[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 461-464]
[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.)

[[Page 462]]


  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, for the 
purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week 
to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the 
Democratic whip, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, 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.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a 
complete list of which will be announced by the close of business 
today. In addition, the House will consider two bills next week to fund 
government operations.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, House and Senate appropriators are working 
towards a bipartisan agreement on an appropriations package to fund the 
government for the remainder of the fiscal year. I expect an agreement 
to be reached soon. The House will consider this package next week.
  Mr. Speaker, to facilitate this, we will need to pass a short-term CR 
to allow the Senate time to process the bill. I expect to pass this 
under suspension of the rules early next week.
  Finally, I expect the House to consider H.R. 3362, the Exchange 
Information Disclosure Act, sponsored by Representative Lee Terry. This 
bill requires full transparency and accuracy from the administration on 
data reported from the ObamaCare exchange.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I note that he 
indicates that we probably will not be able to accomplish the omnibus 
by the end of next week and, therefore, a CR may be required.
  I know that all of us feel that that needs to be accomplished as 
quickly as possible. I would point out to the gentleman in 
conversations that he says it is going to be on suspension. I will 
support it on suspension, urge my colleagues to support it on 
suspension.
  Can the gentleman tell me, however, how long that CR will go that 
will affect us somewhat?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman in response to 
his question, the expected termination, if you will, expiration of the 
CR will be Saturday, January 18. So giving a week really, Mr. Speaker, 
for the Senate to act, because we will be acting next week in the 
middle of the week. We hope that they will finish their business by 
September--I mean January 18.
  Mr. HOYER. I hope that was not a Freudian slip of our confidence in 
the ability to get that done as quickly as we would like.
  In any event, I think that is appropriate, and I am hopeful that we 
can, in fact, accomplish that.
  I want to tell the majority leader from my perspective that if we 
don't get that done in the short term, then I would be very reluctant 
to support continuing resolutions at the level which has now been 
substituted for the agreement that was reached in the bipartisan budget 
agreement.
  There are substantial differences, as you know, in the 302(a) 
allocation, the allocation of discretionary spending, one at $1.012 
trillion and one at $986 billion, so that there is a substantial 
discrepancy between those figures.
  We reached agreement on the higher number. The Senate came down about 
45, the House went up about 45 and reached a compromise. I think 
America was pleased that we reached a compromise. I would want to be on 
the record as saying that if we went to longer term CRs, I would want 
to have some serious discussions about the level of those CRs in terms 
of the operations of government.
  The other issue I wanted to ask the gentleman about, as you know, we 
had a previous question yesterday. That previous question, had it been 
defeated, would have allowed the House to consider the extension of 
unemployment insurance for 3 months, consistent with what the Senate 
had proposed. Now, the Senate has not reached agreement on this issue, 
but unfortunately that has not been considered on the floor this week. 
As the gentleman knows, 72,000 people a week are losing their 
unemployment insurance. That adds to 1.3 million that have already lost 
their own insurance on December 28.
  I know it is not listed on your sheet, nor did you mention it in your 
comments on the floor. Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any 
prospect of the unemployment insurance bill coming to this floor? Mr. 
Tierney has a bill that he has introduced that I think probably enjoys, 
at this point in time, well over 150 Democrats, and I think all 
Democrats will sign on to it. I would hope that we together, as we did 
when President Bush was President, and we did it five times, I would 
hope that we could extend unemployment for those people who were 
relying on it to put food on their tables.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and just for the 
record make clear that the bill, or the measure, that the gentleman is 
speaking to is a bill that would extend beyond the more than 6 months 
that unemployment benefits insurance is available now.
  As the gentleman knows, we have been trying to focus this Congress on 
getting back to a more optimistic view of what the economy can do. It 
is about jobs; it is about growth.
  Our focus is about wanting people to get a job. It is on employment, 
not unemployment. So I would say to the gentleman, if we could work 
together in trying to reject what unfortunately is seeming to become 
the new norm for many, instead, let's talk about the things that we do, 
maybe skills training.
  Those who are chronically unemployed frankly could find a job if they 
had the skills necessary to do so. We would love to be able to work 
with the gentleman in a bipartisan fashion to perhaps do those kinds of 
things. Unfortunately, this Congress, this House has passed the SKILLS 
Act, and there was no bipartisan support for that.
  We need to be focused on growing the economy, getting people back to 
work--and know that there is a lot of pain out there right now. The 
best response to the pain, in someone looking for some hope for the 
future, is a job.
  And so I would respond to the gentleman, we are watching what the 
Senate is doing, and I think the reports today indicate the Senate is 
going to have some difficulty in passing what was thought to have been 
an easy thing to pass a few days ago. So I would ask the gentleman to 
join us in looking towards a more optimistic future for this country 
and economy, focusing on employment and those who have been chronically 
out of work.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  First, I would say, there is nothing to disagree with in what the 
gentleman has said. We do want to focus on jobs. We do want to focus on 
creating jobs. We do want to focus on growing the economy. The 
gentleman is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, as the gentleman 
knows, he and I have discussed the agenda that Democrats have been 
talking about for 2\1/2\ years, and it is called Make It In America.
  That Make It In America agenda focuses on manufacturing and growing 
opportunities in this country for good jobs for skilled workers and 
unskilled workers, frankly, but mainly skilled workers in the new 
manufacturing environment in which we find ourselves. That ought to be 
our long-term objective.
  I would say very candidly, Mr. Speaker, we ought not in the short 
term forget those who have been deeply damaged by the economic 
dislocation that has occurred in our society, in our country, and 
frankly globally over the past 5 years, or actually starting in 
December of '07. We ought not to forget those people, because while a 
future investment is very interesting to them, and I am sure important 
to them, their critical interest is in putting food on their table 
today, tomorrow, and the next day. I think the richest country on the 
face of the Earth could do both, I tell the gentleman. And I think that 
we ought to do both, and we have done both in the past.

