[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8179-8182]
[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, before yielding to my friend for next week's 
schedule, I would like to join, I know, with all of our colleagues in 
wishing him a happy birthday. It is the majority leader's birthday 
today, and because I don't want him to retaliate, I'm not going to 
mention which birthday it is, but I want to congratulate him and wish 
him the very best. We'll have a birthday colloquy today.
  I thank him for his leadership, and I yield to him to explain our 
schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from 
Maryland, for those kind birthday wishes.
  Yes, it is my 50th birthday. I've been saying all day that my wife, 
Diana, and I are empty nesters now, so it's about time I'm 50. But I do 
thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that I'll 
be glad to take him up on a kinder and gentler colloquy for the 
birthday.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 3 
p.m., and no votes are expected. 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

[[Page 8180]]

House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the 
week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of 
the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of 
business tomorrow. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 1910, the 
National Defense Authorization Act. Chairman Buck McKeon and his 
committee once again will bring a bipartisan bill to the floor to 
ensure that our men and women in the armed services have the tools and 
resources necessary to protect the freedoms that all of us enjoy here 
at home.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  We have started the appropriations process. We did two bills this 
week. They were relatively bipartisan in nature.
  I regret, of course, the adoption of the King amendment, which we 
thought was a very bad policy. It precluded us from voting for a bill 
that we otherwise would have voted for and that we failed to reach 
bipartisan agreement. I think there were some on your side who did not 
want the King amendment offered which precludes any discretion for 
prosecutors, which I think is bad as general policy and certainly bad 
as it relates to the DREAMers.
  I would hope that as we move forward on the appropriation bills, that 
we would be able to do those as we did the Military Construction, 
Veteran Affairs, and Related Agencies bill on which we passed on an 
almost overwhelming vote on both sides of the aisle.
  One of the problems, Mr. Leader, is going to be the amount of dollars 
that have been made available to the nine remaining bills--perhaps 
Agriculture--so the eight remaining bills after we do MilCon and 
Homeland Security, which essentially were done at the agreed-upon 
levels of the Budget Control Act, similar to what the Senate is marking 
their bills to. I'm not sure what the defense number is going to be, 
but our fear and concern is that these bills will be marked so that 
substantial dollars that would otherwise have been available to other 
subcommittees will not be available because, in effect, we front-loaded 
spending on the first three bills.
  The Ryan budget, as the gentleman knows, is almost $100 billion less 
than the agreement of August 2011 on how much dollars would be 
available for priorities on the discretionary side of our budget.
  Can the gentleman give me any information with reference to whether 
or not we may still be going to a budget conference where we perhaps 
could reach elimination of the sequester and a new number that could be 
agreed upon between the Senate and the House, as we always have to do? 
Whether there's a budget or not, we have to agree on the numbers. We 
are about $100 billion apart, and that has to be overcome if we're 
going to pass bills.
  Can the gentleman give me any thoughts on whether or not we're going 
to go to conference? There is nothing on the schedule for a motion to 
go to conference or appointment of conferees.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I understand his 
concerns.
  I think all of us have concerns about the way spending reductions are 
implemented under sequester. As the gentleman knows, we in the majority 
have continued to try and advocate. We've put proposals forward to 
accomplish the spending reductions and reforms in a smarter way. I 
think both of us, Mr. Speaker, would agree there are much smarter ways 
for that to happen.
  Unfortunately, it is the law. In fact, again, the House has posited 
its formula for better reductions in spending. The White House and 
Senate refused to go along. So sequester is the law. As the gentleman 
knows, 302(b)s are set according to the post-sequester numbers, and 
that is our intention, Mr. Speaker, to abide by the law with the 
sequester in place.
  I would respond to the gentleman's inquiry about budget conference, 
and the gentleman knows, as I've said before, Chairman Ryan stands 
ready to work with Senator Murray on drawing an outline and structure 
for the way a conference would proceed. Unfortunately, there can be 
even no discussion on that point because there is an insistence on the 
part of the Senate and the White House that any budget conference 
discussion include a discussion of tax increases. We have said 
repeatedly that we can't be raising taxes every other month, every 6 
months in this town. There was a significant increase in taxes, an 
impact on working Americans this year because of the fiscal cliff. We 
remain committed to addressing the problems of the budget, but will not 
do so while there is an insistence that a prerequisite is raising 
taxes.
  Mr. HOYER. In other words, I think the gentleman is saying there is 
not going to be a conference because there is disagreement on what the 
result of that conference will be? Is that what I'm hearing you say?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentleman that we 
would like to have agreement that we can begin discussions of a 
fiscally sane path to balancing our budget.
  As the gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, our conference has made its 
stand saying we want to balance the budget, we want to promote spending 
reductions and reforms that get us there in 10 years. In that vein, we 
would like to see that it's not punishing the American taxpayer the way 
that we get there, as far as the budgeteers are concerned here in 
Washington, that it's from growing our economy and from reforming the 
kinds of things that are necessary to take care of those unfunded 
liabilities at the Federal level.
  Mr. HOYER. I would say that we have indicated on a number of 
occasions that we would love to see some growing-the-economy 
legislation on the floor, jobs bills on the floor, bills that the 
administration and Republicans and economists on both sides say would 
grow the economy. We haven't seen those, and we're concerned about 
that.
  First of all, let me make the observation that we don't believe the 
first three bills that you're bringing out--you've brought out two 
defense bills--are being brought out at the Ryan-budget levels. In 
fact, they're being brought out substantially above the Ryan-budget 
levels, if, in fact, you perceived equal distribution under 302(b) of 
the allocations of discretionary money.
  We don't share your view that the two bills we voted on--the two 
bills we voted on, frankly, have been at the Senate level, essentially, 
which is why they were relatively bipartisan. Not only was it at the 
Senate level, but it was at the level we agreed to in 2011, and August 
of 2011 would, in fact, be the discretionary number for fiscal year 
2014.
  There's not anything on the schedule with reference to the debt 
limit. As the gentleman knows, the debt limit was extended until May 
19. That is now 3 weeks past, and we have not dealt with the debt 
limit.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any plan to deal with the 
debt limit extension, which the gentleman and I agree must be done if 
we're not going to destabilize the economy and grow the economy?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  To his first point about jobs bills, Mr. Speaker, we have remained 
committed in the House, as the majority, to doing all we can to help 
every American in terms of a brighter future, and that is a path to a 
better job, better career.
  We brought forward the SKILLS Act, something that is a bipartisan 
commitment and should have been a lot more so on this floor in trying 
to streamline workforce training programs to help those who are 
unemployed.
  We want to help the unemployed get into a job. The Federal workforce 
training program is a mess. There are

