[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 163 (Friday, November 15, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7145-H7149]
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. Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, the
majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the
week to come.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the
Democratic whip, for yielding.
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.
Madam 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 three bills to increase domestic
energy production, create American middle class jobs, and lower the
cost of energy for our families. These bills are H.R. 2728, the
Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act,
sponsored by Representative Bill Flores; H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands
Jobs and Energy Security Act, authored by Representative Doug Lamborn;
and H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act,
sponsored by Mike Pompeo.
Together, these bills represent our continuing commitment to energy
independence and putting more money in the pockets of working middle
class families.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.
I think, as the majority leader knows probably as well as any of us,
and maybe better than most of us, we have 4 legislative days left in
November and 8 scheduled legislative days in December, assuming we do,
in fact, get out on the 13th, which is the last day that we are
scheduled to be in session this year.
Having said that, there are a number of pressing items to address. As
the majority leader knows, the unemployment insurance protections for
folks expire on December 31--actually, I think it is December 28. The
SGR provisions expire on December 31. If we do not do something with
respect to them, there will be a substantial decrease in the
reimbursement to doctors serving Medicare patients.
I know that the majority leader has, and we have, people who are
willing to work together to address these issues. Knowing that there is
usually uncertainty at the end of a session, I would ask the gentleman
if he can give Members a sense of scheduling for the coming month, that
is December, and I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I would say to the gentleman we certainly have three conference
reports we are looking at hopefully completing with the Senate. One is
the WRRDA conference report that we voted on in the House this week to
go to conference. The other is the farm bill conference report, as well
as the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act.
{time} 1345
I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, those are certainly the
conference reports we would like to see resolved so we can have a vote
in the House. The gentleman correctly points out that the sustainable
growth rate program and its formula expires at the end of the year.
Certainly, our committees are at work trying to see a way forward, as
well as trying to seek out the proper budgetary pay-fors necessary for
the plan that has been put forward by Energy and Commerce, as well as
the Committee on Ways and Means. I know there have been some bicameral
discussions on that as well. I am hopeful we can resolve that, but
certainly knowing full well we have to act prior to the end of the
year.
I would also point out to the gentleman that there is considerable
work being done on the issue of patent reform, and we hope that comes
to the floor prior to the end of the year. And obviously, the larger
item having to do with the Budget Committee conference, headed up by
Chairman Paul Ryan and in the other body Senator Patty Murray, and we
look forward to a resolution there. That is certainly the intention,
Madam Speaker.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for that information, and I am
pleased that he added to the WRRDA, farm bill, NDAA, and the patent
reform issues the budget conference. My view is, as the majority leader
probably knows, the most important thing we can do for our economy is
to get our country on a fiscally sustainable long-term path.
Can the majority leader gives us some information on the status of
the budget conference? Certainly, from a public perception, it appears
that not much progress has been made, which is worrisome in light of
the fact that the target date for the reporting on the conference is
the 13th--or, should I say, the legislative directive is to report by
the 13th. As Mr. Ryan has pointed out, perhaps unfortunately so, there
are no consequences of that not occurring. I had urged, myself, as the
majority leader may know, that they report out by Friday of next week,
the 22nd of next week, or Thursday of next week, so that we could have
the conference report on the week we come back in December after
Thanksgiving.
Could the gentleman give us any idea where he thinks the proceedings
of the conference committee on the budget stand?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and would say the
gentleman is correct. Certainly, the sooner, the better, as far as I am
concerned. I am concerned as well about any resolution on the Budget
Committee conference. I know the gentleman has spoken to both Chairman
Ryan as well as the other body's chairman. In speaking to Chairman
Ryan, he tells me that there has been a lot of discussion, not only
public discussion in meetings, but certainly his meeting with the
chairman from the Senate, in trying to find a way forward.
The gentleman knows that the issue that is central to these
discussions is not unlike the issue that has been under discussion for
some time here, and that is how do we go about seeking reform of some
of the mandatory programs and trying to reach resolution there in
exchange for a commensurate relief on the across-the-board budget cuts
that are currently in place.
