Floor Statements

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

I thank the gentleman for his information, and I appreciate the fact that he has put on there the sustainable growth rate in Medicare budget agreement, which hopefully we can get to, which will be bipartisan in nature and will be balanced and fair as well.

In addition, legislation pertaining to the farm program's farm bill is necessary. It has been in conference for some period of time. Hopefully, we can pass that as well.

I do note, however, with some degree of--actually, I said ``some degree''--with very great disappointment that unemployment insurance extension is not listed by the leader. As the leader knows, 1.3 million people are going to have their unemployment benefits expire, I believe, on December 28. Those people will have no support structure. Very frankly, my own view is they will then go on some other support structure, some sort of welfare payment--SNAP payment, Medicaid--which they may be on already. But, in any event, it will not be at no cost. CBO estimates that it will cost as much as 300,000 jobs if we do not extend unemployment insurance.

We just had a hearing, Mr. Leader, where we had very, very compelling testimony from three people, with respect to--one of whom just found a job on Monday; she was very pleased at that--not only the economic damage that going off unemployment will cost them--and they have been looking for jobs--but also the psychological devastation to them and their families that that would cause.

Does the gentleman have any belief--I understand, and I read somewhere, the gentleman may want to comment on it. Some commented that there was no appetite for extending unemployment insurance on your side of the aisle--but can the gentleman give me any idea of the possibilities for having unemployment insurance extension on the floor so that we cannot see those 1.3 million people dropped off the rolls as of December 28?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

We neither have the time nor do I have the inclination to go through each one of those bills to which the gentleman refers as ``jobs bills.'' Of course, we have an alternative; and Mr. Van Hollen will be talking about that in terms of jobs, investment, infrastructure, investment, education, and growing jobs for our people.

But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there are 1.3 million people who can't find a job. To say that they will be disincentivized because we continue to give them some support so that they can survive and their families can survive during the period of time that they are looking for a job, there are three people looking for every one job that is available, and most of those jobs that are available have skill sets that, unfortunately, the unemployed have not had.

We are for, on this side, skills training; we are for investing in education. We share the majority leader's view on that; but it is not going to be much solace for them, Mr. Speaker, and their families to say, well, we dropped you off the rolls, you won't be able to pay your mortgage, you won't be able to put food on your table because the Senate hasn't acted.

Whether the Senate should act on the bills in question I think is debatable. I opposed many of those pieces of legislation myself, as did others; but we have a crisis, and that crisis is we have 1.3 million. And that same CBO to which the majority leader referred said that not to pass this extended benefit will, in fact, undermine the economy and could cost as many as 300,000 jobs of people who are working now, but who will not be working because of the lack of resources of those 1.3 million consumers. Whether they are consuming food, housing, clothing, necessities of life, we are going to be undermining jobs in America and our economy. Almost every economist that I have talked to shares that view.

In any event, I want to make it clear to the majority leader that our side will be vigorously opposed and will oppose adjourning of the House as is scheduled on Friday the 13th of this month if, in fact, we have not passed unemployment insurance. We believe that is a critical thing to pass.

We also agree with the majority leader, however, that passing the sustainable growth rate is something that we ought to do before the end of the year. That will expire on December 31. The reimbursement of doctors to serve Medicare patients will be substantially reduced as a result of that. That is bad policy, not only for those on Medicare who are seeking medical services, but it is bad policy for the doctors and medical providers that will serve those people.

So I am pleased that he mentions SGR, the sustainable growth rate, the doc reimbursement, but not pleased that we do not have listed the unemployment insurance. We will be very adamant next week that that needs to be done. I understand that we may have a difference on that, but I want to let the majority leader know that that will be our position.

In addition, I do not see on there the defense authorization bill. I know that that is not the majority leader. We passed the defense authorization bill through here. I am hopeful that the Senate will move on that intelligence authorization.

The Senate has passed, Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive immigration reform bill. They passed it with 68 votes. We are very disappointed on this side of the aisle that the Senate bill has not been put on the floor. Our bill, H.R. 15, which is a bipartisan bill on which there are Republican sponsors of that

bill, or one of the four bills that has been reported out of the committee which was supported by the Republican Party in the Judiciary Committee and reported out four bills, they have not been brought to the floor.

We believe that comprehensive immigration reform is a critically important action for this Congress to take this year now. We have options available. We would hope that any one of those three options would be brought to the table, or, if you count four bills, seven options be brought to the floor.

In addition, the Senate has passed in a bipartisan way the ending of discrimination in employment. We talked about jobs; we talked about giving economic opportunity. We ought to do that in a nondiscriminatory way. The Senate has passed such a bill. That is not on the agenda for next week either.

I have an agenda which has a lot of bills on it: Make It In America. I notice we do have a suspension bill that has been specifically referenced. We will get into a debate on that next week, so I won't debate that bill today; but we have a suspension bill that we have been urging that is reported out of committee on voice vote, passed this Congress with, I think, over 350 votes--I know over 300 votes last Congress--that has not been brought to the floor, which simply says that we ought to have a plan and that plan ought to be a plan to expand manufacturing, grow jobs, grow profits, and grow salaries for individuals. And it is Mr. Lipinski's bill. I have been urging that that be put on the suspension calendar. I notice that that has not been put on either.

Trade adjustment assistance and tax extenders have been referenced. Hopefully, we can do all of those. Of course, we have a very short period of time left to do that.

Let me ask the majority leader, given that short time, does the majority leader have a high degree of confidence that, in fact, he will be seeking to follow the calendar that has been set out by the majority leader to end this first session of this Congress, indeed, on the scheduled date of December 13?

And I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the majority leader wants to talk about health care, because much of that legislation he has talked about then, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 times that the Republican Party has tried to repeal health care.

My view, I want to make it very clear, is that this bill is substantively a very positive bill for the American people. A bill to which the gentleman referred that Republicans offered in 2009 covered less than 3 million people of the 30 to 40 million people that had no insurance in America. So less than 10 percent were covered by the Republican bill.

Tens of millions of people, I predict, by the middle of next year, are going to be having coverage and having health care assurance because we passed this health care insurance bill.

He is right, the rollout was terrible. We are all disappointed with that, the President is disappointed with that, and it is being worked on. Now he doesn't recall, of course, perhaps, or he hasn't mentioned the rollout of the prescription drug bill, which wasn't too smooth, either. And, of course, the health care bill is broader even than that. He may not recall that Medicare had a tough rollout for a couple of years. But there is nobody on this floor who is saying, I am not saying that they don't believe it because I think there are people who believe we ought not to have Medicare. As a matter of fact, a former majority leader, not this majority leader, said we shouldn't have Medicare in a free society. That was a Republican majority leader, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is the health care bill is going to work, but it is interesting that when you ask a specific question about some critical issues that have passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion overwhelmingly, they are not mentioned. Just go to the health care bill. Why? Because that is the politics. That is the politics of the issue right now.

I am glad to yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky spoke to us this morning. Now, Kentucky is not the center of Democratic politics in America, as Mitch McConnell would quickly observe. Thousands of people are signing up in Kentucky--thousands of people--successfully. Thousands of people are coming forward. About 70,000 people have already signed up in Kentucky. Thousands of people are coming forward in New York and California, all over this country, who are saying I want the assurance and coverage of health care.

What have they spent their time on? Trying to repeal health care. They have talked about repeal and replace. We haven't had much replace, but we have had a lot of repeal. And what does the majority leader refer to, Mr. Speaker? A 2009 bill. It is a bill from three Congresses ago that he is talking about, and all we have had on this is repeal. If they are concerned about health care, then there ought to be an alternative that the other side offers; but, frankly, Mr. Speaker, they have not done that.

I would be glad to move to another subject. I am sure we can go back to health care because the majority leader, notwithstanding his assertion that this is not about politics, I will tell him that the majority of the American people in poll after poll after poll says they don't want health care repeal. They want it fixed, and they want it to work right and the assurance that it is available to them, but they do not want it repealed.

Right now, even though they are upset, as we all are, as I am and as the President is, about the rollout and about the Web site not working as effectively as we would like, Americans right now, I will tell the majority leader, the majority in polls say they don't want it repealed. They want it fixed and they want to have it work. Very frankly, I think that is where they are. Not everybody. Not everybody, I understand that, and certainly not some factions of the Republican majority's party. They have made that very clear in statements on this floor. But my view is that we ought not to simply distract from some of the important things that need to be done.

I was interested in Senator Cornyn's response when he talked about the Iran deal, which 65 percent of the American public says was a worthwhile effort to make. We need to carefully review it, and we need to oversee it and make sure it works, and the majority leader and I have to work on that. But when Senator Cornyn said this was just a ruse--and I don't think he used the word ``ruse,'' but just an effort to distract from health care, I think that sort of indicates the extraordinary focus that this issue has energized the Republican Party, Mr. Speaker, over the last 3 or 4 years.

