Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule of the week to come. (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Today, we considered a third appropriations bill. It was a structured rule, which is not uncommon on both sides of the aisle to have a structured rule. But next week, the gentleman has announced the Defense appropriations bill, and I am wondering whether or not that will be an open rule so that amendments will be able to be offered by Members without constraint of being limited? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, does the gentleman mean by ``structured rule'' that we will simply require amendments to be filed as of a certain time, but that there will be no restriction on amendments that will be in order? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, to further clarify, my understanding, therefore, is that the majority leader expects the Rules Committee to choose which amendments will be made in order on the bill. Is that accurate? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I understand what the gentleman is saying. And it appears to me that it is an abandonment of the Speaker and others' representations that when appropriations bills are brought to the floor that they will be brought to the floor with an open rule or a rule that will allow any and all amendments that seek to be offered by Members on both sides of the aisle to be offered. From the gentleman's explanation, I believe that is not the case and a deviation from the announced policy at the beginning of the year. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that it is a pragmatic judgment that some amendments are making it difficult on the gentleman's side of the aisle. As someone who has been here for some period of time, that has been my experience when we were in the majority that the gentleman's side, under open rules, offered a lot of very difficult amendments that we had to confront. The Maloney amendment obviously was a difficult amendment for Members to confront on the gentleman's side and led to the defeat of apparently one of the bills, the Energy and Water bill, which failed on this floor. Would I not be correct in saying that this is a policy that is now being pursued that is different from that which was represented at the beginning of the year where the floor would be open to any and all amendments and would be considered by the House on their merits? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Of course, 130 of his Members voted against that bill; 130 of his Members rejected that bill. I am hard pressed to think that the majority leader believes that our ``no'' votes were political and his ``no'' votes were principled. That defies logic from my standpoint. The fact of the matter is that bill lost because the gentleman's Members didn't support it. The gentleman has 247 Members. I do remember being majority leader. Very frankly, I remember getting 218 Democrats for almost every bill we brought to the floor. So we passed them with our votes. If 130 of the gentleman's Members had not voted against their own bill, it would have passed. And there should be no, Madam Speaker, misrepresentation or misinformation about how seriously Mr. Maloney cared about his amendment. There should be none whatsoever. In point of fact, it enjoyed ultimately the majority of support here on this floor. I will tell the gentleman, I have been here for sometime. He is correct on that, and I do offer amendments from time to time to improve bills that, even as improved, I don't like. So, in the final analysis, although I have improved them and been successful in adopting an amendment, I still do not think the bills are appropriate to pass and go into law. This conversation started with the fact that we need to be able to offer ideas. Very frankly, I understand the gentleman's position. Today, we just voted on two bills that aren't going anywhere, a sense of Congress that you are not going to bring to the floor. They have no chance of passage. What did you want to do? You wanted to play politics. I don't mean you personally, Madam Speaker, but it was a political effort solely to bring two bills to the floor to express some sense of Congress, both of which I voted against because I thought they were playing politics. So the accusation somehow that we are playing politics because we offer amendments that we care deeply about, that we want to see no discrimination allowed in our bills and that we want to defeat those constraints on an executive order that says to people who do business with the Federal Government, you can't discriminate against people, I will tell my friend, yes, we are going to continue to try to do that. Now, of course, on this last bill, we were not allowed to do that. We were shut down and shut up and precluded from voting on that particular piece of legislation. So, when I tell my friend that this session started with a pledge for open rules on appropriations bills, I understand the gentleman's problem. Frankly, we had structured rules when we were in charge as well. We had not made any great representation about open rules; therefore, we, too, wanted to get the business of the House done. Yes, I remember well 2007 when we were confronted with a filibuster by amendment. At some point in time, after 10 bills had been very difficult to pass, on the last two bills, we did have structured rules. I tell my friend that I hope that he will accord to Mr. Maloney or others the sincerity of their objectives, notwithstanding the fact that their amendment is adopted and articulates what I think is proper policy for our country, that is, not to discriminate. Everybody in our country apparently doesn't believe that, but Mr. Maloney does. And I want to make it very clear that he was very sincere in that amendment. Those of us who voted for it were very sincere in that amendment. It was not politics; it was values. Moving on, I want to congratulate the majority leader on his work on Puerto Rico. That was a difficult issue for us both, a difficult issue for our caucuses, a difficult issue for the executive department. We worked together. We got a bill done that certainly was not our favorite. The bill included a lot of stuff in there that we didn't like, but I will tell the gentleman that we didn't play politics on that. We only lost 24 votes on a bill that was largely constructed by the gentleman's side of the aisle in terms of some of the issues unrelated, per se, to restructuring of the debt, which was the intent of the bill. So I want the majority leader to know--he and I have a good relationship. I have great respect for him--we are going to intend to try to work together on issues like that that are difficult but are necessary for the American people. Toward that end, can the gentleman tell me what the status of the Zika issue is with reference to getting resources as quickly as possible to confront this challenge to our country's health? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Obviously, this is an emergency confronting our country. Dr. Frieden of the CDC, Dr. Fauci of the NIH, and so many others have raised this as a critically important issue for us to confront and confront now. So I would join the majority leader in whatever efforts are necessary to accelerate this process and give to the administration and our health officials the resources they need to protect the American people. Madam Speaker, in closing, I rise to say that we have lost a great American, perhaps one of the most famous Americans in the world in Muhammad Ali. Muhammad Ali was, for a portion of his life, reviled for the decisions he took. But through his life, he reflected a commitment to principle that all of us could well follow, an example of even in the light of extraordinary opprobrium from his fellow citizens who said, This is what I believe, this is where I stand, and I am prepared to take the consequences. Many of us believe he was probably the greatest fighter that ever lived. As he fought so successfully in the ring, he fought successfully for his principles and his convictions. I know that the American people and the House of Representatives would reflect the respect and affection for a great athlete and a great human being and a great American. If my friend wanted to make a comment, I will yield to him.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, rarely do we see the political courage and intellectual integrity that we have seen in the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). I have worked with her for months now trying to get to a solution fair to Puerto Rico and fair to the 3.5 million American citizens who live in Puerto Rico. I also want to thank my friend Jose Serrano, also from New York, also Puerto Rican, also having thought about this extraordinarily thoughtfully, and it has been difficult. I want to congratulate both of them for coming to the decision that is a terribly difficult one for them that this is, at this juncture, the only alternative to the pain and the suffering of which Ms. Velazquez spoke. I am sure the citizens of Puerto Rico are watching this debate, and they understand this is not a perfect bill. It is not the bill I or Mr. Pierluisi--who lost an election, in my view, because of his fidelity to what he believes is in the island's best interest--would have written. It forces Puerto Rico to take some bitter medicine, accept an oversight board with broad powers that is unacceptable to many living on the island, and it does not provide additional assistance to the island that is critically needed and ought to be done. Hopefully we can address that. It is a compromise, and it will enable the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to restructure its debt and prevent economic catastrophe. I can assure both sides of the aisle in this Chamber and in the Senate that it is a compromise forged out of a serious consideration of all possible alternatives that could result in bipartisan agreement. We must not risk the cost of further inaction by this Congress, which should have acted months ago; but it is not too late to do the right thing. Congress must act before Puerto Rico's next interest payment is due on July 1. According to The New York Times Editorial Board: This bill ``has flaws . . . ''. I think both sides would agree to that. The New York Times went on: `` . . . but at this late hour, it offers the island its best chance of survival.'' It is, therefore, Mr. Chairman, my advice and urging to our Members that we vote for this bill. We need to come together and pass this bill without any controversial riders. Again, I want to thank Representatives Velazquez and Serrano and Resident Commissioner Pierluisi for their leadership, their courage, and their integrity. Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this bill for the American citizens living on Puerto Rico and to meet the responsibility of which Ms. Velazquez spoke so eloquently.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank Ms. DeLauro, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. Mr. Speaker, this is the story in The Washington Post. It is front page. It is about the crisis that we confront, about the danger to Americans' health, about the dangers that young children will be born with microcephaly. Dr. Frieden, the head of our communicable disease operation and defense force, if you will, says it will cost $10 million per baby born with microcephaly; $10 million per child. That does not count the heartache that will be counted. I want to tell my friend, Mr. Cole--and he is a dear friend and a good legislator--the action you take today belies the representation you have made. What do I mean by that? If there is enough money now, as Mr. Cole argues, why take this action? This was not scheduled earlier this week. This was not have a rule until 9:30 last night. So if the gentleman's proposition is correct, that there are sufficient funds right now, we don't need to act on this bill today. So why, my friends, are we acting on it today? Because the public believes we ought to act. And the Republicans are trying to protect themselves against the attack, that they took no action until 94 days into the President's request because, if Mr. Cole is right, we need not worry: there is plenty of money available. But they know the American people don't agree with that. So 9:30, in the dead of night, they passed this rule, brought it to the floor so that they can say: Oh, we have acted. Nothing, my friends, will happen as a result of what we do today. The Senate passed a bill with 69 votes, $1.1 billion, not taking from Ebola defense, not taking from the other health needs of America, as our bill does, but saying: this is an emergency. Now, very frankly, my friends on your side of the aisle, Mr. Cole, when you want $18 billion from defense, you have no problem not paying for it. You take it from OCO, which is not scored. No problem. But when the President asks for $1.9 billion, about a tenth of that, well, my goodness, this is a problem. It is, after all, not the Taliban. It is not Iran. We have to protect against that. It is a health crisis in America, and we have fiddled for 94 days. If, in fact, Mr. Cole's representation is correct, there is no need to act. But if the actions that they are taking speak loudly that, yes, there is a need to tell the American people: we get it; there is a crisis; we are going to act, the problem is nothing will happen as a result of this action, other than a bill will go over to the Senate, with which the Senate does not agree. They passed a bill with 69 votes. Half of the Republicans, all of the Democrats, said we need the $1.1 billion. Now, the President asked for $1.9 billion, but what they didn't do is steal from Ebola, steal from other health priorities. And I hear the gentleman talking about how much money is out there, but if that is true, why did we need to act in the dead of night last night and today, just as we walk out the door? We have not dealt with Zika. We will not have dealt with Zika. We haven't acted on the Puerto Rican debt. We haven't acted on a budget resolution. We haven't acted on the Flint water crisis. We haven't acted on criminal justice reform. And we haven't acted on the Voting Rights Act. This is a cover vote. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is very generous, and I appreciate it. I would say to my friends, the District of Columbia deserves the same respect that any of our governments deserve and that, in fact, we demand for them. And I always lament how the District is demeaned. When I was the majority leader, I made sure that Ms. Norton had a vote on the floor of this House and that the Virgin Islands' Representative had a vote on the floor of this House. One of the first things you did when you took the majority was take that away. It was not a vote that made a difference. It was a vote that was symbolic. But it gave them the opportunity to have their name as our equals, as Americans, on that board and express their opinion. Let us not take this degree of autonomy away from them. Let us respect these local citizens as you would want your local citizens respected. I urge the defeat of this legislation. If the courts tell us that they could not do this, so be it, but let us let the system work its will. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which is an exercise in Republican hypocrisy. We are witnessing the party that proclaims itself to be a champion of local autonomy and less Federal Government involvement in local affairs bring to this floor legislation that would do exactly the opposite. The District of Columbia deserves a form of home rule not characterized by constant and intrusive micromanaging by congressional Republicans. Speaker Ryan just released a statement in which he said--and I quote: ``The current D.C. Government needs to be reined in.'' I would say to the Speaker in response: Quite the opposite; the government and people of the District of Columbia need to be allowed to chart their own course. It is a mystery to me--and ought to be a mystery to every American who believes in the premise that people ought to govern themselves--Why House Republicans are determined to strip that ability away from the 670,000 Americans who live in our Nation's Capital. The locally raised revenues from taxes and fees do not originate from the Federal Government but from hardworking residents of Washington. The District of Columbia has proven Congress's wisdom in enacting the 1973 D.C. Home Rule Act time and again by managing its affairs in a fiscally responsible, democratic way. That is what this bill is, Mr. Speaker--a reminder to the people of this city that they remain unrepresented in this House and a Federal colony within a nation dedicated to democracy and fair representation. When Democrats were in the majority, we worked to give District of Columbia residents a greater voice in the Committee of the Whole. And when Republicans took the majority, one of the first acts was taking this small but important democratic tool and indication of respect away from the District's representative and the other representatives of our U.S. territories. Now Republicans want to erode the District of Columbia's hard-earned right to govern itself. I thank my friend the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton, for her impassioned defense of Washingtonians' unalienable right to have a say. And I will continue to stand with her to demand that right be recognized--and in seeking for the District of Columbia the real budget autonomy, home rule, and representation in Congress that its people deserve.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for outlining his position. We are a nation of laws. The gentleman has indicated a court has ruled on this issue--an opinion with which he disagrees--and we have a mechanism for overturning or clarifying or changing such a ruling, and that is the court system. That case may well reach the Supreme Court. I rise in opposition to this piece of legislation, which, in my opinion, is an exercise in hypocrisy. Why do I say that? That can be a harsh word. We are witnessing the party that proclaims itself to be the champion of local autonomy and less Federal Government involvement in local affairs--we hear that all the time--bring to this floor legislation that would do exactly the opposite. The District of Columbia's over 700,000 American citizens deserve a form of home rule not characterized by constant and intrusive micromanaging by congressional Republicans or Democrats. Now, if I were to ask unanimous consent that we substitute the District of Columbia and perhaps include Milwaukee, Wisconsin--now, I am not going to ask for that--I am sure I would get objection. Or, if I might ask that Salt Lake City be substituted or perhaps even Baltimore, Maryland, my own city in my State, or maybe even Charlotte, North Carolina, those of us who represent those four cities would stand and say: This is not your role, Congress of the United States. Speaker Ryan just released a statement in which he said: ``The current D.C. government needs to be reined in.'' From where? From balanced budgets? From surpluses in their budgets? Reined in? They are a model, I would suggest, of fiscal responsibility. Not always, but today. But then again, none of our jurisdictions have always been such a model.

