[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 89 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H3968-H3971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority 
leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to 
come.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 
11 a.m.; no votes are expected. On Tuesday, 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 Wednesday and Thursday, the House will 
meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On 
Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last 
votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of 
the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by close of 
business tomorrow.
  In addition, I expect the House to take up and pass two bills from 
the Natural Resources Committee: H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and 
Jobs Act, authored by Chairman Doc Hastings; and H.R. 1613, the Outer 
Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon

[[Page H3969]]

Agreements Authorization Act, sponsored by Representative Jeff Duncan 
of South Carolina. These two bills continue our efforts to increase 
domestic energy production to foster an environment of economic growth 
and lower energy costs for working families.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I anticipate bringing to the floor H.R. 2410, 
the Agriculture appropriations bill authored by Representative Robert 
Aderholt of Alabama.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I would ask him a couple of questions about bills that are not on the 
announcement. The gentleman and I had a colloquy last week about 
student loans, that there's no action on those on the calendar for next 
week, if I'm correct.
  Knowing, as we know, that student loan rates will double in July from 
3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, and in light of our discussion last week, 
can the gentleman tell me whether there is any thought that there will 
be some action taken by us prior to the July 4 break?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that the House has 
acted, that the position of the House is one very close to where the 
President's public position on student loans has been. We don't want to 
see student loan rates double. We also want a long-term solution to the 
problem on the fiscal end while helping students.
  And if the gentleman witnesses what just happened on the floor, it 
just seems that on bills where there are solutions and bipartisan 
indications of support, there seems to be a decision by the part of his 
leadership, perhaps himself, to say, Hey, we're not going to go along 
with bipartisan work and success, and maybe we're just going to make 
this a partisan issue. I'm fearful the same is at work on the student 
loan issue, Mr. Speaker.
  I hope that that is not the case, because I know the gentleman shares 
with me a desire not to allow students to be put in the position of 
facing a doubling of interest rates if they decide to incur additional 
student loans.