Can I ask the majority leader about the budget conference, whether he has any idea--he has talked about, on the schedule, the budget conference coming forward. Does he have any idea whether a budget conference agreement has been reached, number one; and number two, if an agreement is reached, will it manifest itself in the form of a budget conference report?

I am informed, maybe correctly or incorrectly, that there will never be a budget conference report. Does the gentleman know whether that is the case or not, and whether or not some agreement might be manifested by a bill and not by a conference report?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I will say that he and I, as he has articulated, do agree that the sequester is not good policy. As a matter of fact, Chairman Hal Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said it best when he said that the sequester cuts are ill-conceived and unrealistic and that he believes that the House action has indicated that that is the case. We have not done appropriation bills consistent with the sequester levels that as I understand were agreed at Williamsburg to be offered, but they haven't worked.

My own view, Mr. Speaker, of what is being discussed in the budget conference, some of the things that I have heard, strike me as being unbalanced, unfair, irresponsible, and unacceptable. Unless we have a balanced agreement, which in my view should replace the sequester because, as the majority leader indicates, it is not the rational way to go, as Mr. Rogers indicates, it is not the rational way to go, and as every chairman of the appropriations subcommittees on the Republican side have said, it is not the way to go and ought to be replaced.

I am hopeful that any agreement will, in fact, replace the sequester. I am hopeful, Mr. Majority Leader, as you well know, that we will get a big deal--not a little deal, not nibbling around the edges so that what occurs is we do this every 6 months and we never get to a stability that I know the majority leader and I believe would give confidence to our economy, to the business community, and to our people if we got a big deal. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be, at least at this point in time, in the discussion. I think that is unfortunate.

As I said, what I have heard so far seems to me to be unbalanced, unfair, irresponsible, and, from my perspective, unacceptable. So I am hopeful that the Budget Committee conference will revisit or at least come up with a product that is not yet being discussed, which will accomplish the objective of putting this country on a fiscally sustainable path for the long term, not just the short term.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Connecticut not only for taking this Special Order but for the speech that he gave as we led into this Special Order about that wrenching day in November, the 22nd of November 1963, as to where he was and the memory he had.

Now, I thank the leader who has recalled so well what John Kennedy meant to our generation.

In my view, every generation of Americans has had a figure to whom it looked for guidance, for inspiration. However, few generations have had such a compelling figure as John Fitzgerald Kennedy was to my generation.

John Kennedy was the first President for whom I voted. I turned 21 in 1960, and I had the opportunity to vote for him in November. It was a controversial vote for some who thought that a young Catholic or, frankly, an old Catholic, should not be President of the United States for, after all, he would have to answer to the Pope. John Kennedy made it clear that he would answer to the American people and to his conscience, and that is what he did.

Mr. Speaker, all of us have memories, and I will refer to at least two.

I was a student at the University of Maryland in 1959. It was the spring of 1959, and there was to be a convocation, as there was every spring, with a major speaker being invited to give an address. It was to be given at Cole Field House, which was then the athletic field house for the University of Maryland. It still exists, but we now have another basketball center called Comcast Center.

Classes got out at 10:50 that morning, and I left class with no intention, frankly, of going to hear the speaker. I went to walk up the hill leading both to the student union and to Cole Field House. I was going to go to the student union, have lunch, talk to my friends, and then resume classes at 1:00.

But as I was walking up, there was a car driving up relatively slowly, there was some traffic, and I saw a 1958 Pontiac convertible. Mr. Larson will recall that was a cool car. That caught my attention. But as I looked at the car, I then saw the person riding in that car. It was a warm day, the top was down, and I recognized the individual in that car as the speaker who was going to address us in the convocation. I said, that's really neat. Now, remember, I am 19 years of age. I said, I'm going to go hear him speak, and so I did go hear him speak.

He talked that day, as I am sure he did hundreds of other days in thousands of campuses throughout not only this country, but around the world before his death. He talked about young people getting involved in politics, not necessarily running for office, but getting involved in the politics of their community, in making a difference in their community, in taking their talents, and as Leader Pelosi has said, and as he enunciated in his inaugural address, bring their energy, faith, and devotion to the endeavor of making their democracy and their country better.

I listened to that speech. I walked out of the Cole Field House and the next week I changed my major from a business major to a political science major, decided I would go to law school and run for office.

It was in many ways a Damascus Road experience for me, a life- changing experience for me. Seven years after I heard Kennedy encourage young people, not just Steny Hoyer--he never knew who Steny Hoyer was-- but encouraged people to get involved, 7 years later, 5 months out of Georgetown Law School, I was honored by some of the people of Prince George's County to be elected to the Maryland State Senate.

After, of course, I heard him speak on the campus of the University of Maryland in 1959, I worked in his campaign, never saw him, shook his hand once when he was at Ritchie Coliseum coming out of the coliseum.

I have heard two more inspirational speeches in my lifetime. One was, of course, the speech that is quoted so often, as Leader Pelosi said, the inaugural address, delivered on a very cold, snowy January day in 1961, in which he observed that the torch had been passed to a new generation born in this century--meaning the last--and saying that they had been tested by hard and bitter peace, but that that generation was proud of their ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed and to which he said we were committed today here and around the world.

What a proud observation that was of America's role in the world, then and now, a Nation willing to expend its treasure and its commitment of life and liberty to the defense of both here and around the world.

John Kennedy was an inspiration to my generation, but John Kennedy was

an inspiration to all generations in America. John Kennedy called us to service. John Kennedy observed that although the challenges in front of us were hard, that America could meet them, overcome them, and be a greater country.

I would suggest to all of us that we need that same kind of inspiration today. America is faced with challenges today. America is faced with division today. This body is faced with division today.

It is easy to forget, as we remember John Fitzgerald Kennedy, how close an election it was between Richard Nixon and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Less, I believe, as I recall, than 200,000 votes separated them after millions of votes were cast. John Kennedy was declared the President of the United States, and our Nation remained divided.

That was the generation of the civil rights movement. That was the generation of Martin Luther King, of Rosa Parks, of so many other heroes of the civil rights movement, and our colleague John Lewis, the boy from Troy.

As we remember the assassination of John Kennedy, and in remembering that, like John Larson of Connecticut, I remember where I was. I had just delivered some papers to the United States Senator from Maryland for whom I was working while going to Georgetown Law School. And, John, I came out the door leading from the Chamber and was walking down the steps and a Capitol Policeman said, did you hear? I said, did I hear what? The President has been shot. The President was my hero, and he had been shot.

Like almost every American, I walked down those steps in somewhat of a daze, walked over to the Russell Senate Office Building and sat down, as almost every American was doing that very moment, and watched the television reporting on the status of our President. It did not take long for them to report that we had lost him, that he had died, that the shot fired had been fatal.

I don't know how many people--I presume there are certainly some--who have cried for 96 hours. I did that; America did that. America had lost some degree, perhaps, of its innocence. America had been rendered vulnerable. America had lost its hero.

Edward Kennedy, the Senator, after Robert Kennedy was shot, spoke at his funeral and he said:

My brother need not be idealized in death, or enlarged in

death beyond that which he was in life.

But it is extraordinarily difficult not to idealize John Fitzgerald Kennedy as we remember him, as we remember the extraordinary trauma we experienced as he was killed.

His inaugural address addressed not only the American people, but freedom-loving people throughout the world, people seeking opportunity, people seeking liberty, people seeking justice. And the world responded.

When he went to Berlin, those in Berlin, then behind the Iron Curtain, knew that they had a kindred soul in John Fitzgerald Kennedy. When he said: ``Ich bin ein Berliner,'' they believed him. They believed that he was committed to their freedom as much as he was committed to the freedom of those he served in America.

John Kennedy made an extraordinary difference. His term was cut short by the assassin's bullet. The promise that was John Kennedy was not realized; but John Kennedy's impact on America, on young people, was profound.

I remember, John--and I think you were here--when we served with Jack Kemp, a Republican, who would repeatedly in committee and on this floor cite John Kennedy as an inspiration. His legacy has not only been in terms of what he did and what he said, but his legacy remains in those he inspired to serve, in those who repaired to the high ideals that he put before us, this Congress, this country, and the world.

John Kennedy made a difference. We remember, we remember that he died tragically. But what we really remember is the contribution he made while he lived, however short that life was.

I thank the gentleman for allowing us to remember this day the loss we sustained on November 22, 1963.

