Floor Statements

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 close of business today.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 2397, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, authored by Representative Bill Young. This bill provides the resources necessary for our men and women in the armed services to carry out their vital mission.

There are also a number of bills the Appropriations Committee has reported which may come to the floor in the near future.

Furthermore, the House may consider two energy bills out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The first bill, H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, authored by Representative David McKinley, would create an enforceable minimum standard for the regulation of coal ash by the States, allowing their use in a safe manner that protects jobs.

The second bill, H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, sponsored by Representative Bill Cassidy, will require the EPA, before finalizing any energy-related rule costing more than $1 billion, to report to Congress on specific energy price and job impacts.

Both of these bills, Mr. Speaker, foster an environment of economic growth and lower energy costs for American families and businesses.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the House acted last month to prevent the doubling of the student loan interest rate. Should the Senate send us legislation, the House may act as soon as next week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'd respond to the gentleman by saying that we are committed to acting with urgency to bring to the floor a bill under the nutrition title of what was formerly the farm bill, which that title married up with the agricultural provisions.

It is our hope that we can get a nutrition bill to the floor, because we believe strongly that the programs under those titles, providing a safety net to the country's most vulnerable, are something important that we maintain and we implement the kind of reforms to those programs that have long been called for by the GAO and others so that we can make sure of the efficient flow of dollars to those beneficiaries who most need it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I know that the gentleman, in his call for regular order, also knows that the House has its prerogatives, as does the other body. We believe strongly that marriage of the two constituencies of the old farm bill was a marriage that began some 40 years ago. And, frankly, it is the sense of the majority in the House that that marriage makes little sense and that, instead, if we could, as a House, opt to be transparent and look at the policies on the agricultural side the way that we did and then look at the policies under the nutrition title in the same deliberative fashion, that we can actually make for a better product.

Now, the gentleman says that the farm bill that was passed was a partisan bill. Certainly, no member of the minority voted for the bill, but I would, and not to rehash colloquy from several weeks ago, say that the same attitude was taken with the old farm bill by the minority saying it was too partisan.

We intend to proceed deliberately, looking at policies that make sense in reforming these programs in the vein of trying to get to those most vulnerable the relief they need, at the same time paying cognizance to the fact that we have fiscal challenges we must deal with.

We're trying to be about truth in legislating, Mr. Speaker, and that is making sure that the purpose of agricultural policy is adequately addressed, as well as the purpose of the nutrition title and providing relief to our country's most vulnerable.

Again, not to belabor the point but just to correct the facts and make sure that the record reflects what I did say before and what I represented, I said it was our intention to act with dispatch to bring to the floor a bill dealing with the SNAP program, that portion of which was traditionally the farm bill, and that we intend to be bringing that vehicle to the floor at some time in the near future. I did not say, Mr. Speaker, what it was the gentleman indicated.

We would like to say to all of our colleagues that we want to work together on a nutrition title. The gentleman heard what I said before. The marriage of those two bills and policies was done in an arbitrary fashion 50 years ago, as he indicated. There is no policy reason for that to be done. And we're trying to get down to what policy works and the reform of making sure that we pay attention to the efficacy of the programs, getting the dollars to the people who need it, and doing so in an efficient manner takes some deliberative approach. That is why Members on the majority side of the aisle felt very strongly that we should act in the way we did. And we intend to bring a nutrition title to the floor. We're working with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to get that policy right.

So I hope that the gentleman, in his spirit of bipartisanship, will work with us to do that.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that, yes, we are looking forward to the legislative activity for the remainder of this month, as I said earlier, to include appropriations bills. We also look towards the prospect of the other body perhaps beginning to act, as the gentleman indicated, at all on appropriations bills.

It does take two to be bicameral. We need that body to act as well. I look forward to seeing how we resolve differences on spending levels and policy differences as we approach the end of the fiscal year, very well aware that we have challenges ahead, and look to find resolution to those, yes, in a bipartisan way and necessarily in a bicameral way.

The gentleman knows that he speaks of two different things when it comes to spending and when it comes to the budget blueprint.

The gentleman and I, Mr. Speaker, have had this discussion several times in these colloquies about why it is that Chairman Ryan has taken the position he has, as has our Speaker and our leadership, in that we don't want to go into a discussion if the prerequisite is you have to raise taxes. That's the bottom line. It's not process. It's substance. It is one of those issues that continues to make the divide between the parties.

