[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17199-17203]
[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. Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, the 
majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the 
week to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam 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.
  Madam Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a 
complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.
  In addition, the House will consider three bills to increase domestic 
energy production, create American middle class jobs, and lower the 
cost of energy for our families. These bills are H.R. 2728, the 
Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act, 
sponsored by Representative Bill Flores; H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands 
Jobs and Energy Security Act, authored by Representative Doug Lamborn; 
and H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, 
sponsored by Mike Pompeo.

[[Page 17200]]

  Together, these bills represent our continuing commitment to energy 
independence and putting more money in the pockets of working middle 
class families.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.
  I think, as the majority leader knows probably as well as any of us, 
and maybe better than most of us, we have 4 legislative days left in 
November and 8 scheduled legislative days in December, assuming we do, 
in fact, get out on the 13th, which is the last day that we are 
scheduled to be in session this year.
  Having said that, there are a number of pressing items to address. As 
the majority leader knows, the unemployment insurance protections for 
folks expire on December 31--actually, I think it is December 28. The 
SGR provisions expire on December 31. If we do not do something with 
respect to them, there will be a substantial decrease in the 
reimbursement to doctors serving Medicare patients.
  I know that the majority leader has, and we have, people who are 
willing to work together to address these issues. Knowing that there is 
usually uncertainty at the end of a session, I would ask the gentleman 
if he can give Members a sense of scheduling for the coming month, that 
is December, and I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I would say to the gentleman we certainly have three conference 
reports we are looking at hopefully completing with the Senate. One is 
the WRRDA conference report that we voted on in the House this week to 
go to conference. The other is the farm bill conference report, as well 
as the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act.

