[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 78 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H4812-H4815]
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 from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the 
schedule of the week to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session in observation of 
Memorial Day.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet in pro forma session at noon and no 
votes are expected.
  On Wednesday, 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 Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon 
for legislative business.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. 
Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a 
complete list of which will be announced at the close of business 
tomorrow.

[[Page H4813]]

  In addition, the House will consider H.R. 4660, the Fiscal Year 2015 
Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act, sponsored by 
subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf. Members are advised that general and 
amendment debate to the bill is expected after the 6 p.m. vote series 
on Wednesday night.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 4661, the Fiscal 
Years 2014 and 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act authored by Chairman 
Mike Rogers. Providing the tools and the oversight of the intelligence 
community is a vital role of Congress, as we have shown earlier today. 
We should remember the intelligence community serves a vital role in 
warning senior policymakers about looming threats, and is absolutely 
essential to meeting the needs of our military. Sustaining our military 
and intelligence capabilities are core interests of the United States. 
I look forward to swift passage of this bill in the House.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
  I note that an appropriations bill and the CJS bill will be on the 
floor next week.
  Let me pursue, if I can, Mr. Speaker, the progress that the 
Appropriations Committee will be making.
  Am I correct, Mr. Leader, that this will be an open rule on the CJS 
bill?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the Rules 
Committee has already done its work and the House has already passed 
the bill, the rule bill, which provides for an open rule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
  I understand, in addition, that the Appropriations Committee 
continues to mark up bills this week to pass their fourth bill, the 
Transportation-HUD bill, out of committee.
  The question I would propound to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, is 
whether or not we anticipate completing the markup of the 12 
appropriation bills before the August break?
  I yield to the majority Leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the 
committee certainly has expressed its desire, as our conference has, as 
the Speaker has, to move all 12 appropriations bills, and we will move 
towards that goal in an expeditious nature as much as we can.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for the information.
  Obviously, one of the bills that I am particularly concerned about is 
the Labor, Health, and Education investments that we have been making. 
There is a substantial cut proposed in the 302(b) allocations, which is 
the allocations of the larger number to the 12 subcommittees, a 
substantial cut in the Labor-Health bill, well below historic levels. I 
hope that as we continue to work through the appropriations process, we 
can address that issue and not double down on the cuts that have 
already occurred in what I think the Leader and I both believe is a 
very critical bill, which includes funding for the National Institutes 
of Health.
  We have 31 days left to go before the August break, legislative days, 
43 days until our break in October, so time is essence. I would hope 
that we could address these bills and debate the priorities that these 
bills represent before we leave for the August break.
  I yield to my friend if he wants to comment on that.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman just briefly, there is a $1 
billion cut to a $155 billion bill. That represents a 0.9 percent 
decrease, according to what the committee has set forth as far as the 
302(b)s are concerned.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the $155 billion, of course, is a gross 
figure and includes items beyond discretionary figures in that bill.
  The fact of the matter is that NIH has been cut by a very 
substantially higher percentage than that, somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 6 percent, maybe 5 percent. So it is a substantial 
decrease in the ability to pursue grants, both external grants and 
internal research by the NIH, on the afflictions that confront our 
people, whether it be heart disease, cancer, pediatric research, 
diabetes, Alzheimer's. All of those will be affected to a much larger 
extent than would be projected by the gross figure of $155 billion to 
which the Leader responds.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I certainly will yield.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Just to clarify, the amount of the $155 billion is the 302(b). That 
is the discretionary amount. So I would just underscore the fact that 
the $1 billion cut applies to the $155 billion discretionary amount.
  But the gentleman knows--he has worked on issues of NIH funding--he 
knows that I am very committed to making a priority out of funding 
medical research at NIH. We have been successful in the House. The 
President signed into law the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, 
which is just the first step towards making a priority out of medical 
research, in this instance, for pediatrics, and to doing away with 
spending in other areas that are not as much of a priority.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that leadership is about assessing priorities 
and making sure taxpayer dollars are being allocated as such.
  We also passed bills out of the House having to do with graduate 
medical education and making sure that pediatrics and the need for more 
pediatricians to deal with children is there.
  I share the gentleman's overall concern that we make a commitment 
long term to finding cures so that we can ultimately save lives, but 
also save taxpayer dollars, as we would like to arrest the increase in 
health care costs.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for his remarks, and I 
will look forward to debating what he says is an important 
responsibility of this House, and that is to set priorities. When the 
Labor-Health bill comes before us--and the $155 billion is the gross 
number that goes to that committee; the $30 billion-plus is what NIH 
has, and the $1.5 billion that I am talking about is a cut to NIH, not 
to the gross figure of $155 billion, so I understand the figures. But 
we will have an opportunity to debate that when we come to the floor on 
the Labor-Health bill, if, in fact, we ever come to the floor on the 
Labor-Health bill. We didn't come to it last year or the year before. 
Hopefully, we will come to it this year.
  Two additional things I would like to ask the leader, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1230