                              {time}  1410

  So I would say to the gentleman, his question, we will stand ready to 
work in a bipartisan fashion--I've indicated so to the White House. The 
Senate doesn't seem to be able to produce anything. The House is the 
only one that produced something--very close to what the President's 
position is--to make student rates variable, to allow for those rates 
to be capped so the exposure is not what it would be otherwise. 
Unfortunately, no movement yet. We stand ready to work though.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Very frankly, I wasn't going to mention what happened on the floor 
today, but the gentleman has brought it up.
  The gentleman is correct; the committee passed out a bipartisan bill. 
A lot of Democrats voted for that bill. The problem, of course, is that 
62 Republicans voted against the bill as it was amended, 
notwithstanding the fact they voted for the last amendment that was 
adopted, which we think was a draconian amendment that would have hurt 
the poorest citizens in our country very badly.
  So we turned a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill. I will tell my 
friend, very frankly, you did the same thing--not you personally, but 
your side of the aisle did the same thing with respect to the Homeland 
Security bill, which was reported out on a voice vote from the 
Appropriations Committee, that we would have voted for on a bipartisan 
basis, except an amendment was adopted with your side voting 
overwhelmingly for it, knowing full well that our side could not 
support that.
  So I tell you, with all due respect, Mr. Majority Leader, I wasn't 
going to bring up what happened today. But what happened today is you 
turned a bipartisan bill--necessary for our farmers, necessary for our 
consumers, necessary for the people of America--that many of us would 
have supported and you turned it into a partisan bill.
  Very frankly, 58 of the 62 Republicans who voted against your bill 
voted for the last amendment, which made the bill even more egregious--
we disagreed with the $20 billion cut. And you upped the--not you 
personally, but your side upped the ante.
  So I will tell you, my friend, we're prepared to work in a bipartisan 
fashion. Very frankly, with respect to the student loan bill, it was 
very close to the President's bill. And we would have supported it had 
it been even closer to the President's bill.
  What your bill does, as you know, puts those taking out a student 
loan at risk of having their interest rates substantially increased in 
the future. The President suggested, yes, let's get a variable rate 
that reflects market rates, but then when you take out the loan, just 
like you do with your house loan, you know what your interest rate is 
going to be. So we have a difference on that. I think it's a good faith 
disagreement on that.
  But I will say to you that, yes, I have been concerned about the 
inability to take a bill reported out of the committee that is 
bipartisan in nature and not turn it into a partisan bill. That's what 
happened on this floor today. It was unfortunate, as I say, for 
farmers; it was unfortunate for consumers; and it was unfortunate for 
our country.
  If the gentleman wants to pursue that, I will yield to him.
  Mr. CANTOR. I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. And allow me to 
just to respond.
  The Southerland amendment to which the gentleman speaks is an 
amendment that had been discussed for some time with the ranking 
member, with the chairman--the gentleman himself, I'm sure, Mr. 
Speaker, was aware of Mr. Southerland's amendment.
  Mr. Southerland's amendment reflects what many of us believe is a 
successful formula to apply to a program that has, in the eyes of the 
GAO, in the eyes of the independent auditors who look at these 
programs, a program that is in dire need of improvement because of the 
error rates and the waste and the other things that are occurring in 
this program.
  In addition to that, it reflects our strong belief that able-bodied 
people should have the opportunity and should go in and be a productive 
citizen. That's what this amendment says. It gives States an option. It 
was a pilot project because it reflects a winning formula from the 
welfare reform program back in 1996 that was put into place, with 
unequivocal success--able-bodied people going back to work, working 
families beginning to have productive income, not just taking a check 
from the government.
  There was never an intention at all for our side to say we want to 
take away the safety net of the food stamp program, absolutely not. 
This was a pilot project, that was it. It was up to the States whether 
they wanted to participate to see if they could get more people back to 
work. Again, consistent with what the GAO reports have said over and 
over again, these programs are in need of reform.
  Again, it was not as if this amendment came out of thin air. The 
gentleman, the ranking member, the entire leadership on the minority 
side knew this amendment was there. And the gentleman forever is on 
this floor, Mr. Speaker, talking about regular order, talking about the 
need for us to have open process, perhaps to let the will of the House 
be worked and then go to conference. That was what the goal here was, 
let the will of the House allowed to be seen through, work its will, 
and then go to conference. And then we would try and participate in a 
robust discussion with the other side of the Capitol to see if we could 
see clear on some reform measures to a bill and a program that is in 
desperate need of that.
  Mr. Speaker, again, what we saw today was a Democratic leadership in 
the House that was insistent to undo years and years of bipartisan work 
on an issue like a farm bill and decide to make it a partisan issue.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that that is the case, I do agree with 
the gentleman. But I hope that we can see our way to working on other 
issues where there is potential agreement. Yes, we have fundamental 
disagreements on many things, but we're all human beings, representing 
the 740-some thousand people that put us here and expect us to begin to 
learn to set aside those disagreements and find ways we can work 
together.
  Today was an example. The other side, Mr. Speaker, did not think that 
was their goal, did not think that was an appropriate mission, and 
instead decided to emphasize where they perhaps

[[Page H3970]]

differed when we wanted to reform in a certain area.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. We clearly have a profound 
disagreement.
  When we were in the majority, we got no help on your side, Mr. 
Majority Leader--you remember that, zero, one, two, three, four--on 
programs that we felt very strongly about. There was no opportunity to 
have bipartisan dialogue. There was no opportunity to have bipartisan 
agreement.
  The gentleman refers to regular order. Very frankly, the person who 
talks about regular order most is your Speaker. And you talk about 
regular order. We ought to pass a bill, and then we ought to go and 
have an agreement.
  Some 90 days ago, I believe, we passed a budget. At your insistence, 
the Senate passed a budget. Good for them. We have not gone to 
conference. You have not provided an opportunity to go to conference. 
You haven't appointed conferees. That's regular order. The gentleman 
wants it on one bill but apparently not all bills.
  I tell my friend we want regular order. We want to go to conference. 
We want to undo the breaking of an agreement that we made in the Budget 
Control Act, which said there would be a firewall between domestic and 
defense. You have eliminated that firewall.
  You have assumed sequester is in place. Sequester is bad for this 
country. You and I tend to agree on that, I think. But the fact is 
there's no legislation to undo that sequester--except the legislation 
you talked about passing in the last Congress, which is dead, gone and 
buried. Yes, we want regular order.
  The reason the bill lost today is because 62 of your Members rejected 
Mr. Lucas' plea--which I thought was a very eloquent plea--in which he 
said: I know some of you don't think there's enough reform in this 
bill, and some of you think there's too much reform. But Mr. Peterson 
and I brought out a bill that was a bipartisan bill, supported by the 
majority of Democrats and the majority of--I think all Republicans, 
maybe, on the committee; I'm not sure of that, Mr. Leader. But the fact 
of the matter is it was a bipartisan bill--just as Homeland Security 
was a bipartisan bill--and it was turned into a partisan bill.
  You respond that the Southland amendment was for reforms. That's 
exactly what Mr. Lucas was talking about. He was saying some people 
don't think we went far enough and some people think we went too far. 
Mr. Southerland thought we hadn't gone far enough. And 58 Republicans 
voted for Southerland and then turned around and voted against the 
bill, the very reforms you're talking about.
  So don't blame Democrats for the loss today. You didn't bring up the 
farm bill when it was reported out on a bipartisan basis. Last year you 
didn't even bring it to the floor because your party couldn't come 
together supporting their chairman's bill.

