[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 85 (Friday, June 14, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H3636-H3638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1310
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend the 
majority leader, Mr. Cantor from Virginia, for the purpose of inquiring 
of the schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the 
Democratic whip, for yielding.
  Last week, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland was kind enough 
to note and celebrate my birthday with a colloquy, and luckily, I get 
to return the favor today. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say happy 
birthday to my friend, Mr. Hoyer, and wish him many, many more 
birthdays.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
kindness. The American public must be thinking Geminis are, indeed, 
schizophrenic. I thank my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for 
morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be 
postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet 
at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On 
Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last 
votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes 
are expected.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a 
complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. In 
addition, the House will consider H.R. 1797, the Pain Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act. I also expect the House to consider H.R. 1947, 
the Federal Agricultural Reform and Risk Management Act. Chairman Frank 
Lucas and the members of the Agriculture Committee have worked very 
hard to produce a 5-year farm bill with strong reforms, and I look 
forward to a full debate on the floor.
  I thank the gentleman and wish him a happy birthday again.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his good wishes. I thank him for 
the information. If I can ask him a question initially about the farm 
bill, which has obviously been very controversial in the past, still 
remains controversial in many ways, and I'm wondering, in light of the 
fact that the Senate passed a farm bill in a pretty bipartisan way, 66-
27, with 18 Republicans voting in favor, but I know the Speaker has 
observed the divisions within the Republican Conference, and obviously 
there are some divisions within our caucus as well, and I'm wondering 
whether or not in fact the gentleman is confident that we will get to 
completion and a vote on the farm bill next week.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I would respond 
by saying that it's certainly our intention to complete deliberation on 
the farm bill. The Speaker has continued to commit himself and our 
conference to an open process for this House, and I look forward to a 
robust debate on what, as the gentleman knows, has been a bipartisan 
effort at the committee.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. As the gentleman 
knows, on our side of the aisle, there is very significant concern 
about the status of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and 
I would hope that as a rule is considered on that bill, I don't know 
whether the gentleman knows at this point in time, that we would have 
an opportunity to have a significant number of amendments on that bill 
to reflect the House working its will, as the Speaker has so often 
observed, and I yield to my friend for whatever information he may 
have. I know that the rule has not been written, and I don't know 
whether he has any insights on how much flexibility there will be on 
the rule.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would respond by saying that I do think there is a 
commitment to genuine and robust debate on all sides. And hopefully, 
without speaking to details because, as the gentleman knows, the Rules 
Committee has not met, that would include all subject matter in the 
bill.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that and look forward to that 
because I know on both sides of the aisle, this is a bill that has 
strong feelings among different perspectives on this bill and with 
respect to different subjects. And so I think as open a rule process 
and debate process as is possible will be helpful to the final product. 
I would hope that we can follow that.
  Mr. Leader, you mentioned the Unborn Pain bill. I understand and I 
have some information that says that the text of that bill coming out 
of committee may be modified in the Rules Committee. Is the gentleman 
aware of that? And if so, is the gentleman aware of what textual change 
there may be from the bill that was reported out of the committee?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  There has been a lot of discussion that I have been receiving, 
comments, input from Members, and we're looking at weighing those 
suggestions and inputs as to how the Rules Committee will deliberate in 
terms of the rule and how the bill comes to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. His comment reflects what I've 
heard. There is a lot of discussion going on about this. Hopefully we 
would get significant notice of what changes there might be. Can the 
gentleman tell me, would it be safe to assume that this bill will be 
considered, when and if considered, no earlier than Wednesday, and will 
be considered Wednesday and Thursday? And I say that, I will tell you, 
some of my Members who are very concerned about this bill are very 
concerned about when it might be brought up, the timing from their 
perspectives. This is a very serious piece of legislation, as the 
gentleman knows, again from all perspectives, and I would hope that 
this bill would be, in light of the fact that the Rules Committee will 
probably deal with it--I'm not sure whether they'll deal with it on 
Tuesday; my presumption is they'll deal with it on Tuesday--but there 
will be time for proponents and opponents of whatever changes might be 
recommended to prepare their arguments for the floor.

