[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6623-6624]
[From the U.S. 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 am pleased to yield to my friend, the 
majority leader, Mr. Cantor, for the purpose of inquiring as to 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 is not in session. On Tuesday, the 
House will meet at noon for morning-hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative 
business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and 
Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and at noon 
for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for 
legislative business. The last votes of the week are expected no later 
than 3 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under 
suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by 
the close of business tomorrow. Among next week's suspensions will be 
H.R. 365, the National Blue Alert Act, sponsored by Congressman Michael 
Grimm, which will coincide with National Police Week and will help 
deter the threat of violence against our Nation's law enforcement 
officers.
  In addition, the House will consider two important bills under a 
rule. The first is H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Act 
reauthorization, sponsored by Congresswoman Sandy Adams, herself a 
former sheriff. Our second rule bill, which will take up the remainder 
of the week, is H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act, 
sponsored by Chairman Buck McKeon. This bipartisan bill provides for 
the funding of our armed services prior to Memorial Day, as is the 
House's appropriate custom.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
  On the Violence Against Women Act, a very important piece of 
legislation which we have reauthorized in the past in a bipartisan 
fashion, it is under a rule. Does the gentleman know whether it will be 
an open rule or whether there will be, perhaps, a modified open rule 
with amendments being printed? Will the gentleman tell us? I have a lot 
of folks on my side of the aisle who are very interested in dealing 
with certain portions of that bill, and they'd be interested to know 
whether or not they will be able to offer amendments.
  Mr. CANTOR. I will just tell the gentleman, as he knows, the Rules 
Committee is the one to decide the process by which bills come to the 
floor and the rules for those bills; and the Rules Committee will be 
meeting on Tuesday.
  Mr. HOYER. I would tell the majority leader, for the purposes of his 
planning and anticipation, as he may well know, the bill that has been 
reported out of the Judiciary Committee is controversial. There was a 
bill that passed through the other Chamber, which passed 
overwhelmingly--more than 2-1--and it is not like this bill.

                              {time}  1500

  There are Members that would like to incorporate the Senate's 
provisions in the House bill, and I know we would appreciate it if we 
would be given that opportunity to offer that on the floor as an 
alternative. If the gentleman would take that into consideration, 
perhaps talk to Mr. Dreier about making such amendments in order, we 
would very much appreciate that. Of course we would also appreciate, 
perhaps, if you wanted to take up the Senate bill as a substitute. We 
think we would have overwhelming votes for that on this side of the 
aisle. In light of the fact that you and I have been working in such a 
bipartisan fashion lately, perhaps that would be a good way to continue 
that process.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. It has certainly been an improved sense of cooperation, 
and I appreciate that on the gentleman's part in trying to deliver 
results and trying to make sure we get America back to work.
  I would say to the gentleman, as he rightly noted, that this bill has 
traditionally been reauthorized. The approach that we tried to focus on 
was to do what it is that the gentleman and I have been trying to do 
the last couple of weeks, and that is to separate out things that 
divide us and try to unite us around the central focus of a particular 
piece of legislation.
  VAWA is a program that calls for the commitment of taxpayer dollars 
to fund the appropriate services for abused women. This is a bill that 
is much needed, and it is one that I think deserves our bipartisan 
support. We tried to stay away from issues that divide us, and we tried 
to listen to the GAO in terms of its recommendations under this program 
to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent at their most efficient 
levels so that we can get more out of the dollars being spent. That is 
the spirit with which we will bring this bill to the floor.
  Again, I know it's an important bill. We all care deeply about making 
sure that abused women receive the necessary services that they need.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observations, and clearly he 
and I agree on the importance of this piece of legislation.
  Certainly we're concerned about violence perpetrated against all 
women who happen to be in this country and subject to violent acts by 
others. So we want to make sure that we can, in fact, protect all women 
who are subject to abuse. Hopefully we can pursue that objective.
  Mr. Leader, the appropriation bill we just passed was somewhat more 
controversial than I had hoped it would have been, in part because of 
the riders that were adopted to that bill, which were strongly opposed 
by many on this side of the aisle, and in part because we do not 
believe it complied with the agreement that we reached with reference 
to funding levels.
  There are now 11 more appropriation bills to go. Can the gentleman 
tell me the next appropriation bill that he expects to have on the 
floor?
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman that we are looking to 
accommodate the needs of the committee as they move forward and with 
their bills and their agenda. It is our intention to continue with the 
kind of debate that we had on the CJS bill this week.
  As you know, it's been some time since this House was able to see an 
appropriations process work in a very open fashion like we had this 
week. We intend to continue to do that with the bills. It's the 
Speaker's commitment that this be an open process and that Members have 
a right to air their views, and that those issues and amendments can 
come to a vote.
  I say to the gentleman that we look forward to working with him and 
looking to the committee to bring forward the bill that they think is 
ready next to be brought to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
  As I said, one concern we had on our side of the aisle was the 
riders, many of which we thought were inappropriate. They were adopted, 
but we did not favor them. The second was, of course, the level of 
funding. The Appropriations Committee clearly articulated very early in 
this process they thought the monies available to them under the Ryan 
constrictions on 302(a) were too low to meet some of the commitments 
that they had.