                              {time}  1345

  I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, those are certainly the 
conference reports we would like to see resolved so we can have a vote 
in the House. The gentleman correctly points out that the sustainable 
growth rate program and its formula expires at the end of the year. 
Certainly, our committees are at work trying to see a way forward, as 
well as trying to seek out the proper budgetary pay-fors necessary for 
the plan that has been put forward by Energy and Commerce, as well as 
the Committee on Ways and Means. I know there have been some bicameral 
discussions on that as well. I am hopeful we can resolve that, but 
certainly knowing full well we have to act prior to the end of the 
year.
  I would also point out to the gentleman that there is considerable 
work being done on the issue of patent reform, and we hope that comes 
to the floor prior to the end of the year. And obviously, the larger 
item having to do with the Budget Committee conference, headed up by 
Chairman Paul Ryan and in the other body Senator Patty Murray, and we 
look forward to a resolution there. That is certainly the intention, 
Madam Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for that information, and I am 
pleased that he added to the WRRDA, farm bill, NDAA, and the patent 
reform issues the budget conference. My view is, as the majority leader 
probably knows, the most important thing we can do for our economy is 
to get our country on a fiscally sustainable long-term path.
  Can the majority leader give us some information on the status of the 
budget conference? Certainly, from a public perception, it appears that 
not much progress has been made, which is worrisome in light of the 
fact that the target date for the reporting on the conference is the 
13th--or, should I say, the legislative directive is to report by the 
13th. As Mr. Ryan has pointed out, perhaps unfortunately so, there are 
no consequences of that not occurring. I had urged, myself, as the 
majority leader may know, that they report out by Friday of next week, 
the 22nd of next week, or Thursday of next week, so that we could have 
the conference report on the week we come back in December after 
Thanksgiving.
  Could the gentleman give us any idea where he thinks the proceedings 
of the conference committee on the budget stand?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and would say the 
gentleman is correct. Certainly, the sooner, the better, as far as I am 
concerned. I am concerned as well about any resolution on the Budget 
Committee conference. I know the gentleman has spoken to both Chairman 
Ryan as well as the other body's chairman. In speaking to Chairman 
Ryan, he tells me that there has been a lot of discussion, not only 
public discussion in meetings, but certainly his meeting with the 
chairman from the Senate, in trying to find a way forward.
  The gentleman knows that the issue that is central to these 
discussions is not unlike the issue that has been under discussion for 
some time here, and that is how do we go about seeking reform of some 
of the mandatory programs and trying to reach resolution there in 
exchange for a commensurate relief on the across-the-board budget cuts 
that are currently in place.
  I don't know, Madam Speaker, whether they are going to meet the 
deadline next week or not that the gentleman says will be preferable. I 
know that our chairman is very mindful that the quicker, the better, so 
we can get on about our work here in the House.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  He mentions the sequester. Of course, almost everybody who has spoken 
about the sequester, including myself, the majority leader, and Mr. 
Ryan, has indicated the sequester is not the way to reduce spending. It 
is a meat-ax approach which is having very adverse consequences to our 
national security structure. I think almost every member of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff has made that point. Certainly, General Dempsey has 
made that point. But also, on the domestic discretionary side, the 
sequester doesn't work, and the proof of that, of course, is that we 
haven't considered any of those bills on the floor; and the one that we 
considered, we pulled, the Transportation-HUD bill.
  So I am hopeful, and I know Mr. Rogers is, as is Senator Mikulski, 
the chairs of the Appropriations Committee, have both indicated that 
they hope to get a number early on, and that is why the 22nd was a 
preferable date, if we could have reached that, so that they would have 
a number to which they could mark bills. Obviously, if there is not an 
agreement on the 302(a), as the gentleman knows, it is very difficult, 
then, to try to bring those bills together in a conference because they 
are so far apart.
  I am hopeful that the majority leader will use his good offices to 
urge resolution on the budget conference differences and report out as 
soon as possible so we can get to that process.
  The gentleman I am sure shares my view that the shutting down of 
government is extraordinarily disruptive, both to the general public 
and to those who work for the Federal Government, so that it would be 
incumbent upon us, I think, to try to get out of this gridlock on the 
budget process that we have been in. I would urge him to exercise 
whatever, because he has substantial influence to try to get us to a 
resolution of this issue, and I will tell him I will do the same.
  Another issue which you did not mention, Mr. Leader, is immigration. 
As you know, this issue passed very handily through the United States 
Senate on a vote of 68-32, and I am very hopeful that we could move 
this legislation. I think the Senate bill or a variation of the Senate 
bill would pass. We have introduced an alternative for which we have 
Republican cosponsorship, H.R. 15, which is a comprehensive immigration 
bill which incorporates the security provision that was adopted 
unanimously in this House by the Republican-led Homeland Security 
Committee. We believe it has bipartisan components to it, and the 
balance of the bill has bipartisan support in the United States Senate. 
The gentleman knows, you passed a number of bills out of your 
committees, and they were passed, of course, with partisan votes. We do 
not believe these bills are bills that we would support, but we are 
wondering whether any of them are going to be brought to the floor.

[[Page 17201]]

