[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4990-4992]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I am pleased to 
yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, the majority leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, 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 next week, a 
complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. 
In addition, the House will consider an important bill next week to 
address the middle class squeeze by making sure that government 
policies do not provide incentives for employers to cut hours for their 
employees. H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act, sponsored by 
Representative Todd Young of Indiana, will protect hardworking 
Americans from losing up to 25 percent of their wages as a direct 
result of ObamaCare's 30-hour rule.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I expect the House to consider the first of 
three budget process reform bills next week to help reduce out-of-
control spending and improve accountability to the taxpayers. 
Representative Tom Price's Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, H.R. 1874, will 
require CBO to provide detailed information on the economic impacts of 
major legislation as a supplement to CBO cost estimates.
  With that, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.
  The gentleman released an agenda memo about a week ago and talked 
about a budget coming to the floor of the House of Representatives. My 
understanding is that the budget will be marked up in committee next 
week, and my presumption is when we come back, the budget will be on 
the floor. Is that correct? And if the gentleman can give me maybe some 
week that it will be on the floor, if not the day.

[[Page 4991]]

  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and he is correct. 
The Budget chairman, Mr. Ryan, intends to hold a markup next week in 
his committee, and the expectation is, once that markup occurs next 
week, that we will have the budget on the floor the following week.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those comments.
  Further, it is my understanding, Mr. Leader, that the budget number 
that the committee will mark to is the budget number that was included 
in the Ryan-Murray agreement that was adopted by the Congress and 
signed by the President at $1.014 trillion in discretionary spending. 
Is that accurate?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, that is 
accurate.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that that is being 
honored. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not the firewall that is 
also included in the Ryan-Murray agreement will be honored as well? The 
firewall, just an explanation, and I know the majority leader knows, 
but the firewall between discretionary defense spending and 
discretionary nondefense spending.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I have not had 
discussion with the chairman on that particular issue. I am aware of 
the gentleman's concern, and I think the gentleman represents his 
caucus in the desire, unfortunately, to limit the defense spending. I 
think the question is probably aimed at the fact that we have 
differences on that because, given what is going on in the world right 
now, I feel very strongly for the need for American military power and 
our ability to project that, not always necessarily to use it, but 
necessary in our diplomatic role as well, so I don't have an answer to 
the gentleman on that and refer him to the Budget chair. I am glad to 
engage in any conversation with him going forward.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Just to make it clear, as I know he would want me to do: I am opposed 
to the sequester because I think the sequester damages our national 
security and domestic investments. Frankly, although the 1.014 number 
is not the sequester number, as the gentleman knows, the following year 
will be the sequester number because the agreement only lasts for 2 
years. My own view is that the number that we are marking to in 2015 is 
not substantive enough, not sufficient funds to fund the kind of 
national security that we need in this country, so I am in agreement 
with the gentleman, but it is a direct consequence, in my view, of the 
fiscal policies that we have been pursuing. So I want to say to my 
friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side--
certainly me for 33 years, I have been a very strong supporter of a 
robust national security because I believe that is essential if we are 
going to maintain freedom around the world, as well as safety here at 
home. I know the gentleman and I share that view, and I appreciate his 
view on that.
  Unless he wants to respond, I will go to another issue.
  As you know, we filed a discharge petition on H.R. 15, which is the 
comprehensive immigration bill that we have introduced that reflects, 
we think, a fix of a broken system, which the majority leader has made 
clear he shares the view that the system is broken. We would hope that 
that bill could be brought to the floor. We would hope that at least 
218 Members would sign that. We have approximately 235 Members who have 
said publicly to the press and to the public that they are for 
comprehensive immigration reform. We would hope that that would lead 
them to sign the discharge petition so we in fact could bring that bill 
to the floor.
  Does the gentleman have any idea when or if some immigration reform 
legislation will be brought to this floor so that we can deal with a 
system that is obviously causing a great deal of difficulty in our 
country and is, in fact, a broken system?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, and he knows 
and he and I have spoken, that most of our conference feels strongly 
that the existing system is broken. We have got to do something about 
maintaining the enforcement and implementation of the law. We have to 
do something about the antiquated system of legal immigration to 
address the needs of our country.
  The problem has been, Mr. Speaker, that there is a serious 
deterioration in the trust factor with what is going on in terms of the 
White House and its execution and implementation of the laws. I recall, 
Mr. Speaker, a prior conversation that my friend, the Democratic whip, 
and I have had on this floor about the trust factor. I in one instance 
even indicated to the gentleman that the comprehensive health care law 
that was passed, now in the vernacular known as ObamaCare, is an 
example of where we have seen that the White House has by whim, 
seemingly, chosen to either waive provisions, extend deadlines without 
consultation with Congress, seemingly without awareness of what the law 
says. That is not a good way to operate. It is not something that 
increases the confidence and trust of the American people. So I would 
say to the gentleman, there is no interest in picking up a 
comprehensive bill like that if we can't trust that once the law is 
set, that the White House is going to necessarily implement the law as 
it stands.
  So I am sorry to say to the gentleman that the situation of trust is 
how it is, but perhaps he could do some good by talking to the White 
House and telling the White House the law is the law, and for their 
unilateral actions taking place and failing to implement the law is a 
very troubling thing for a lot of us and a lot of the constituents that 
we represent.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, when I ask this question we usually do change the 
subject to get on the Affordable Care Act. There is hardly any subject 
that motivates my friends on the other side of the aisle more to say 
something than the Affordable Care Act.
  If the gentleman believes that trust is the issue and that we can't 
trust the President to do any of the laws that we pass, then we ought 
to just stop doing things. As a matter of fact, that is just about what 
we have done, Mr. Speaker. Maybe that is the strategy--to pass message 
bills with no expectation that they will pass either the Senate and be 
signed by the President, and maybe all we are doing is treading water.
  My own view would be that the American public expects more than that. 
If it is broken, as the gentleman says it is, and he says just now a 
significant number, I don't know if it is a majority of his caucus, 
believe it is broken, then they have passed out bills out of their 
committee. This is not a question of trust; this is a question of can 
this House act. We can't control what the President does. We can't 
control what the United States Senate does. But as the majority leader 
well knows, Mr. Speaker, in times past I have said what we can control 
is what we do. What we can do is pass policy that we think is good 
policy, or at least that a majority of us think is a good policy, to 
fix a system.
  We believe strongly that a comprehensive immigration bill is good for 
this country. Not only do we believe it is morally right to do, but we 
also believe that economically it is right to do. In fact, CBO scores 
the passage of a comprehensive immigration bill as a substantial help 
to the budget deficit. That we take people, put them on the tax rolls, 
make sure they are paying the taxes that are due, and make sure that 
our country is getting the revenues that it should be getting from 
those who are working in our country.
  In fact, of course, in addition to that, if you talk to many people 
in industry, that is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has urged us to 
pass a comprehensive reform bill, it is why the AFL-CIO has urged us to 
pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and it is why the 
agricultural community, the growers of America, have urged us to pass a 
comprehensive immigration bill, and it is why farmworker 
representatives have urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration 
reform bill, and why most faith-based organizations in America have 
urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration bill.