[[Page 8181]]

50 programs. It is very difficult for unemployed people to get the 
training and skills they need to get a job. Unfortunately, that wasn't 
met with a lot of bipartisan reception.
  Secondly, we just voted on the Keystone XL pipeline bill, a known 
proposal to create tens of thousands of jobs, much less contribute to 
America's energy security and independence, as well as competitiveness, 
which means more jobs and more capital flowing into America.
  We also passed, without any bipartisan support, the Working Families 
Flexibility Act, looking to those struggling moms and dads who are 
working, the fact that 50 percent of our workforce comes from dual-
income households, many of them with kids.

                              {time}  1130

  The Working Families Flexibility Act, it addressed the very struggles 
that working families have in trying to make their life work. We 
couldn't get bipartisan support on that. And then I would say to the 
gentleman, we remain committed to making the future brighter through 
offering more opportunity to all people.
  Our solutions, that come from conservatives in the House majority, we 
believe our solutions can work for everyone. The gentleman knows--he 
and I have met on his Make It In America agenda--there are things that 
we have in common, but, unfortunately, we can't see a way to having 
bipartisan votes. So I remain committed to working with the gentleman 
on his agenda, and I know the spirit in which he approaches his 
obligations to his constituents and his caucus, and know that we 
hopefully can get back on track towards that end.
  Now, towards the question, secondly, about budget levels and writing 
the bills, I would say to the gentleman that we have drafted the 
appropriations bills, marked them up, along with his caucus, and I 
would say that they reflect our priorities. Obviously, our priorities 
are going to differ from the Members on his side. The trick is to try 
and see where we can work towards a commonality.
  And lastly, to the debt limit, yes, we remain very concerned about 
that. Hopefully, we can all work together and come up with a way that 
we can adopt a plan that will manage down the debt and deficit and 
allow us to reach a balance in the Federal level within 10 years, 
enacting the necessary reforms to the programs that we know are 
disproportionately causing the deficit without disproportionately 
continuing to hit the discretionary side, when we know the mandatory 
side provides most of the impetus for growth.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I would say that he mentioned two bills with reference to jobs--the 
SKILLS Act. Unfortunately, the SKILLS Act suffered from the same thing 
that the Homeland Security Act just today suffered from, as the 
gentleman knows. Contrary to what we could have done on a bipartisan 
basis in the SKILLS Act, diversity, a small number was inserted into 
that bill, reducing diversity visas to this country, which was highly 
offensive to many, many Americans who saw that as a direct attack on 
their ability to get family members to come to this country, 
particularly from Africa and the Caribbean. It was well known on your 
side that if that was put in, it was going to undermine our ability to 
have a bipartisan agreement.
  The same thing occurred with Homeland Security. The gentleman knew 
full well that the inclusion of the King amendment, which we felt was a 
very negative amendment and put Dreamers in particular at risk, but 
whether or not that was the case, it undermines very, very 
substantially--excuse me, I was incorrect. Staff corrects me, it was 
the STEM bill that I was talking about. You did not mention that bill. 
But the point is the same: in moving ahead on a bipartisan fashion, the 
committee did come out with a bipartisan bill on Homeland Security, 
you're absolutely correct. And Mr. Price, the ranking member, was 
prepared to vote for that. He was going to urge the caucus to vote for 
it, and we were going to vote for it until, with very few exceptions, 
your caucus, your side of the aisle, voted overwhelmingly to put in a 
piece, an amendment, which you knew would undermine the bipartisanship 
that had been arrived at by the committee. That's unfortunate.
  The gentleman, ironically from our perspective, I tell my friend with 
great respect, we think that the Family Flexibility Act was the Family 
Income Reduction Act. We think what it said to an awful lot of working 
people: you're not going to get paid overtime. If your colleague will 