Mr. HOYER. I would say to the Speaker, in response, quite the opposite. The government and the people of the District of Columbia need to be allowed to chart their own course, which is what I think most of you say on a regular basis. It is a mystery to me--and ought to be a mystery to every American who believes in the premise that people ought to govern themselves--why House Republicans are determined to strip that ability from the 700,000 Americans who live in our Nation's Capital. They pay taxes. They pay taxes to their local government. And we want to make that decision. I understand what the court has said and that courts may rule that way, but shouldn't we have the patience to let the court system decide whether or not this referendum of the people of the District of Columbia is adjudged to be appropriate? The locally raised revenues from taxes and fees do not originate from the Federal Government, but from the hardworking residents of Washington. The District of Columbia has proven Congress' wisdom in enacting the 1973 D.C. Home Rule Act time and again by managing its affairs in a fiscally responsible, democratic way.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which is the product of much negotiation--which is an understatement, I think--in an effort to find consensus. Congress first enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act 40 years ago to protect Americans from the risks posed by chemicals in commerce. It has not been reauthorized since. Since its original enactment, the law has become outdated, and efforts to modernize it have been ongoing for several years with great difficulty. Under current law, it has become hard for the EPA to ban even substances that are known to cause cancer, such as asbestos. The bill before us today is a breakthrough after a significant amount of work. It represents a compromise that, while not perfect, as everyone has noted, is a great improvement over current law. And it will help the EPA protect Americans from harmful, toxic substances and safeguard our environment. This bill will require the EPA to evaluate both existing and new chemical substances against a new risk-based, scientific safety standard that includes specific considerations for populations more vulnerable to chemical exposure, such as children, seniors, and pregnant women. It also ensures that the EPA can order testing immediately for substances suspected of placing Americans at risk. This bill improves public transparency of chemical information, provides for clear and enforceable deadlines to review prioritized chemicals, and takes action to mitigate any identified risk. In short, this is a bill that reflects the kind of compromise across the aisle we ought to be seeing more of in this House. It is fittingly named after Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, who spent his career working to make this law more functional.