[[Page 463]]

  We had some job figures that were out today, apparently 87,000 jobs 
in the private sector. That's not enough. We lost 13,000 in the public 
sector apparently for a net of 74,000 appreciation of jobs. That's not 
nearly enough. The gentleman would agree, I know, to solve the problem 
that we have.
  The gentleman talked about the SKILLS Act. That bill would freeze the 
Workforce Investment Act program funding for fiscal years 2014 to 2020. 
We would make no more investment in doing what the gentleman has said 
we want to do. It has already been cut by half since 2001 and would 
also consolidate or eliminate 35 programs, most of them the Workforce 
Incentive Act programs, into State block grants that they could spend 
on things of their choice.
  I am not saying that some States wouldn't make good choices. I think 
they would. Other States would make different choices, and we may or 
may not agree with those. But I certainly tell the gentleman, and he 
and I have had the opportunity talking together, the Make It In America 
agenda, or a jobs agenda, or whatever that agenda is called, is 
certainly something we ought to pursue.
  Let me transition, if I might, Mr. Leader, to talk about another 
issue which analysis of almost every economist and the Congressional 
Budget Office say will help grow the economy, and that is comprehensive 
immigration reform. We continue to believe that that is one of the most 
important issues that this Congress in this second session of the 
Congress ought to deal with. Can the gentleman indicate whether there 
is any possibility of either, as I said in weeks past, bringing the 
four bills that came out of the Judiciary Committee or the border 
security bill that came out of the Homeland Security Committee, I might 
say, unanimously? None of those five bills have been brought to the 
floor.
  The Speaker said just the other day, I am trying to find some way to 
get this thing done. ``Thing'' being immigration reform. He said, It 
is, as you know, not easy. Not going to be an easy path forward, but I 
made it clear since the day after the election, it is time to get this 
done.
  The Speaker said that November 13, 2013, a couple months ago. We are 
very, very hopeful that the Speaker will pursue that, the House will 
pursue that, and the majority leader will put on the floor legislation 
on which we can act. We may or may not agree with the legislation 
brought to the floor, but we think it needs to be given attention, 
consistent with Speaker Boehner's observation, and CBO's assertion, 
that that would have a substantially positive effect on growing the 
economy and creating jobs.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If I could just revisit the issue of the SKILLS Act. The gentleman 
speaks to the amount of money called for in the bill; and I would say 
to the gentleman the thrust behind the SKILLS Act was to try and 
refocus the program on actual effectiveness and results. I think the 
gentleman will agree that the job picture right now is not as bright as 
it should be.
  As I indicated earlier, a lot of the folks who are trying to access 
skills training are unable to do so. There is evidence that existing 
programs are not results oriented like we would like them to be. And 
the purpose behind that bill is to realign the focus of the skills and 
training programs across the country with job availability and openings 
in the different regions of the country.
  So rather than insisting on spending more money on a one-size-fits-
all Washington approach, we provided flexibility for the regions so it 
could be tailored. The skills training programs could be tailored to 
the job openings in these specific regions of the country. And they are 
different. They are different in my region of the country than they are 
in the Pacific Northwest. They are different in the Midwest than they 
are in the Northeast. We know that there is diversity in this country, 
and we should allow for those differences and the improvement reforms 
necessary to make it so that we are not accepting the status quo. I 
would ask the gentleman to take a look at that again as something that 
perhaps we can work on together.