  H.R. 2278, which is the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, which 
allows the State and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration 
laws, as you know, we think that is bad policy, but it did come out of 
the Republican-headed committee in the Judiciary Committee. I am 
wondering if that might be brought to the floor.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. As the gentleman knows, we have had the discussion before 
about the majority's position on the Senate bill. We don't support the 
Senate bill. The Speaker I think spoke out on that this week. Our 
Members don't support the Senate bill. We have said all along Chairman 
Goodlatte and his committee are going about a much more deliberative 
process, a step-by-step approach in trying to address the problems with 
a broken immigration system. I do think, and I will tell the gentleman 
that there is consensus on our side of the aisle as well as his, that 
the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Certainly there are 
differences on how to go about doing that.
  We remain committed, as does the chairman, in trying to move in a 
step-by-step manner to address the various issues involved with 
immigration reform, but not to do it the way the Senate did because, as 
we have seen, many of those who actually voted for the Senate bill in 
the other body now say they regret that vote or they perhaps would do 
some differently. I guess it is up to the House to try to address it 
much more deliberatively and try to fix the problems that exist so we 
don't see them happen again.
  I would say to the gentleman, the House will continue its work; and, 
as the gentleman knows, the news of this week, unfortunately, has been 
many, many Americans very unhappy with the work product coming out of 
this town as far as health care is concerned. I would posit to the 
gentleman that a bill like ObamaCare or a bill like the Senate 
immigration bill produces the kind of impact and effect that we are 
seeing this week and last week and the prior. We don't want to commit 
that same kind of mistake. We want to be smarter about it.
  As the gentleman knows, our committees are hard at work in trying to 
identify how we can help people with their health care right now since 
they are facing the very real prospects of not having the health care 
insurance plans that they like, contrary to the promises that were made 
when that comprehensive bill was passed a couple of years ago in the 
same way the Senate bill, the immigration bill, was passed, with not a 
lot of focus on the detail.
  We intend to try and focus on the details of immigration reform, try 
to come together, see if we can actually have some positive reception 
on the gentleman's side of the aisle both in this House and the one 
across the way as well as the White House to actually work together 
finally to produce a bipartisan outcome that will be satisfactory 
because none of these partisan bills have ended up working. As you see, 
ObamaCare, case in point. That is why we have the train wreck that is 
upon us. It was a strictly partisan bill that came out of the Congress, 
House and Senate, and look what has happened.
  So I say to the gentleman, we do care about the immigration issue and 
want to go about reform in a smart way.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, Madam Speaker, and 
I wish that they had been demonstrated on the farm bill and on the 
Homeland Security appropriation bill, both of which were reported out 
of committee on a bipartisan basis but were made very partisan on the 
floor of this House. I thought that was unfortunate, but that is what 
happened.
  I would like to repeat my question. The gentleman said he wanted to 
deal with the immigration bill in a very thoughtful, considered way and 
that he did not support the Senate immigration bill. I was not 
surprised with that response. The Speaker has also made that very 
clear; he does not support it. And, very frankly, the majority of 
Republicans have made it clear they do not support the comprehensive 
immigration reform bill.
  However, Mr. Leader, what I asked you was are you going to bring H.R. 
2278 which passed out of the Judiciary Committee, presumably in a 
thoughtful, considered, discrete way, that is dealing with individual 
subjects, which is the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, which 
allows States and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration 
laws--my question to you, Mr. Leader, are you going to bring that bill 
to the floor, or any of the other four bills, which I will mention as 
well, to the floor, because presumably you believe those were 
considered in a thoughtful way, were reported out of your committee, 
were reported out with all of your Republican members, I believe, 
voting for it, at least 20 of them voting for it. My question to you 
is: Are you going to bring that bill to the floor?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, it is under 
consideration as to the timing when we bring that bill to the floor.
  I would again reiterate that Chairman Goodlatte is trying to take a 
holistic approach to the immigration reform issue--the bill that the 
gentleman mentioned is obviously one of the pieces in trying to figure 
this out--and do so in a way that we can effect a positive result, not 
just result for result's sake. And I again direct the gentleman's 
attention, Madam Speaker, to what is going on with ObamaCare right now 
and how many millions of Americans are extremely disappointed in their 
government and certainly in the representations that were made by the 
White House and President insofar as that law is concerned. I don't 
think that we ought to be engaging in those kinds of commitments when 
you can't deliver.
  So again, we want to be working together. We want to be deliberative 
about this process, and hopefully we can move forward in a way that is 
expeditious and thoughtful.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader.
  I said I wanted to mention the other bills because we understand, A, 
you would like to talk about health care without focusing on anything 
else. I get that. We have a disagreement. We will see whether the 
American people believe that making sure that affordable, quality 
health care is available to all Americans is something they are for or 
whether they are against. We will see on that. That issue was joined in 
the last election. The last election didn't have much effect in this 
body in terms of the issues that were contended in that election.
  But let me ask you about H.R. 2131, which is the Supplying Knowledge 
Based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM Visas Act.

                              {time}  1400

  As the gentleman knows, there are a lot of people very interested in 
this issue. This would eliminate the diversity visa program, transfer 
55,000 green cards available under that program to a new STEM program 
that employers can use to hire foreign workers with advanced STEM 
degrees--master's degrees, Ph.D.s, et cetera--from universities. It was 
being marked up and, I understand, passed out 20-14. Again, that was 
with an overwhelming Republican vote, if not unanimous vote. Again, the 
gentleman indicates we want to consider the immigration issue in a 
thoughtful, discreet, and, as the Speaker has said, bill by bill way.
  Is there any expectation that the gentleman has that that bill will 
be brought to the floor before we adjourn for the year?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman if he recalls 
that in the not too distant past, it was his side that opposed that 
bill when it was brought to the floor.
  My response will be the same. We want to bring bills together. We can 
work in a cooperative fashion to effect a result. Unfortunately, as the 
minority opposed stapling green cards to diplomas on that bill that was 
brought in the past, we are trying to figure out a way where we can 
bring something forward and actually get it across the finish line with 
the other body.
  Mr. HOYER. I think the majority leader knows, and I know, he has 218