Frankly, if one thinks that Washington spends tax dollars well, that we should go ahead and ask the hardworking taxpayers to pay more. Our side doesn't believe in that approach. Until we get beyond that, I'm not so sure there's going to be resolution as to a budget conference.

It does not mean that we cannot continue the work that we are doing on the appropriations bills and on the other policy measures that are coming to this floor in hopes of finding areas we can agree on. But there is a strong one we disagree on--and that is the issue of additional revenues in an environment where Washington doesn't spend what it does spend well.

We're trying to get to the bottom of that, effect good policy, act in a deliberative manner, and are willing to work with the Senate. The problem is the Senate hasn't even begun their appropriations process on the floor there. And that was my point about bicameral and, hopefully, in a bipartisan way.

I didn't say no relationship. I said the gentleman knows that we're talking about two different things when we're talking about a budget blueprint and the spending bills. Two different things.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that, as he correctly indicated, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), has said that our system of immigration is broken and that he and the members of that committee are fast about trying to look at the complex issues of our immigration system and trying to deal with them in a fashion that is discrete on each issue, with a solution thereto. And in that committee we are in the process, as the gentleman knows, of looking at all of that and intend on making sure we get it right. The chairman has said rather than just doing it, we want to do it right. And we intend to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the DOD approps bill will be coming to the floor, and the Rules Committee will decide on the structure and how that debate will occur. We will announce that, obviously, upon the Rules Committee meeting.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Fairness for American Families Act.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting here on the floor to hear the leadership of the minority continue their cries of objection based on claims of politics and process. Now we're talking about substance here. Instead, what we hear are objections about our position, somehow insinuating that we don't care about people's health care. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say it is exactly the opposite. We're talking about substance and we're talking about ways that we can improve the prospects for quality health care for Americans.

For several years, Republicans have been warning the American people about the devastating impact ObamaCare will have on both jobs and health care, and it now appears that Democrats--and even the President himself--are beginning to agree. The decision by the administration earlier this month to delay the employer mandate to 2015 is a clear signal that even the administration doesn't believe the country is ready to sustain the painful impact this law will have. Fortunately, others, including some of the law's most ardent supporters, are starting to realize the same.

Just this week, Democratic leaders of the House and Senate were sent a letter from the presidents of three major unions warning that if changes were not made to the Affordable Care Act, it would ``destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, to me, that's real. That's not just games. That's real.

Now, continuing, these union leaders claim that if the Affordable Care Act was enacted without being modified, it would ``destroy the very health and well-being of our members, along with millions of other hardworking Americans.''

These consequences resulting from employees having their hours cut and their health benefits jeopardized represent what these leaders described as ``nightmare scenarios.''

Mr. Speaker, I'd submit again, that's real. That's not just games.

It is now explicitly clear to people across political lines that promises were made and now broken, and ObamaCare is not working. Now, this is the direction we need to take. This is the common ground. If we have bipartisan agreement that things just aren't working under ObamaCare, let's work to improve the situation for Americans.

Why is it that working Americans have to suffer the financial burdens of an overreaching, government-run health care system while the same consequences for big business are delayed a year? The White House won't offer an answer to that because, I believe, they've run out of excuses. They've run out of ideas, and now they're starting to backpedal.

The Fairness for American Families Act will extend the delay of these mandates to all Americans. No family's health, well-being, or employment should suffer while businesses get a break. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would join us in this effort to bring basic fairness to everyone.

I would like to thank Congressman Todd Young from Indiana for his hard work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet in pro forma session at 10 a.m. No votes are expected.

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 bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

The House will also vote to delay, for a year, both the employer mandate and the individual mandate under ObamaCare. As the Speaker and the gentleman know, the administration declared last week that they would delay the enforcement of the mandate on businesses for a year, but not the mandate on working families and individuals. We will respond next week to correct this injustice.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House may consider H.R. 5, the Student Success Act authored by Chairman John Kline. The bill represents a solid, commonsense approach to education to provide our next generation with the education they need to keep America competitive in the world economy.

Finally, the House may consider the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014 drafted by Representative Bill Young for the resources necessary for our troops.

I thank the gentleman.

