[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 55 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2945-H2947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1345
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader, for the purpose of 
inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.
  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 and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour 
and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 
9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no 
later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a 
complete list of which will be announced. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the 
House will consider three bills from the Budget Committee.
  The first bill, H.R. 1871, the Baseline Reform Act, authored by 
Representative Rob Woodall of Georgia, would require CBO and OMB, when 
scoring legislation, to assume that the baseline does not increase or 
decrease for discretionary spending, which they do now. This practice 
added $1.2 trillion to the baseline in 2013.
  The second bill, H.R. 1872, the Budget and Accounting Transparency 
Act, written by Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey, brings off-
budget programs on-budget to provide a more accurate accounting of 
these programs.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider and pass a budget 
resolution on time for a fourth consecutive year. The Republican 
budget, under the leadership of Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and the 
Budget Committee members, will adhere to the agreed-upon spending 
limits and balance the budget in 10 years, as we did last year, 
increase economic growth and job creation, create opportunity, lessen 
the middle class squeeze, cut wasteful government spending, and 
strengthen our entitlement programs.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. It is 
wonderful news that that budget is going to do all of those things, I 
want you to know. And we are pleased that a budget is coming forward. 
We may not be pleased with the budget, but we are pleased that it is 
coming forward.
  As the gentleman knows, we have already had the budget levels for 
fiscal year '15. You indicate that the budget will adhere to the Ryan-
Murray agreement. I assume that also means that it will adhere to the 
firewall division between defense and nondefense discretionary spending 
as well.
  Is that accurate, Mr. Leader?
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, for this fiscal year, he is 
correct.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
  I will tell my friend, the majority leader, The Wall Street Journal 
had an editorial of about 13 or 14 paragraphs. I disagreed with the 
first 13 paragraphs, but I did agree with the last paragraph.
  It said, ``But the Ryan outline does the service of showing the 
policy direction in which Republicans would head if they regain control 
of the Senate next year.''
  Then it goes on to say, ``Senate Democrats don't want to declare 
themselves with any votes, but they favor higher taxes and much more 
spending for everything other than defense. Voters will have to decide 
on the direction they want Congress to go.''
  So, Mr. Leader, as I said, we welcome a debate on this budget. We do 
believe it expresses the priorities of your party, and, as you know, we 
differ with those priorities in many instances. So I think the American 
people will get a spirited, informative, and educational debate on the 
Ryan budget, and I think that that will do much to inform them of the 
priorities of both parties. As I say, we look forward to that budget.

[[Page H2946]]

  Unemployment insurance, Mr. Leader, is being considered on the Senate 
floor. I know the cloture vote has been taken. I don't know whether 
final passage has been taken.
  Does the gentleman have any expectation that if the Senate passes 
that bill today whether or not that bill might be on the floor next 
week?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, first I would ask the gentleman just to 
refer to a letter by the National Association of State Workforce 
Agencies, dated March 19, to the Majority Leader and the minority 
leader in the other body. This letter essentially lays out the case for 
why their bill is unworkable. Again, these are the folks that are in 
the business of administering these programs.
  I would also say to the gentleman, I think the gentleman knows our 
position on that bill. It doesn't create any jobs. Right now, we are in 
the business of trying to see how we can get people back to work, for 
an America that works for more people, and I would say to the 
gentleman, I look forward to joining him and focusing on that.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I am informed by the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee 
that we also have a letter from the Secretary of Labor, or one of the 
people that works with him, indicating that, in fact, they believe this 
would be workable. But very frankly, notwithstanding the letters, let 
me ask the majority leader: If, in fact, we made it prospective--which, 
of course, would clearly be workable--and made it 5 months 
prospectively, rather than 3 or 3.5 months retrospectively and a month 
and a half prospectively, as you know, through May 30, would that be an 
acceptable alternative, Mr. Majority Leader?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say back to the gentleman, it is my 
opinion that what the gentleman asked for is a continuance of the 
status quo.
  We want to get people back to work. We are in the business of job 
creation. We want to provide a better environment for businesses to 
hire folks. We want to help those folks who are chronically unemployed 
access the skills necessary to fill the job openings today. As the 
gentleman knows--and I am sure his district is not unlike mine and many 
others--there are a lot of job openings that are left open because the 
workforce doesn't have access to proper training and skills.
  I look forward to joining with the gentleman in looking towards the 
future and to how we can help those who are out of work get a job.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response, Mr. Speaker.
  But it seems to me that it begs the question. The question is, yes, 
we want to get people back to work. Everybody on this floor wants to 
get people back to work. I don't think there is any doubt about that. 
Hopefully we would be at full employment, however one defines that--
whether it is 3 percent, 4 percent unemployment, which would be 
transition employment or unemployment. But yes, we want to have 
everybody back to work.
  The issue that I ask about, Mr. Speaker, is that if we don't get 
everybody back to work--and we haven't gotten everybody back to work. 
There were 192,000 new jobs created this past month. That is good, but 
it is not good enough. And that is why we have a continuing 6.7 percent 
unemployment rate.