[[Page 17202]]

votes on his side of the floor. As a matter of fact, he has 
substantially more than that.
  If the last bill was so good, bring it to the floor and pass it. That 
is what the Speaker says you want to do, you want to pass bills item by 
item. What is happening is you are passing bills out of committee and 
they languish there, just as the farm bill, to which the gentleman 
referred in the early part of our discussion, languished in the last 
Congress and was not reported to the floor.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the 
purpose is not just to make sure that a vote occurs and then nothing 
happens. The purpose is to pass bills and then allow for the bicameral 
effort to get a result. That is the frustration.
  If the gentleman would also note, on the farm bill, we actually have 
a conference committee ongoing now. So the reason we employed the 
process we did was to get in a position that we could actually get a 
result and not just say we did something and fail to deliver for the 
people.
  I would say to the gentleman again, these bills that he is bringing 
up all fit into a larger puzzle. We need some indication from the White 
House and from the majority in the Senate that they will actually work 
with us. Given the track record that this administration has amassed 
since 2009, there is not a lot of indication they are willing to work 
together.
  Again, I would point to the prospects of that being what is key, 
because this week is demonstrative of what happens when you just move 
without bringing everyone together. The effects of this health care law 
are going to be lasting on people. They are scared to go to the 
exchanges. They are worried they are not going to have insurance. This 
is the impact and result of passing laws by just one body and expecting 
the other body to just go along. We can't do that now because we are 
two separate bodies, and we need the White House and the Senate to 
cooperate with the majority in the House.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that point.
  He passed a Homeland Security bill that he knew the Senate wasn't 
for. He passed appropriation bills that he knew the Senate wasn't for. 
He passed, Madam Speaker, the farm bill amendments that he knew were 
not going to be supported in the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, we think immigration is a critically important 
subject. We believe immigration is, in fact, broken. We have an 
alternative. He doesn't like our alternative. I understand that. We 
understand that on this side. Perhaps the American people will also 
understand. They don't like our alternative.
  It passed with 68 votes in the United States Senate. He now says 
people have changed their mind. Maybe that is the case, but it passed 
with 68 votes in the United States Senate. They don't like it. Madam 
Speaker, I understand that. I get it.
  They don't like the health care bill. By the way, Madam Speaker, I am 
starting to get that message. I am pretty thick and it takes some time, 
but on 46 votes to repeal or to undermine, I get it. You don't like 
that bill. You think it is a bad bill. We have a disagreement on that, 
Mr. Leader.
  However, apparently we don't have a disagreement on the fact that the 
immigration system in America is broken. What I am asking you--you have 
passed out of committee the Agricultural Guest Worker Program. It 
creates a new Temporary Agricultural Worker Program. That also passed 
on a partisan vote. None of these votes were bipartisan. There was no 
effort to work with the Democrats on the committee to bring a 
bipartisan bill, unlike Mr. Lucas or Mr. Carter, who brought bipartisan 
bills to the floor and saw them turned into partisan pieces of 
legislation with the help, frankly, of the majority party.
  I am asking you regarding the Agricultural Guest Worker Act, are we 
going to bring that to the floor? Again, a discreet, thoughtful, I am 
sure on your side of the aisle, addressing of a broken program, but if 
we don't bring it to the floor, we don't consider it, we can never get 
