[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 23 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1681-H1684]
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 now yield to Mr. Cantor, the majority 
leader, for the recitation of the schedule.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. 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, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for 
legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for 
legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 
noon to accommodate the Democrat Members' issues retreat. On Thursday 
and Friday, no votes are expected in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a 
complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 3193, the 
Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act, authored 
by Representative Sean Duffy. This bill reforms the Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection to make the Bureau accountable to hardworking 
American taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, the debt limit borrowing authority runs out 
as early as the end of this month; therefore, I expect action to avoid 
default as soon as possible.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
  The gentleman ends with the observation that you expect action to 
avoid default as soon as possible. As you know, Mr. Leader, very well--
as we all know--beginning tomorrow, the Treasury Department will have 
to start using extraordinary measures because

[[Page H1682]]

the authorization for the debt limit to be extended will end on the 
7th. Secretary Lew has written to all of us and warned us that, on 
Monday, stating that:

       Time is short. Inaction could cause harm to our economy, 
     rattle financial markets, and hurt taxpayers.

  I know that my friend has made similar comments, as I have made 
similar comments. We agree on this proposition. But I am concerned that 
we only have 7 legislative days scheduled for the rest of the month.
  Does the gentleman expect that we will take an up-or-down vote on a 
clean debt limit extension next week or before the end of this month?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my remarks just prior, I 
would say to the gentleman that I am confident that the United States 
is not going to default on its debt and that we will resolve the need 
to increase the borrowing authority of this country prior to any 
deadline that the Treasury issues.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that information. I want to say that the debt 
limit extension will have--Mr. Leader, I want to give you the 
information--in my view, well over 180 votes on our side of the aisle 
if that is a clean debt limit so that America can pay its bills and 
default is not a risk. As the gentleman indicates, we don't want it to 
be.
  The Speaker has indicated that it would be solved long before we 
would come to any deadline precipitating another crisis and undermining 
confidence.

                              {time}  1230

  I want to tell the gentleman, the majority leader, that I will assure 
him that if we get a clean debt limit extension on the floor, that 
Democrats will work with him and his party to pass that in a way that 
we have a significant majority for that bill.
  Mr. Leader, I was encouraged to see last week at your retreat that 
the House Republicans put forward a set of principles for immigration 
reform and have now expressed a readiness to discuss how to fix our 
broken immigration system. I am sure you have seen the response from my 
side of the aisle, not only from the President, but myself and Leader 
Pelosi, has been positive. We see the steps that have been taken as 
positive steps. We do look forward to working together on these 
principles.
  We were just somewhat disappointed, however, that one of your 
Members, Raul Labrador of Idaho, was quoted yesterday as saying there 
was:

       Overwhelming support for the idea of doing nothing this 
     year. It is a mistake to have an internal battle this year 
     about immigration.

  I would hope that Mr. Labrador's remarks do not lead us to a place 
where we will either not proceed or to pass immigration reform on this 
floor.
  The majority leader has indicated in some of our colloquies that he 
believes the immigration system is broken. Again, we share that view, 
and I think almost all Members share the view that the immigration 
system is not working as intended. There have been four bills passed 
out of Judiciary and another out of Homeland Security. Homeland 
Security was essentially unanimous in terms of dealing with security. 
We have introduced, as the majority leader knows, H.R. 15, which is a 
compilation of the bipartisanly passed Senate provisions, dropping the 
border security provision and inserting the border security passed out 
of the Republican-led Homeland Security Committee, I think by unanimous 
vote, but maybe it was by voice vote.
  I would hope that we could, therefore, move forward and that Mr. 
Labrador's observation that there was ``overwhelming support for the 
idea of doing nothing this year'' would not be the prevalent view. We 
will again be ready to discuss this, and I can tell you that the 
overwhelming majority of my party, as I think the gentleman knows, 
would vote for the Senate bill. We don't think that the Senate bill is 
perfect. We would like to see a House bill. We have introduced a House 
bill, and we would like to consider it on the floor.
  I will close with this observation with reference to immigration. I 
am sure the gentleman read the comments of former Speaker Dennis 
Hastert:

       The House will act in its own way, as it should; but it 
     should act soon. Immigration reform is necessary for our 
     economic recovery.