I don't know, Madam Speaker, whether they are going to meet the
deadline next week or not that the gentleman says will be preferable. I
know that our chairman is very mindful that
[[Page H7146]]
the quicker, the better, so we can get on about our work here in the
House.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
He mentions the sequester. Of course, almost everybody who has spoken
about the sequester, including myself, the majority leader, and Mr.
Ryan, has indicated the sequester is not the way to reduce spending. It
is a meat-ax approach which is having very adverse consequences to our
national security structure. I think almost every member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff has made that point. Certainly, General Dempsey has
made that point. But also, on the domestic discretionary side, the
sequester doesn't work, and the proof of that, of course, is that we
haven't considered any of those bills on the floor; and the one that we
considered, we pulled, the Transportation-HUD bill.
So I am hopeful, and I know Mr. Rogers is, as is Senator Mikulski,
the chairs of the Appropriations Committee, have both indicated that
they hope to get a number early on, and that is why the 22nd was a
preferable date, if we could have reached that, so that they would have
a number to which they could mark bills. Obviously, if there is not an
agreement on the 302(a), as the gentleman knows, it is very difficult,
then, to try to bring those bills together in a conference because they
are so far apart.
I am hopeful that the majority leader will use his good offices to
urge resolution on the budget conference differences and report out as
soon as possible so we can get to that process.
The gentleman I am sure shares my view that the shutting down of
government is extraordinarily disruptive, both to the general public
and to those who work for the Federal Government, so that it would be
incumbent upon us, I think, to try to get out of this gridlock on the
budget process that we have been in. I would urge him to exercise
whatever, because he has substantial influence to try to get us to a
resolution of this issue, and I will tell him I will do the same.
Another issue which you did not mention, Mr. Leader, is immigration.
As you know, this issue passed very handily through the United States
Senate on a vote of 68-32, and I am very hopeful that we could move
this legislation. I think the Senate bill or a variation of the Senate
bill would pass. We have introduced an alternative for which we have
Republican cosponsorship, H.R. 15, which is a comprehensive immigration
bill which incorporates the security provision that was adopted
unanimously in this House by the Republican-led Homeland Security
Committee. We believe it has bipartisan components to it, and the
balance of the bill has bipartisan support in the United States Senate.
The gentleman knows, you passed a number of bills out of your
committees, and they were passed, of course, with partisan votes. We do
not believe these bills are bills that we would support, but we are
wondering whether any of them are going to be brought to the floor.
H.R. 2278, which is the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, which
allows the State and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration
laws, as you know, we think that is bad policy, but it did come out of
the Republican-headed committee in the Judiciary Committee. I am
wondering if that might be brought to the floor.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. As the gentleman knows, we have had the discussion before
about the majority's position on the Senate bill. We don't support the
Senate bill. The Speaker I think spoke out on that this week. Our
Members don't support the Senate bill. We have said all along Chairman
Goodlatte and his committee are going about a much more deliberative
process, a step-by-step approach in trying to address the problems with
a broken immigration system. I do think, and I will tell the gentleman
that there is consensus on our side of the aisle as well as his, that
the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Certainly there are
differences on how to go about doing that.
We remain committed, as does the chairman, in trying to move in a
step-by-step manner to address the various issues involved with
immigration reform, but not to do it the way the Senate did because, as
we have seen, many of those who actually voted for the Senate bill in
the other body now say they regret that vote or they perhaps would do
some differently. I guess it is up to the House to try to address it
much more deliberatively and try to fix the problems that exist so we
don't see them happen again.
I would say to the gentleman, the House will continue its work; and,
as the gentleman knows, the news of this week, unfortunately, has been
many, many Americans very unhappy with the work product coming out of
this town as far as health care is concerned. I would posit to the
gentleman that a bill like ObamaCare or a bill like the Senate
immigration bill produces the kind of impact and effect that we are
seeing this week and last week and the prior. We don't want to commit
that same kind of mistake. We want to be smarter about it.