to conference, which is what the gentleman says he wants to do.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I will say to the gentleman again, the 
track record of this administration and the majority in the Senate has 
indicated an unwillingness to sit down and talk. They have not done so. 
Certainly, the White House has not done so on the immigration issue, 
did not do so on the health care issue. Again, it doesn't help the 
American people for this insistence on ``my way or the highway'' kind 
of mode of operation.
  We have gotten the message now. If it is going to be my way or the 
highway, we will try to do whatever we can to help people, as we did 
today on the floor with a bipartisan vote. The gentleman continues to 
say that we don't like the health care bill. That is true. I think the 
American people have spoken out pretty loud and clearly over the last 
10 days or so, as indicated by the White House and the President's move 
yesterday. Obviously, the law is not working.
  We don't want to get into another situation like that. We want to 
make sure we work together comprehensively because there are step-by-
step actions that need to be taken, but we need results. We need the 
White House to sit down and talk to us. We don't need any more 
speeches, and we don't need any more press conferences by the 
President. We need some actual talk.
  On the immigration issue, they have just not come forward. They have 
said ``my way or the highway.'' I say to the gentleman that is not how 
you work in a bipartisan process.
  The gentleman complains about partisan action on the floor. Well, 
there is an inherent partisanship when you have a majority versus a 
minority, and the will of the House is reflected in the votes here. The 
Senate is controlled by the gentleman's party, and so is the White 
House. So to get any kind of result, such as the farm bill, we are 
going to need a bipartisan result. He is correct on that. It doesn't 
mean that if we pass something in the House it automatically has to be 
something the Senate will support.
  Again, I would say to the gentleman, let's all try to work together. 
I think our side has indicated a willingness to do that. Obviously, we 
want to go and get these conference reports out, but we have not seen a 
willingness on the part of the gentleman's party, this President, to 
say we can work together to effect positive immigration reform--not 
just my way or the highway.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations.
  I must say I am somewhat amused, Madam Speaker, because there are few 
people in America who believe it is our party that is my way or the 
highway. There are few people in America who didn't see 198 Democrats 
vote to keep their government working. It is not my way or the highway. 
We didn't get what we wanted. We didn't want that number that was 
passed. 198 Democrats, without exception, voted to keep this government 
open; 198 Democrats voted to pay the bills of the United States of 
America. It wasn't a question of my way or the highway. It wasn't a 
question of repeal or I will vote to shut down the government. 147 
Republicans, Madam Speaker, voted to keep the government shut down 
because they didn't get their way. 147 Republicans, including in both 
instances, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, voted to not 
pay the bills of the United States of America. And they voted against 
the majority leader's advice and against the Speaker's advice. That is 
a problem. I agree that that is a problem.
  No matter how much, Madam Speaker, the majority leader says it is the 
President and the United States Senate that are undermining, in fact, 
the United States Senate has been passing time and after time after 
time bipartisan bills and has sent them to the House, where they have 
languished or been opposed, and finally, they were supported. That was 
true in the Violence Against Women Act. It was true on a bill that the 
majority leader and I were for, Madam Speaker, and that is for giving 
Sandy relief. He couldn't get more than 25 percent of his party to 
support that.