  Again, this is former Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois. He goes on 
to say:

       First, securing our borders, so we know who is entering our 
     country and for what purpose.

  I think there is unanimous consensus that needs to be addressed.
  He continues:

       Second, a legalization of those folks who are already here.

  Again, I think there is consensus on that.
  He goes on to say we should provide them with:

       A path to citizenship, much like any other immigrant would 
     have.

  Apparently, there is not necessarily consensus on that, but we do 
have consensus on the first proposition. He goes on to say:

       These two things being satisfied, I believe immigration 
     reform can move forward. It will make us economically 
     stronger. It is politically smart, and morally right.

  That was quoted in Politico on February 2. Those are words of former 
Speaker Hastert. I would hope and I know the gentleman has been very 
constructive in his comments that we can move forward together in 
reaching some agreement so we can see comprehensive immigration 
legislation on the floor consistent with the principles of both 
parties, and we can come together and pass some legislation.
  I yield to the gentleman as to the prospects of doing so.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman knows, we have been on 
this floor before and I have said that we believe in the majority that 
the immigration system in this country is broken. There needs to be 
reform. I think I have also said to the gentleman, as I have said 
publicly this week, we have to go about a rebuilding of the trust here. 
I think the fundamental issue right now is there is doubt cast on this 
White House, this President, this administration's willingness to 
implement the laws given the track record that we have seen on laws 
like ObamaCare and others.
  I have said to the gentleman I believe that reform is badly needed. I 
believe that we have got a situation at the border and the interior 
that needs to be fixed. The gentleman knows I have been very outspoken 
on the issue of kids and the fact that so many are here, unbeknownst to 
themselves, brought here, and know no other place as home and then are 
stuck without any sense of the fact that they will be accepted in the 
country that they know.
  But before we can even get there, there needs to be some trust. There 
needs to be some trust built by this President with this Congress 
because it seems that the track record is full of examples of the White 
House and the administration picking and choosing in terms of the 
regulations, the laws, and the provisions that it wants to implement. 
If it doesn't like to implement one, then it will just seemingly ignore 
that.
  I don't think that the gentleman agrees that that is the way this 
system was designed or our Framers had in mind in terms of equal 
branches of power, one that makes the laws and one that fully and 
faithfully executes the law, and obviously a judiciary that provides 
that extra check and balance.
  So again I would say to the gentleman, I would ask, if he is talking 
with the White House, please ask them to begin to work with us on any 
number of things to demonstrate that they are willing to actually drive 
toward the same result and not just work around us in terms of a 
unilateral result that they may seek.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Labrador, and I will quote again, said 
there was:

       Overwhelming support for the idea of doing nothing this 
     year.

  Now in light of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the observation is that 
the system is broken, and in light of Speaker Hastert's observation 
that it is morally the right thing to do, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, 
I don't place much stock in this what I would call a rationalization of 
trust.
  Mr. Speaker, let me remind this House that George Bush, President 
George Bush, couldn't get the support of his party for immigration 
reform. His party rejected President Bush on this issue, this issue of 
trust. There are less illegal immigrants having come

[[Page H1683]]