  Mr. Speaker, my question to the majority leader was to assume, for 
argument, that the letter to which he refers is accurate. I don't 
accept that premise. But accepting that premise for the minute, would 
the majority leader be amenable to, rather than to do as the Senate 
does, making it retrospective so that the 3.5 months that would have 
gone from December 29 of last year to today and paying that back, 
simply extending for 5 months while people continue to look for 
employment but have been unable to find it because there are three 
times as many people looking for jobs as there are jobs available--and 
we are adding 72,000 people on a weekly basis to the unemployed roles. 
So if we made it prospective, that would save an awful lot of people 
the pain and suffering that they are experiencing because they can't 
find a job.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that what we 
are amenable to is looking to try to fix the problem. I would also 
refer the gentleman to the fact that the emergency unemployment 
insurance that the gentleman speaks of was in place for the longest 
time, I am told, in history, and that it was in place for an emergency.
  As the gentleman well knows, we have in place 6 months of 
unemployment insurance benefits for those who are out of work. I know 
that what those who are out of work beyond that, who are deemed 
chronically unemployed, want most is an opportunity to get back to 
work. That is where I believe we ought to focus our efforts and really 
help people get back into a job so that they can support themselves, 
their families, and create a better future.
  So I hope the gentleman will join us in refocusing away from 
accepting the status quo as the new norm and, instead, try to enhance 
the prospects for the pursuit of happiness for more people. And we are 
about an America that works for everybody, including those who are 
chronically unemployed.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. As he knows, we 
have an agenda to do just that. It is called Make It In America, to 
expand manufacturing, create the kinds of jobs where people can make 
good salaries, have good benefits, and have good security for the long 
term. There is no disagreement on that, Mr. Speaker. The only 
disagreement seems to be, while we are trying to get that done, whether 
or not we try to assure that those who have fallen through the cracks 
do not find themselves in dire circumstances because we have eliminated 
the safety net that we constructed.
  I would say to the gentleman, this is the longest time in history--
and we are going to hear a lot of information from members of the Ways 
and Means Committee--the longest time in history that we have had this 
level of long-term unemployment. One of the reasons for that is, 
obviously, the dislocations in the marketplace and that we experienced 
the deepest recession that anybody--maybe Ralph Hall is an exception--
that anybody in this body has experienced.

                              {time}  1400

  In other words, the last time we had as deep a recession as we had at 
the end of the last administration that carried over into this 
administration was the deep Depression, and you have to be 90 years or 
older to have really remembered and experienced that.
  So there is a lot of pain out there. All I am saying is we agree 
there is no disagreement. We want to get people to work. We want to 
take actions that give them the skills.
  As I have told you--and we haven't done this as vigorously, and that 
is as much my fault as anybody--I want to do that. You were focused on 
your SKILLS Act. Clearly, we want to make sure people have the skills 
to get employment.
  I would hope that we could look at--assuming the Senate passes this 
bill--to give relief to 2.8 million people who are in dire straits, 
increasing by 72,000 a week, give them some support while we are trying 
and, hopefully together, create the kind of jobs and skills necessary 
to get them out of the hole that they are in.
  If I might note, there are 193 Democrats who have signed a discharge 
petition to bring the unemployment insurance to the floor. If I might 
do one other issue, last week, we had the sustainable growth rate. We 
extended it. We worked together to get that done.
  Without going into it at length, I know the gentleman and I have had 
discussions about the sustainable growth rate, the so-called doc fix. 
We put a temporary patch on it.
  That was, in my opinion, the wrong thing to do. It was the right 
thing to do temporarily, but it was the wrong thing to do. The 
gentleman knows that fixing the sustainable growth rate is now, from a 
scorable standpoint, less expensive to do than it has been in over 5 
years.
  I would hope that, Mr. Leader, working together, that we could 
address this issue at some time before this Congress adjourns sine die. 
We need to fix this, and we need to fix it permanently.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, we, too, would like to see the SGR overhaul 
replaced with something that works. Our

[[Page H2947]]