Mr. Speaker, I see four people in the gallery. I see three Members on the floor. The galleries are empty, the floor is empty because we are not doing anything, and it is not because we don't have a lot of things to do.

We have 6--7 if you count tomorrow where we will leave by 12:00--6 full days left in the session in 2013, and yet we fiddle here while the country sees itself burning on bills that are going nowhere, that have no priority and deal with a subject, energy, which, happily, is one of the most successful places we are at in America today, where we are fast becoming the energy-independent, low-cost energy situs of the world.

We have no budget conference coming to this floor scheduled in the 6 full days that we have left and the 2 other days that may be counted in which we come in at 6:30 and meet for probably a half an hour or 45 minutes and vote on suspension bills. Yet we have spent this entire week--and we left, of course, hardworking day yesterday, we left doing work at 2:30 in the afternoon. No budget conference, no fiscal policy, no solution to the crisis that confronted us when we shut down government.

I urged that we have a budget conference report by November 22--that is tomorrow--so that we didn't, as our practice has been in recent months and

years, confront real issues only when crisis gives us no other alternative.

No immigration reform has been brought to the floor, although it passed the Senate with 68 votes, comprehensive immigration reform, which will address a problem that every Member of this House says is an immigration system that is broken. The majority leader said that the other day, and I asked him about the four bills that our Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, have reported out of committee but they languish somewhere in the netherworld, not brought to the floor for consideration by this House.

And yet we have time to consider bills that will have no impact, which the President says he will veto, and are not bipartisan bills, were reported out of the committee in a partisan fashion, as so much of the legislation that we consider on this House floor is, partisan, confrontational, no-consensus pieces of legislation.

Yet a comprehensive immigration reform bill that had 68 votes, over two-thirds of the United States Senate, 14 Republicans voted for that bill, yet the Speaker says he is not for it and won't bring it to the floor. That is the same Speaker that says let the House work its will. The House cannot work its will if the legislation is not brought to the floor by the House, which can only be done by the Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, as you know. So they keep that bill from being considered, although CBO says it will help the economy, grow jobs, and fix a broken system.

There are 6 full days left to go on the schedule in 2013. And yet the farm bill, which was reported out of the committee 2 years ago in a bipartisan fashion in the last Congress but was never brought to this floor, while we twiddled our thumbs while Rome burned--the farm bill lies languishing in conference committee because a bipartisan bill, passed by the United States Senate, was not considered in this House.

But a partisan bill with almost no Democratic votes, and the second piece of that farm bill, the nutritional part, receiving not a single Democratic vote, lies languishing in the conference committee because it was passed in an extraordinarily partisan fashion, where the gentleman from Oklahoma's (Mr. Lucas) bill, reported out in a bipartisan fashion. The American public, Mr. Speaker, says, Let's act bipartisanly. We did. With Democratic and Republican votes, the farm bill came out of the Agriculture Committee and was turned into a partisan bill on this floor by my Republican colleagues. So it languishes with 6 days left, with the farm bill expiring on December 31, no action, no progress.

We need to pay our doctors a proper compensation for the services they give. I am sure the gentleman from the Rules Committee, who, himself, is a medical doctor, understands this necessity. We need to fix the sustainable growth, but it languishes somewhere out in the netherworld while we have 6 days left. Unfixed, unscheduled. I have asked the majority leader numerous times: Is that going to be brought to the floor? It has not been brought to the floor.

Discrimination in the workplace, passed by the Senate in a bipartisan fashion, ENDA, is not going to be brought to this floor. The Speaker says he is opposed to it, so the House will not be able to work its will again on a piece of legislation that, in my opinion, would have a majority of the votes on this floor. There is no doubt in my mind, and I am the whip. I count votes, Mr. Speaker, as you know. It would have the majority of votes on this floor, but the Speaker and the majority leader will not bring it to this floor.

Unemployment insurance for 1.2 million people ends on December 31, and we have 6 days of full work left and two partial days when we come in at 6:30. Yet unemployment insurance has not been brought to this floor to be extended for those 1.1 million people, with still 7.2 or 7.3 percent unemployment. Unemployment insurance is a critically important issue. It is somewhere out there, but it is not on this floor. This, while we have considered legislation this entire week that the majority knows will not pass the United States Senate and, even if it did pass, would not be signed by the President of the United States.

But they send a message, perhaps, to their base: politics. With the budget conference, immigration reform, the farm bill, the sustainable growth rate, doc reimbursement for Medicare patients, discrimination in the workplace, unemployment insurance, and, yes, I would add to that tax extenders--none of it on this floor.

No one ought to ask themselves why the American people hold this institution in such low regard. None of us who have served in this institution for any period of time are proud of what we are doing in this Congress. We lament the unwillingness of the leadership of this House to have us do the work that the American public knows we must be doing.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the previous question. This is not just an ordinary previous question. What this previous question says is, We will not adjourn, American people. We will not adjourn on December 13, as is projected by the majority to be the date on which we adjourn. We will not adjourn until such time as we have done the important work that the American people expect of us, the responsible work that the American people expect of us, the work that we ought to expect of ourselves until we consider this bill.

I would hope that we would defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question, then we will bring to this floor a resolution which will say, We shall not adjourn until we have done a budget conference that precludes fiscal crisis, shutting down government, a refusal to pay America's debts; that we pass an immigration reform bill that fixes what everybody knows is a broken system; until we bring a farm bill to the floor which will preclude farmers and consumers and those who need nutritional help from being put at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter. This is not a letter from Democrats. This is a letter from 13 Republican leaders, chairs of the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee, who say to the budget conference committee: Bring a solution to the floor before the Thanksgiving break and no later than December 2. Yet, ladies and gentlemen of this House, Mr. Speaker--and yes, Mr. Speaker, all of us speak to the American people, who ought to be asking us, Why? Why? Why do we waste time when so much important work remains to be done?

Defeat the previous question. Allow us to offer a resolution which will say to the American people, We will continue to work until we get your work done.

Congress of the United States,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, November 18, 2013.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Chairman, Budget Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Chris Van Hollen,

Ranking Member, Budget Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patty Murray,

Chairwoman, Budget Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jeff Sessions,

Ranking Member, Budget Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Ryan, Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member

Sessions, and Ranking Member Van Hollen: We call on the

Budget conference to reach an agreement on the FY 2014 and

2015 spending caps as soon as possible to allow the

appropriations process to move forward to completion by the

January 15 expiration of the current short-term Continuing

Resolution. We urge you to redouble your efforts toward that

end and report common, topline levels for both the House and

Senate before the Thanksgiving recess, or by December 2 at

the latest.

If a timely agreement is not reached, the likely

alternatives could have extremely damaging repercussions.

First, the failure to reach a budget deal to allow

Appropriations to assemble funding for FY 2014 will reopen

the specter of another government shutdown. Second, it will

reopen the probability

of governance by continuing resolution, based on prior year

outdated spending needs and priorities, dismissing in one

fell swoop all of the work done by the Congress to enact

appropriations bills for FY 2014 that reflect the will of

Congress and the people we represent. Third, the current

sequester and the upcoming ``Second Sequester'' in January

would result in more indiscriminate across the board

reductions that could have negative consequences on

critically important federal programs, especially our

national defense.

In addition, failure to agree on a common spending cap for

FY 2015 will guarantee another year of confusion.

The American people deserve a detailed budget blueprint

that makes rational and intelligent choices on funding by

their elected representatives, not by a meat ax. We urge you

to come together and decide on a common discretionary

spending topline for both FY 2014 and FY 2015 as quickly as

possible to empower our Committee, and the Congress as a

whole, to make the responsible spending decisions that we

have been elected to make.

Sincerely,

Harold Rogers, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations;

Jack Kingston, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health

and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies;

Tom Latham, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,

and Housing and Urban Development, and Related

Agencies; Kay Granger, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies; John

Abney Culberson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military

Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies;

John R. Carter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland

Security; Tom Cole, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Legislative Branch; Frank R. Wolf, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice Science, and Related

Agencies; Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Defense; Robert B. Aderholt, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies; Michael K.

Simpson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water

Development, and Related Agencies; Ander Crenshaw,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Services and

General Government; Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Capuano represents a famous area of America, south Boston, a wonderful area of our country.

As every Member of this House knows, we who serve here in the Chamber rely on an outstanding group of professionals who manage the floor and the party cloakrooms. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans.

On the Democratic side, we have been incredibly fortunate to have been served with great ability by a devoted public servant with a wonderful sense of humor, a sense of this House, a sense of history, a sense of decency, and a sense of how to help Members greatly. He has managed our cloakroom for the past 33 years.