over the border in the last 5 years than there were during the Bush 
administration. There have been more people deported, in many cases 
with tragic results of separating families, over the last 5 years than 
there were in the Bush administration.
  This is a question of what is morally right to do.
  This is a question of what is morally right to do, to fix a broken 
system that is breaking apart families, undermining our economy, and 
abandoning what so many say is the right thing to do.
  So with all due respect to, frankly, trying to distract us on this 
trust issue, this is not a trust issue. This is an issue of law and the 
administration's performance both on border security and enforcing the 
law in this respect, a bad law and a law that ought to be changed, a 
law that is causing families to be torn apart.
  Mr. Speaker, I have stood on this floor as chairman of the Commission 
on Security and Cooperation in Europe with my colleague, Frank Wolf, 
and I believe Mr. Cantor, perhaps, has been in some of these 
discussions himself when we have been dealing with the Soviet Union 
about keeping families together. So I will tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, 
this is not a matter of trust. This is a matter of whether the House of 
Representatives is going to do what Speaker Hastert has urged us to do, 
what President Bush urged us to do, and for which I think there are the 
votes to do on this floor if a bill is brought to the floor that 
accomplishes the principles that both parties have articulated.
  Are there differences? There are some. Do we need to resolve them? We 
do. But we need to act. I say with all due respect to my friend, the 
majority leader, that I hope that those principles do not fall by the 
wayside as Mr. Labrador projects there is a consensus in your party to 
allow to happen.
  So I would urge us to move and urge us to work together on the 
principles that Mr. Boehner and yourself have put forward and which we 
have responded to in a positive way.
  Mr. Leader, there is also other business that needs to be done. We 
continue to be concerned, we were concerned when there were 1.2 million 
people who had fallen through the cracks and had no help. Now there are 
1.7 million Americans who have lost their emergency unemployment 
insurance since December 28. An additional 72,000 will lose their 
insurance next week. We believe that needs to be addressed and 
reinstated, as we have done every time that we were in a similar place 
as we are today in terms of the availability of jobs and the seekers of 
jobs.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader if he can give 
us some view of the sustainable growth rate reimbursement for doctors 
who give our senior citizens medical care? That was extended with a 
temporary patch to March 31, Mr. Speaker, and that needs to be 
addressed permanently. There is a consensus, I understand, among the 
committees for a fix on that, but there is no pay-for on that. That is 
always the problem. It is easy to say we are going to fix; it is very 
difficult to pay for those fixes. On both of those issues, I would ask 
the gentleman on unemployment insurance and the SGR, whether the 
gentleman has any view on either one of those coming to the floor any 
time soon?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, on both of those issues, there is a lot of 
work. On the SGR, he is exactly right; it is always the pay-for. We saw 
the struggle that surrounded the recent budget agreement, and coming up 
with $23 billion in cost reductions and savings over 10 years was very 
difficult. It is hard for folks outside of Washington to imagine why 
that is the case when you are dealing with trillions of dollars being 
spent.
  I share the gentleman's frustration. I would like to see, as well as, 
I think, the seniors of this country would like to see, an end to a 
formula that doesn't work in terms of reimbursements to providers, and 
one that will allow for a better way and a more quality health care 
future for our seniors.
  So I do share the goal that we should replace the SGR and at the same 
time ensure that seniors are not going to see a diminution in the 
quality of their care. The gentleman knows that these discussions are 
ongoing in committee as we speak.
  As far as the UI situation, as the gentleman knows, there are 
currently 6 months of unemployment benefits available to folks who 
have, unfortunately, found themselves out of work. We care about those 
folks and want to do all we can to do what they really want, which is 
to get back to work. This goes back towards the administration's 
willingness to work with us.
  Our leadership, Mr. Speaker, sent a letter to the President last week 
outlining four things, just four of the many things he spoke about in 
the State of the Union address, where there is pretty much agreement on 
what we need to do together. We have not heard back from the 
administration. One of those things was the SKILLS Act. If we don't 
want to accept the new norm of chronic unemployment, we ought to be 
going full-time overspeed to try to grow the economy, to increase the 
competitiveness of the American economy so people can get back to work, 
and so they can take care of their families. We know that the 
chronically unemployed have a real problem because if they are without 
either a high school diploma or a college degree, they are at a great 
disadvantage for today's job opportunities.