  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
would respond by saying, as has been the custom in this Congress and 
last, we will continue to abide by the 3-day notice, and I do think 
there will be adequate time for review by parties on all sides.

[[Page H3637]]

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer, and I thank him for 
the fact that you will be following the notice rule that has been 
discussed. I would ask the majority leader, could I be confident in 
advising people who are very focused on this bill, that if they are 
here Wednesday, that they will be in time to consider that bill? In 
other words, do you expect that the Rules Committee would consider this 
bill before tonight?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I do think that the posting of the bill will 
occur shortly. And I also would tell the gentleman to expect the vote 
sooner than Wednesday, perhaps on Tuesday. As the gentleman indicated 
before by his question on the farm bill, that may take up a 
considerable amount of time and debate. So I would just respond in that 
way.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his answer. So that in an 
abundance of caution, proponents or opponents would need to be here by 
Tuesday. I thank him for that answer.
  Let me ask an additional thing that is similar to my question on the 
farm bill. We are very, very hopeful that the bill we have just been 
discussing, whether it's considered Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, is 
subject to a somewhat open rule. I don't expect it to be fully open, 
but that amendments will be made in order. There are very strong 
feelings on both sides. That's why the gentleman has indicated there's 
a lot of discussion going on on his side and on my side. I would hope 
that we have the ability again for the House to work its will and that 
we would have the ability to offer such amendments as would be 
relevant, and important amendments, not specious amendments but very 
important amendments, to be considered by the House, and I yield to my 
friend.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman again.
  It has always been the commitment on the part of the Speaker and the 
majority to try and accommodate the need for open debate on issues of 
contention especially; and not speaking for the Rules Committee, I do 
think that we'll continue to see that tradition in the House being 
followed. Again, I thank the gentleman for raising the concern.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and I feel constrained to add, 
however, on the defense bill that we just considered, yes, it was 
bipartisan to the extent that both sides agreed on a formulation on the 
sexual assault issue within the military.
  Very frankly, there were two very substantive, widely supported, 
widely discussed amendments that were requested, one by Ms. Speier from 
California and one by Ms. Gabbard from Hawaii. Neither one of those was 
made an amendment so that the only alternative that we had available to 
us was the committee agreed-upon alternative with respect to sexual 
assault complaints that women in the military or men in the military 
might have.
  Then a very substantive and, I thought, well-thought out motion to 
recommit, which was deemed by the individual on your side of the aisle 
who opposed it, in an almost cursory fashion, less than, I think, 120 
seconds, dismissed as a procedural motion.
  With all due respect to the majority leader, and it was not the 
majority leader, obviously, it was anything but a procedural motion. It 
was a very substantive motion. It would have, in my opinion--of course 
we can differ on that, but my opinion, would have made a very positive 
improvement in the piece of legislation we were considering.
  Now, I voted for the piece of legislation, the defense bill. I've 
never voted against a defense authorization in my career here. The 
national security of our Nation is critically important.
  But we had somebody offer that amendment who served in the military, 
who gave two of her legs for our country, and who has been honored for 
her service, both in the military, as an officer, a helicopter pilot, 
and for her service to veterans, both in Illinois and in our country. 
And very frankly, that was rejected as a procedural motion.
  I understand the gentleman's representation that we follow the 
tradition of giving a full and fair--but if, I say, with all due 
respect to the majority leader, if the motions to recommit are to be 
considered simply as procedural motions, which the gentleman will 
observe we did not do when we were in the majority, we understand, and 
some of our Members understood, that these amendments made a 
difference.
  And once we got rid of the procedural impediment that a motion to 
recommit would send the bill back to committee, which is no longer the 
case, then we should consider very legitimate alternatives on a 
substantive basis, not the procedural objections that we were 
confronted with today.
  I say that all to say this is a critically important bill, very 
strong feelings on all sides, and I would--the gentleman has said this, 
and I take him at his word, that we allow alternatives to be considered 
on this floor as amendments that are not perceived as procedural, but 
are perceived as substantive attempts to improve, from the offerer of 
the amendment's perspective, the piece of legislation before us.
  If the gentleman wants to make any additional comments, I'll yield.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Just very quickly I would respond by saying that the gentleman is 
correct. There has been a lot of debate around the issue that he refers 
to. There was considerable debate in the HASC committee, and the HASC 
committee, House Armed Services, came up with a bipartisan approach to 
the sexual assault issue, and it was inserted into the base bill. And, 
in fact, it is consistent with President Obama's view and the 
Pentagon's view on this issue.
  So I understand that the gentleman may differ, but it was certainly a 
bipartisan product that was in the bill. And I hear the gentleman in 
terms of procedure and perhaps a characterization of a vote; but I do 
think, at the end, the minority was afforded the motion to recommit.
  And the characterization that we believe is a procedural vote, the 
gentleman takes another view. I understand that the subject matter was 
the same as these amendments, and these amendments that were not 
brought forward on the floor were heavily discussed in committee, 
resolved on a bipartisan basis.
  So, again, I understand the gentleman's point and look forward to 
continuing to do all we can to safeguard the women in our military, and 
to make sure that we protect all American citizens, which I do think 
this bipartisan resolution of the issue will do.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I understand that 
you do view the motion to recommit as procedural. We disagree on that.
  The motion would make a substantive difference in the piece of 
legislation. It would have set up a different scenario. To that extent, 
it was clearly substantive and not procedural; and it would have, I 
think, comported with, from many on our side's perspective, a better 
process to protect women and men from arbitrary and perhaps, at some 
point in time, unfair treatment and would give them a choice of what 
avenue they would pursue to protect themselves.
  And as Ms. Duckworth, Captain Duckworth, Congresswoman Duckworth so 
aptly stated, would give more confidence, particularly to women, but 
men and women entering into the service that they would be protected.
  We don't need to debate the substance of the issue, simply to say 
that giving us the alternative, and the MTR gave us the alternative, 
but it was not considered, on your side, as a substantive alternative.
  Therefore, my point being, on the bill that we're talking about, the 
Pain Bill, referred to shorthand as the Pain Bill, that we be given 
substantive amendments that are not perceived as procedural, so that 
the House, not 20 percent of the House--the Armed Services Committee is 
less than 20 percent of the House--not the Armed Services Committee, or 
any committee, for that matter, dispose of the issue and preclude the 
other 80 percent of us from participating in making that decision.