I would say to the gentleman, the chairman, the Speaker, and other members of leadership are in discussions about how to expedite an agreement on the farm bill. Certainly it is our intention to act with dispatch to bring to the floor a bill dealing with the SNAP program, that portion of what was traditionally the farm bill. We intend to be bringing that vehicle to the floor at some time in the near future. It is our intention to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentleman, as he knows, this Congress, as was the last Congress, has been a Congress that is as committed to the open process as any in recent history. I would say to the gentleman that the Speaker continues to insist that we strive toward that open process to allow for as much debate and exchange of ideas as possible to benefit the American people as well as the outcome of legislation.

I would tell the gentleman again that the Rules Committee, as the gentleman knows when he was in the position of majority leader, determines the structure of debate, and I would remind the gentleman that the discourse and debate on this floor has been a lot more open than in years past, and I would remind him of that.

I'd say to the gentleman, it is not correct to say that we have that bill. There was a tax, I believe, that was added to the bill so we do not have that. I would say to the gentleman, though, as he knows, our conference members met yesterday to discuss the path forward so far as immigration reform is concerned. I would say to characterize the agreement on our side, we all believe we need to fix a broken system of immigration and we need to rebuild the trust of the American people and the operation of government in terms of securing our borders and enforcing the law, at the same time balancing that with the history and tradition of our country as one that is built on immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, July 15, 2013.

I thank the gentleman from Washington for his leadership on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. For too long, our economy has remained stagnant and the unemployment rate high. And for too long, hardworking American families have been suffering the consequences. These tough economic times are, in part, a direct result of our current energy policies.

Over the past several years, the Obama administration has been leading this country in the wrong direction with regard to our domestic energy production by enacting a plan that keeps 85 percent of America's coastal areas off limits to energy exploration. These Federal barriers have cost Americans jobs, surrendered much-needed revenue streams that would benefit the States, and decreased access to drilling areas that would allow us to become less dependent on foreign oil.

This administration has consistently been hostile to affordable domestic energy. Just this week, a senior advisor to the President said:

The one thing the President really needs to do now is to

begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal

plants. A war on coal is exactly what's needed.

This should not come as a surprise, since President Obama also has said in the past, ``Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''

So, Mr. Chairman, we must harness our resources, contrary to these statements, not close them off. This bill reforms our current policy by requiring the administration to submit a 5-year leasing plan by 2015 that contains new offshore areas with the greatest known oil and gas reserves. Some of these areas have been estimated at 2.5 billion barrels of oil, or up to 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. There's simply no reason not to explore these areas with so much potential.

This legislation also establishes a fair revenue-sharing system among coastal States where energy resources are explored. Whether it's off the coast of California, along the Gulf of Mexico, or the coast of my home State of Virginia, each State will share a percentage of revenue from energy production off their shores.

This bill also ensures environmental protections remain a priority by reorganizing the Interior Department to include the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, charged with overseeing environmental safety.

Now, studies have indicated that energy production offshore, in my home State of Virginia, if this legislation is put into law, could create almost 2,000 new jobs in Virginia alone and produce 750 million barrels of oil and over 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Mr. Chairman, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act will lower gas prices for working families. It will strengthen our national security, and help create up to a million new jobs across America in the long term. The people of this country deserve a government focused on restoring the faith in our economy, and this bill is a step in the right direction.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Hastings for his hard work on this measure, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment.

In 1996, the Congress came together in a bipartisan way to change the incentive structure in our basic cash welfare program that helps needy families. The results were nothing but a success. Within 5 years, welfare caseloads fell by more than 60 percent, and the economic prospects of many former welfare families were substantially improved. America saw increased earnings by low-income families and significant reductions in child poverty. The incentives were right, and even in the depths of the worst economic turmoil of a few years ago, the reforms were succeeding at moving families from dependency into work.

Those changes made in welfare reform resulted from a foundation laid before 1996 in which States experimented with different approaches to determine which ones were the most effective at increasing workforce participation and boosting earnings. Prior to enactment of welfare reform, States had been given waivers of the old law to become laboratories of innovation.

The amendment by Mr. Southerland before us today builds on that successful approach and will give States the opportunity to test whether the same successful strategies that were used in cash welfare programs in the 1990s will help food stamp recipients gain and retain employment and boost their earnings today. Mr. Southerland's amendment provides for a pilot program, which will allow States, if they choose, to apply the TANF work requirements to their able-bodied working age adult food stamp caseload.

States have come forward asking us for the ability to enter into these demonstration projects. But unless we adopt the gentleman's amendment, these States won't be able to launch these demonstration projects.

This amendment is well crafted and takes into consideration the availability of child care for mothers with young children and hardship situations like families facing domestic violence.

