[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 172 (Thursday, December 5, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7556-H7559]
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. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of 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 at noon for morning-hour 
and at 2 p.m. for legislative debate. As announced previously, no votes 
are scheduled on Monday. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House 
will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and at noon for legislative 
business. First votes of the week will occur no earlier than 2 p.m. on 
Tuesday. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative 
business. Last votes for the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a 
complete list of which will be announced by the close of business 
Friday.

[[Page H7557]]

  On those suspensions, I am pleased to announce that the House will 
consider H.R. 2019, the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act 
sponsored by Representatives Gregg Harper and Peter Welch, which has 
over 2,000 citizen cosponsors, and puts into practice what I hope we 
will all agree on, which is to place a priority on pediatric medical 
research over political party conventions.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of legislative items 
which may become available for consideration next week, including 
legislation pertaining to the sustainable growth rate in Medicare, a 
budget agreement, and legislation pertaining to farm programs, 
including potentially a full farm bill conference report.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information, and I 
appreciate the fact that he has put on there the sustainable growth 
rate in Medicare budget agreement, which hopefully we can get to, which 
will be bipartisan in nature and will be balanced and fair as well.
  In addition, legislation pertaining to the farm program's farm bill 
is necessary. It has been in conference for some period of time. 
Hopefully, we can pass that as well.
  I do note, however, with some degree of--actually, I said ``some 
degree''--with very great disappointment that unemployment insurance 
extension is not listed by the leader. As the leader knows, 1.3 million 
people are going to have their unemployment benefits expire, I believe, 
on December 28. Those people will have no support structure. Very 
frankly, my own view is they will then go on some other support 
structure, some sort of welfare payment--SNAP payment, Medicaid--which 
they may be on already. But, in any event, it will not be at no cost. 
CBO estimates that it will cost as much as 300,000 jobs if we do not 
extend unemployment insurance.
  We just had a hearing, Mr. Leader, where we had very, very compelling 
testimony from three people, with respect to--one of whom just found a 
job on Monday; she was very pleased at that--not only the economic 
damage that going off unemployment will cost them--and they have been 
looking for jobs--but also the psychological devastation to them and 
their families that that would cause.
  Does the gentleman have any belief--I understand, and I read 
somewhere, the gentleman may want to comment on it. Some commented that 
there was no appetite for extending unemployment insurance on your side 
of the aisle--but can the gentleman give me any idea of the 
possibilities for having unemployment insurance extension on the floor 
so that we cannot see those 1.3 million people dropped off the rolls as 
of December 28?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that the expiration of the 
benefits that he just referred to were benefits that were passed by 
this Congress 5 years ago as emergency spending, as emergency need, at 
a time in which we were facing near bottom in terms of our economy, the 
fallouts of the financial collapse; and those benefits, again, were 
brought about in those contexts.
  I would say to the gentleman further, Mr. Speaker, that if he were to 
look at the jobs legislation that this House has passed, all of which 
is awaiting action in the Senate--the SKILLS Act, the Working Families 
Flexibility Act, the Keystone pipeline, the REINS Act, the Offshore 
Energy and Jobs Act, Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, 
Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Act, and the Veterans Economic 
Opportunity Act--all of these are measures which the House passed 
because, I think the gentleman would agree with me, the best way to 
address the chronically unemployed is to help them get back to work. 
These bills, especially the SKILLS Act, was one specifically designed 
to do that, to help those chronically unemployed to access the 
necessary skills that they need to enter the job market of today.
  I would also further point out, Mr. Speaker, that this week, December 
3, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report in response to a 
request for the extension of unemployment benefits in which it said 
that some unemployed workers who would be eligible for those benefits 
would reduce the intensity of their job search and remain unemployed 
longer, which would tend to decrease output and employment. This is the 
Congressional Budget Office speaking on the question that the gentleman 
raised.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that such policies, if we were to continue, 
would lead to greater Federal deficit, which would eventually reduce 
the Nation's output and income slightly below what would occur under 
current law. So I think that we should be focused on how we get folks 
back to work. That is where the House has been focused. Unfortunately, 
after 140-some bills we passed over to the Senate, they still await 
even consideration at all by that body.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
  We neither have the time nor do I have the inclination to go through 
each one of those bills to which the gentleman refers as ``jobs 
bills.'' Of course, we have an alternative; and Mr. Van Hollen will be 
talking about that in terms of jobs, investment, infrastructure, 
investment, education, and growing jobs for our people.
  But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there are 1.3 million 
people who can't find a job. To say that they will be disincentivized 
because we continue to give them some support so that they can survive 
and their families can survive during the period of time that they are 
looking for a job, there are three people looking for every one job 
that is available, and most of those jobs that are available have skill 
sets that, unfortunately, the unemployed have not had.
  We are for, on this side, skills training; we are for investing in 
education. We share the majority leader's view on that; but it is not 
going to be much solace for them, Mr. Speaker, and their families to 
say, well, we dropped you off the rolls, you won't be able to pay your 
mortgage, you won't be able to put food on your table because the 
Senate hasn't acted.

