Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma, for the leadership that he has demonstrated throughout this process on this bill, on the farm bill, and know that his heart has been placed into this process and know that the outcome will be one that has been benefited by his leadership throughout the last several years in his dedication and leadership on this issue. Madam Speaker, I do rise today in support of the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. This bill is designed to give people a hand when they need it most. Most people don't choose to be on food stamps. Most people want a job. Most people want to go out and be productive so that they can earn a living, so that they can support a family, so that they can have hope for a more prosperous future. They want what we want. If others, and there may be some, choose to abuse the system--that's not out of the realm of possibility--frankly, it's wrong for hardworking, middle class Americans to pay for that. Madam Speaker, I want to tell you a story that's very fitting for this bill. There was a woman from Arkansas. Her name was Sherry. She moved there to that State with her two children, ages 11 and 14. She lived with her mom. The four of them shared a two-bedroom apartment. Sherry didn't have much work experience as a stay-at-home mom, so she applied for help through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, otherwise known as the TANF program, the welfare program that President Clinton and a Republican Congress reformed in 1996 to impose work requirements for able-bodied adults. Sherry's case officer worked with her to obtain an on-the-job training position at a local hotel where she was hired for an entry-level position before she was quickly promoted to being a team leader. As the Department of Workforce Services in Arkansas reported, Sherry's welfare case was closed and she continued her job at that hotel, a job she loved, going so far as to equate her coworkers with family. And like a family, when the hotel was remodeled, they gave Sherry the hotel furniture for her own apartment. Madam Speaker, there is dignity in work. I am supporting this bill today because I want to see, as I know all of us do, more success stories like Sherry's. The reforms made by this bill will put people on the path to self-sufficiency and independence. I also want to say, Madam Speaker, there's been a lot of demagoguery around this bill and, unfortunately, a lot of misinformation. Because the truth is anyone subjected to the work requirements under this bill who are able-bodied, who are able-bodied under 50, will not be denied benefits if only they are willing to sign up for the opportunity for work. There is no requirement that jobs exist. There are workfare programs. There are options under the bill for community service. This bill is a bill that points to the dignity of a job to help people when they need it most with what they want most, which is a job. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, Chairman Lucas, for his leadership and the gentleman from Florida, who just spoke before, Congressman Steve Southerland, for their hard work on this issue. I would also like to recognize a member of my staff, who I can tell you has personally been a teacher to me on welfare policy and how the wrong policies can destroy a person's self-identity and lull them into a life of dependence, but how the right policies can help lift people out of poverty and on a path to independence. Roger Mahan, Madam Speaker, who is here in the Chamber, has dedicated his professional life to helping lawmakers adopt the right policies. I'm privileged to have Roger as a part of my team and as my teacher. This House and this country benefit from his knowledge and dedication on this very emotional issue, and I thank him for his service and guidance. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 2 p.m., and no votes are expected. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. Madam Speaker, Members are advised that, pending ongoing discussions on the continuing resolution, the House may need to be in session during the week of September 23 and possibly into the weekend. Members should expect an announcement next week regarding when the House would meet during the week of September 23. This is a change from the previously announced schedule. Madam Speaker, next week, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. The House will likely consider H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, sponsored by the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Representative Doc Hastings. In addition to improving forest health and helping to prevent catastrophic wildfires, this legislation contains a short-term extension of the Secure Rural Schools program. In addition, I expect the House to consider H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013, authored by Representative Mark Amodei; and H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013, drafted by Representative Paul Gosar. These bills, both from the Natural Resources Committee, will foster economic growth and create jobs for the middle class. The House will also consider the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act, authored by Agriculture chairman, Representative Frank Lucas. This legislation restores the intent of the bipartisan welfare reforms adopted in 1996 to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also refocuses the program on those who need it most. No law-abiding beneficiary who meets the income and asset tests of the current program and is willing to comply with the applicable work requirements will lose his benefits under the bill. Finally, Madam Speaker, Members should be prepared to vote on the continuing resolution as the new fiscal year approaches.