The Southerland amendment also tells States that if they're successful at increasing work participation and families' earnings among the food stamp caseload, they will share in the savings that would otherwise end up in the hands of the Federal Government.

If enacted, this amendment will help reduce Federal expenditures, provide assistance to the States, and most importantly it will help struggling families who find themselves relying on public assistance to get back on their feet.

Right now, many American families are struggling, and the SNAP program is in place to help these families who find themselves in dire economic circumstances. While this program is an important part of our safety net, our overriding goal should be to help our citizens with the education and skills they need to get back on their feet so that they can provide for themselves and their families.

I'd like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland) for his work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 11 a.m.; no votes are expected. 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 bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

In addition, I expect the House to take up and pass two bills from the Natural Resources Committee: H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, authored by Chairman Doc Hastings; and H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon

Agreements Authorization Act, sponsored by Representative Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. These two bills continue our efforts to increase domestic energy production to foster an environment of economic growth and lower energy costs for working families.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I anticipate bringing to the floor H.R. 2410, the Agriculture appropriations bill authored by Representative Robert Aderholt of Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that the House has acted, that the position of the House is one very close to where the President's public position on student loans has been. We don't want to see student loan rates double. We also want a long-term solution to the problem on the fiscal end while helping students.

And if the gentleman witnesses what just happened on the floor, it just seems that on bills where there are solutions and bipartisan indications of support, there seems to be a decision by the part of his leadership, perhaps himself, to say, Hey, we're not going to go along with bipartisan work and success, and maybe we're just going to make this a partisan issue. I'm fearful the same is at work on the student loan issue, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that that is not the case, because I know the gentleman shares with me a desire not to allow students to be put in the position of facing a doubling of interest rates if they decide to incur additional student loans.

So I would say to the gentleman, his question, we will stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion--I've indicated so to the White House. The Senate doesn't seem to be able to produce anything. The House is the only one that produced something--very close to what the President's position is--to make student rates variable, to allow for those rates to be capped so the exposure is not what it would be otherwise. Unfortunately, no movement yet. We stand ready to work though.

I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. And allow me to just to respond.

The Southerland amendment to which the gentleman speaks is an amendment that had been discussed for some time with the ranking member, with the chairman--the gentleman himself, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, was aware of Mr. Southerland's amendment.

Mr. Southerland's amendment reflects what many of us believe is a successful formula to apply to a program that has, in the eyes of the GAO, in the eyes of the independent auditors who look at these programs, a program that is in dire need of improvement because of the error rates and the waste and the other things that are occurring in this program.

In addition to that, it reflects our strong belief that able-bodied people should have the opportunity and should go in and be a productive citizen. That's what this amendment says. It gives States an option. It was a pilot project because it reflects a winning formula from the welfare reform program back in 1996 that was put into place, with unequivocal success--able-bodied people going back to work, working families beginning to have productive income, not just taking a check from the government.

There was never an intention at all for our side to say we want to take away the safety net of the food stamp program, absolutely not. This was a pilot project, that was it. It was up to the States whether they wanted to participate to see if they could get more people back to work. Again, consistent with what the GAO reports have said over and over again, these programs are in need of reform.

Again, it was not as if this amendment came out of thin air. The gentleman, the ranking member, the entire leadership on the minority side knew this amendment was there. And the gentleman forever is on this floor, Mr. Speaker, talking about regular order, talking about the need for us to have open process, perhaps to let the will of the House be worked and then go to conference. That was what the goal here was, let the will of the House allowed to be seen through, work its will, and then go to conference. And then we would try and participate in a robust discussion with the other side of the Capitol to see if we could see clear on some reform measures to a bill and a program that is in desperate need of that.

Mr. Speaker, again, what we saw today was a Democratic leadership in the House that was insistent to undo years and years of bipartisan work on an issue like a farm bill and decide to make it a partisan issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that that is the case, I do agree with the gentleman. But I hope that we can see our way to working on other issues where there is potential agreement. Yes, we have fundamental disagreements on many things, but we're all human beings, representing the 740-some thousand people that put us here and expect us to begin to learn to set aside those disagreements and find ways we can work together.

Today was an example. The other side, Mr. Speaker, did not think that was their goal, did not think that was an appropriate mission, and instead decided to emphasize where they perhaps

differed when we wanted to reform in a certain area.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would just say, as far as the budget conference is concerned, the budget is something that traditionally, as he notes, has been a partisan affair. It is a document that each House produces, reflecting the philosophy of the majority of those bodies.