As the gentleman knows, our committees are hard at work in trying to
identify how we can help people with their health care right now since
they are facing the very real prospects of not having the health care
insurance plans that they like, contrary to the promises that were made
when that comprehensive bill was passed a couple of years ago in the
same way the Senate bill, the immigration bill, was passed, with not a
lot of focus on the detail.
We intend to try and focus on the details of immigration reform, try
to come together, see if we can actually have some positive reception
on the gentleman's side of the aisle both in this House and the one
across the way as well as the White House to actually work together
finally to produce a bipartisan outcome that will be satisfactory
because none of these partisan bills have ended up working. As you see,
ObamaCare, case in point. That is why we have the train wreck that is
upon us. It was a strictly partisan bill that came out of the Congress,
House and Senate, and look what has happened.
So I say to the gentleman, we do care about the immigration issue and
want to go about reform in a smart way.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, Madam Speaker, and
I wish that they had been demonstrated on the farm bill and on the
Homeland Security appropriation bill, both of which were reported out
of committee on a bipartisan basis but were made very partisan on the
floor of this House. I thought that was unfortunate, but that is what
happened.
I would like to repeat my question. The gentleman said he wanted to
deal with the immigration bill in a very thoughtful, considered way and
that he did not support the Senate immigration bill. I was not
surprised with that response. The Speaker has also made that very
clear; he does not support it. And, very frankly, the majority of
Republicans have made it clear they do not support the comprehensive
immigration reform bill.
However, Mr. Leader, what I asked you was are you going to bring H.R.
2278 which passed out of the Judiciary Committee, presumably in a
thoughtful, considered, discrete way, that is dealing with individual
subjects, which is the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, which
allows States and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration
laws--my question to you, Mr. Leader, are you going to bring that bill
to the floor, or any of the other four bills, which I will mention as
well, to the floor, because presumably you believe those were
considered in a thoughtful way, were reported out of your committee,
were reported out with all of your Republican members, I believe,
voting for it, at least 20 of them voting for it. My question to you
is: Are you going to bring that bill to the floor?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, it is under
consideration as to the timing when we bring that bill to the floor.
I would again reiterate that Chairman Goodlatte is trying to take a
holistic approach to the immigration reform issue--the bill that the
gentleman mentioned is obviously one of the pieces in trying to figure
this out--and do so in a way that we can effect a positive result, not
just result for result's sake. And I again direct the gentleman's
attention, Madam Speaker, to what is going on with ObamaCare right now
and how many millions of Americans are extremely disappointed in their
government and certainly in the representations that were made by the
[[Page H7147]]
White House and President insofar as that law is concerned. I don't
think that we ought to be engaging in those kinds of commitments when
you can't deliver.
So again, we want to be working together. We want to be deliberative
about this process, and hopefully we can move forward in a way that is
expeditious and thoughtful.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader.
I said I wanted to mention the other bills because we understand, A,
you would like to talk about health care without focusing on anything
else. I get that. We have a disagreement. We will see whether the
American people believe that making sure that affordable, quality
health care is available to all Americans is something they are for or
whether they are against. We will see on that. That issue was joined in
the last election. The last election didn't have much effect in this
body in terms of the issues that were contended in that election.
But let me ask you about H.R. 2131, which is the Supplying Knowledge
Based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM Visas Act.
{time} 1400
As the gentleman knows, there are a lot of people very interested in
this issue. This would eliminate the diversity visa program, transfer
55,000 green cards available under that program to a new STEM program
that employers can use to hire foreign workers with advanced STEM
degrees--master's degrees, Ph.D.s, et cetera--from universities. It was
being marked up and, I understand, passed out 20-14. Again, that was
with an overwhelming Republican vote, if not unanimous vote. Again, the
gentleman indicates we want to consider the immigration issue in a
thoughtful, discreet, and, as the Speaker has said, bill by bill way.
