Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend. Ladies and gentlemen, we really need to come together and talk about how we reasonably move forward. Speaker Boehner said, when the President was reelected, well, the Affordable Care Act is here. But you continue, you continue this very day, to pretend you're going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That's maybe what your constituents want. That's maybe good politics for you, but it's lousy substance. That's the truth. This is a ``gotcha'' vote. The press ought to disregard and constituents ought to disregard anything other than this is a vote to end the Affordable Care Act. Reject it. Reject it. Reject this politics as usual. Mr. Speaker, today's votes are a sad and unnecessary gimmick. What Republicans are focusing on with these bills is not real--it's part of a political game that comes at the cost of spending time on the actual challenges we face, like creating jobs and replacing the sequester. I'm not surprised that Republicans continue to force votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, because that's been their position all along. Today's votes are more of the same--efforts to undermine a law that has been enacted by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court and reaffirmed with the reelection of President Obama. The Administration has already announced they are delaying employer penalties by one year, while they continue to work with America's businesses to simplify reporting requirements. They have already taken the needed steps to give the four percent of employers impacted by this policy more time to adapt their health coverage to new requirements--making today's legislation both redundant and irrelevant. With respect to the individual responsibility requirement--no delay is needed. Consumers will soon be able to use new insurance marketplaces to purchase insurance products that cover pre-existing conditions, do not impose arbitrary limits on your coverage, and do not charge women higher premiums than men for the exact same policy. Many will be eligible for tax credits to help them cover the cost of insurance as well. Today's legislation will only serve to increase both premiums and the number of uninsured. It's time Republicans stop playing games with America's health care and focus the People's House on the issues the people care about: replacing the sequester and creating jobs.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker has enunciated the rule; a simple declaratory statement. Clearly, Mr. Hastings made a simple declaratory statement as to why he was opposed, and it seems to clearly fall within the ambit of the contemplated statement that a Member can make without time being charged. The Chair has, however, articulated the fact that, without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. If that is subject to an objection, which I think it probably is not, I would object. But I will also appeal the ruling of the Chair if the Chair continues that ruling, and we will have a vote on that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for his observation, and I would hope that the declaratory statement, similar to the one being made by Mr. Hastings, will clearly not, as it historically, in my view, has not done so, count against the time from the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. I've been listening, as you've observed, to the judgments. What the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) just did was to state one sentence, but it had an ``and,'' and he gave a second reason he was opposed. The first reason was that it increased poverty, and the second was that it undermined children. That was in the same sentence. It seems there was little substantive difference between the statement that preceded it for which you did not charge time and the statement of the gentleman from the Hispanic Caucus. I would like to understand the parliamentary difference that the Speaker perceived in those two statements.

Mr. HOYER. He stated two reasons he was opposed. Is it the Chair's ruling that only one reason will be allowed to be articulated by a Member who is in opposition to this bill?

Mr. HOYER. He did do that. He explained to the American public, presumably who is watching this, Mr. Speaker, as to the framework from which he was speaking, that of representing a large group of Hispanic Americans, who have a large number of Representatives in this body. Can he not explain that he is the person from Maryland, for instance, or the person from some other State?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. In explaining your answer to the last parliamentary inquiry, you indicated that the problem was that he embellished by introducing himself as chairman of the Hispanic Caucus. The gentleman from New York who just spoke did not do so, but simply articulated three reasons he was opposed to this bill. It seems to me that that is certainly within the contemplation of the unanimous-consent request. If we start parsing that people can only articulate one reason, I would suggest to our friends, the Parliamentarians, and to the Speaker, that that will establish a precedent which will be very difficult and subjective for implementation by the Speaker. I ask the Speaker to perhaps further explain why Mr. Meeks' objection was charged to Mr. McGovern's time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. There was one declarative sentence. It had two commas in it. If we're going to parse this to that extent, I suggest to the Speaker and, frankly, to those who are advising the Speaker, that we're going down a road which is very dangerous. Clearly, if there was an extended time, one could understand that. But adding two very short parenthetical phrases is, I think, Mr. Speaker, inconsistent with your previous rulings as to when you would not charge the time against Mr. McGovern. Again, Mr. Speaker, I understood that when Mr. Hinojosa introduced himself as representing all of the Hispanic Caucus, when he objected to the underlying bill, that that might be perceived as a greater explanation than the Speaker would think warranted. But Mr. Meeks' statement, following that immediately, was a simple declarative statement with two parenthetical phrases, not long in nature, explaining why he was objecting. It seems to me that's consistent with the rules and the position of the House.

Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to move a motion that the time not be charged to Mr. McGovern as the representative, the ranking member, of the Rules Committee, that a motion be in order that we could vote on? Would that be in order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. I am reluctant to move something that the Speaker has advised is not available to us. On the other hand, this is an issue, under my parliamentary inquiry, I would ask my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, if he might reconsider his objection. There are very strong feelings on this bill. This bill was not noted for consideration until last night. This bill comes to the floor with less than 12 hours' preparation; and while I understand the gentleman's view, it would seem not so much because it is the rule but because it is fair, there are strong, deeply held feelings on this bill, I would urge my friend to withdraw his objection. We're talking about probably 5, 6, 7, 8--I don't how much time Mr. Cleaver took--minutes, so we could have the full 30 minutes of debate on the rule itself. I would ask my friend if he would consider that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. First, let me say that this side of the aisle believes the passage of the farm bill is very, very important. It is important for our agricultural interests, for our farmers. We believe it's very important for those who are relying on nutritional programs and support from us. So we share the view and are strongly in favor of the view of passing a farm bill, number one, I tell my friend. Secondly, I would tell the gentleman, as he well knows, the farm bill, for the past 2 years, has passed out of the committee with a majority of Democrats, and I think maybe unanimous, but certainly the overwhelming majority of Republicans. It passed out last year as a bipartisan bill. It was not brought to the floor. It was not brought to the floor, as the gentleman recalls, because of the controversies on your side, not our side, of the aisle. Mr. Peterson, to whom the gentleman referred and the ranking member of the committee, was in support of the farm bill. In fact, he indicated that he thought there would be sufficient Democrats, with Republicans, to pass the farm bill. Very frankly, as the gentleman articulated, you lost 62 votes on your side of the aisle, notwithstanding the fact that you adopted three amendments during the course of consideration of the farm bill that Mr. Peterson advised would undercut his ability and the Democrats' ability to support the bill. Very frankly, I tell my friend that what has happened, the farm bill was a bipartisan bill supported by a majority of the Democrats in the committee, as the gentleman knows, and by the ranking Democrat, Mr. Peterson. It came to the floor, however, and that bipartisanship was undermined by the amendments that were adopted. I think that was to the knowledge of certainly Mr. Lucas. I know that Mr. Lucas knew that it was undermining it. We now find ourselves in a position--and I understand what the gentleman has said trying to get to conference--where there was little or no discussion, certainly not with me, not with Leader Pelosi, about how we could move forward in creating a greater bipartisan coalition, while clearly recognizing there was opposition in your party and opposition in my party. So the way this could have passed in a constructive way, in my view, would have been had we reached a bipartisan compromise. Unfortunately, as is too frequently the case, we have seen where we have gone to, in my perspective, an ultra-partisan resolution to try to pass this bill and presumably pick up a number of the 62; and you'll need a substantial number of the 62 because we don't believe, as you can tell, that this is a process that we can support. But it is unfortunate because the gentleman is correct, and I respect the gentleman's observation, it's important that we pass a farm bill. But for over half a century, we have passed a farm bill in a bipartisan fashion with consideration from the nutrition people in our country to make sure that those who are without food and are hungry would have food.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HOYER. I make a point of order.