[[Page 6624]]

  First of all, pursuant to what he says the Speaker wants to do and he 
wants to do, and I think we ought to do--we didn't always get that done 
lamentably--does the gentleman believe that we're going to have the 
time to bring each one of the appropriation bills to the floor between 
now and the August break so that the Senate might consider them and we 
might consider them individually, as opposed to in some omnibus piece 
of legislation?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, all I would say to the gentleman is it is 
certainly the intention and the commitment we have to bring these bills 
forward for an open and fair debate.
  I know the gentleman has expressed now twice the fact that his side 
didn't like some of the votes that occurred on the specific provisions 
of some bills. This is a democratic process, as he knows. Twenty-three 
Members on his side of the bill ended up supporting the CJS bill. 
Again, this is the House's will at work, and we hope to be able to work 
with him in this very new environment in which we're operating on 
appropriations bills.
  The commitment that we have is still that we want to bring these 
bills forward under a very challenging fiscal time in our country and 
do so without earmarks. This does represent a new construct within 
which we are operating. Again, we look forward to the gentleman's 
participation towards that end in a successful way.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I want to make it clear that clearly I understand it is the 
democratic process that riders are offered and the House does its will. 
There it is. The gentleman is absolutely correct, that's the process.
  But I want to emphasize that we still have great concerns about the 
agreement that we reached not being carried out pursuant to what we 
believed the agreement was in terms of funding levels and 302(a) 
allocations; that is, the general allocation to the Appropriation 
Committee. I know the gentleman knows that we have that concern. I know 
the gentleman has also made the observation that that was a cap and not 
an agreed number. I will tell my friend again--I think I said this a 
couple of weeks ago--that undermines our willingness to make agreements 
if what we make an agreement on is the most that you'll do, but then 
come in at levels substantially below that which we think we agreed to, 
and in fact is in the law.
  I want to make it clear that was my major concern and continues to be 
my major concern. I understand, as all of us do on this floor, that the 
majority will rule on the amendments, and what amendments are adopted 
are adopted. There were a lot of them on the floor, as you know better 
than I, because there were a lot from your side, and that's 
appropriate.
  Let me ask you about the transportation conference, Mr. Leader. We 
are very concerned about this. We think this is a jobs bill. We think 
it's an important bill. This bill, as you know, was adopted 
overwhelmingly by some 74 Senators. Half of the Republican Conference 
in the Senate is voting for the transportation bill. We're in 
conference now. We've been in conference for some time. Can the 
gentleman tell me what he thinks the status of the conference is and 
when we might adopt this bill? Obviously, we have it extended until the 
end of June, but we must act before then. Can the gentleman tell me the 
status of the conference?
  Mr. CANTOR. As the gentleman rightly suggests, we are in conference 
with the Senate. Deliberations are ongoing. We are very mindful, as he 
indicates, of the expiration of the existing authorization of the 
program at the end of June, knowing that is our deadline.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  I want to say as we close this colloquy--which some people will say 
was one of our more tame colloquies--perhaps that's appropriate. On a 
week that we did have an opportunity to come together, I want to thank 
the gentleman. I want to again say that Neil Bradley did an excellent 
job working with John Hughes and my staff and the Financial Services 
staff of Mr. Frank, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Miller's staff, and the Senate.

                              {time}  1510

  I think we've done what we ought to do more of. And we passed a bill 
which, as you know, my party supported unanimously because we believe 
it does, in fact, make us more competitive in the international 
marketplace and will help keep and grow jobs. So I want to thank the 
gentleman for his work on that and, again, thank Mr. Bradley and Mr. 
Hughes for their work on that. And hopefully the Senate will act on 
that with dispatch.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will join the gentleman in thanking both 
of our staffs. They did tremendous work, as well as Mr. Miller on the 
Financial Services Committee and the staff there, Mr. Bachus' staff. 
Your office can be instrumental, I think, in helping move the Senate 
along. But everyone from the chief of staff on down in your office--and 
we want to thank you as well for your team's commitment to working, 
again, in a very difficult equation where there were a lot of 
differences that we tried to work through but, in the end, didn't want 
to unilaterally disarm American business in the name of competitiveness 
in our country.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I want to apologize 
to your chief of staff for not mentioning him.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________