Is there any expectation that the gentleman has that that bill will
be brought to the floor before we adjourn for the year?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman if he recalls
that in the not too distant past, it was his side that opposed that
bill when it was brought to the floor.
My response will be the same. We want to bring bills together. We can
work in a cooperative fashion to effect a result. Unfortunately, as the
minority opposed stapling green cards to diplomas on that bill that was
brought in the past, we are trying to figure out a way where we can
bring something forward and actually get it across the finish line with
the other body.
Mr. HOYER. I think the majority leader knows, and I know, he has 218
votes on his side of the floor. As a matter of fact, he has
substantially more than that.
If the last bill was so good, bring it to the floor and pass it. That
is what the Speaker says you want to do, you want to pass bills item by
item. What is happening is you are passing bills out of committee and
they languish there, just as the farm bill, to which the gentleman
referred in the early part of our discussion, languished in the last
Congress and was not reported to the floor.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the
purpose is not just to make sure that a vote occurs and then nothing
happens. The purpose is to pass bills and then allow for the bicameral
effort to get a result. That is the frustration.
If the gentleman would also note, on the farm bill, we actually have
a conference committee ongoing now. So the reason we employed the
process we did was to get in a position that we could actually get a
result and not just say we did something and fail to deliver for the
people.
I would say to the gentleman again, these bills that he is bringing
up all fit into a larger puzzle. We need some indication from the White
House and from the majority in the Senate that they will actually work
with us. Given the track record that this administration has amassed
since 2009, there is not a lot of indication they are willing to work
together.
Again, I would point to the prospects of that being what is key,
because this week is demonstrative of what happens when you just move
without bringing everyone together. The effects of this health care law
are going to be lasting on people. They are scared to go to the
exchanges. They are worried they are not going to have insurance. This
is the impact and result of passing laws by just one body and expecting
the other body to just go along. We can't do that now because we are
two separate bodies, and we need the White House and the Senate to
cooperate with the majority in the House.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that point.
He passed a Homeland Security bill that he knew the Senate wasn't
for. He passed appropriation bills that he knew the Senate wasn't for.
He passed, Madam Speaker, the farm bill amendments that he knew were
not going to be supported in the Senate.
Madam Speaker, we think immigration is a critically important
subject. We believe immigration is, in fact, broken. We have an
alternative. He doesn't like our alternative. I understand that. We
understand that on this side. Perhaps the American people will also
understand. They don't like our alternative.
It passed with 68 votes in the United States Senate. He now says
people have changed their mind. Maybe that is the case, but it passed
with 68 votes in the United States Senate. They don't like it. Madam
Speaker, I understand that. I get it.
They don't like the health care bill. By the way, Madam Speaker, I am
starting to get that message. I am pretty thick and it takes some time,
but on 46 votes to repeal or to undermine, I get it. You don't like
that bill. You think it is a bad bill. We have a disagreement on that,
Mr. Leader.
However, apparently we don't have a disagreement on the fact that the
immigration system in America is broken. What I am asking you--you have
passed out of committee the Agricultural Guest Worker Program. It
creates a new Temporary Agricultural Worker Program. That also passed
on a partisan vote. None of these votes were bipartisan. There was no
effort to work with the Democrats on the committee to bring a
bipartisan bill, unlike Mr. Lucas or Mr. Carter, who brought bipartisan
bills to the floor and saw them turned into partisan pieces of
legislation with the help, frankly, of the majority party.
I am asking you regarding the Agricultural Guest Worker Act, are we
going to bring that to the floor? Again, a discreet, thoughtful, I am
sure on your side of the aisle, addressing of a broken program, but if
we don't bring it to the floor, we don't consider it, we can never get
to conference, which is what the gentleman says he wants to do.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I will say to the gentleman again, the
track record of this administration and the majority in the Senate has
indicated an unwillingness to sit down and talk. They have not done so.
Certainly, the White House has not done so on the immigration issue,
did not do so on the health care issue. Again, it doesn't help the
American people for this insistence on ``my way or the highway'' kind
of mode of operation.