[[Page 4992]]

  I know there are some Members who would vote against it, but I urge 
my friend, the majority leader: bring it to the floor. I have said this 
before, but the Speaker made it very clear that he was going to lead 
this House in a way that would allow the House to work its will. If the 
majority of this House doesn't trust the President and they don't want 
to vote for H.R. 15, so be it. They will do that; they will vote 
``no.''
  But I believe there are the votes on the floor to pass comprehensive 
immigration reform, and the only reason it is not passing is because it 
is not brought to the floor. For that reason, Mr. Majority Leader, I 
would ask you, as respectfully as I can, to put the bill on the floor. 
You may well be right. Your party, which if it all votes together, 
could defeat a comprehensive immigration bill. If your party believes 
that is good policy and because of a lack of trust of the President, 
that should be the road that you go down, then fine. Let the American 
people see that.
  If, however, there are at least very close to half of this House who 
are going to be signing that discharge petition, believe that it is 
good policy, and if, in fact, Speaker Boehner meant what he said, that 
he was going to allow the House to work its will, I would urge the 
majority leader to let the House work its will and bring that bill to 
the floor. Open it up for amendments. If the gentleman's party wants to 
offer amendments or my side wants to offer amendments, let that be the 
case. But let us let the House at least have the opportunity to work 
its will on this very, very important bill that we think is one of the 
most critical issues that we ought to be addressing.
  I yield to my friend if he would like to respond.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, all I would like to say to the gentleman is 
he and I disagree that there would be a majority of votes for H.R. 15. 
It is a reflection of the comprehensive Senate bill, and I don't 
believe we have a majority in this House for that bill.
  I would furthermore ask the gentleman whether he thinks--or I would 
just say that perhaps it would be more constructive that we sit down 
and begin to talk about where we can go in a direction that we have in 
common, that we feel that we can agree on things rather than 
differences; rather than filing discharge petitions, perhaps it would 
be a little more constructive to sit down, instead of demanding our way 
or the highway.
  Again, too much of that has been the way this town has worked over 
the last several years, and it is unfortunate.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. He and 
I have a difference of opinion. We discussed this the last time, as I 
recall. We have a difference of opinion. He thinks it would not pass. I 
think it would pass.
  The good news for America is there is a very easy way to determine 
who is right and who is wrong. Put the bill on the floor, give the 
House a vote, give America a vote. If I am wrong, I will stand up on 
the floor of the House and say I was wrong.
  I am sure that my friend, the majority leader, will do the same if, 
in fact, he is wrong, but we have an easy way in America to resolve 
such differences because we all have differences of opinion.
  In a democracy, you vote. In a democracy, you resolve differences by 
coming together. I look forward to sitting down with the gentleman on 
this issue. I would reiterate I look forward to dealing with him on 
other issues as we have been able to do in many instances. I thank him 
for that opportunity.
  We can resolve this difference by simply bringing the bill to the 
floor, giving America a vote, and letting the House work its will. 
Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                          ____________________