Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule of the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

I note that an appropriations bill and the CJS bill will be on the floor next week.

Let me pursue, if I can, Mr. Speaker, the progress that the Appropriations Committee will be making.

Am I correct, Mr. Leader, that this will be an open rule on the CJS bill?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

I understand, in addition, that the Appropriations Committee continues to mark up bills this week to pass their fourth bill, the Transportation-HUD bill, out of committee.

The question I would propound to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not we anticipate completing the markup of the 12 appropriation bills before the August break?

I yield to the majority Leader.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for the information.

Obviously, one of the bills that I am particularly concerned about is the Labor, Health, and Education investments that we have been making. There is a substantial cut proposed in the 302(b) allocations, which is the allocations of the larger number to the 12 subcommittees, a substantial cut in the Labor-Health bill, well below historic levels. I hope that as we continue to work through the appropriations process, we can address that issue and not double down on the cuts that have already occurred in what I think the Leader and I both believe is a very critical bill, which includes funding for the National Institutes of Health.

We have 31 days left to go before the August break, legislative days, 43 days until our break in October, so time is essence. I would hope that we could address these bills and debate the priorities that these bills represent before we leave for the August break.

I yield to my friend if he wants to comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, the $155 billion, of course, is a gross figure and includes items beyond discretionary figures in that bill.

The fact of the matter is that NIH has been cut by a very substantially higher percentage than that, somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 percent, maybe 5 percent. So it is a substantial decrease in the ability to pursue grants, both external grants and internal research by the NIH, on the afflictions that confront our people, whether it be heart disease, cancer, pediatric research, diabetes, Alzheimer's. All of those will be affected to a much larger extent than would be projected by the gross figure of $155 billion to which the Leader responds.

I certainly will yield.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for his remarks, and I will look forward to debating what he says is an important responsibility of this House, and that is to set priorities. When the Labor-Health bill comes before us--and the $155 billion is the gross number that goes to that committee; the $30 billion-plus is what NIH has, and the $1.5 billion that I am talking about is a cut to NIH, not to the gross figure of $155 billion, so I understand the figures. But we will have an opportunity to debate that when we come to the floor on the Labor-Health bill, if, in fact, we ever come to the floor on the Labor-Health bill. We didn't come to it last year or the year before. Hopefully, we will come to it this year.

Two additional things I would like to ask the leader, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this week, I had an opportunity to meet with a number of DREAMers who want to join the Armed Forces of the United States. There is a bill called the ENLIST Act, introduced by one of our Republican Members, that essentially says that we are going to allow DREAMers to enlist, and through their service, they could establish their paths to citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, that is an important bill for me because my father came from Denmark. He came here in 1934, at the age of 32. He served in the Armed Forces of the United States, and he became a citizen through his service during World War II in the Armed Forces of the United States.

The sponsor of the ENLIST Act wanted to offer it to the defense authorization bill that we just passed. Last year, when the House considered the defense authorization bill, an amendment similar to the ENLIST Act was made in order.

Unfortunately, it was not made in order this time, so we didn't get an opportunity to vote on that one way or the other. The majority leader knows, Mr. Speaker, that I have been asking in almost every colloquy when we are going to consider legislation that will deal with the broken immigration system that confronts us. This was one opportunity. It was, again, rejected. It was not missed--rejected.

So many colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle--Mr. Schock-- said that we need a clear path to citizenship for workers who are already here. Adam Kinzinger said that, through commonsense policies, we have the opportunity to grow our economy, and we must work hard to come to an agreement on how to bring undocumented workers out of the shadows.

John Shimkus said that we have to address the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here by moving them legally into the workforce. The Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, growers, farmworkers, and faith groups across the spectrum are all urging us to pass immigration reform; yet, frankly, we are not addressing it in any way even on this. I think,

surely, we could have gotten a consensus on the ENLIST Act, but it was itself rejected.

I would urge the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to perhaps give us some sense beyond ``we don't trust the President.'' We know that hardly anybody on that side of the aisle trusts the President.