  Whether the Senate should act on the bills in question I think is 
debatable. I opposed many of those pieces of legislation myself, as did 
others; but we have a crisis, and that crisis is we have 1.3 million. 
And that same CBO to which the majority leader referred said that not 
to pass this extended benefit will, in fact, undermine the economy and 
could cost as many as 300,000 jobs of people who are working now, but 
who will not be working because of the lack of resources of those 1.3 
million consumers. Whether they are consuming food, housing, clothing, 
necessities of life, we are going to be undermining jobs in America and 
our economy. Almost every economist that I have talked to shares that 
view.
  In any event, I want to make it clear to the majority leader that our 
side will be vigorously opposed and will oppose adjourning of the House 
as is scheduled on Friday the 13th of this month if, in fact, we have 
not passed unemployment insurance. We believe that is a critical thing 
to pass.
  We also agree with the majority leader, however, that passing the 
sustainable growth rate is something that we ought to do before the end 
of the year. That will expire on December 31. The reimbursement of 
doctors to serve Medicare patients will be substantially reduced as a 
result of that. That is bad policy, not only for those on Medicare who 
are seeking medical services, but it is bad policy for the doctors and 
medical providers that will serve those people.
  So I am pleased that he mentions SGR, the sustainable growth rate, 
the doc reimbursement, but not pleased that we do not have listed the 
unemployment insurance. We will be very adamant next week that that 
needs to be done. I understand that we may have a difference on that, 
but I want to let the majority leader know that that will be our 
position.
  In addition, I do not see on there the defense authorization bill. I 
know that that is not the majority leader. We passed the defense 
authorization bill through here. I am hopeful that the Senate will move 
on that intelligence authorization.
  The Senate has passed, Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive immigration 
reform bill. They passed it with 68 votes. We are very disappointed on 
this side of the aisle that the Senate bill has not been put on the 
floor. Our bill, H.R. 15, which is a bipartisan bill on which there are 
Republican sponsors of that

[[Page H7558]]

bill, or one of the four bills that has been reported out of the 
committee which was supported by the Republican Party in the Judiciary 
Committee and reported out four bills, they have not been brought to 
the floor.
  We believe that comprehensive immigration reform is a critically 
important action for this Congress to take this year now. We have 
options available. We would hope that any one of those three options 
would be brought to the table, or, if you count four bills, seven 
options be brought to the floor.
  In addition, the Senate has passed in a bipartisan way the ending of 
discrimination in employment. We talked about jobs; we talked about 
giving economic opportunity. We ought to do that in a nondiscriminatory 
way. The Senate has passed such a bill. That is not on the agenda for 
next week either.
  I have an agenda which has a lot of bills on it: Make It In America. 
I notice we do have a suspension bill that has been specifically 
referenced. We will get into a debate on that next week, so I won't 
debate that bill today; but we have a suspension bill that we have been 
urging that is reported out of committee on voice vote, passed this 
Congress with, I think, over 350 votes--I know over 300 votes last 
Congress--that has not been brought to the floor, which simply says 
that we ought to have a plan and that plan ought to be a plan to expand 
manufacturing, grow jobs, grow profits, and grow salaries for 
individuals. And it is Mr. Lipinski's bill. I have been urging that 
that be put on the suspension calendar. I notice that that has not been 
put on either.
  Trade adjustment assistance and tax extenders have been referenced. 
Hopefully, we can do all of those. Of course, we have a very short 
period of time left to do that.