Mr. HOYER. I want to first thank the person in my office who worked far harder than I did. I just took her phone calls and talked to Mr. Pallone and talked to Mr. Shimkus from time to time. Mary Frances Repko is one of the hardest working staff members. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mary Frances for the work that she did to get us to where we are. It is not perfect, as she and I agree, but it is a bill that will be better than what we have. I want to thank, of course, Ranking Member Pallone; my dear friend, Chairman Upton; my friend, John Shimkus, the chairman of the committee; and Mr. Tonko, who is not for this bill. He worked hard to get it to this place. He didn't get there, but he worked hard on that effort. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a work product that has been sincerely achieved by people of goodwill, and it is adjudged by the President of the United States and the administration and by the director of the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as a significant and important step forward. That is a good deal for the American people.

Mr. HOYER

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

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

Mr. HOYER. I want to raise a parliamentary inquiry, initially, with reference to the fact that Mr. Ryan, our Speaker, has told us that, if people were in the well, the vote would be held open. I was standing in the well. No one came or no one had the courage to come into the well to change their vote. But notwithstanding that, the vote kept changing. Mr. Speaker, from a parliamentary perspective, how is that possible?

Mr. HOYER. I saw no one come to the desk to change their vote, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. The parliamentary inquiry is: How can the vote change when no one comes to the well to change their vote?

Mr. HOYER. I didn't hear the Chair request change. But I do know that, from my own personal observation, not one of those Members who apparently changed their vote--because it kept changing on the board-- came to this well and had the courage to change from green to red or red to green. How is that possible, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear and, therefore, was not able to ask for a recorded vote on the motion to rise. The Speaker did not articulate that so the House could hear it, and I request a vote on the motion to rise. Now, the Speaker may tell me we are past that point, but the fact of the matter is, nobody on this House floor heard the Speaker articulate the issue of whether the Committee ought to rise.

Mr. HOYER. On the motion to rise, yes, sir.

Mr. HOYER. I ask for a recorded vote on the adoption of the amendment. Which amendment is the Speaker talking about?

Mr. HOYER. Yes, I do.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote. It is my understanding that because the amendment was defeated, magically, without anybody coming to the well to change their vote, by giving to the majority the right to have the ability, without coming to the well and telling America that you were going to change a vote.