The budget contains a lot of different issues, two of which I think the parties have disagreed on vehemently over the last several years: taxes and health care.

We understand, Mr. Speaker, that the other side rejects our prescription on how to fix the deficit in terms of the unfunded liabilities on the health care programs. We've said we want to work toward a balance. We think a balanced budget is a good thing.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the partisan position on the other side of the Capitol is no balance--no balance--and raise taxes. So when you know that is the situation, there is no construct in which to even begin a discussion.

Again, the budget has traditionally been that, a partisan document, whether who is in charge of which House, and then to be a guide by which you go about spending bills after that.

The farm bill, frankly, is a little different. It's for working farmers. It's for, frankly, individuals who need the benefit of the food stamp program. We believe that you need to reform the SNAP program and reduce some of the costs, because even the GAO--the independent auditors that we bring in--year in and year out say that that program is rife with error rates, waste, and others that we should be ashamed of.

So we put forward our idea through the Southerland amendment to try and reform, put in place, those reforms; but it's still in the construct of the farm bill.

Again, to the gentleman's point, we do want to work together, but it's going to have to be about setting aside differences instead of saying, as the minority leadership did today, You disagree with us on that program, we're out of here. The entire farm bill then does not have a chance to go to conference, be reconciled, hopefully reforms adopted, so we can make some progress, according to what even the independent analysts say should be done.

It really is a disappointing day. I think that the minority has been a disappointing player today, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the people. We remain ready to work with the gentleman. I'm hopeful that tomorrow, perhaps next week, will be a better week.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Monday, June 24, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Pastor Bradley Hales of the Reformation Lutheran Church of Culpeper, Virginia, to the House floor.

For the past 19 years, Pastor Hales has been focusing on the renewal and revitalization of churches for greater growth and involvement in their communities. As the leader of his church in Culpeper, he has overseen the expansion of a congregation that was once only several dozen members strong to over 240 today.

With a great passion and caring for our senior citizens, Pastor Hales was very influential in starting The Place, a gathering center within the church for seniors who wish to meet others and stay involved with their community.

Pastor Hales' civic engagement and enthusiasm for improving the lives of others is not limited to the house of worship. Pastor Hales also serves as a member of the Culpeper Human Services Board and teaches Civil War history at the Culpeper Christian School.

His energy and compassion have a positive effect on so many, the Culpeper Times named him Citizen of the Year in 2012.

Pastor Hales, I'd like to thank you for being with us here today and offering this morning's prayer. Your leadership and willingness to help others is an inspiration to us all.

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

Last week, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland was kind enough to note and celebrate my birthday with a colloquy, and luckily, I get to return the favor today. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say happy birthday to my friend, Mr. Hoyer, and wish him many, many more birthdays.

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 close of business today. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 1797, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. I also expect the House to consider H.R. 1947, the Federal Agricultural Reform and Risk Management Act. Chairman Frank Lucas and the members of the Agriculture Committee have worked very hard to produce a 5-year farm bill with strong reforms, and I look forward to a full debate on the floor.

I thank the gentleman and wish him a happy birthday again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I would respond by saying that it's certainly our intention to complete deliberation on the farm bill. The Speaker has continued to commit himself and our conference to an open process for this House, and I look forward to a robust debate on what, as the gentleman knows, has been a bipartisan effort at the committee.

I would respond by saying that I do think there is a commitment to genuine and robust debate on all sides. And hopefully, without speaking to details because, as the gentleman knows, the Rules Committee has not met, that would include all subject matter in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

There has been a lot of discussion that I have been receiving, comments, input from Members, and we're looking at weighing those suggestions and inputs as to how the Rules Committee will deliberate in terms of the rule and how the bill comes to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and would respond by saying, as has been the custom in this Congress and last, we will continue to abide by the 3-day notice, and I do think there will be adequate time for review by parties on all sides.

Mr. Speaker, I do think that the posting of the bill will occur shortly. And I also would tell the gentleman to expect the vote sooner than Wednesday, perhaps on Tuesday. As the gentleman indicated before by his question on the farm bill, that may take up a considerable amount of time and debate. So I would just respond in that way.

I thank the gentleman again.

