Legislative Program

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I have not had a discussion with Mr. Nadler, but as the gentleman knows, we have a lot of work to do on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we intend to get that work done. We have not considered bringing to the floor the bill to which the gentleman refers.

Did the gentleman in his research find any instances in any authoritarian country where they refused to consider a constitutional appointee to their Supreme Court that the President, with 10 months on his term, sent down to the United States Senate or some other body in those countries?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I don't know about the Nadler bill, but I do know that the Constitution says nothing about the Senate's ability to simply refuse to consider an appointee of the President of the United States. I don't think the Founders had any concept that that would be the case when they gave the power of appointment to the President of the United States.

And then when that occurred, when the present Attorney General was appointed to the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell said, We are not going to consider it, ten months before the end of the term of a President of the United States. And then they said the reason being is because we have an election coming up in just a few months--in that case, it was 8 months--and the next President ought to appoint.

Madam Speaker, that deep principle enunciated by Mr. McConnell, by Mr. Graham, and others--who was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that deep principle was abandoned immediately when it became politically pragmatic for the Republican Party to do so and steal a Supreme Court justice.

So he can talk about socialism all he wants. What a distraction that is. A failure to want to discuss on the merits of the issues.

So what do they do, Madam Speaker? They talk about socialism or communism or dictatorship, none of which we have in the United States of America.

Now, we just lost a President of the United States that, in my experience--and I have served with many Presidents of the United States--was the most authoritarian-seeking President with whom I have served.

Madam Speaker, so I tell my friend that we are going to focus on issues important to the American people. We want to pass a jobs bill to make sure that America is competitive in the 21st century. We want to pass a jobs bill to make sure that families have good-paying jobs that they can support themselves and their families. We want to support bills that build America back better. I want an America that makes sure that everybody can ``make it in America,'' not only manufacture it in America but make it in America. That is what we are going to be focused on.

Madam Speaker, we hope that the debate is on the merits of those proposals, not some aspersion of some ideological tinge that they may think their supporters regale at.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman refers to Communist China, apparently wants to follow that example. A communist authoritarian government that owns most of the manufacturing capability in China--not all of it. It is ironic that in two different debates in less than 5 minutes that the gentleman would point to China as the example of what perhaps we ought to do, when their tax policy is approximately 100 percent, except what they want to allow their citizens to have.

Madam Speaker, let me just close on that point with: The Supreme Court has been packed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, we have a situation that is heart-wrenching and unacceptable. And it must be dealt with. In part, this situation comes because of the draconian policies of the previous administration.

It comes also because Republicans have refused, in both Houses, to come to agreement on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. So we have chaos as a result because our immigration system, as I believe almost every Member of your side of the aisle and every Member of my side of the aisle believes, is broken.

Now, unfortunately, what we see in that picture is broken systems causing great danger, apprehension, and fear among many people who are fleeing to America for refuge. It has, of course, Lady Liberty at the head of the harbor, the Hudson River, raises her torch and says, ``That is what America is for.''

Now, having said that, this situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for humanitarian reasons. It is unacceptable for the safety of not only those people that are in that picture, but for American citizens as well.

Madam Speaker, now it is my understanding that the CDC's existing pandemic public health order for closed borders is, in fact, being followed. In Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, unaccompanied children crossing the border are tested--are tested--by the Department of Health and Human Services. The migrants entering ICE facilities are tested, and they are quarantined if they test positive.

So protections are trying to be effective, and this administration is working very hard to ensure the safety of Americans and the safety of these many children who have come across the border.

None of them have been taken out of the arms of their parents. None of them have been made orphans by this administration.

I didn't hear the gentleman lamenting the fact that we had hundreds of children who had been taken out of the arms of their parents, and then they could not be found--that is, their parents. They could not be reunited with their parents.

This is a challenge. It is not a partisan challenge. It is a challenge for America. It is a challenge for us all.

This administration is working to try to come to a solution that is both humanitarian and effective. I am hopeful that they will proceed in accomplishing that objective.

The gentleman mentions the policies of the Trump administration, which substantially underfunded its own policies of trying to help the Northern Triangle countries. When I say help the triangle countries, unfortunately, the leadership of those countries, in too many instances, is not trying to help itself. So, we see panicked people fleeing.

Madam Speaker, I don't know whether the gentleman from Louisiana, my friend, Mr. Scalise, saw the pictures of two children being dropped over the fence--by the way, that very large fence, billions of dollars of fence. Smugglers dropped two children over the fence. That is how secure it was.

The tragedy of those children being dropped over that fence alone, I don't care where they are from or who they are, but my faith teaches me that they may be strangers, but they are brothers and sisters.

In that context, we need to come to grips, and I am hopeful that the gentleman will support the administration's desire to get a comprehensive immigration bill adopted in this Congress.

In 2013, the Senate passed, Madam Speaker, a bill which was supported by Democrats and Republicans, 14 Republican Members of the United States Senate. We pleaded with the Republican leadership to bring that bill to the floor. They will say they brought a bill to the floor, and they did bring a bill to the floor, and almost nobody thought it was effective in accomplishing the objective of having an immigration system that would work.

So, I tell the gentleman, the pictures that he is displaying ought to concern us all deeply. We ought to urge all of our colleagues to cooperate and work toward making sure that we don't have scenes like that and that we have the ability to deal with this surge at the border in a humane way.

But no one in the previous administration can wash their hands of the responsibility of creating a situation which--the gentleman says Mexico is adjudged to be one of the most dangerous nations on Earth for COVID- 19. The previous administration said to people trying to seek solace and health and safety: Stay. Stay in the most dangerous nation on Earth for COVID-19.

I don't know whether that is a very humane policy. That is not a sanctuary for people who are in dire straits.

We said ``no'' to some people who came here from Germany. We said, no, you can't come in. Many of them returned in the 1930s and early 1940s and were slaughtered. They came here for sanctuary and found none.

That doesn't mean we can take everybody, but it does mean that we need to deal with it in a humanitarian way, in a way that honors our values and honors these people as our fellow human beings.

So, I tell the gentleman, in conclusion, that these are sad scenes, and we need to respond to them in a humanitarian way, but also a smart way. We need to respond to the cause as well as the effect.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Does the gentleman believe we ought to obey America's laws on asylum?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Donald Trump didn't fix the problem; he delayed the problem. That is what happened. That is what those pictures reflect.

He didn't fix the problem. He would say to those kids: Get out of here. Go back to Mexico. Maybe you have a parent there, maybe you have somebody who will take care of you, but get out of here.

That was one way to ``solve'' the problem, I presume. Those kids didn't go away. The fear that they have for being home didn't go away.

Now, I have said, Madam Speaker, this is something that we all need to deal with from a compassionate standpoint, from a legal standpoint, and from a human standpoint, which I guess is redundant to ``compassionate.'' But the fact of the matter is that President Trump did not solve this problem; he simply delayed it.

When he left, the pressure was so great because they did not believe that this President would simply throw them to the wolves, take them from their parents, treat them as refuse.

We need to deal with this, and, hopefully, we will. Hopefully we will get comprehensive immigration reform.

I will say again that one of the reasons that we have the problem of not adjudicating these people quickly is because we don't have enough judges. And the reason we don't have enough judges, which were included both in the 2013 bill and the subsequent reform bills, is because we haven't passed bills to provide the judges on the theory that if we don't provide the judges, then we won't be able to approve asylum and people won't be able to get in.

Madam Speaker, I am at the end of this circuitous argument.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source