Mr. HOYER. The point of order is that, in fact, consistent with your rulings today, that the gentleman's unanimous consent request was not any different, in substance or in length, than the unanimous consent requests that have been made on a number of occasions, and time was not charged. That is inconsistent. It is a subjective judgment, and I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HOYER. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER. I want to say to my friends, the reason the farm bill lost is because 62 of your people wouldn't support your Chairman Lucas, who pleaded for their support. That's why the farm bill lost. Secondly, it lost because you adopted three amendments that undercut poor people in America. And so your response has been to abandon them altogether so you could get those votes back. Isn't that a shame.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman and ranking member. Mr. Speaker, the chairman does not want to do this, with all due respect. The chairman has said publicly he does not want to do this. The chairman has said publicly he wants to do what historically we have done: gone forth in a bipartisan way. That is the bill he constructed last year, and his colleagues did not bring it to the floor. That's the bill he constructed this year, and it was brought to the floor. As Mr. Peterson has so eloquently stated, it was turned from a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill. Why, why, why, do we always have to do that? The response to its failure, because 62 of Mr. Lucas' party would not join him in the extraordinarily eloquent closing that he gave--not speaking to the motion to recommit--but said, look, I understand that some of you think this is too much and some of you think it is too little, but it's democracy. Yet the chairman's party rejected his bill. We reject it as well because you adopted three amendments that you knew beforehand were going to turn this into a more partisan bill. So what did you do? You left this House and said, we are going to not compromise, not try to create a broader coalition, but we are going to narrow the coalition, we are going to try to buy off those 62 folks who said they really don't like this bill at all anyway and get them to say, This is a Republican bill, let's pass it, knowing full well it will not pass the Senate, knowing full well that the President won't sign it. Farmers need our agreement. I support it.

Mr. HOYER. I don't think I have ever opposed a farm bill, not because I represent a vast farm district--I don't. But I understand that food and fiber is critical for my people, for our Nation, indeed, for much of the world. So, ladies and gentlemen, let us reject this flawed process, this process which abrogates the pledge of 3 days of consideration for legislation, last night published, and we are asked to vote on it today. Why? Because this is a very controversial provision, and they didn't want to have the light of day shine too long on this flawed process. Let us reject this bill, let us reject a partisan bill, let us speak out for the farm community of America, and, yes, those who need nutritional help. Let us also speak for job growth in rural America, which the bill that the chairman reported out would have helped. This bill ought to be rejected, and we ought to do our duty and our responsibility in a responsible and effective democratic, bipartisan, cooperative way. I congratulate the chairman for what he would like to do. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a disgraceful abandonment of the most vulnerable people in our country. The legislation Republicans have chosen to introduce--with just hours' notice and in blatant violation of their own stated `three-day' policy to read the bill--is missing a major part of any responsible farm bill. By leaving funding for the supplemental nutrition assistance program--or ``SNAP''--out of this bill, they are effectively killing that program. SNAP is a critical tool in keeping 47.5 million people--including many children and seniors--from experiencing hunger and illness. It is one of our front-line programs against poverty in America. My republican friends know that, even if they pass this bill through this House, the United States Senate will not consider a Farm Bill without SNAP funding. Even conservative Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has said that splitting SNAP from the rest of the Farm Bill ``might fly in the House, but I don't think it's going to fly in the Senate.'' Our Republican friends claim to want fiscally responsible reforms to farm programs. So it's ironic that their bill actually increases spending and the deficit by $1 billion in 2014--and it saves less over ten years than the Senate Farm Bill while creating permanent new farm programs. The bill before us is just another exercise in house Republicans' political messaging game to make it appear that they are moving important legislation through Congress while, in reality, they refuse to play a constructive role in governing. I urge its defeat. Instead we ought to consider a farm bill that includes SNAP funding, after which we can go to conference with the Senate to achieve a real compromise. If the Speaker really believes in regular order, which he has called for, Republicans should work with Democrats to pass a bipartisan farm bill and allow the conference process to move forward. He has yet to do so with the budget, and I suspect that the reason we are not seeing regular order play out is because Republicans are not interested in compromise--only partisan politics. Withdraw this bill; defeat this bill; restore regular order.