  I would also say, again, the jobs numbers, the gentleman is 
completely correct that these job numbers, this latest report this 
morning reflects the lowest number of jobs added since January of 2011. 
That doesn't speak well about the track record of what is going on 
here. So let's focus on jobs together.
  As for the question about immigration, Mr. Speaker, I think the 
gentleman is right. Immigration reform could be an economic boon to 
this country. We have got to do it right; and along those lines, the 
Speaker has said that we are going to look for the release of a list of 
principles of our position in the majority here in the House of what we 
believe is an appropriate path forward for immigration reform.
  There are plenty of things that we can agree on. As the gentleman 
knows, I have been a strong proponent of the KIDS Act that I am working 
with the chairman of the committee on, because I think all of us can 
agree that we shouldn't hold kids liable for the misdeeds or illegal 
acts of their parents. This country has never been about that. There 
are plenty of things like that, strong border security, and making sure 
that that occurs first so we don't see a continuing problem of illegal 
immigration.
  I think there are plenty of areas for agreement. Hopefully, Mr. 
Speaker, we can see after the release of a set of principles of our 
side that there can be some productive discussions, bipartisan with the 
White House, so that it is not ``my way or the highway,'' and then we 
can see a proper way forward.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for his comments.
  Certainly we are not proponents of ``my way or the highway,'' and I 
am glad, I do believe, that hopefully the majority leader is not 
either.
  Briefly, on the SKILLS Act, we have legislation, of course, on our 
side of the aisle, a number of pieces of legislation which deal with 
training, job skills, and we are certainly prepared to work on those. 
Unfortunately, as the gentleman knows, that bill passed out in a 
partisan way. There were two Democrats who voted for it. But I am 
certainly willing to work with the gentleman, and I think our side of 
the aisle is willing to work with the gentleman to invest and to give 
flexibility so that we can recognize, obviously, that what may be 
needed in my district or the gentleman from Virginia's district is 
different from a district in Washington State or California or Texas or 
Florida or Maine. So I want to assure the gentleman that we are 
prepared to work on that.
  Next, can I ask you when those principles that you talked about might 
be expected, because I think that would be a very positive step 
forward. But, in my view, if we wait long, comprehensive immigration 
reform will not get accomplished, as I believe it should be, in the 
next few months.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that there is 
an expectation that the list of principles will be released in the near 
future, and that is about as definite as I can be. But again, the sense 
is that there is common agreement on certain issues.
  I think that, unfortunately, thus far, given the track record around 
this town, there is very little room for discussion, negotiations, and 
hopefully this can be different. But thus far, Mr. Speaker, all I can 
say is that we are looking for the release of those principles in the 
near future.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  And in conclusion, let me simply say, Mr. Leader, that we welcome 
moving ahead on the omnibus. We think that is very critical. We hope 
that we can address the unemployment insurance issue, not as a 
substitute for focusing on growing jobs and growing the economy, which 
is essential, but in recognition that some 1.3 million people--growing 
by 72,000 people a week--are in deep distress, and we want to help 
them. We think that is the right thing to do. And we think America can 
do

[[Page 464]]

both, grow the economy and help those who have been hurt by the 
decrease in the availability of jobs available.
  Lastly, I might say, that we also hope that we can get to immigration 
reform as quickly as possible, and we look forward to seeing those 
principles.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________