                              {time}  1245

  The SKILLS Act can address that. All we have heard is the President 
wants to, once again, create another commission to review all the 
studies that have been combed through before and that have resulted in 
our bill, Ms. Foxx of North Carolina's bill, the SKILLS Act.
  Again, if the administration is so concerned about trying to 
addresses the plight of the chronically unemployed, let's go for jobs, 
not just accepting the new norm.
  So again, discussions, building trust with one another, driving 
towards resolve could actually help the situation so that we can 
address this serious problem that plagues the communities of this 
country.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
might say the SKILLS Act, of course, was considered on this floor. We 
could have had a bipartisan bill, and I would like to see a bipartisan 
bill.
  As the majority leader knows, I have been a strong proponent of an 
agenda that we call Make It In America, which wants to expand 
manufacturing in America. We believe that when we expand manufacturing, 
grow jobs in America, Americans are going to be more likely to Make It 
In America, succeed, get a job, be able to support their families.
  So there is, I think, not disagreement on that. There was 
disagreement on the SKILLS Act. We believe the SKILLS Act essentially 
retreated in investments with skills.
  Mr. CANTOR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I will certainly yield.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, my point is that the President, rather than 
going and acting unilaterally and appointing another commission, could 
easily have picked up the phone and said, ``Hey, I want to come up 
there,'' or, ``You all come here, and let's talk about getting the job 
done,'' rather than doing what is always done, which is kicking the can 
and creating another commission to go over the studies and outcomes of 
other commissions. That is my point.
  If you have differences with the SKILLS Act, if the gentleman doesn't 
speak, we understand that. But the bottom line is we both agree we have 
to improve the outlook for skills for the chronically unemployed.
  Why aren't we doing something on that? Why isn't there any response 
from the White House? That is my point. We could do this. We could work 
together and achieve results. And so again, I understand the 
gentleman's disagreement with the SKILLS Act, but let's work through 
it. The White House doesn't seem to want to do any of that.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody in America believes the 
White House doesn't want to do something about that. The President of 
the United States has talked about it. In every one of his State of the 
Unions he talked about it. In this State of the Union, he talked about 
expanding manufacturing and training. So the President has talked about 
it, all the time

[[Page H1684]]

about wanting to invest in giving the skills to American workers that 
they need to either stay employed or get the kind of skilled jobs that 
are available in our economy, that pay well.
  There are a number of bills, I will tell the majority leader, in the 
Make It In America agenda that I would love to work with the majority 
leader on that deal exactly with that. I have a bill myself--actually, 
I think somebody else introduced it--called the Jobs bill, which is job 
opportunities between our shores, which is exactly on point of dealing 
with advanced manufacturers, community colleges, and other 
organizations in cooperation with work investment boards to identify 
what skills are needed, to invest in training.
  The gentleman is correct, we all want to do that, and we certainly 
ought to be able to work towards that. He is incorrect in that the 
President has not only not focused on that, he has worked on that. The 
Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, has worked on it; Penny Pritzker, the 
Secretary of Commerce, is very committed to that end; as is Arne 
Duncan, the Secretary of Education, and they have all talked about 
that. So let us work on it.
  What the gentleman talked about, he cares a lot about, and I think he 
does. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely take him at his word. He cares about 
those people who have--through no fault of their own--lost their job, 
work wasn't available, they downsized, whatever, they lost their job.
  He said he is concerned about those people, as he should be, as I am, 
as we all are. But one of the real tragedies is, particularly with 
those folks who are 45 or 50 and above, once they have lost a job, they 
have a terrible time in this economy finding a job. There are three 
people looking for every one job that is available. And a lot of those 
people, as the gentleman has observed, don't have the skills.
  So the issue is not just about giving them skills; it is, in the 
interim, do we let them and their families fall through the cracks, 
fall through a safety net, fall out of the insurance that they paid 
into, their employer paid into, in the event they lost their job they 
would not lose the ability to support themselves to put some food on 
their table? That is why we are so adamant that unemployment insurance 
be extended.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, it has been extended under every 
administration when the facts were as they are today--Republican 
administration, Democratic administration--for the reasons that the 
majority leader pointed out. We care about those people. We are worried 
about those people. So I would hope that that would be on the floor.
  On the SGR, let me close by suggesting that there is, as the 
gentleman knows, an Overseas Contingency Operations account. The CBO 
scores that significantly.
  The good news is that we are not spending as much money as we were. 
We spent over a trillion dollars in the last decade in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. Better to spend that money in this instance here at home. I would 
suggest, respectfully, that that is one alternative to doing what the 
gentleman says we all want to do, and that is fix the sustainable 
growth rate on a permanent basis so that doctors and Medicare patients 
are not worried about whether their medical services are going to be 
available to them. I would hope we would look at that alternative, and 
I would be glad to discuss with the majority leader other alternatives 
as well.
  Unless the majority leader has anything further to say, thank you, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________