We have gotten the message now. If it is going to be my way or the
highway, we will try to do whatever we can to help people, as we did
today on the floor with a bipartisan vote. The gentleman continues to
say that we don't like the health care bill. That is true. I think the
American people have spoken out pretty loud and clearly over the last
10 days or so, as indicated by the White House and the President's move
yesterday. Obviously, the law is not working.
We don't want to get into another situation like that. We want to
make sure we work together comprehensively because there are step-by-
step actions that need to be taken, but we need results. We need the
White House to sit down and talk to us. We don't need any more
speeches, and we don't need any more press conferences by the
President. We need some actual talk.
On the immigration issue, they have just not come forward. They have
said ``my way or the highway.'' I say to the gentleman that is not how
you work in a bipartisan process.
The gentleman complains about partisan action on the floor. Well,
there is an inherent partisanship when you have a majority versus a
minority, and the will of the House is reflected in the votes here. The
Senate is controlled by
[[Page H7148]]
the gentleman's party, and so is the White House. So to get any kind of
result, such as the farm bill, we are going to need a bipartisan
result. He is correct on that. It doesn't mean that if we pass
something in the House it automatically has to be something the Senate
will support.
Again, I would say to the gentleman, let's all try to work together.
I think our side has indicated a willingness to do that. Obviously, we
want to go and get these conference reports out, but we have not seen a
willingness on the part of the gentleman's party, this President, to
say we can work together to effect positive immigration reform--not
just my way or the highway.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations.
I must say I am somewhat amused, Madam Speaker, because there are few
people in America who believe it is our party that is my way or the
highway. There are few people in America who didn't see 198 Democrats
vote to keep their government working. It is not my way or the highway.
We didn't get what we wanted. We didn't want that number that was
passed. 198 Democrats, without exception, voted to keep this government
open; 198 Democrats voted to pay the bills of the United States of
America. It wasn't a question of my way or the highway. It wasn't a
question of repeal or I will vote to shut down the government. 147
Republicans, Madam Speaker, voted to keep the government shut down
because they didn't get their way. 147 Republicans, including in both
instances, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, voted to not
pay the bills of the United States of America. And they voted against
the majority leader's advice and against the Speaker's advice. That is
a problem. I agree that that is a problem.
No matter how much, Madam Speaker, the majority leader says it is the
President and the United States Senate that are undermining, in fact,
the United States Senate has been passing time and after time after
time bipartisan bills and has sent them to the House, where they have
languished or been opposed, and finally, they were supported. That was
true in the Violence Against Women Act. It was true on a bill that the
majority leader and I were for, Madam Speaker, and that is for giving
Sandy relief. He couldn't get more than 25 percent of his party to
support that.
All I am saying is that, if immigration is a problem and we all say
it is, and you think it needs to be dealt with in a discrete way, and
you have passed bills out, why don't you bring them to the floor? H.R.
1772, the Legal Workforce Act, makes E-Verify immigration status
programs for prospective employees mandatory. Again, I presume that
this is one of Mr. Goodlatte's thoughtful, considered steps to fix a
broken immigration system.
All I am asking is--now for the fourth time--will you bring one or
more of these bills to the floor? We may not be for them, but at least
they put, as the gentleman keeps saying, a bill before the House so the
House can work its will. Frankly, if they are defeated, then it would
be incumbent upon us to move in a different direction, but if they are
just sitting there without consideration by the House, without the
ability of the House to work its will, then it continues to cause
inaction on a subject that all of us have expressed needs action.
If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I will yield. If not, I
will go on to another subject. I am going to go on to another subject.
Rather than go on to another subject, let me urge the gentleman,
again, because when the gentleman says, ``Let the House work its
will,'' that is a wonderful phrase. Hopefully, it resonates with the
American people. But the House is not allowed to work its will.
Ultimately, of those bills I have just referenced, we did work our
will, and we worked our will, frankly, with mostly a majority of
Democrats and a minority of Republicans joining together to pass
critically important legislation for this country. We couldn't get the
majority of your party to vote for many of those bills.