                              {time}  1330

  Let me ask the majority leader, given that short time, does the 
majority leader have a high degree of confidence that, in fact, he will 
be seeking to follow the calendar that has been set out by the majority 
leader to end this first session of this Congress, indeed, on the 
scheduled date of December 13?
  And I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for the recitation of his desired 
wish list for what he would like to see on the floor. I would also like 
to remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, this House has passed well over 
149, 150 bills, very much focused on job creation, very much focused on 
trying to make sure that we address the needs of those who are most 
vulnerable right now, trying to make sure that we can sustain the 
safety net while equipping those that are without the tools necessary 
to get up on that ladder of success.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Senate has just refused to take up 
most of those bills. In fact, the House has passed and sent 189 bills 
to the U.S. Senate so far this Congress, and that is excluding what 
we've done this week. And of those 189 House bills, 41 have been signed 
into law by the President; 148 bills have stalled in the Senate.
  The Senate has, so far this year, passed only 43 bills this Congress; 
and out of those 43, only 14 have been signed into law by the 
President.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have done our work. We have got a lot more work 
to do on behalf of the American people.
  One of the things I did not hear the gentleman, the Democrat whip, 
mention was the issue of health care. And obviously health care has 
been very, very much on the minds of America right now as they have 
witnessed the utter disaster of a rollout of ObamaCare.
  As the gentleman knows, his constituents, as well as mine, are faced 
with higher premiums, faced with the realization now that the President 
has broken a major promise when he had said to the American people that 
they could keep their health care plans if they liked it. We know now 
that wasn't true, and so people are having to go and figure out what 
kind of plans are actually there for them.
  The administration has claimed this week the Web site is working just 
fine. Well, we know good and well that the back end of that Web site is 
not working just fine. I am glad that people are able maybe to get on 
and see what is there. We don't really know because of the lack of 
transparency as to how successful the signups and enrollments are.
  We do know now, though, that most Americans in the individual plan 
arena are facing higher premiums. Those that have had to give up their 
plans are facing higher premiums and plans that they don't necessarily 
choose, that they are now forced to have because of the operation of 
this law. I would say to the gentleman we need to focus on that very 
issue. What are we going to do? What are the alternatives?
  We Republicans have an alternative. We voted on that alternative back 
in 2009. It was a plan that was centered on patients first. It was a 
plan that the Congressional Budget Office said would reduce premium 
costs for taxpayers, for patients out there. We have not resolved this 
question of health care. There is a better way; and I would say to the 
gentlemen, we ought to be spending some time focused on how we are 
going to resolve that for the millions of Americans who are very, very 
unhappy right now, given their options for healthcare under ObamaCare.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the majority leader 
wants to talk about health care, because much of that legislation he 
has talked about then, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 times that the Republican 
Party has tried to repeal health care.
  My view, I want to make it very clear, is that this bill is 
substantively a very positive bill for the American people. A bill to 
which the gentleman referred that Republicans offered in 2009 covered 
less than 3 million people of the 30 to 40 million people that had no 
insurance in America. So less than 10 percent were covered by the 
Republican bill.
  Tens of millions of people, I predict, by the middle of next year, 
are going to be having coverage and having health care assurance 
because we passed this health care insurance bill.
  He is right, the rollout was terrible. We are all disappointed with 
that, the President is disappointed with that, and it is being worked 
on. Now he doesn't recall, of course, perhaps, or he hasn't mentioned 
the rollout of the prescription drug bill, which wasn't too smooth, 
either. And, of course, the health care bill is broader even than that. 
He may not recall that Medicare had a tough rollout for a couple of 
years. But there is nobody on this floor who is saying, I am not saying 
that they don't believe it because I think there are people who believe 
we ought not to have Medicare. As a matter of fact, a former majority 
leader, not this majority leader, said we shouldn't have Medicare in a 
free society. That was a Republican majority leader, Mr. Speaker.
  The fact of the matter is the health care bill is going to work, but 
it is interesting that when you ask a specific question about some 
critical issues that have passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion 
overwhelmingly, they are not mentioned. Just go to the health care 
bill. Why? Because that is the politics. That is the politics of the 
issue right now.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I am glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I say, Mr. Speaker, no, it is not politics. Mr. Speaker, 
it is about what people right now are concerned about. They send us 
here to reflect their problems and to try to reach solutions for the 
problems that they are facing. Right now more people in America, I 
would venture to say, are concerned about the choice they have for 
health care right now and how they will seek coverage for their family. 
And it is not about the politics. There are some things that actually 
do transcend Washington partisan politics, and right now, that is about 
health care.
  We care about health care. Republicans care about health care. 
Democrats care about health care. Right now there is a serious problem 
given this ObamaCare law. We need to address that for the people. We 
need to help people, and that is what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. 
I am not talking about the politics of it. I am talking about what is 
on the minds of millions of Americans right now as they are losing the 
coverage that they know and they have chosen and they can afford, 
facing the opposite. It is a disaster right now concerning ObamaCare. 
We have got to help the people of this

[[Page H7559]]