  Earlier this week, I had an opportunity to meet with a number of 
DREAMers who want to join the Armed Forces of the United States. There 
is a bill called the ENLIST Act, introduced by one of our Republican 
Members, that essentially says that we are going to allow DREAMers to 
enlist, and through their service, they could establish their paths to 
citizenship.
  Mr. Speaker, that is an important bill for me because my father came 
from Denmark. He came here in 1934, at the age of 32. He served in the 
Armed Forces of the United States, and he became a citizen through his 
service during World War II in the Armed Forces of the United States.
  The sponsor of the ENLIST Act wanted to offer it to the defense 
authorization bill that we just passed. Last year, when the House 
considered the defense authorization bill, an amendment similar to the 
ENLIST Act was made in order.
  Unfortunately, it was not made in order this time, so we didn't get 
an opportunity to vote on that one way or the other. The majority 
leader knows, Mr. Speaker, that I have been asking in almost every 
colloquy when we are going to consider legislation that will deal with 
the broken immigration system that confronts us. This was one 
opportunity. It was, again, rejected. It was not missed--rejected.
  So many colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle--Mr. Schock--
said that we need a clear path to citizenship for workers who are 
already here. Adam Kinzinger said that, through commonsense policies, 
we have the opportunity to grow our economy, and we must work hard to 
come to an agreement on how to bring undocumented workers out of the 
shadows.
  John Shimkus said that we have to address the 12 million undocumented 
immigrants who are already here by moving them legally into the 
workforce. The Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, growers, farmworkers, 
and faith groups across the spectrum are all urging us to pass 
immigration reform; yet, frankly, we are not addressing it in any way 
even on this. I think,

[[Page H4814]]

surely, we could have gotten a consensus on the ENLIST Act, but it was 
itself rejected.
  I would urge the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to perhaps give us 
some sense beyond ``we don't trust the President.'' We know that hardly 
anybody on that side of the aisle trusts the President.
  If the issue is simply trusting the President, let's shut down. Let's 
not do anything, which, essentially, is what we have done, as a matter 
of fact, as I say that. Let's not do anything. Let's not pass any new 
laws. That is not what the American people expect, but that seems to be 
the premise.
  Now, presumably, we passed the Defense Authorization Act because we 
expect the President to pass it; but if we simply don't trust him, why 
pass the bill?
  That is not an excuse. That is not a reason. In fact, it is a 
derogation of our responsibility, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that the 
majority leader would tell me when, if ever, we are going to address 
the broken system that he and I agree is a broken system.
  I yield to my friend, the majority leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. The gentleman knows that I am one who consistently says 
that the system of immigration is broken. I have also said that I am 
mindful and support the fact that, if a kid who is brought here by his 
or her parents--unbeknownst to that child--has never lived anywhere 
else or remembers living anywhere else and wants to serve in our 
military, he should be able to do so. It is my position that that child 
should have a path to citizenship after such service.
  However, the NDAA bill was not the appropriate place for the 
discussion on that issue. I have been consistent with that position 
over the last several weeks and months. I remain committed to what the 
intent of the ENLIST Act is trying to achieve. There are Members 
involved who are working on the necessary language to see whether it is 
possible for us to move forward on that measure.
  Beyond that, on the issue of the comprehensive bill that the 
gentleman refers to, he knows--we have stood here many times before--we 
are opposed to the Senate bill. I have had discussions with the White 
House, and I continue to say we are opposed to a comprehensive bill.
  Whether the gentleman likes or doesn't like the fact that there is 
not a lot of trust on the part of this House or of this majority in the 
President, frankly, it is about the American people. What they have 
seen is unilateral action being taken by this White House and the 
President on bills passed by Congress.
  It is, at a minimum, frustrating for us in the House to watch what 
goes on and the flouting of Congress--the ignoring of Congress--when it 
comes to decisions made to implement a law according to what the White 
House thinks it is, not according to the statute. This is the 
fundamental problem, and I have expressed that myself to the President.
  If we could see our way towards discrete, incremental steps toward 
strengthening law enforcement at the border and toward doing things 
like the green card on the diploma or the ENLIST Act without the 
introduction of the insistence of a comprehensive attempt, then I 
believe we may be able to make progress, but to this day, it has been 
my way or the highway, all or nothing. That is not going to work.
  I have told that to the gentleman publicly and privately, Mr. 
Speaker, and I would just say so again.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Very frankly, we can't impose my way or the highway in this House, 
Mr. Speaker, as you well know. The Republicans are in the majority. We 
can't impose any way. We can simply ask for some way for it to be 
brought to the floor. It can be brought forth individually, the ENLIST 
Act.
  I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the majority leader believes the 
ENLIST Act is going to be brought to the floor. I would ask him whether 
any of the bills that are passed out of the Republican Judiciary 
Committee are going to be brought to the floor. They passed out over 6 
months ago.
  A bill out of the Homeland Security Committee to deal with border 
security passed out of the committee some 4-plus months ago, and it has 
not been brought to this floor.
  We are not looking for my way. We are looking for any way--some way. 
We are looking for a path--a way--to get to addressing this issue, and 
there has been no way. He is correct, but it is not we who are imposing 
no way.
  It is the failure to bring a bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, that we 
can consider. In a transparent way, the House can work its will, which, 
of course, was the commitment that Speaker Boehner made when he became 
the Speaker of this House.
  That is the problem. It is not what the President does, and it is not 
what the Senate does, but it is what we are not doing on this House 
floor, and that is bringing options to the floor, so that we can vote 
up or down, and maybe we will lose.
  There were four bills out of the Judiciary Committee that we didn't 
largely support, but the Republican leadership on the committee 
supported those bills, and the majority of the Republicans supported 
those bills. They are not to the floor. So it is a question of 
not doing it your way. We are doing it no way.