Physician's Caucus on the majority side of the aisle has put a lot of 
work into this issue, together with the Ways and Means Committee and 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, have come up with a plan, as the 
gentleman knows, that had bipartisan support.
  The problem is how to pay for it, and as I think the gentleman would 
agree, we can't go and continue to incur costs without finding out ways 
to pay for it, and that seems to continue to vex--many of the problems 
around here are trying to discover bipartisan pay-fors.
  We made a commitment to continue to work with those Members who are 
most engaged in this issue and look forward to continue working with 
the gentleman to try to find those pay-fors, so we can put in place a 
long-term plan to give some certainty to our providers under Medicare.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I 
look forward to working with him. I would observe, as he well knows, 
and I have discussed with the Speaker, the pay-fors that were included 
in the temporary patch were as elusory as any other pay-for we could 
find.
  We simply accelerated dollars. We didn't have due dollars. We didn't 
really pay for it. We just simply put the debt off a month or so and 
collected the money early and pretended that that was going to pay for 
it.
  Whether that is any more real than doing any of the other options 
that have been suggested, I think, is questionable, but I look forward 
to working with the gentleman.
  Because I mention it every time, but I want to mention it in a 
slightly different context, I will bring up comprehensive immigration 
reform again. The majority leader says it is a broken system. We all 
agree on that, and we ought to move forward.
  We are going to be considering the budget. The budget, we don't think 
is paid for. We will have a discussion about that as we go down. We 
think it increases the deficits; it is not balanced in 10 years.
  But that aside, comprehensive immigration reform, the CBO released 
its score on our bill H.R. 15, which we think is a bipartisan bill, 
found it would reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the next 2 
decades, including $200 billion over the first 10 years.
  Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform, in our opinion, is not 
only the right thing to do, it is economically the smart thing to do. 
That is in the context of a bill that was brought to the floor this 
week that increases the deficit by nearly $74 billion, dealing with the 
ACA.
  It is a bit ironic that, during the time of enormous deficits, that 
we have been unwilling to bring to the floor a bill that is scored by 
CBO as close to a trillion dollars positive reduction of our deficit in 
the coming 20 years. I would hope that we could look at that.
  As I say, it is not only the right thing to do, but it is supported 
across the board, the bill that the Senate passed by a 68-32 margin, 
supported by the Chamber of Commerce, supported by the AFL-CIO, 
supported by growers, farmers, ag interests, as well as farm workers, 
supported by the faith community across the board, and supported by 70-
plus percent of the American people.
  You would think, in the context of that broad base of support, that 
we could bring a bill which has such positive affects for human beings, 
for individuals, and for our country, as well as a positive economic 
affect.
  I would hope, very sincerely, that once we get past the budget and 
come back after the Easter break, that we address comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  I yield to my friend if he has any comments.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would just say to the gentleman, as he knows, both the 
Speaker, I, and others have said we reject the comprehensive approach 
taken by the Senate.
  Also, as the gentleman correctly states, we are in favor of trying to 
fix a very broken, antiquated, legal immigration system, as well as 
trying to do something to stop illegal immigration. We just have an 
issue about the President's insistence on, first of all, saying it is 
his way or the highway.
  Secondly, the gentleman and I have talked before about the growing 
frustration that many Americans have, as well as Members on our side of 
the aisle, about the seeming disregard for the law by this 
administration in selectively implementing laws that have passed, 
specifically as it relates to the Affordable Care Act.
  How would one know provisions that will be upheld, implemented, 
executed in whole or not, given this situation surrounding the ACA? 
Those are the kinds of challenges we face.
  I would also note to the gentleman that the kind of thing that he 
refers to, comprehensive immigration, we reject that notion that the 
Senate bill, and we reject comprehensive efforts that have been 
undertaken over the last several years because they haven't worked so 
well.
  Instead, we should be looking to try and do the things that we agree 
on. What about border security--border security itself? If we can agree 
to say that is going to be our position, we are not negotiating on a 
comprehensive bill, that we have to take care of that.
  What about the kids? The gentleman knows I am very focused on trying 
to do something that we can agree on, but without saying that that has 
to be a precursor to something that the President insists, or 
otherwise, we can't even have the discussion.

  So, again, we have got a lot of issues with regards to immigration. I 
would say to the gentleman I understand his frustration. I think that 
we have plenty of people who are also frustrated, given how things have 
gone with this White House.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I want to say on border security, H.R. 15, we refer to as a 
comprehensive bill, as you know, included the border security provision 
passed out of the Homeland Security Committee, chaired by your 
Republican chairman, passed out on a voice vote, essentially 
unanimously, is included in our bill.
  So, on the border security issue, we apparently have a very broad-
based agreement on that issue. The gentleman says you want to do it 
individually. The gentleman knows that the Judiciary Committee has 
passed out individual, discrete bills dealing with discrete parts of 
the immigration issue, what you say is a broken system.
  Bring out discretely those bills. The bill that the Homeland Security 
reported out unanimously has not been brought to the floor. The four 
bills that have been reported out of the Judiciary Committee have not 
been brought up to the floor. They were passed months and months and 
months ago.
  So that if you don't want to do a comprehensive--if that is the view 
of the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, then I would suggest to the 
majority leader that he bring out discrete bills, individual bills, not 
comprehensive, and see if we can deal with those.
  I will tell you our disappointment also is that it was not only the 
Senate bill that was rejected, but the Speaker put out some principles 
with respect to comprehensive--or immigration reform, I won't call it 
comprehensive, put out some principles.
  We received those positively. We thought that was a positive step. 
Unfortunately, those--the Speaker's proposal were rejected apparently 
by a very large number of your party in and outside of this 
institution. As a result, 6 days after he issued the principles, he 
said that they were not going to be pursued.
  Yes, we were frustrated and disappointed with that because we thought 
the Speaker had taken a positive step forward. I don't know whether the 
majority leader was, Mr. Speaker, part of those principles, but in any 
event, we accepted them as good-faith efforts to come to an agreement, 
and we were prepared to pursue discussions on those principles. 
Unfortunately, as I say, the Speaker withdrew them.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time, 
unless the majority leader wants me to yield to him.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________