That man, devoted to the smooth running of the people's House day in and day out, is Barry Sullivan. As he prepares to retire from service, I want to join not only those from Massachusetts who are justifiably very proud of him as a brother from their own State, but also all of those in the House on both sides of the aisle, but particularly on our side of the aisle, who have been advantaged by his service, by his good humor, and by his caring.

Barry, a native of south Boston, first came to Washington in 1980 to work for the Sergeant at Arms as a doorkeeper. In 1987, Tip O'Neill appointed him to manage the Democratic cloakroom, and he has been reappointed ever since.

Barry had grown up around politics; and his father, Leo Sullivan, had been a Massachusetts State senator and a Boston police commissioner. He never thought he would stay in Washington for more than a couple of years, but the call to serve this House and his country proved too strong. His country and each of us and this institution have been advantaged by his staying.

Barry brought a lot of Boston to the Capitol. He set up a desk in the cloakroom that is very much a shrine to the Boston Red Sox and a place of homecoming for Massachusetts Members. And every time our Members' beepers would announce votes, it was Barry's mellifluous Boston accent that came across the airwaves to tell us what was going on.

Even more so, Barry has made the cloakroom feel like a home, a home away from home for all of us who serve here, and he will be missed dearly and greatly by all who came to cherish his friendship and his comradeship.

Barry, who sits on the floor with us, Mr. Speaker, we wish you all the best in retirement, both to you and to your lovely bride, Barbara, whom I had the opportunity of knowing very well almost as long as I have known you. She was a special person and had a special connection to this House because she was the daughter of our former colleague, Bill Hughes of New Jersey. Bill Hughes represented the people of New Jersey well, and I was honored to serve alongside him on the Financial Services Committee for a while.

As the sunny shores of Cape Cod beckon him, we bid farewell to an extraordinary public servant whose legacy will continue to be felt in the Halls of Congress both on and off this floor for many years to come.

Barry, thank you and Godspeed.

Mr. Speaker, we have 10 days left in this year's session, according to the schedule. We are supposed to adjourn on December 13-- somewhat ironically, Friday the 13th; and yet, Mr. Speaker, we see time is running out and we are not addressing the critical issue and the critical responsibility of funding the government and of applying resources to our priorities.

Time is running out, Mr. Speaker, for budget conferees to send us legislation so we can avoid another government shutdown in January.

A budget conference agreement will require compromise from both sides--a step that Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and many of his colleagues seem unprepared to take.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my premise that the reason we did not go to conference for the last 7 months, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate passed a budget and the House passed a budget, is that Chairman Ryan knows there is no compromise that he could reach that he could bring back and have the support of his colleagues on the Republican side; and as a result, we have no compromise. As a result, we have no product to consider.

This is an extremely disappointing position, Mr. Speaker, because it is clear that the Ryan budget is not a viable blueprint for governing. It was not when we passed it, and it is not now. It was a pretense of fiscal responsibility without any of the substance of fiscal reality or courage. That fact was made evident this summer as Republicans could only pass funding bills for defense and veterans programs, pulling their transportation funding bill and not even bringing the other appropriations bills to the floor.

Yesterday, all 12 of the Republican subcommittee chairs of the Appropriations Committee sent a letter to Paul Ryan, Chris Van Hollen, Senator Murray, and Senator Sessions, saying, We need to have a budget. We need to have a compromise agreement; and we need to have a sequester number eliminated and a rational number replacing it--a number that can work for America.

In fact, they said, If you don't do it, we are going to have to have a meat-ax--their verbiage, not mine, Mr. Speaker--not only on the domestic side of the budget--education, health care, the environment, law enforcement--but also on the national security side of the budget.

We all know how the budget that was offered by Mr. Ryan achieves balance--severe cuts, in the same vein as the irrational sequester, that target the most vulnerable Americans and place our economic recovery in jeopardy.

It is somewhat ironic that on the front page of The Washington Post today we see where Mr. Ryan was not focused on the budget; he is focused on the poor. That is a proper focus, and this Congress ought to be focused on that. But it is interesting that the Ryan budget does exactly the opposite of what we need to do to make sure that the poor are reduced in number and the middle class are expanded in number.

That is why, in my view, Mr. Speaker, regarding this budget, so many of his own party could not support appropriations bills within the framework of the Ryan budget. That is why the bills were not brought to the floor.

Already, some Republicans are admitting that only a balanced approach will enable us to achieve the level of deficit reduction we need; and contrary to Mr. Ryan's view, this means that revenues--that hated word--must be on the table.

Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the former chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee is one of them, telling reporters on October 25:

I think both sides would like to deal with the sequester.

And we're willing to put more revenue on the table to do

that.

Mr. Cole was one of the signers of that letter to which I referred that said, Let's replace the meat-ax represented by the sequester. Unfortunately, Chairman Ryan continues to rule out any talk of revenues, which is the key to any meaningful compromise that will replace the sequester.

Mr. Speaker, as you probably know and as I think my Republicans colleague know, I have said now and I have said in the past that we must also deal with entitlements. We need a balanced plan, not an unbalanced plan; but without a balanced plan, the sequester will remain in place, and it will hurt America.

Instead of just saying what he is against, it is time for Mr. Ryan and Republicans to show a readiness to compromise to achieve results for the American people.

Mr. Ryan is the chairman of the conference committee. Yet he has to this date not put on the table what chairmen always do--the chairman's mark, chairman's suggestion, or chairman's proposal.

Democrats have been clear that we are willing to compromise and are ready to do what it takes to achieve a balanced and bipartisan deal on the budget. This was evident when we voted unanimously alongside 87 Republicans to end the government shutdown, even when it meant supporting a continuing resolution--an appropriations bill for the government--at a level we believed was too low. But we understood compromise was necessary. And so all 198 Democrats voted to open up the government and to pay America's bills, while 147 Republicans-- approximately 62 percent of the Republicans--voted to keep the government shut down and to not pay America's bills.

I was encouraged to read the letter sent yesterday, as I said, by Chairman Rogers and the Appropriations Subcommittee chairs, making clear how important it is for conferees to send us a budget by Thanksgiving--that would have to be this Friday, because we are not going to be here next week--rather than risk another painful shutdown and the continuation of the irrational sequester this coming year.

Many Republicans now agree with Democrats that the sequester is unworkable.

Who says so? Mr. Ryan says he doesn't like the sequester. Mr. Cantor, the majority leader, says he doesn't like the sequester. And Hal Rogers has said it is unworkable and inadvisable.

The Budget Conference has a larger mission than to simply rearrange the sequester's severe cuts. This is an opportunity to replace the sequester with a sensible approach that permits Congress to look strategically at our budget priorities and our long-term fiscal and economic goals. If we do so, in my view, it will be the most important stimulus of our economy and job-creating action that this Congress could take.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that Chairman Ryan will set his flawed budget aside and instead embrace the approach that many of his Republican colleagues are already recognizing is the only realistic path toward a compromise by this committee. To do so could usher in a historic agreement to achieve real fiscal responsibility for America for years to come. I hope Mr. Ryan's leadership will result in that objective.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.

Madam Chair, this bill, and the other two House bills we will consider this week, were put forward, in my opinion, to fill time. Yes, they are unifying issues on the Republican side of the aisle, Madam Chair, but they are not pressing. Even if they were good policy, they are not pressing.

We stand here without a budget. We stand here with 10 days left to go.

Madam Chair, it is now quarter of 3:00, and it was about 2:30, and our business is through for today. No budget, no unemployment insurance extension, no farm bill, no conference report even on the budget, no immigration bill, no ending discrimination, ENDA, bill--a raft of critically important issues that this House ought to be considering.

So this is somewhat the fiddle on which we are playing while Rome is burning.

We shut down the government for 16 days, for the first time in 17 years, a

conscious decision to shut down government, and 147 of my Republican colleagues, Madam Chair, voted to keep the government shut down and voted against paying our bills. Yet, we consider this legislation.

Now, I am against this legislation substantively, but even more egregious is the wasting of 4 of the 12 days we had available to address the issues I have just discussed. America is rightfully disgusted with the Congress of the United States. Me too.

Energy security remains an important issue. I agree with my colleagues on that. But these bills offer partisan solutions to energy production that are taking our time away from pressing matters, as I have explained, like the budget conference, unemployment insurance, comprehensive immigration reform, the farm bill, Medicare physician payment formula, and tax extenders.

We are all going to be wringing our hands just a few days from now saying, Of course we want to make sure there is a doc fix so that people with Medicare can make sure their doctors are paid appropriately so they will continue to serve them. We will say, Of course we want to do that.

Well, why did you waste a week?

We won't have an answer to that, unless the answer is, Well, we are really not going to address them; we would rather address these issues that bring our party together and make us look like we are doing the work that our base wants us to do.

