gentleman is saying that we will be noticed of it, but I would hope we could have some discussions about it so that we could come to, frankly, as we did with SGR, an agreement.

That agreement, as you know, passed with 392 votes. You worked hard on it;

I worked hard on it; the Speaker worked hard on it; Leader Pelosi worked hard on it--392 votes in this House. That was one of the best days we had this year. As a matter of fact, it might have been the best day we had this year.

The items that I raised are of, obviously, great concern. Hopefully, we could have discussions about that before being simply informed that those would be in reconciliation instructions.

Let me go, if I can now, the gentleman made a very eloquent statement yesterday. That statement was on the 150th anniversary of the assassination of one of the greatest Americans in history; that, of course, was Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln helped cure one of the blackest blots on America's reputation and America's moral commitment by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. However, Mr. Leader, as you know, subsequent to the adoption of the 13th Amendment, which the gentleman also referenced, we had vicious segregation. We had policies put in place that prevented African Americans from registering, much less voting.

The gentlemen and I have had the opportunity to walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge together where Alabama State troopers were sent by Governor Wallace to stop people from simply going to register to vote.

Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers and our friend John Lewis, one of the great heroes of the American civil rights movement, have cosponsored a bill--Jim Sensenbrenner being the former Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers being the ranking Democrat--have sponsored a bipartisan bill which would return the protections that were undermined by the Supreme Court decision in the Shelby County v. Holder case.

I believe it is important--and I think the gentlemen share this view--that we absolutely protect the rights of every American to register and to vote and to ensure that the policies adopted by any State or any county or any municipality are not such that it undermines the ability of citizens to register and to vote. This is bipartisan legislation.

I would ask the majority leader respectfully, and one of the great attributes to Abraham Lincoln who talked about a nation divided against itself, talked about a nation who did not give equality to all of its citizens, talked about a nation that needed to respect the inclusion of all people irrespective of their race, I would ask respectfully that the legislation cosponsored by Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers and John Lewis be brought to this floor so that we can, in fact, ensure that every American--every American--has the right to register, to vote, and is protected by their Federal Government from the discrimination and exclusion that we know historically has happened too often.

I urge my friend, the majority leader, to bring that bill, that bipartisan bill, to the floor for debate, open to amendment and discussion and a vote.

I yield to my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source