  So I would urge my friend to urge the Rules Committee and the 
leadership, of which the gentleman is a principal leader, to allow 
substantive amendments, good-faith amendments to be made in order.

[[Page H3638]]

  Two more things if I can, unless the gentleman wants to say something 
further. Let me say something on immigration reform. Paul Ryan, leader 
on your side, a Vice Presidential candidate, said of the bipartisan 
effort in the Senate on immigration, he said, ``I do support what 
they're doing. I think they've put out a good product. It's good 
policy.'' That was reported on June 6 of this year in The Hill 
newspaper.
  Immigration, obviously, nor did I expect it to be on the list for 
next week. But I want to ask the gentleman--in light of the fact that 
comprehensive immigration reform, by many on both sides of the aisle, 
including Mr. Ryan, but obviously in a bipartisan way in the United 
States Senate, has been something that's been viewed as a priority 
item--can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is a near-term, 
and by ``near-term,'' I mean prior to the August break, expectation 
that we will have any movement in this House on immigration reform?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and would say that the 
Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Goodlatte, is 
very, very involved in the discussion around these issues and is 
intending to address and begin to address the issue of immigration this 
month. And certainly my hope is that we, in this House, can see a full 
debate on the floor throughout the committee process and to make sure 
that we can address what is a very broken immigration system.
  And I know that the gentleman shares with me the commitment to try 
and do all we can to reflect the notion of trying to address a broken 
system.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those comments, and I look 
forward to us doing that and, hopefully, doing so in a bipartisan 
fashion because he and I both agree that the system is broken, needs to 
be fixed.
  And my view, and I think the view of many, and certainly the Senators 
who came together and offered the bill that's now being considered on 
the Senate floor, believe that a comprehensive plan was the best 
answer. And I agree with that.
  Lastly, if I can ask the majority leader, the student loan program, 
which has capped interest on student loans at 3.4 percent, expires the 
end of this month, and therefore we're weeks away from having a 
substantial increase, a doubling of student loan costs.