Tomorrow's legislation seeks to block a proposed Bureau of Land Management regulation that is not even yet in effect and overreaches to cover all Interior Department lands.

The first of these bills sets an arbitrary deadline on leases, permits, and reviews that stand in the way of regulators doing their job to protect citizens and affected communities.

I think citizens want to be protected. Yes, they want it done in an efficient, effective manner, but they want to be protected.

These bills were put forward in the name of achieving energy security, when, in truth, ironically, America is now more energy secure than it has been in decades.

We are more energy independent than we have been in decades. As a matter of fact, when I talk about the Make It In America agenda of making manufacturing jobs and making things here in this country, one of our assets is, we are the abundant energy supply in the world today. There are more oil rigs in America today than the rest of the world combined.

Yet, we are talking about energy security. We have it. Do we need to enhance it? Of course. Just days ago, the Energy Information Administration announced that we produced more crude oil last month, Madam Chair, than we imported for the first time in almost 20 years. Under President Obama, oil production is up, and we now have more rigs operating, as I said, than the rest of the world combined.

Domestic natural gas extraction has also grown to an all-time record, and energy companies already hold more than 20 million acres of public land onshore on which they have yet to produce oil or gas. That is 56 percent of leased public lands onshore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) was speaking of that.

These bills distract and delay this body's critical attention to the issues of critical concern to all America, and, yes, indeed, to the rest of the world that wants to see and needs a responsible, fiscally secure America.

No budget, no budget conference, no farm bill, no immigration bill, no ENDA bill, all which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion. They are worthy of debate. That doesn't mean either side has to agree, but that is what we ought to be debating, ladies and gentlemen of this House, because they are the critical issues confronting us before the end of this year.

Yet, we waste our time, and frankly, we let ourselves off early because we don't have enough work to do.

I urge opposition to these three bills. I urge the majority party to bring the important pieces of legislation to the floor that America needs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill which will undermine the providing of health care at affordable prices for millions and millions and millions of Americans.

We said to those Americans that prior to the adoption of this act if they had a policy, they could keep it. That was accurate. It didn't say that the insurance companies would have to continue to offer it, which, as I understand it, that side of the aisle wouldn't be for in any event. The fact of the matter is that statement was correct.

Subsequent to that, there were policies offered and insurance companies knew and policyholders should have known because it was in the law that they would be subject to minimum requirements. Why? Because as The Heritage Foundation said when it originally came up with this idea, everybody ought to take personal responsibility.

I have heard a lot of talk on your side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, about personal responsibility. I believe in that.

The Upton bill, as everybody knows, will skew the risk pool and encourage adverse selection. Anybody who knows anything about insurance knows that if you have adverse selection, the prices for those who need insurance will go up very substantially while, yes, the prices for those who don't need insurance will go down very sharply. Quite frankly, if all of us knew we would never be in an automobile accident, we wouldn't have to have automobile insurance, except, of course, the law in almost every State requires us to have it so that others will be protected as well.

I thank the gentleman.

Ladies and gentlemen, this bill is offered by people who, according to their own rhetoric, want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That is a fair position; but now they are trying to do so with a Trojan horse they call ``the Upton bill'' that, in effect, will fix what people are concerned about. The fact of the matter is it will not fix that problem, but what it will do is undermine the ability of millions and millions and millions of people to have health security.

I would urge my colleagues to defeat this Trojan horse. I would urge my colleagues to say to the American people, look, we are prepared to work together.

The President has offered a compromise which will have the effect of

not opening up the policies to everybody, but to those people that had a policy. That is a reasonable step to take. That is a step that, perhaps, we can take together and get accomplished.

Let's reject this bill and let's stand with the millions of people who want affordable, quality health care for themselves and their families.

Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is good for our country, and it is already benefiting millions of people.

Today, those who are uninsured can sign up for affordable plans through the state and federal marketplaces--and over 1.5 million Americans have already applied for coverage. In spite of that, Republicans remain fixated on repealing this law--rather than working with us to improve it.

Today, we are witnessing their latest assault on health care reform, with their 46th vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Once again, instead of providing a solution, their bill will only create more problems.

This stands in sharp contrast with the approach of President Obama and Democrats, which is to work together to make improvements where needed.

In that vein, President Obama announced yesterday that insurers can continue to sell 2013 plans through next year to those Americans who are already enrolled in an individual market policy. And the administration will require insurance companies to be more transparent by sharing information with consumers about other coverage options through the marketplaces--many that provide better benefits at a lower cost.

The President's plan will also mitigate the risk of premium increases that could result from the grandfathering of these insurance policies. That is something the gentleman from Michigan's bill does not do--which means that his bill will lead to higher premiums and greater uncertainty for all consumers.

And his bill would undermine the health care reforms that are yielding real benefits for millions of Americans.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Instead, let's work together to make sure the Affordable Care Act is implemented effectively and that Americans will continue to benefit from it.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

I think, as the majority leader knows probably as well as any of us, and maybe better than most of us, we have 4 legislative days left in November and 8 scheduled legislative days in December, assuming we do, in fact, get out on the 13th, which is the last day that we are scheduled to be in session this year.

Having said that, there are a number of pressing items to address. As the majority leader knows, the unemployment insurance protections for folks expire on December 31--actually, I think it is December 28. The SGR provisions expire on December 31. If we do not do something with respect to them, there will be a substantial decrease in the reimbursement to doctors serving Medicare patients.

I know that the majority leader has, and we have, people who are willing to work together to address these issues. Knowing that there is usually uncertainty at the end of a session, I would ask the gentleman if he can give Members a sense of scheduling for the coming month, that is December, and I yield to my friend.

I thank the majority leader for that information, and I am pleased that he added to the WRRDA, farm bill, NDAA, and the patent reform issues the budget conference. My view is, as the majority leader probably knows, the most important thing we can do for our economy is to get our country on a fiscally sustainable long-term path.

Can the majority leader gives us some information on the status of the budget conference? Certainly, from a public perception, it appears that not much progress has been made, which is worrisome in light of the fact that the target date for the reporting on the conference is the 13th--or, should I say, the legislative directive is to report by the 13th. As Mr. Ryan has pointed out, perhaps unfortunately so, there are no consequences of that not occurring. I had urged, myself, as the majority leader may know, that they report out by Friday of next week, the 22nd of next week, or Thursday of next week, so that we could have the conference report on the week we come back in December after Thanksgiving.

Could the gentleman give us any idea where he thinks the proceedings of the conference committee on the budget stand?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

He mentions the sequester. Of course, almost everybody who has spoken about the sequester, including myself, the majority leader, and Mr. Ryan, has indicated the sequester is not the way to reduce spending. It is a meat-ax approach which is having very adverse consequences to our national security structure. I think almost every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has made that point. Certainly, General Dempsey has made that point. But also, on the domestic discretionary side, the sequester doesn't work, and the proof of that, of course, is that we haven't considered any of those bills on the floor; and the one that we considered, we pulled, the Transportation-HUD bill.

So I am hopeful, and I know Mr. Rogers is, as is Senator Mikulski, the chairs of the Appropriations Committee, have both indicated that they hope to get a number early on, and that is why the 22nd was a preferable date, if we could have reached that, so that they would have a number to which they could mark bills. Obviously, if there is not an agreement on the 302(a), as the gentleman knows, it is very difficult, then, to try to bring those bills together in a conference because they are so far apart.

I am hopeful that the majority leader will use his good offices to urge resolution on the budget conference differences and report out as soon as possible so we can get to that process.

The gentleman I am sure shares my view that the shutting down of government is extraordinarily disruptive, both to the general public and to those who work for the Federal Government, so that it would be incumbent upon us, I think, to try to get out of this gridlock on the budget process that we have been in. I would urge him to exercise whatever, because he has substantial influence to try to get us to a resolution of this issue, and I will tell him I will do the same.

Another issue which you did not mention, Mr. Leader, is immigration. As you know, this issue passed very handily through the United States Senate on a vote of 68-32, and I am very hopeful that we could move this legislation. I think the Senate bill or a variation of the Senate bill would pass. We have introduced an alternative for which we have Republican cosponsorship, H.R. 15, which is a comprehensive immigration bill which incorporates the security provision that was adopted unanimously in this House by the Republican-led Homeland Security Committee. We believe it has bipartisan components to it, and the balance of the bill has bipartisan support in the United States Senate. The gentleman knows, you passed a number of bills out of your committees, and they were passed, of course, with partisan votes. We do not believe these bills are bills that we would support, but we are wondering whether any of them are going to be brought to the floor.