country when it comes to their health care. That is what it is about.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky spoke to us this morning. Now, 
Kentucky is not the center of Democratic politics in America, as Mitch 
McConnell would quickly observe. Thousands of people are signing up in 
Kentucky--thousands of people--successfully. Thousands of people are 
coming forward. About 70,000 people have already signed up in Kentucky. 
Thousands of people are coming forward in New York and California, all 
over this country, who are saying I want the assurance and coverage of 
health care.
  What have they spent their time on? Trying to repeal health care. 
They have talked about repeal and replace. We haven't had much replace, 
but we have had a lot of repeal. And what does the majority leader 
refer to, Mr. Speaker? A 2009 bill. It is a bill from three Congresses 
ago that he is talking about, and all we have had on this is repeal. If 
they are concerned about health care, then there ought to be an 
alternative that the other side offers; but, frankly, Mr. Speaker, they 
have not done that.
  I would be glad to move to another subject. I am sure we can go back 
to health care because the majority leader, notwithstanding his 
assertion that this is not about politics, I will tell him that the 
majority of the American people in poll after poll after poll says they 
don't want health care repeal. They want it fixed, and they want it to 
work right and the assurance that it is available to them, but they do 
not want it repealed.
  Right now, even though they are upset, as we all are, as I am and as 
the President is, about the rollout and about the Web site not working 
as effectively as we would like, Americans right now, I will tell the 
majority leader, the majority in polls say they don't want it repealed. 
They want it fixed and they want to have it work. Very frankly, I think 
that is where they are. Not everybody. Not everybody, I understand 
that, and certainly not some factions of the Republican majority's 
party. They have made that very clear in statements on this floor. But 
my view is that we ought not to simply distract from some of the 
important things that need to be done.
  I was interested in Senator Cornyn's response when he talked about 
the Iran deal, which 65 percent of the American public says was a 
worthwhile effort to make. We need to carefully review it, and we need 
to oversee it and make sure it works, and the majority leader and I 
have to work on that. But when Senator Cornyn said this was just a 
ruse--and I don't think he used the word ``ruse,'' but just an effort 
to distract from health care, I think that sort of indicates the 
extraordinary focus that this issue has energized the Republican Party, 
Mr. Speaker, over the last 3 or 4 years.
  Can I ask the majority leader about the budget conference, whether he 
has any idea--he has talked about, on the schedule, the budget 
conference coming forward. Does he have any idea whether a budget 
conference agreement has been reached, number one; and number two, if 
an agreement is reached, will it manifest itself in the form of a 
budget conference report?
  I am informed, maybe correctly or incorrectly, that there will never 
be a budget conference report. Does the gentleman know whether that is 
the case or not, and whether or not some agreement might be manifested 
by a bill and not by a conference report?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the 
discussions that I have had with Chairman Ryan would lead me to some 
optimism that the two sides actually can come to an agreement. The 
agreement has not been made, so I don't want to say that there is a 
deal; but I am optimistic that, in fact, this time of year when the 
differences between the two sides have certainly been on display all 
year long, that perhaps we could agree that we need to reduce the 
deficit. We need to do something about the wasteful spending. And once 
again, I don't think the gentleman, nor I, thinks that the sequester is 
the best method to cut spending. It is indiscriminate. It cuts bad 
programs the same way as good programs, to put it simply. There are 
better ways.
  Our side has always said, Mr. Speaker, that we have got to do 
something about the mandatory programs, the autopilot spending of the 
Federal Government that is disproportionately causing our deficit. I am 
hopeful that next week we can show the people of this country that we 
can produce something that is smarter than the way we are going about 
things now.
  Obviously, a big concern to me is the national security and the 
defense of this country, as I know it is for the gentleman. And so 
again, I am hopeful that will be the case.
  Now, the form that that agreement may or may not take I think right 
now is undetermined. I think it would be premature to even guess at 
that, and I would say to the gentleman that I know that he joins me in 
hoping that there is an agreement where we can maintain the trajectory 
in reducing spending and do it in a smarter way so we can get about the 
business of prioritizing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars here in 
this House.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I will say that he 
and I, as he has articulated, do agree that the sequester is not good 
policy. As a matter of fact, Chairman Hal Rogers, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, said it best when he said that the sequester 
cuts are ill-conceived and unrealistic and that he believes that the 
House action has indicated that that is the case. We have not done 
appropriation bills consistent with the sequester levels that as I 
understand were agreed at Williamsburg to be offered, but they haven't 
worked.
  My own view, Mr. Speaker, of what is being discussed in the budget 
conference, some of the things that I have heard, strike me as being 
unbalanced, unfair, irresponsible, and unacceptable. Unless we have a 
balanced agreement, which in my view should replace the sequester 
because, as the majority leader indicates, it is not the rational way 
to go, as Mr. Rogers indicates, it is not the rational way to go, and 
as every chairman of the appropriations subcommittees on the Republican 
side have said, it is not the way to go and ought to be replaced.

                              {time}  1345

  I am hopeful that any agreement will, in fact, replace the sequester. 
I am hopeful, Mr. Majority Leader, as you well know, that we will get a 
big deal--not a little deal, not nibbling around the edges so that what 
occurs is we do this every 6 months and we never get to a stability 
that I know the majority leader and I believe would give confidence to 
our economy, to the business community, and to our people if we got a 
big deal. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be, at least at this 
point in time, in the discussion. I think that is unfortunate.
  As I said, what I have heard so far seems to me to be unbalanced, 
unfair, irresponsible, and, from my perspective, unacceptable. So I am 
hopeful that the Budget Committee conference will revisit or at least 
come up with a product that is not yet being discussed, which will 
accomplish the objective of putting this country on a fiscally 
sustainable path for the long term, not just the short term.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________