work for free and get comp time at some point in time that the employer 
decides, we're not going to pay overtime. So you're right, we 
respectfully disagree. As I said, we think that was the Family Income 
Reduction Act. Families are already struggling. Middle-income families' 
income has been stuck in the mud, and we think that exacerbated it 
further. And, very frankly, as the gentleman knows, that was a bill 
that was offered some years ago with very substantial opposition and 
didn't become law, as this one is not going to become law.
  But in any event, let me close with this question. There are three 
bills which are being marked up. Maybe Ag was marked up or is going to 
be marked up soon. Does the gentleman expect that all 12 appropriations 
bills will be brought to the floor? He talks about priorities. Our 
priorities are different, although ironically, the gentleman has 
expressed in his memos and in his agenda that he has announced a desire 
to focus research on biomedical research to keep Americans healthier, 
children and others. Ironically, the 302(b) that he talked about 
earlier suggests, to be exact, a 26.5 percent cut in the bill that 
funds NIH. That's going to result in a very substantial reduction in 
basic biomedical research at NIH, and the leaders at NIH have made that 
very clear that not only that bill but the present sequester is 
undermining their ability to conduct biomedical research. I know the 
gentleman feels strongly about that, as I do. Let me ask him: Do you 
think that bill will be brought to the floor? It was not brought even 
to the full committee last year, much less to the floor. Therefore, no 
one had the opportunity to have a vote on those priorities. Can the 
gentleman tell me whether he thinks those nine remaining bills will be 
brought to the floor?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is our intent to continue to work 
through the appropriations process and bring all the bills to the 
floor, that's correct.
  I would say furthermore to the gentleman, as far as the impact of the 
sequester and 302(b)s on a specific bill versus a piece of that bill, 
meaning the NIH research piece, as the gentleman knows, legislating, 
especially in times of fiscal stress, is about prioritizing.
  The gentleman correctly states that I'm very much in favor of making 
a priority out of Federal research and development. I'm convinced that 
basic research is needed to allow us to continue to advance the 
breakthroughs in science that not only help heal people and cure 
disease, but ultimately can help us bring down health care costs, which 
is the number one issue that's aggravating our deficit.
  So I'm glad to hear the gentleman shares that priority. I know he 
does. But it doesn't mean necessarily that because we are going to 
commit ourselves to balancing this budget that we cannot share that 
priority. I hope the gentleman can share with us the import of that 
priority and support what it is that we're trying to do in the area of 
research, making sure that we can reduce other lesser priorities in 
spending.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I look forward to seeing the Labor-
Health bill on the floor and seeing how he comes to those priorities 
because I think it is very important.
  Before I close--and I think he has left the floor--but I do want to 
mention that today is the day on which John Dingell of Michigan becomes 
the longest-serving Member of Congress in the history of the Congress, 
since 1789. He is one of the great legislators with whom many of us 
have served, and I know that next week we will be having

[[Page 8182]]

an opportunity on the floor to have all Members, or many Members, 
participate in recognizing his service.
  My staff tells me maybe we're going to do it tomorrow and not next 
week, but most Members will be here next week, and I expect that 
they'll be saying something at that time as well.

                              {time}  1140

  I know the majority leader joins me in congratulating our colleague 
and our friend, John Dingell, on his extraordinary service to not only 
the Congress of the United States, but to the American people.
  Mr. CANTOR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would just join the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, in 
congratulating Mr. Dingell for an incredible, first of all, milestone, 
and know he will continue in that service to the people of the great 
State of Michigan.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________