H.R. 2278, which is the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, which allows the State and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration laws, as you know, we think that is bad policy, but it did come out of the Republican-headed committee in the Judiciary Committee. I am wondering if that might be brought to the floor.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, Madam Speaker, and I wish that they had been demonstrated on the farm bill and on the Homeland Security appropriation bill, both of which were reported out of committee on a bipartisan basis but were made very partisan on the floor of this House. I thought that was unfortunate, but that is what happened.

I would like to repeat my question. The gentleman said he wanted to deal with the immigration bill in a very thoughtful, considered way and that he did not support the Senate immigration bill. I was not surprised with that response. The Speaker has also made that very clear; he does not support it. And, very frankly, the majority of Republicans have made it clear they do not support the comprehensive immigration reform bill.

However, Mr. Leader, what I asked you was are you going to bring H.R. 2278 which passed out of the Judiciary Committee, presumably in a thoughtful, considered, discrete way, that is dealing with individual subjects, which is the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, which allows States and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration laws--my question to you, Mr. Leader, are you going to bring that bill to the floor, or any of the other four bills, which I will mention as well, to the floor, because presumably you believe those were considered in a thoughtful way, were reported out of your committee, were reported out with all of your Republican members, I believe, voting for it, at least 20 of them voting for it. My question to you is: Are you going to bring that bill to the floor?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the leader.

I said I wanted to mention the other bills because we understand, A, you would like to talk about health care without focusing on anything else. I get that. We have a disagreement. We will see whether the American people believe that making sure that affordable, quality health care is available to all Americans is something they are for or whether they are against. We will see on that. That issue was joined in the last election. The last election didn't have much effect in this body in terms of the issues that were contended in that election.

But let me ask you about H.R. 2131, which is the Supplying Knowledge Based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM Visas Act.

As the gentleman knows, there are a lot of people very interested in this issue. This would eliminate the diversity visa program, transfer 55,000 green cards available under that program to a new STEM program that employers can use to hire foreign workers with advanced STEM degrees--master's degrees, Ph.D.s, et cetera--from universities. It was being marked up and, I understand, passed out 20-14. Again, that was with an overwhelming Republican vote, if not unanimous vote. Again, the gentleman indicates we want to consider the immigration issue in a thoughtful, discreet, and, as the Speaker has said, bill by bill way.

Is there any expectation that the gentleman has that that bill will be brought to the floor before we adjourn for the year?

I yield to my friend.

I think the majority leader knows, and I know, he has 218 votes on his side of the floor. As a matter of fact, he has substantially more than that.

If the last bill was so good, bring it to the floor and pass it. That is what the Speaker says you want to do, you want to pass bills item by item. What is happening is you are passing bills out of committee and they languish there, just as the farm bill, to which the gentleman referred in the early part of our discussion, languished in the last Congress and was not reported to the floor.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that point.

He passed a Homeland Security bill that he knew the Senate wasn't for. He passed appropriation bills that he knew the Senate wasn't for. He passed, Madam Speaker, the farm bill amendments that he knew were not going to be supported in the Senate.

Madam Speaker, we think immigration is a critically important subject. We believe immigration is, in fact, broken. We have an alternative. He doesn't like our alternative. I understand that. We understand that on this side. Perhaps the American people will also understand. They don't like our alternative.

It passed with 68 votes in the United States Senate. He now says people have changed their mind. Maybe that is the case, but it passed with 68 votes in the United States Senate. They don't like it. Madam Speaker, I understand that. I get it.

They don't like the health care bill. By the way, Madam Speaker, I am starting to get that message. I am pretty thick and it takes some time, but on 46 votes to repeal or to undermine, I get it. You don't like that bill. You think it is a bad bill. We have a disagreement on that, Mr. Leader.

However, apparently we don't have a disagreement on the fact that the immigration system in America is broken. What I am asking you--you have passed out of committee the Agricultural Guest Worker Program. It creates a new Temporary Agricultural Worker Program. That also passed on a partisan vote. None of these votes were bipartisan. There was no effort to work with the Democrats on the committee to bring a bipartisan bill, unlike Mr. Lucas or Mr. Carter, who brought bipartisan bills to the floor and saw them turned into partisan pieces of legislation with the help, frankly, of the majority party.

I am asking you regarding the Agricultural Guest Worker Act, are we going to bring that to the floor? Again, a discreet, thoughtful, I am sure on your side of the aisle, addressing of a broken program, but if we don't bring it to the floor, we don't consider it, we can never get to conference, which is what the gentleman says he wants to do.

I yield to my friend.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations.

I must say I am somewhat amused, Madam Speaker, because there are few people in America who believe it is our party that is my way or the highway. There are few people in America who didn't see 198 Democrats vote to keep their government working. It is not my way or the highway. We didn't get what we wanted. We didn't want that number that was passed. 198 Democrats, without exception, voted to keep this government open; 198 Democrats voted to pay the bills of the United States of America. It wasn't a question of my way or the highway. It wasn't a question of repeal or I will vote to shut down the government. 147 Republicans, Madam Speaker, voted to keep the government shut down because they didn't get their way. 147 Republicans, including in both instances, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, voted to not pay the bills of the United States of America. And they voted against the majority leader's advice and against the Speaker's advice. That is a problem. I agree that that is a problem.

No matter how much, Madam Speaker, the majority leader says it is the President and the United States Senate that are undermining, in fact, the United States Senate has been passing time and after time after time bipartisan bills and has sent them to the House, where they have languished or been opposed, and finally, they were supported. That was true in the Violence Against Women Act. It was true on a bill that the majority leader and I were for, Madam Speaker, and that is for giving Sandy relief. He couldn't get more than 25 percent of his party to support that.

All I am saying is that, if immigration is a problem and we all say it is, and you think it needs to be dealt with in a discrete way, and you have passed bills out, why don't you bring them to the floor? H.R. 1772, the Legal Workforce Act, makes E-Verify immigration status programs for prospective employees mandatory. Again, I presume that this is one of Mr. Goodlatte's thoughtful, considered steps to fix a broken immigration system.

All I am asking is--now for the fourth time--will you bring one or more of these bills to the floor? We may not be for them, but at least they put, as the gentleman keeps saying, a bill before the House so the House can work its will. Frankly, if they are defeated, then it would be incumbent upon us to move in a different direction, but if they are just sitting there without consideration by the House, without the ability of the House to work its will, then it continues to cause inaction on a subject that all of us have expressed needs action.

If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I will yield. If not, I will go on to another subject. I am going to go on to another subject.

Rather than go on to another subject, let me urge the gentleman, again, because when the gentleman says, ``Let the House work its will,'' that is a wonderful phrase. Hopefully, it resonates with the American people. But the House is not allowed to work its will. Ultimately, of those bills I have just referenced, we did work our will, and we worked our will, frankly, with mostly a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans joining together to pass critically important legislation for this country. We couldn't get the majority of your party to vote for many of those bills.

I would ask the gentleman that if he really wants the House to work its will, and he believes that H.R. 15, the comprehensive immigration bill, is a bad bill, bring it to the floor and see if the House thinks it is a bad bill, see if the House believes that it is a bill that is not worthy to be considered and passed as a fixing of a broken immigration system.

I urge my friend to bring that bill to the floor. He has the power to bring that bill to the floor. I urge him to do so.

I yield to my friend.

In closing, Madam Speaker, let me simply observe that this is somewhat ironic because the gentleman has repeatedly said he doesn't like the Senate bill.

I hear that. He then says, we need to consider a more thoughtful way of doing this. I get that.

I have then pointed out that the committee, which is headed by Mr. Goodlatte, Republican leader of the Judiciary Committee, has passed a number of bills, presumably, in that quest for a more thoughtful consideration to fix a broken system.

The gentleman has not said he is going to bring any of those bills to the floor, so he knows what he is against, Madam Speaker. He knows what his party is against, Madam Speaker, but he cannot tell us what he is going to do to fix a broken system because, apparently, the four bills that I have asked about are not being brought to the floor, are not part of the solution of which the gentleman speaks, and that is regrettable.

Let me say, in closing, Madam Speaker, I hope we can work in a bipartisan fashion. It didn't occur after the election, where the very issue was whether or not we ought to extend affordable health care to millions of people, some 30 to 40 to 50 million people who did not have health care security.

They continue to be scared. They continue to be presented with a message that this is a failed program, frankly, before it even starts.

Now, it has started. In terms of access, it doesn't start, as the gentleman knows, until January 1. But for some people, for some people it has started. For some parents with children with a preexisting condition, who could not get insurance, it is working.

For young people who couldn't find a job but needed insurance and were less than 26 years of age, they could stay on their parents' policy. It was working.