If the issue is simply trusting the President, let's shut down. Let's not do anything, which, essentially, is what we have done, as a matter of fact, as I say that. Let's not do anything. Let's not pass any new laws. That is not what the American people expect, but that seems to be the premise.

Now, presumably, we passed the Defense Authorization Act because we expect the President to pass it; but if we simply don't trust him, why pass the bill?

That is not an excuse. That is not a reason. In fact, it is a derogation of our responsibility, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that the majority leader would tell me when, if ever, we are going to address the broken system that he and I agree is a broken system.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Very frankly, we can't impose my way or the highway in this House, Mr. Speaker, as you well know. The Republicans are in the majority. We can't impose any way. We can simply ask for some way for it to be brought to the floor. It can be brought forth individually, the ENLIST Act.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the majority leader believes the ENLIST Act is going to be brought to the floor. I would ask him whether any of the bills that are passed out of the Republican Judiciary Committee are going to be brought to the floor. They passed out over 6 months ago.

A bill out of the Homeland Security Committee to deal with border security passed out of the committee some 4-plus months ago, and it has not been brought to this floor.

We are not looking for my way. We are looking for any way--some way. We are looking for a path--a way--to get to addressing this issue, and there has been no way. He is correct, but it is not we who are imposing no way.

It is the failure to bring a bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, that we can consider. In a transparent way, the House can work its will, which, of course, was the commitment that Speaker Boehner made when he became the Speaker of this House.

That is the problem. It is not what the President does, and it is not what the Senate does, but it is what we are not doing on this House floor, and that is bringing options to the floor, so that we can vote up or down, and maybe we will lose.

There were four bills out of the Judiciary Committee that we didn't largely support, but the Republican leadership on the committee supported those bills, and the majority of the Republicans supported those bills. They are not to the floor. So it is a question of not doing it your way. We are doing it no way.

I continue to be frustrated when the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, responds to me that, somehow, they don't trust the President. Presumably, they trust their committee chairs. Presumably, you trust yourselves, and presumably, if you bring something to the floor, you trust that you will vote the way you believe as we will do on this side of the aisle.

Maybe some on our side of the aisle will agree with you, and maybe some on your side will agree with us, but if we don't bring it to the floor, it is no way, and we are not going to get much progress there.

There are two other issues I will discuss briefly, unless the majority leader wants to respond to that. The Voting Rights Act, he and I have had brief discussions about that. I know he has expressed himself publicly.

Mr. Leader, is there any possibility of our making progress on the Voting Rights Act between now and the August break?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the majority leader for his continuing positive comments with respect to assuring that every American not only has the right to vote, but has the access to vote and that we facilitate one's casting of that vote.

I look forward and my office looks forward to continuing to work with him towards that objective. Time, of course, is of the essence on this, so I am hopeful that we can move forward sooner, rather than later.

The last subject I would bring up--and we have also had brief discussions on this, Mr. Speaker, with the majority leader--is that the Export-Import Bank authority will expire in the not too distant future.

We believe on this side of the aisle that this is a very, very important piece of legislation. We have an agenda called Make It In America. One of the things that is important for the Make It in America agenda is to encourage and to facilitate the exporting of goods overseas. We think the Export-Import Bank does exactly that.

I would ask the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, if there is any prospect of bringing that to the floor. I might observe that the majority leader and I worked very, very closely and effectively, in a bipartisan way, when we authorized the Export-Import Bank the last time. I am hopeful that we can continue to do the same.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

I understand that comment. I also understand that the chairman of the Financial Services Committee is opposed to the Export- Import Bank. He has said that publicly.

So I would hope, at some point in time, again, that the majority of the House could work its will because I do not believe that the chairman of the Financial Services Committee represents the majority of this House in this instance.

Therefore, I am hopeful that we can move forward and that I can work with the majority leader's office, as we did with the last authorization, to reach that objective.

Mr. Speaker, unless the majority leader asks me to yield, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session in observation of Memorial Day.

On Tuesday, the House will meet in pro forma session at noon and no votes are expected.