                              {time}  1420

  So that's where we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't going to 
bring up that bill at all. What happened, happened.
  Very frankly, when we lost on the floor, it was because we lost on 
the floor when we were in the majority. We produced 218 votes for 
almost everything we put on this floor. Don't blame Democrats for the 
failure to bring 218 Republicans to your bipartisan Lucas-supported and 
Peterson-supported piece of legislation on the floor. We believe that 
that loss, that partisanship on this bill, hurt farmers, hurt 
consumers, hurt our country.
  Let's bring that bill back to the floor and have a vote on it as it 
was reported out on a bipartisan basis. I think it would pass. Maybe 
not because of your votes. That's been your problem all along.
  Don't blame Democrats for the loss of that bill. Don't blame 
Democrats for being partisan.
  We knew about those amendments, Mr. Leader, just as you knew about 
them. You knew we were very much opposed to some of those amendments, 
notwithstanding the fact all the leadership, I believe--I haven't 
looked at the record--voted for those amendments just as they voted for 
the King amendment on Homeland Security.
  Yeah, you pushed my button.
  I'm prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion, but I'm not prepared to 
work in a bipartisan fashion when it's said, This is what we agree on--
meaning your side--so you better take it if we're going to have any 
agreement. That's not the way it works. It never worked that way in 
America. That's not what America is about. America is about expecting 
us to work together.
  This bill was reported out overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. It 
could have been passed on a very large bipartisan vote, and was 
precluded by the actions taken through these amendments on the floor, 
most of which we did not support. You knew we did not--not only you. 
Your party knew that we did not support.
  So I'm surprised when you talk to me about regular order and there's 
nothing--nothing--to do on the budget conference that you wanted the 
Senate to pass a budget. They did. You have just told me that you 
wanted regular order and that we should have passed the farm bill so we 
could work together.
  You're assuming, of course, that the Senate would have gone to 
conference. I hope they would have, and I think they would have, 
because I talked to the chair. She would have wanted to go to 
conference, assuming we got votes on the Republican side of the aisle.
  But we also wanted to go to conference in regular order on the budget 
to solve the stark differences between the two parties. That's the only 
way you are going to get from where we are to where you need to be, by 
having a conference and trying to come to an agreement.
  My own premise is, Mr. Leader, that you don't have a conference 
because there is nothing to which Patty Murray could agree, that Mr. 
Ryan could agree, that he could bring back to your caucus and get a 
majority of votes for, because they are for what you passed and nothing 
more than that. We are $91 billion apart. If we divide it in two and 
just said, ``Okay, we'll split the difference,'' you couldn't pass it 
on your side of the aisle, and I think you know that.
  I don't know that I have any more questions that would be 
particularly useful, but I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just say, as far as the budget conference is concerned, the 
budget is something that traditionally, as he notes, has been a 
partisan affair. It is a document that each House produces, reflecting 
the philosophy of the majority of those bodies.
  The budget contains a lot of different issues, two of which I think 
the parties have disagreed on vehemently over the last several years: 
taxes and health care.
  We understand, Mr. Speaker, that the other side rejects our 
prescription on how to fix the deficit in terms of the unfunded 
liabilities on the health care programs. We've said we want to work 
toward a balance. We think a balanced budget is a good thing.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the partisan position on the other side 
of the Capitol is no balance--no balance--and raise taxes. So when you 
know that is the situation, there is no construct in which to even 
begin a discussion.
  Again, the budget has traditionally been that, a partisan document, 
whether who is in charge of which House, and then to be a guide by 
which you go about spending bills after that.
  The farm bill, frankly, is a little different. It's for working 
farmers. It's for, frankly, individuals who need the benefit of the 
food stamp program. We believe that you need to reform the SNAP program 
and reduce some of the costs, because even the GAO--the independent 
auditors that we bring in--year in and year out say that that program 
is rife with error rates, waste, and others that we should be ashamed 
of.