For seniors who were confronted with a doughnut hole that put them deeply in debt for prescription drugs they needed for lifesaving and life quality, it is working.

It is working for those people who did not go bankrupt and won't go bankrupt in the future because there are not the limits that can be imposed upon them when they get really sick.

So, yes, we will have a debate on that, but it ought not to simply divert us from all of the other issues that we need to deal with.

The budget--we need to get this country on a fiscally sustainable path. I know the leader agrees on that.

We need to fix a broken immigration system. I know the leader believes that as well. We need to invest in growing our country, to get rid of the sequester because the sequester is going to hurt our country. And, frankly, I think the leader agrees on that. We may not agree on how to do it, but I think he agrees on the objective.

So, Madam Speaker, on all of those, we ought to be giving our best efforts, not in a partisan way, but in a bipartisan way, as Americans, not as Democrats and Republicans.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Melwood, Maryland's second-largest non-profit agency focusing on people with differing abilities, as it marks its fiftieth anniversary.

In 1963, a small group of parents and supporters decided to teach plant care to young adults who were considered by most to be unemployable. It was then that Melwood was launched as a place where people with differing abilities learned new skills with the goal of employment. For 50 years, Melwood has been advocating on behalf of individuals with differing abilities by providing support services, helping them with critical skills, and placing them in jobs that provide independence and dignity.

Today, Melwood continues to provide job opportunities and support services to nearly 1,900 individuals with differing abilities. With 38 AbilityOne contracts at 43 locations, Melwood is the second-largest agency of its kind in Maryland and the largest AbilityOne employer in the Eastern Region. Additionally, it operates the Melwood Recreation Center for nearly 900 adults and children with and without special needs. Melwood's great work has even earned it an international reputation, and Melwood's ``social entrepreneurial'' model has been copied elsewhere in America and in other countries as well.

Every American who wants to contribute to building our country and strengthening our communities ought not to be held back because of a differing ability, and for a half a century Melwood has empowered people with differing abilities to transform their own lives through opportunities of employment, job training, life-skill improvement, and supportive and recreational services.

Much of Melwood's work helped lay the foundation for the enactment of the Americans

with Disabilities Act, bipartisan legislation I was proud to lead to passage in the House in 1990 and witness signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. As advocates for people with differing abilities celebrate this milestone anniversary, let us recommit ourselves to Melwood's mission to empower and inspire. I look forward to continuing to work with Melwood for many years to come, and I am confident that it will continue to carry out its mission for another fifty years and beyond.

I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating co-founder, President, and CEO emeritus, Earl Copus, Jr., current President and CEO, Cari DeSantis, and the rest of the outstanding Melwood staff, who will continue carrying this outstanding organization into the future.

Mr. Speaker, budget conferees are now meeting--or will be meeting shortly--to negotiate a budget for the remainder of this fiscal year, and they have a real opportunity to look beyond that mission and to lay the groundwork for a long-term solution to our deficits that is balanced and restores certainty to our economy.

What we do not need are more gimmicks and partisan games like we will have today, frankly. We are going to have a vote on the resolution which is disapproving of the raising of the debt limit. Everybody knows that is not a real vote, and almost everybody on this

floor knows that, if we pursued that policy, it would be damaging to America, to the military, as was just brought up, and to our Nation. Every Republican leader has said that not increasing the debt limit is an alternative that ought to be pursued. Yet, we have this vote. That resolution has already been rejected by the Senate, and it stands no chance of surviving a Presidential veto. It is, frankly, simply political cover and a waste of our time.

The keys to any budget solution, Mr. Speaker, must be compromise and a seriousness of purpose. Americans want to see that seriousness, and they want to see much, much, much less of the political gamesmanship, some of which we will practice today, unfortunately.

Republicans and Democrats, I believe, in looking beyond a small fix and toward negotiating a long-term solution, will find that we actually agree on many things. We agree that gradual reforms are better than sudden ones. We agree that sequestration is not a sensible approach to achieving deficit savings.

Let me say as an aside: no matter how many times it is said on this floor that the sequester is President Obama's policy, it will not make it fact. It is dead, flat wrong.

The sequester is incorporated in the Republican budget that was passed in this House just some months ago. No Democrat voted for that budget, because they believed the sequester--as the previous speaker said, but he voted for the budget which implemented the sequester--is harming our national security and harming our domestic security and harming our economy and harming the growth of jobs.

In fact, sequestration--which I point out to people starts with ``s,'' which stands for ``stupid''--is a terrible approach that was never meant to come into practice. Many of us all agree that, in replacing the sequester, we will need to find savings through revenue policies and reforms to mandatory spending that could pay dividends for the budget and the economy in the future.

The key to compromise, of course, is balance. Every American understands that. Every husband, every wife, every parent understands that compromise is essential within a family, within a business, within a community, and, yes, within a country. The key to compromise is balance, which is what both the Domenici-Rivlin and Bowles-Simpson bipartisan commissions embraced as a framework for agreement.

A balanced compromise is critical because Democrats and Republicans are going to have to work together to pass any agreement through both Chambers and have it signed into law. Democrats are ready to make the tough decisions necessary to set our fiscal house in order, but we have made it clear that we will not allow the most vulnerable Americans to carry the burden of deficit reduction, and it is not necessary that they do so.

Our goal remains a balanced approach to deficit reduction and an agreement that restores certainty to our economy. My Republican colleagues and friends said much about restoring certainty, particularly in the 2010 election. Unfortunately, for our economy, for our businesses, for our people, we have done anything but restore certainty. In fact, we have governed by crisis--30 days, 90 days, 180 days, a year. Arbitrary deadlines were put in place, which brought the country to the brink of default and to the brink of closing down government. In fact, of course, just recently, we did, in fact, shut down the government.

Now, my Republican colleagues say we wanted that to happen on our side of the aisle. Ironically, 198 Democrats voted to open the government. That is to say, every Democrat who was voting on this floor voted to open government. Of my colleagues who say they didn't want to shut down government, 144 of them voted to keep the government shut down, Mr. Speaker, and 87 of them voted to open up the government.

So the American public is not fooled as to who wanted to shut down government, but it was a bad policy, and it led to uncertainty in our economy. Reaching an agreement only for this fiscal year, in addition, will mean more left to do, more of sequester left to replace, and more confidence to instill.

I hope the conferees will take a broader view and will send us a budget worthy of this Nation, worthy of the Nation it will serve--one that reflects our priorities to grow our economy, creates jobs, gives opportunity to our people, ensures that our national security is protected and that our Nation's long-term competitiveness is enhanced.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we ought to do. That is what the American people expect us to do. That is what the American people hope we will do. Let's warrant the faith and confidence of the American people by keeping faith with them and with our country.

Mr. Speaker, we have just observed a moment of silence for Isaac Skelton. My good friend, Emanuel Cleaver, Ike's good friend, Senator McCaskill, Lacy Clay, and others who are here from the Missouri delegation, I want to rise with them, not in a moment of silence, but in a moment of tribute. We will perhaps have an opportunity to speak a longer time.

Yesterday, many of us had the opportunity to participate in a memorial service for Tom Foley. Tom Foley was the Speaker of this House.

A gentleman spoke who is, I think, one of the most revered members that has served in this body, Robert Michel. Bob Michel was Tom Foley's friend. Bob Michel was the leader of the Republican side of the aisle. They were friends, colleagues, and cooperated with one another to the benefit of this institution and its Members, and the Dean of the House adds, correctly, to the benefit of our country and all its citizens.

Bob Michel observed the civility that each one of them displayed and the willingness to reach out across the aisle and to make things happen positively for our country and for our citizens.

We lost another individual within the last weeks, Bill Young, who was a similar personality, and added luster to this Congress by his service and his civility.

Major Owens was another whom we lost. Four people who made this institution a better place.

Ike Skelton was my brother. He and I were Sigma Chi's. His son was a Sigma Chi. His father was a Sigma Chi. So we had a very special bond to start out with.

In addition, his first wife, Susan, who died too early, as mine did, came out and knocked on doors for me, Mr. Speaker, in Bowie, Maryland, just down the road here a piece. So I had a special bond with Ike, but also an extraordinary great respect for the way he conducted himself as a representative of the people of his district in Missouri, and the respect that he gave to each of us and the respect that he received in return.

How sad it is that these giants, Tom Foley, Bill Young, Ike Skelton, and, yes, Major Owens, passed from this body, passed from this life, but how joyful it is the extraordinary contributions each of them made to this House, which we should revere and love, the people's House.

Ike Skelton was of the people, for the people, and certainly by the people.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, this is how Congress ought to work with one another, all 435 of us. I don't mean that 435 are going to vote for the bill, but we have worked together on this bill.