  I continue to be frustrated when the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, 
responds to me that, somehow, they don't trust the President. 
Presumably, they trust their committee chairs. Presumably, you trust 
yourselves, and presumably, if you bring something to the floor, you 
trust that you will vote the way you believe as we will do on this side 
of the aisle.
  Maybe some on our side of the aisle will agree with you, and maybe 
some on your side will agree with us, but if we don't bring it to the 
floor, it is no way, and we are not going to get much progress there.
  There are two other issues I will discuss briefly, unless the 
majority leader wants to respond to that. The Voting Rights Act, he and 
I have had brief discussions about that. I know he has expressed 
himself publicly.
  Mr. Leader, is there any possibility of our making progress on the 
Voting Rights Act between now and the August break?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, I am committed and 
remain committed to upholding the very sacred right to vote for all 
American citizens, and I see the Voting Rights Act as something that 
has historically afforded that ability.
  The recent actions of the Supreme Court have raised some issues, 
obviously, in the minds of some in the House. We have been working with 
our Members on our side of the aisle, as well as on the gentleman's.
  I know the Senate is undertaking hearings across the way, and it is 
still my hope to try and resolve this in an acceptable manner. I do 
know that there are still a lot of differences and that the gentleman 
knows as well, but I remain committed, again, to making sure that we 
uphold that sacred right to vote for all American citizens.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the majority leader for his 
continuing positive comments with respect to assuring that every 
American not only has the right to vote, but has the access to vote and 
that we facilitate one's casting of that vote.
  I look forward and my office looks forward to continuing to work with 
him towards that objective. Time, of course, is of the essence on this, 
so I am hopeful that we can move forward sooner, rather than later.
  The last subject I would bring up--and we have also had brief 
discussions on this, Mr. Speaker, with the majority leader--is that the 
Export-Import Bank authority will expire in the not too distant future.
  We believe on this side of the aisle that this is a very, very 
important piece of legislation. We have an agenda called Make It In 
America. One of the things that is important for the Make It in America 
agenda is to encourage and to facilitate the exporting of goods 
overseas. We think the Export-Import Bank does exactly that.
  I would ask the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, if there is any 
prospect of bringing that to the floor. I might observe that the 
majority leader and I worked very, very closely and effectively, in a 
bipartisan way, when we authorized the Export-Import Bank the last 
time. I am hopeful that we can continue to do the same.
  I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

[[Page H4815]]

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I have 
said to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. 
Hensarling, that I will look to him and his leadership on that issue as 
the committee works its way through the varying issues and the Member 
positions that are out there, and I will look to see what the Financial 
Services Committee does.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand that comment. I also understand that the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee is opposed to the Export-
Import Bank. He has said that publicly.
  So I would hope, at some point in time, again, that the majority of 
the House could work its will because I do not believe that the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee represents the majority of 
this House in this instance.
  Therefore, I am hopeful that we can move forward and that I can work 
with the majority leader's office, as we did with the last 
authorization, to reach that objective.
  Mr. Speaker, unless the majority leader asks me to yield, I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________