[[Page 17203]]

  All I am saying is that, if immigration is a problem and we all say 
it is, and you think it needs to be dealt with in a discrete way, and 
you have passed bills out, why don't you bring them to the floor? H.R. 
1772, the Legal Workforce Act, makes E-Verify immigration status 
programs for prospective employees mandatory. Again, I presume that 
this is one of Mr. Goodlatte's thoughtful, considered steps to fix a 
broken immigration system.
  All I am asking is--now for the fourth time--will you bring one or 
more of these bills to the floor? We may not be for them, but at least 
they put, as the gentleman keeps saying, a bill before the House so the 
House can work its will. Frankly, if they are defeated, then it would 
be incumbent upon us to move in a different direction, but if they are 
just sitting there without consideration by the House, without the 
ability of the House to work its will, then it continues to cause 
inaction on a subject that all of us have expressed needs action.
  If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I will yield. If not, I 
will go on to another subject. I am going to go on to another subject.
  Rather than go on to another subject, let me urge the gentleman, 
again, because when the gentleman says, ``Let the House work its 
will,'' that is a wonderful phrase. Hopefully, it resonates with the 
American people. But the House is not allowed to work its will. 
Ultimately, of those bills I have just referenced, we did work our 
will, and we worked our will, frankly, with mostly a majority of 
Democrats and a minority of Republicans joining together to pass 
critically important legislation for this country. We couldn't get the 
majority of your party to vote for many of those bills.
  I would ask the gentleman that if he really wants the House to work 
its will, and he believes that H.R. 15, the comprehensive immigration 
bill, is a bad bill, bring it to the floor and see if the House thinks 
it is a bad bill, see if the House believes that it is a bill that is 
not worthy to be considered and passed as a fixing of a broken 
immigration system.
  I urge my friend to bring that bill to the floor. He has the power to 
bring that bill to the floor. I urge him to do so.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that we 
don't want a repeat of what is going on now with ObamaCare. That bill 
constructed as it is by the Senate is a last-minute effort to get it 
across the finish line. I think there is a lot that could be done a lot 
better in that bill. The gentleman, I believe, knows that, as well. If 
he doesn't share my opinion, then we can agree to disagree on that.
  I would just say again, let's be mindful, Madam Speaker, of what 
happens when you put together a bill like ObamaCare. There are real 
consequences for millions of Americans right now, and they are scared 
that they are not even going to have health care insurance that they 
have today come January 1. There are plenty of reasons for that: the 
mishaps with the Web sites, the call centers, the stolen identities. 
All the things that don't seem to be working right now are scaring 
people out of even considering in a rational way what is going on. How 
could they? There are no answers being given. I would say to the 
gentleman it is largely due to the unfortunate architecture of that 
bill, some of which can be blamed on the process by which it was put 
together. We don't want to the make that mistake again.
  I would say to the gentleman that I look forward to working with him 
in a deliberate and thoughtful approach. We are not bringing up the 
Senate bill. We are not going to do that. I have said that to the 
gentleman. Hopefully, we can work in a much more positive way.
  Mr. HOYER. In closing, Madam Speaker, let me simply observe that this 
is somewhat ironic because the gentleman has repeatedly said he doesn't 
like the Senate bill.

                              {time}  1415

  I hear that. He then says, we need to consider a more thoughtful way 
of doing this. I get that.
  I have then pointed out that the committee, which is headed by Mr. 
Goodlatte, Republican leader of the Judiciary Committee, has passed a 
number of bills, presumably, in that quest for a more thoughtful 
consideration to fix a broken system.
  The gentleman has not said he is going to bring any of those bills to 
the floor, so he knows what he is against, Madam Speaker. He knows what 
his party is against, Madam Speaker, but he cannot tell us what he is 
going to do to fix a broken system because, apparently, the four bills 
that I have asked about are not being brought to the floor, are not 
part of the solution of which the gentleman speaks, and that is 
regrettable.
  Let me say, in closing, Madam Speaker, I hope we can work in a 
bipartisan fashion. It didn't occur after the election, where the very 
issue was whether or not we ought to extend affordable health care to 
millions of people, some 30 to 40 to 50 million people who did not have 
health care security.
  They continue to be scared. They continue to be presented with a 
message that this is a failed program, frankly, before it even starts.
  Now, it has started. In terms of access, it doesn't start, as the 
gentleman knows, until January 1. But for some people, for some people 
it has started. For some parents with children with a preexisting 
condition, who could not get insurance, it is working.
  For young people who couldn't find a job but needed insurance and 
were less than 26 years of age, they could stay on their parents' 
policy. It was working.
  For seniors who were confronted with a doughnut hole that put them 
deeply in debt for prescription drugs they needed for lifesaving and 
life quality, it is working.
  It is working for those people who did not go bankrupt and won't go 
bankrupt in the future because there are not the limits that can be 
imposed upon them when they get really sick.
  So, yes, we will have a debate on that, but it ought not to simply 
divert us from all of the other issues that we need to deal with.
  The budget--we need to get this country on a fiscally sustainable 
path. I know the leader agrees on that.
  We need to fix a broken immigration system. I know the leader 
believes that as well. We need to invest in growing our country, to get 
rid of the sequester because the sequester is going to hurt our 
country. And, frankly, I think the leader agrees on that. We may not 
agree on how to do it, but I think he agrees on the objective.
  So, Madam Speaker, on all of those, we ought to be giving our best 
efforts, not in a partisan way, but in a bipartisan way, as Americans, 
not as Democrats and Republicans.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________