On Wednesday, 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 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 at the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 4660, the Fiscal Year 2015 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act, sponsored by subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf. Members are advised that general and amendment debate to the bill is expected after the 6 p.m. vote series on Wednesday night.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 4661, the Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act authored by Chairman Mike Rogers. Providing the tools and the oversight of the intelligence community is a vital role of Congress, as we have shown earlier today. We should remember the intelligence community serves a vital role in warning senior policymakers about looming threats, and is absolutely essential to meeting the needs of our military. Sustaining our military and intelligence capabilities are core interests of the United States. I look forward to swift passage of this bill in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the Rules Committee has already done its work and the House has already passed the bill, the rule bill, which provides for an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the committee certainly has expressed its desire, as our conference has, as the Speaker has, to move all 12 appropriations bills, and we will move towards that goal in an expeditious nature as much as we can.

I would say to the gentleman just briefly, there is a $1 billion cut to a $155 billion bill. That represents a 0.9 percent decrease, according to what the committee has set forth as far as the 302(b)s are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

Just to clarify, the amount of the $155 billion is the 302(b). That is the discretionary amount. So I would just underscore the fact that the $1 billion cut applies to the $155 billion discretionary amount.

But the gentleman knows--he has worked on issues of NIH funding--he knows that I am very committed to making a priority out of funding medical research at NIH. We have been successful in the House. The President signed into law the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, which is just the first step towards making a priority out of medical research, in this instance, for pediatrics, and to doing away with spending in other areas that are not as much of a priority.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that leadership is about assessing priorities and making sure taxpayer dollars are being allocated as such.

We also passed bills out of the House having to do with graduate medical education and making sure that pediatrics and the need for more pediatricians to deal with children is there.

I share the gentleman's overall concern that we make a commitment long term to finding cures so that we can ultimately save lives, but also save taxpayer dollars, as we would like to arrest the increase in health care costs.

The gentleman knows that I am one who consistently says that the system of immigration is broken. I have also said that I am mindful and support the fact that, if a kid who is brought here by his or her parents--unbeknownst to that child--has never lived anywhere else or remembers living anywhere else and wants to serve in our military, he should be able to do so. It is my position that that child should have a path to citizenship after such service.

However, the NDAA bill was not the appropriate place for the discussion on that issue. I have been consistent with that position over the last several weeks and months. I remain committed to what the intent of the ENLIST Act is trying to achieve. There are Members involved who are working on the necessary language to see whether it is possible for us to move forward on that measure.

Beyond that, on the issue of the comprehensive bill that the gentleman refers to, he knows--we have stood here many times before--we are opposed to the Senate bill. I have had discussions with the White House, and I continue to say we are opposed to a comprehensive bill.

Whether the gentleman likes or doesn't like the fact that there is not a lot of trust on the part of this House or of this majority in the President, frankly, it is about the American people. What they have seen is unilateral action being taken by this White House and the President on bills passed by Congress.

It is, at a minimum, frustrating for us in the House to watch what goes on and the flouting of Congress--the ignoring of Congress--when it comes to decisions made to implement a law according to what the White House thinks it is, not according to the statute. This is the fundamental problem, and I have expressed that myself to the President.

If we could see our way towards discrete, incremental steps toward strengthening law enforcement at the border and toward doing things like the green card on the diploma or the ENLIST Act without the introduction of the insistence of a comprehensive attempt, then I believe we may be able to make progress, but to this day, it has been my way or the highway, all or nothing. That is not going to work.

I have told that to the gentleman publicly and privately, Mr. Speaker, and I would just say so again.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, I am committed and remain committed to upholding the very sacred right to vote for all American citizens, and I see the Voting Rights Act as something that has historically afforded that ability.

The recent actions of the Supreme Court have raised some issues, obviously, in the minds of some in the House. We have been working with our Members on our side of the aisle, as well as on the gentleman's.

I know the Senate is undertaking hearings across the way, and it is still my hope to try and resolve this in an acceptable manner. I do know that there are still a lot of differences and that the gentleman knows as well, but I remain committed, again, to making sure that we uphold that sacred right to vote for all American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I have said to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Hensarling, that I will look to him and his leadership on that issue as the committee works its way through the varying issues and the Member positions that are out there, and I will look to see what the Financial Services Committee does.