  So we put forward our idea through the Southerland amendment to try 
and reform, put in place, those reforms; but it's still in the 
construct of the farm bill.
  Again, to the gentleman's point, we do want to work together, but 
it's going to have to be about setting aside differences instead of 
saying, as the minority leadership did today, You disagree with us on 
that program, we're out of here. The entire farm bill then does not 
have a chance to go to conference, be reconciled, hopefully reforms 
adopted, so we can make some progress, according to what even the 
independent analysts say should be done.

[[Page H3971]]

  It really is a disappointing day. I think that the minority has been 
a disappointing player today, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the people. 
We remain ready to work with the gentleman. I'm hopeful that tomorrow, 
perhaps next week, will be a better week.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority leader continues to want to blame the 
Democrats for his inability, and the Republicans' inability, to give a 
majority vote to their own bill.
  Maybe the American people, he thinks, can be fooled. You're in charge 
of the House. You have 234 Members. Sixty-two of your Members voted 
against your bill. That's why it failed. We didn't whine, very frankly, 
when we were in charge, when I was the majority leader, about we didn't 
pass the bill. We got 218 votes for our bills, and it was pretty tough. 
We got zero from your side. You got 24 from our side to help you. Mr. 
Peterson stuck to his deal.
  Now, on the budget, you say we've got different philosophies. Yes, we 
do. Mr. Gingrich gave a speech on this floor about different 
philosophies in 1997 or '98. He was speaking to your side of the aisle. 
He was talking about the ``perfectionist caucus.'' He made an agreement 
with President Clinton, which to some degree was responsible for having 
balanced budgets, but your side thought it was not a good deal. Not all 
of your side. In a bipartisan vote, frankly, we passed the deal, the 
agreement, the compromise, that was reached between Mr. Gingrich and 
Mr. Clinton.
  A lot of your folks said, No, no. Our way or the highway.
  He gave a speech that he called the ``Perfectionist Caucus'' speech. 
That's what, in my view, I'm hearing on the budget. Yes, we have 
differences. The American people elected a Democratic President. They 
elected a Democratic Senate and a Republican House. The only way 
America's board of directors and President will work is if we come 
together and compromise.
  The place to compromise under regular order is in a conference with 
our ideas and their ideas meeting in conference. The most central 
document that we need to do every year is to do a budget. But you're 
not going to conference. Your side will not appoint conferees. Your 
side will not move to go to conference. Patty Murray wants to go to 
conference. Senator Reid wants to go to conference. Your side over on 
the Senate won't go to conference, in my view, largely because they 
know you don't want to go to conference and they don't want to make a 
deal, they don't want to compromise on what their position is.
  We will take no blame for the failure of the FARRM Bill--none, zero. 
As much as you try to say it, you can't get away from the statistic. 
Sixty-two, otherwise known as 25 percent, of your party voted against a 
bill, which is why we didn't bring it to the floor last year when it 
was also reported out in a bipartisan fashion.
  I know you are going to continue and your side is going to continue 
to blame us that you couldn't get the votes on your side for your bill 
because you took a bipartisan bill. That's what Mr. Lucas was saying--I 
thought he was very articulate, I thought he was compelling--in 
pleading with your side: Join us, join us. It doesn't go as far as you 
would like.
  And on reform, you talk about reform, and that's a good thing to talk 
about, like we're against reform.

                              {time}  1430

  The Senate bill has reform in it, Mr. Leader. The Senate bill has 
reform in it. Now, it's not in terms of dollars cutting poor people as 
much as this bill does, but it cuts. It has reform in it. What some of 
them want--what apparently your side wants--is your reform, not 
compromised reform. Mr. Lucas brought to the floor $20 billion and 
couched it as reform and said on the floor it may not be enough for 
some and it may be too much for others, but it is a compromise. He was 
right, but it was rejected by 25 percent of your party--they rejected 
the chairman--and that's why this bill failed.
  Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                          ____________________