And I want to congratulate the chairman, Mr. Shuster, whose father would be proud of him and would have acted in the same way, working together to make things happen for America in a bipartisan way. So I congratulate Mr. Shuster, Congressman Shuster, brother Shuster.

I also want to congratulate Nick Joe Rahall from West Virginia, who has been such an expert on the areas of building America and growing our economy.

I want to thank also Dr. Tim Bishop, Tim Bishop from Long Island, who has worked so hard on this particular piece of legislation.

As I have said many times, Mr. Chairman, from this floor, Congress has a responsibility to take bipartisan action to boost our economic competitiveness in a way that will create jobs. This bill has the potential and, in my opinion, will do exactly that.

While the bill is not perfect--none of them are--by investing in our Nation's infrastructure, including ports and waterways, as this bill does, we can lay the groundwork for a more efficient delivery system for American-made products to reach markets in our country and overseas.

Promoting and increasing U.S. exports is a core component of the House Democrats and, I might say, a bipartisan Make It in America plan for jobs and competitiveness.

I hope Democrats and Republicans can work together in a bipartisan way, as Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall have done with this bill, to move additional pieces of Make It in America legislation to the floor so we can further promote exports, pursue a national manufacturing strategy, encourage the return of innovation and jobs from overseas, and secure a skilled workforce for the 21st century.

Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill today for what it does to create jobs and improve our waterborne transportation; but I hope that, as the House and Senate develop a final bill, the conferees will look closely at the environmental review provisions to make certain that we can strike an appropriate balance between expediting projects, while understanding their impact on the environment.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us to make sure that our efforts to provide certainty account for the size and complexity of some WRRDA projects.

If we can continue to act in a bipartisan way, as I know Mr. Shuster and Mr. Rahall will do, we can send a message that Congress is ready to move forward and help more of our people make it in America.

I hope we can tap into the spirit of cooperation by scheduling consideration of a comprehensive immigration reform legislation which, like this bill, has support from both sides of the aisle, from business, from labor, from religions groups, and from leading non- profits. That is a challenge I think that we can meet this year.

Again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who has worked hard in a focused and bipartisan way to bring this day to fruition, and I congratulate him.

I thank Mr. Rahall, my good friend, who has worked so diligently over so many years to make sure that people can make it in America, and that America invests in itself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, for the purpose of informing us of the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate that information.

I would simply observe, Mr. Speaker, and then I will have a couple of questions of the majority leader, but last week we did something that was, I think, critically important, and we did it in a bipartisan fashion: we made sure that the government was open, and we made sure that America pays its bills.

Today, in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion, we passed the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, which will, as I heard the majority leader saying and I said as well, be helpful in growing our economy, growing jobs, and investing in America's growth.

I would simply observe that there are other things, Mr. Speaker, that I think we can act on in a bipartisan fashion as well and be successful in seeing enacted, which would make a real difference on behalf of our country.

I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, ask the majority leader whether or not there is any thought about bringing to the floor before the end of the year the immigration bill, and I will yield to my friend for the purpose of a response.

I thank the gentleman for that information, Mr. Speaker, and I would say of course the Senate has passed a bill in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion, an immigration bill, and if in fact we bring an immigration bill to the floor, whether I vote for it or not, and we move that bill through the House, that will give us an opportunity to do what my Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, have been talking about--negotiating, sitting down, talking, going to conference. I think that will be a step forward.

We are on this side of the aisle very, very strongly in favor of moving immigration reform. We are obviously hopeful that the budget conference that has been convened will reach an agreement. We hope it will reach an agreement, frankly, before Thanksgiving so we will not again have to address on a crisis basis either the keeping of government open and funding of government for the balance of the fiscal year, but also ensuring that we do not have another time when we come very close to not approving the payment of our bills by what ought to be the most creditworthy nation on Earth, and I think it is the most creditworthy nation on Earth, so I am pleased to hear that information.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the majority leader whether or not he has any information which might lead us to having some confidence that we might have progress on the conference on the farm bill.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Cantor and I are in absolute agreement. If both sides take that attitude, then we can make some progress. Hopefully, that will be the case.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader has said, I said, Hal Rogers of the Appropriations Committee has said, and others have said that the sequester will not work, that the sequester will, in fact, undermine the ability of America to invest in its growth and its opportunities and its ability to compete globally so that we can create jobs here in America. The majority leader has made an observation, Mr. Speaker, that he didn't think the sequester was the way to go. I share that view, and I share very strongly the view of Mr. Rogers that, in fact, the sequester could not be implemented in a way that was consistent with the interests of our country.

I want to ask the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, focusing on what we can agree on and not what we disagree on, whether or not he shares my view that one of the conference's objectives should be replacing the sequester with a formula that gets us to a place where we are bringing down our expenditures and at the same time making sure that we protect the mandatory expenditures that Mr. Ryan talks about and others talk about to make sure that our most vulnerable in America are protected and that we do so, frankly, before Thanksgiving, Mr. Speaker.

I am urging the majority leader to hopefully take that course so that we do not once again confront a crisis prior to Christmas when we are scheduled to adjourn for the Christmas and Hanukkah holidays, but also to preclude coming into the first of January with a deadline confronting us and disrupting the confidence of our people and, frankly, the people around the world.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, we have two bills: the Senate bill, which was passed some 6 months ago, and the House bill, which was passed about 6 months ago. We have been hoping to go to conference during those past 6 months. That hasn't happened. We are now going to conference. That is a positive step forward. My belief is that the conference will discuss both the Senate bill and its priorities and the House bill and its priorities, and we will come to a resolution, hopefully, on a compromise so that we can get from where we are to where we need to be.

I am not going to get into a debate at this point in time. At some point in time that will be appropriate with the gentleman. We seem to hoe this road a lot, but the fact of the matter is we ought to look at those who have made recommendations, worked on this to figure out how we can get from where we are to where we need to be.

Without going further into the specifics, as we talk about next week, let me ask the gentleman if he can give our Members some view of his thoughts on scheduling and subject matters for consideration for the balance of the year. I know we talked about a couple of items, and I know Members are interested in what their planning should be for the balance of the year, which is coming up pretty soon.

I yield to the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

He is going to find out, I am sure, over the next few weeks the overwhelming interest that Americans are displaying in getting health care opportunities and access to an affordable, quality health care.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Bill Young was my friend. Bill Young was a gentleman in every sense of the word. Bill Young was an example for us all. I will have the privilege of speaking on Thursday, at his request, at his funeral. Bill and I served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years together; then I left when I became majority leader.

Bill Young was, as I said, a gentleman who cared about each and every individual in this House. More than that, he cared for each and every person who served in uniform in our Armed Forces; and he and Beverly displayed that, as Congressman Miller has said, on a weekly, daily basis.

I am a Democrat; Bill was a Republican. It didn't make any difference. He was an American, I was an American, and we served our country together. No one served it better than Bill Young. He chose to see our differences as slight and our common purpose as great. He always chose civility over partisanship.

He was a skilled legislator on behalf of the people of Pinellas County, Florida, on behalf of Florida, on behalf of his country, on behalf of the members of the Armed Forces and the defense of this country. He was a champion of our men and women in uniform, veterans and their families, all of whom, wherever they lived, he viewed as his constituents. This bill to rename the VA Hospital in Bay Pines, Florida, which I am proud to cosponsor, is a fitting tribute to his devotion to our veterans and our troops.

Though he represented Florida longer than any Member of this House in history, Bill was originally from a hard-scrabble coal mining town in Pennsylvania. It was there he learned many lessons about the hardships facing working families and the need to ensure that opportunities would be within their reach, and he never forgot that.

He was a great Member of this body, a very powerful Member of this body, an extraordinary, influential American. But to all of us, he was Bill; to all those he came in contact with, he was Bill. He was a person who understood the needs, the fears, the aspirations, the hopes of his people and the people of our country.

My thoughts are with Beverly, with Bill Young's family, and with the people of Florida's 13th District. This House has lost a great Member.

Mr. Speaker, I heard from my friend, former Congressman Norm Dicks, today, and he asked me to submit this statement on his behalf. He had the privilege of serving with Chairman Bill Young for over thirty years on the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, and said this about him:

Chairman Young did more for the men and women in the armed

forces than anyone in Congress. Bill and Beverly made weekly

trips to Bethesda and Walter Reed to see our wounded warriors

and offered personal help to their families. Bill Young

believed in bi-partisanship; the Defense Subcommittee almost

always reported the Defense Appropriation bill with all

Members, Democrats and Republicans, in full support. Bill was

a great American, a great leader, and a great friend and he

will be truly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we end this Republican government shutdown.