I would ask the gentleman that if he really wants the House to work
its will, and he believes that H.R. 15, the comprehensive immigration
bill, is a bad bill, bring it to the floor and see if the House thinks
it is a bad bill, see if the House believes that it is a bill that is
not worthy to be considered and passed as a fixing of a broken
immigration system.
I urge my friend to bring that bill to the floor. He has the power to
bring that bill to the floor. I urge him to do so.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that we
don't want a repeat of what is going on now with ObamaCare. That bill
constructed as it is by the Senate is a last-minute effort to get it
across the finish line. I think there is a lot that could be done a lot
better in that bill. The gentleman, I believe, knows that, as well. If
he doesn't share my opinion, then we can agree to disagree on that.
I would just say again, let's be mindful, Madam Speaker, of what
happens when you put together a bill like ObamaCare. There are real
consequences for millions of Americans right now, and they are scared
that they are not even going to have health care insurance that they
have today come January 1. There are plenty of reasons for that: the
mishaps with the Web sites, the call centers, the stolen identities.
All the things that don't seem to be working right now are scaring
people out of even considering in a rational way what is going on. How
could they? There are no answers being given. I would say to the
gentleman it is largely due to the unfortunate architecture of that
bill, some of which can be blamed on the process by which it was put
together. We don't want to the make that mistake again.
I would say to the gentleman that I look forward to working with him
in a deliberate and thoughtful approach. We are not bringing up the
Senate bill. We are not going to do that. I have said that to the
gentleman. Hopefully, we can work in a much more positive way.
Mr. HOYER. In closing, Madam Speaker, let me simply observe that this
is somewhat ironic because the gentleman has repeatedly said he doesn't
like the Senate bill.
{time} 1415
I hear that. He then says, we need to consider a more thoughtful way
of doing this. I get that.
I have then pointed out that the committee, which is headed by Mr.
Goodlatte, Republican leader of the Judiciary Committee, has passed a
number of bills, presumably, in that quest for a more thoughtful
consideration to fix a broken system.
The gentleman has not said he is going to bring any of those bills to
the floor, so he knows what he is against, Madam Speaker. He knows what
his party is against, Madam Speaker, but he cannot tell us what he is
going to do to fix a broken system because, apparently, the four bills
that I have asked about are not being brought to the floor, are not
part of the solution of which the gentleman speaks, and that is
regrettable.
Let me say, in closing, Madam Speaker, I hope we can work in a
bipartisan fashion. It didn't occur after the election, where the very
issue was whether or not we ought to extend affordable health care to
millions of people, some 30 to 40 to 50 million people who did not have
health care security.
They continue to be scared. They continue to be presented with a
message that this is a failed program, frankly, before it even starts.
Now, it has started. In terms of access, it doesn't start, as the
gentleman knows, until January 1. But for some people, for some people
it has started. For some parents with children with a preexisting
condition, who could not get insurance, it is working.
For young people who couldn't find a job but needed insurance and
were less than 26 years of age, they could stay on their parents'
policy. It was working.
For seniors who were confronted with a doughnut hole that put them
deeply in debt for prescription drugs they needed for lifesaving and
life quality, it is working.
It is working for those people who did not go bankrupt and won't go
bankrupt in the future because there are not the limits that can be
imposed upon them when they get really sick.
So, yes, we will have a debate on that, but it ought not to simply
divert us from all of the other issues that we need to deal with.
The budget--we need to get this country on a fiscally sustainable
path. I know the leader agrees on that.
[[Page H7149]]
We need to fix a broken immigration system. I know the leader
believes that as well. We need to invest in growing our country, to get
rid of the sequester because the sequester is going to hurt our
country. And, frankly, I think the leader agrees on that. We may not
agree on how to do it, but I think he agrees on the objective.
So, Madam Speaker, on all of those, we ought to be giving our best
efforts, not in a partisan way, but in a bipartisan way, as Americans,
not as Democrats and Republicans.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________