It has always been the commitment on the part of the Speaker and the majority to try and accommodate the need for open debate on issues of contention especially; and not speaking for the Rules Committee, I do think that we'll continue to see that tradition in the House being followed. Again, I thank the gentleman for raising the concern.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Just very quickly I would respond by saying that the gentleman is correct. There has been a lot of debate around the issue that he refers to. There was considerable debate in the HASC committee, and the HASC committee, House Armed Services, came up with a bipartisan approach to the sexual assault issue, and it was inserted into the base bill. And, in fact, it is consistent with President Obama's view and the Pentagon's view on this issue.

So I understand that the gentleman may differ, but it was certainly a bipartisan product that was in the bill. And I hear the gentleman in terms of procedure and perhaps a characterization of a vote; but I do think, at the end, the minority was afforded the motion to recommit.

And the characterization that we believe is a procedural vote, the gentleman takes another view. I understand that the subject matter was the same as these amendments, and these amendments that were not brought forward on the floor were heavily discussed in committee, resolved on a bipartisan basis.

So, again, I understand the gentleman's point and look forward to continuing to do all we can to safeguard the women in our military, and to make sure that we protect all American citizens, which I do think this bipartisan resolution of the issue will do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and would say that the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Goodlatte, is very, very involved in the discussion around these issues and is intending to address and begin to address the issue of immigration this month. And certainly my hope is that we, in this House, can see a full debate on the floor throughout the committee process and to make sure that we can address what is a very broken immigration system.

And I know that the gentleman shares with me the commitment to try and do all we can to reflect the notion of trying to address a broken system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and would say that, yes, there is a commitment to try to make sure that there is not a doubling of the interest rate to students who would look to incurring debt to go to school.

As the gentleman correctly knows, Mr. Speaker, this House is the only body that has passed a bill to provide for protecting these students against such a rate increase. In fact, the bill that passed the House, as the gentleman knows, was a bill that allows for rates to go into a variable mode, to assure that any increase that would occur is not that increase in the statute, but long term could protect students as well from that kind of a hit.

Now, I've talked to several members of the administration. Our chairman, John Kline, has been in contact, I know, with the Secretary, as well as others, in trying to resolve this issue. Discussions are ongoing. It is my hope, I would tell the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that we can resolve this issue so that perspective students can be assured that their rates would not double. But it is the House who has provided the pathway and the roadmap to ensure that happens. And we're trying to work with the administration, since the Senate has been unable to act, to avoid this from happening.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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.

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.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 3 p.m. on Monday, June 10, 2013.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for bringing this bill forward. I appreciate the ranking member's support on this as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Improving Postsecondary Education Data for Students Act.

American moms and dads are working tirelessly to help their children achieve their dreams. For many, that dream includes college. However, the cost of a postsecondary education has become increasingly difficult for a lot of families to bear. Young graduates today are not only confronting a tough job market when they leave school, they are continually facing a growing mountain of debt that is financially burdensome and extremely difficult to pay back. Many students choose schools and their majors without ever knowing the earning potential of their fields of study. This leaves many young Americans with a lower than expected income and struggling to pay down their loans once they graduate. For some, it can take decades. This has got to change.

In my home State of Virginia, we've become a leader in attempting to address this problem. In 2012, Virginia enacted a requirement that schools in our State publish information regarding the proportion of graduates with employment, their average salaries and higher education debt at 18 months and 5 years after graduation.

I expect that this data will become extremely useful to parents and students alike. Unfortunately, the data available to Virginia is limited to graduates who remain in the Commonwealth. This means that information available in the State database fails to fully capture students that graduate from a school, like the University of Richmond, which attracts students from 46 different States. Very often, they go on to take jobs throughout the country where they become leaders in their fields.

We can help resolve this situation. The Federal Government currently has a significant amount of data that could help parents and students make better decisions regarding the financial benefits of prospective schools and majors, but this information is often hard to understand or is difficult to access.

This bill requires the Secretary of Education to convene a 15-member advisory panel to provide recommendations on how to improve the information available to parents and students when deciding on their schools and majors. This panel will provide an interim report within 6 months and a final one within 1 year for Congress' consideration during the reauthorization of the Higher Ed Act.

This legislation will serve to kick-start the process of improving transparency in higher education and will provide students and parents with the information that they need to make informed decisions so that a college education can continue to be a source of empowerment for millions of Americans. This bill is a great step in the right direction.

I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer) for his leadership, Chairman John Kline, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, and the rest of the Education and the Workforce Committee for their work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.