Legislative Program

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source