                              {time}  1330

  The President has a proposal. We passed a proposal through this 
House, as you know, Mr. Leader. Both of those proposals were defeated 
on the Senate floor for lack of 60 votes. The Senate alternative, which 
Mr. Bishop has now introduced, got 51 votes, but neither of them got 60 
votes.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether or not--it's not on the calendar 
for next week--there's any plan to address the issue, beyond what we've 
already done and which has been rejected in the Senate, to ensure that 
students do not see a doubling of interest rates in the near future?
  And I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and would say that, 
yes, there is a commitment to try to make sure that there is not a 
doubling of the interest rate to students who would look to incurring 
debt to go to school.
  As the gentleman correctly knows, Mr. Speaker, this House is the only 
body that has passed a bill to provide for protecting these students 
against such a rate increase. In fact, the bill that passed the House, 
as the gentleman knows, was a bill that allows for rates to go into a 
variable mode, to assure that any increase that would occur is not that 
increase in the statute, but long term could protect students as well 
from that kind of a hit.
  Now, I've talked to several members of the administration. Our 
chairman, John Kline, has been in contact, I know, with the Secretary, 
as well as others, in trying to resolve this issue. Discussions are 
ongoing. It is my hope, I would tell the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that 
we can resolve this issue so that perspective students can be assured 
that their rates would not double. But it is the House who has provided 
the pathway and the roadmap to ensure that happens. And we're trying to 
work with the administration, since the Senate has been unable to act, 
to avoid this from happening.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you know--and I'm sure the American public 
knows as well, Mr. Speaker--the reason the Senate hasn't acted is 
because, although they have a majority for an alternative, frankly, 
they can't get cloture. They can't get 60 votes. Frankly, Mr. Reid 
doesn't have 60 votes in order to move legislation.
  So, while it's well and good to say that we have acted, we have acted 
on a vehicle that the Senate has rejected. And they've rejected our 
alternative as well. They didn't reject it by a majority vote. A 
majority voted for our alternative. Frankly, the House would not be 
able to act if 60 percent of the House were necessary to pass 
something, and the majority leader and I both know that. We would be in 
gridlock. Frankly, I think it's unfortunate the Senate has a rule which 
allows a minority to control. I think that's not good for the country, 
I think it's not good for democracy, and I think it is not good for 
policy. I think that's demonstrable and, unfortunately, being 
experienced by the American people.
  But I would hope that within the next 2 weeks, or 8 legislative days 
that we have left, that the gentleman's efforts will bear fruit and 
that we can do something--not that we'll beat ourselves on the chest 
and say the House acted.
  That's the problem with the sequester. The House acted in the last 
Congress, and we're not acting now because a bill that's dead and gone 
and cannot be resurrected was passed in the last Congress as a pretense 
of--not a pretense. It was real at the time, but now claiming that that 
is the reason we're not acting on the sequester. Hopefully, that will 
not be the reason we do not act on the student loan.
  I thank the gentleman for his efforts at wanting to get us to a 
compromise which will assure that students do not see, on July 1, an 
increase in their interest rates.
  Unless the gentleman wants to make additional comments, I will yield 
back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________