[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5556-5558]
[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 from 
Virginia, the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about 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 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 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 on Tuesday and 
Wednesday, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of 
business tomorrow. Of the suspensions, I'm proud to announce that the 
House will consider a bill by Representative Terri Sewell to award the 
Congressional Gold Medal to the four young girls who lost their lives 
in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham 50 years 
ago, which served as a catalyst for the civil rights movement.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, we'll take up H.R. 1549, the Helping Sick 
Americans Now Act. This bill, authored by Representatives Joe Pitts, 
Michael Burgess, and Ann Wagner, will help Americans with preexisting 
conditions obtain insurance coverage without delay.
  We will also consider H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration 
and Stewardship Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Chairman Hastings. 
This legislation applies pre-market principles to future sales from the 
Federal Helium Reserve and will protect thousands of American jobs.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for the information on the 
business for next week.
  I would observe that he and I cochaired, the honorary cochairs, with 
John Lewis, of course, the chair, our leader, along with Terri Sewell, 
Spencer Bachus, and Congresswoman Roby, a delegation to march across 
the Edmund Pettus Bridge to recognize the Voting Rights Act and the 
acts that led up to that. I thank the majority leader for bringing the 
gold medal bill to the floor, sponsored by Congresswoman Sewell, 
recognizing those four little girls who at the Birmingham church lost 
their lives to what could rightfully be referred to, I think, as a 
terrorist act, a bomb going off, with no specific objective in mind 
other than to kill people inside that church.

                              {time}  1310

  The little girls were the closest to that explosion, and they lost 
their lives. And as the majority leader has pointed out, that event and 
the events that occurred in the square just across the street from the 
church led to this country living out its principles better than it had 
done to that date. But some lost their lives, these four little girls, 
and some gave dearly to accomplish that objective. So I thank the 
majority leader for facilitating that bill coming to the floor.
  Mr. Leader, I noted on the schedule, however, that there is no motion 
to go to conference on the budget. As the

[[Page 5557]]

gentleman knows, the House has been requesting for some years now a 
budget, which the Senate has passed. That budget has now been sent to 
the House and it is ripe for us to go to conference.
  The gentleman, the Speaker, and others have been talking about 
regular order for some period of time. I agree with them. Regular order 
leads to better results. Regular order leads to an ability to sit down 
and try to come to compromises on where there are differences and to 
make progress. I would hope that we would follow regular order now that 
the Senate has acted.
  Speaker Boehner said, in January of this year, ``Regular order works 
best.'' I think he was absolutely right. There was a headline in 
Politico just a couple of days ago where it says, ``GOP Clamors for 
Regular Order.'' Speaker Boehner said on December 8, 2011, regarding a 
bill we had passed:

       The House has passed its bill. Now the Senate has passed 
     its bill. And, you know, under the Constitution, when we have 
     these disagreements, there could be a formal conference 
     between the House and Senate to resolve our differences.

  You said that same year:

       We have committed and the Speaker has committed to make 
     sure that our committees will go through regular order.

  Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee on November 29, 2011, 
said:

       We're going to restore regular order.

  I think you were correct in all those instances, and I want to 
associate myself with those remarks.
  Now we have an opportunity for regular order, and we're going to be 
meeting next week, and then we'll be taking off a week. That is all 
time that a conference could be working to try to get us to an 
agreement so, frankly, we could not only have an agreement, which I 
think the country would welcome, but we could also, I think, substitute 
that agreement for the sequester, which is currently having and will 
have a very negative effect on our economy, on jobs, and on the 
confidence that Americans have that we're pursuing rational policies. 
The gentleman and I both have agreed that sequester is not a rational 
policy in that it deals with high-priority and low-priority items in 
very much the same way.
  So my question, Mr. Leader, is there a possibility--it's not on the 
calendar and you didn't announce it, but I would urge you that we go to 
conference, preferably the first day we're back after this weekend, so 
that we could get to work on trying to get to an agreement on one of 
the most pressing problems confronting this country, and that's getting 
ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the 
spirit with which he recommends that we proceed along the lines asked 
for by those individuals he spoke about.
  I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that I'm told that our 
chairman and the chairman on the other side of the Capitol, Mrs. 
Murray, they're meeting and looking to see the path forward so that we 
can effect a meeting of the minds and do what the American people are 
asking us to do, which is to get the fiscal challenges addressed at the 
Federal level so they can go on about making their life work and 
continue to create their dreams and live the life they want and have 
the life they want for their kids.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I want to say I have a lot of respect, as the gentleman knows and I 
have expressed on this floor, for Mr. Ryan. I think Mr. Ryan is a very 
able and dedicated and conscientious Member of this House. I have equal 
respect for and confidence in Senator Murray, who chairs the Senate 
Budget Committee.
  And while I'm appreciative of the fact they're having discussions, 
frankly, the American people need to have a transparent view of 
discussions that would occur in a conference committee. So not only 
would the chair of the House Budget Committee and the chair of the 
Senate Budget Committee--now, that implies, therefore, that in the 
Senate there are no Republicans participating in those discussions and 
in the House there are no Democrats participating in those discussions.
  In light of the fact that we have 315 million to 320 million people 
who are represented by both Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Leader, I 
think it would be very useful and would accelerate--not impede--the 
process of getting to an agreement so the American public could weigh 
in with their views as they saw a conference committee debating and 
discussing the alternatives between the Ryan budget and the Murray 
budget and, indeed, the President's budget.
  I've seen press reports that Mr. Ryan wants to have discussions and 
he wants to have parameters, but, frankly, you and I both know that if 
we wait to have Mr. Ryan and Ms. Murray agree, we're going to be 
probably waiting a long time. Senator Murray participated along with 
Jeb Hensarling in the supercommittee which met for many months and 
ultimately came to no conclusion. That's not good for the country; it's 
not good for our economy; and it's not good for jobs and growth.
  As I understand, Mr. Ryan has said he's having discussions with 
Senator Murray; but I would urge us to have the ability to go to 
conference, move to go to conference, appoint conferees, and pursue 
regular order.
  If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I yield to the gentleman; 
if not, I'll go on to another subject.
  Mr. Leader, I don't think it was on the announcement, but I do know 
there is discussion in your memorandum and you've been quoted about a 
debt ceiling, a debt prioritization piece of legislation that would be 
considered. I would hope, as I said last week, that we could deal with, 
in a nonpartisan, bipartisan, nonpolitical fashion, the protection of 
the creditworthiness of the United States of America and to the 
maintenance of America's credit rating. It was reduced for the first 
time in history when we had a debt cliff debate in 2011, and we were 
reduced by one point in the creditworthiness of our country. That was 
unfortunate, and I think it hurt our country.
  President Reagan said in 1986:

       Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the government 
     to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This 
     brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and 
     those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits.

  Interest rates, et cetera, would skyrocket if we did that, and he was 
urging the then-Democratic Congress and Republicans to support an 
increase in the debt, which, as you know, was done.
  In addition, Keith Hennessey, who was George Bush's National Economic 
Council Director, said on January 14:

       Payment prioritization doesn't stop payments; it just 
     delays them. Then the aggrieved party sues the government and 
     probably wins, and it turns into a bloody mess.

  That was Keith Hennessey, who was Bush's National Economic Council 
Director.
  Tony Fratto, Deputy Press Secretary for President George Bush, said:

       Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really 
     going to be in the position of withholding benefits, 
     salaries, rent, contract payments, et cetera, in order to pay 
     off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political 
     catastrophe.

  I suggest not only would it be a political catastrophe, with which I 
agree--and I presume he's referring to the Republican Party, as he's a 
member of the Republican Party--but also a disaster for our economy and 
not, I think, something that would be helpful in growing jobs and 
expanding confidence, which the gentleman has talked a lot about and 
with which I agree with him on. We need confidence.

                              {time}  1320

  This constant utilization of the debt limit for political leverage, I 
think, is not in the best interest of our country or the people we 
represent, and I would hope that bill would not be brought to the floor 
but that we could together, in a bipartisan fashion, resolve that the 
debt limit will not be put in question by this Congress.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his desire to see 
a satisfactory resolution of issues surrounding the fiscal challenges.

[[Page 5558]]

  Obviously, the debt ceiling is another point with which we will be 
faced on how to deal with the spiraling debt and out-of-control 
spending in Washington. I know that the gentleman shares with me the 
desire to see the reduction in the need to borrow, the balancing of our 
budget and, actually, a return to a real growth in America of jobs and 
the economy, of economic opportunity for all. It is in that spirit that 
I know that he approaches this issue, and so do I.
  I would say to the gentleman, when the rating agencies look at the 
creditworthiness of our Nation--and I think some have said as much--it 
is, yes, to observe a political system that works, but it is also to 
make sure that there is demonstrable evidence that we are making 
progress in dealing with the problem, and that is the focus that we 
must all maintain.
  I mean, we know that the disproportionate problem of the debt in this 
country and the deficits we are running have to do with the unfunded 
liabilities of the entitlement programs, and we can see the White House 
and the President call for tax increases every other day--every day for 
that matter--and those are not going to deal with the spiraling, out-
of-control spending that raises the need for more debt.
  Again, the differences on this subject, Mr. Speaker, are well known, 
and I am hopeful that we can work towards setting aside the differences 
and focusing in on how far we can work towards accomplishing success in 
dealing with the problem of the mounting unfunded liabilities of the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation. If I can, there 
is some irony in the gentleman's response.
  We've been talking about two items: one, the going to conference on 
the budget, which does, in fact, deal with prospective spending, a 
prospective increase in debt or deficit, because we buy more or spend 
more or cut revenues more. The debt limit, as the gentleman so well 
knows, deals with what we've already done. It doesn't have anything to 
do with increasing what we're going to spend. The budget does that.
  Now, we're not dealing with the budget, but there is discussion about 
dealing with this prioritization. Frankly, we should have made that 
determination when we spent the money, and both sides have spent a lot 
of money. Our country is determined to spend a lot of money. Two wars 
cost us a lot of money we didn't pay for. I'm not going to go through 
the litany--the gentleman knows that litany--but it is somewhat ironic 
when we're not dealing with going to conference on the budget deficit, 
but we're talking about a prioritization of the debt that we've already 
incurred.
  I think the American public will understand that raising the debt 
limit is simply a recognition of what we've already done and that we're 
going to pay our bills--that we're not going to welch, that we're not 
going to default--that the most creditworthy, greatest Nation on the 
face of the Earth is going to pay for what it bought.
  So I would urge the gentleman to not do prioritization, but let's 
deal with raising the debt limit so we pay our bills, and let's go to 
conference so we can make sure that, in fact, we keep that debt from 
going higher and, in fact, decrease it through reforms that we can 
adopt in a budget conference. I would hope the gentleman would agree 
with that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________