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker. First, I would say I'm glad he received the news that we may very well be in session in the last week of September the way he has because I do think it reflects the seriousness with which both sides take the pending fiscal issues and deadlines that we are about to confront both in the continuing resolution as well as in the debt ceiling, itself. Now, Madam Speaker, I've set aside the statement that my friend, the Democratic whip, has indicated about not doing anything this week, because we just voted on a bipartisan bill enforcing accountability on ObamaCare. As the Democratic whip knows, ObamaCare is growingly unpopular in this country. In fact, in the latest public poll out today, nearly 60 percent of Americans reject ObamaCare and the direction in health care, and we are serious and committed on this side of the aisle for a better future for health care. The President, himself, has said that it's not ready for prime time and has issued waivers for businesses, for insurance companies. We need to have a waiver and a delay for all people of ObamaCare. The bill that we passed today says that the administration is hoping that all of the income subsidies that are still in effect will go forward in a transparent and accountable way. That's really impossible to guard against fraud given that the administration has already exempted corporate America and the businesses from having to comply with the verification of someone's eligibility for subsidies. So there is no way that this law can work; and our side is committed to discussing how we go forward, which is, first and foremost, a delay of ObamaCare. I'd say to the gentleman that I'm glad that he is willing to sit down and talk, and I would hope that he could impose that upon the administration, because as late as August 27, 2013, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said: The President has made it clear: we are not going to negotiate over the debt limit. I would say, Madam Speaker, history has shown us that in periods of divided government there have always been discussions around the fiscal issues of this country; and in fact, the issue of the debt ceiling has provided a forum for resolution on some of those fiscal issues. Going back to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings that was negotiated and settled around a debt ceiling discussion, as was the Congressional Review Act, as was, Madam Speaker, as we know 2 years ago, the Budget Control Act. So I hope that the gentleman could take his dedication to trying to work things out to the White House and say it's time for all of us to sit down and resolve these issues. Now, as far as the sequester is concerned, I would say to the gentleman he knows I don't think that the sequester is the right way and the best way to go about reducing spending. I mean, just by its very nature, a blunt, across-the-board cut treats programs that you might want to get rid of in the same way that it treats programs that, perhaps, are really doing a great job. That indiscriminate type of cut is something on which we could really do better. We could do a lot better than doing those kinds of cuts, which is exactly our point. We need to sit down and discuss with this administration how we are going to effect the reforms that we need on the entitlement side and effect the delay of ObamaCare. That's what we've got to do, Madam Speaker.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourn today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next and that the order of the House of January 3, 2013, regarding morning-hour debate not apply on that day.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia in his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I think it is not only a timely bill, but a bill that is essential to the health and well-being of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman's assertions, the prior gentleman who spoke from New Jersey, I would simply say those scare tactics do not have a place in legitimate debate on this floor. Scare tactics to say that somehow Republicans on our side of the aisle don't care about people's health care are just not true. We don't believe in omnibus Washington-engineered health care. That's what's going on here--Washington bureaucrats deciding what kind of health care you can have, which doctors you can see, how much those doctors and hospitals are going to get paid, and how the insurance companies have to act. All of that is in the hands of Washington bureaucrats under ObamaCare, which is why this bill and this law is suffering so much in the minds of the public. This is not the right way to go. We believe in patient-centered care. Republicans believe that it ought to be about the doctor-patient relationship, not between the bureaucrats and the doctor. It ought not be about the bureaucrats and the insurance companies. It ought to start with the patients and their families. So these scare tactics, really, Mr. Speaker, are not relevant to this discussion; and they are just that, scare tactics. We care about the health and well-being of the American people, which is why this bill is coming to the floor. Recently, Mr. Speaker, we've learned that the IRS has been abusing its power by targeting and punishing American citizens for their political beliefs and then recklessly spending taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences and bonuses for its employees. This kind of government abuse must stop. The last thing we should do now is to allow the IRS to play such a central role in our health care. The IRS has a role in nearly 50 different aspects of ObamaCare. The agency's involvement is so extensive that there is a designated office within the IRS just to implement ObamaCare. The IRS will have access to the American people's protected health care information. Given that this same agency has illegally disclosed protected taxpayer information, the privacy concerns raised by many are legitimate. This is nothing short of an unwelcome, Big Government overreach into the most personal aspect of our lives. ObamaCare is bad for the economy and for working middle class families. It increases costs, impedes innovation, and we know is now turning full-time jobs into part-time jobs, which is why so many on both sides of the political spectrum are now beginning to realize, in the words of three Democratic union leaders, that this law is creating nightmare scenarios in the health and well-being of millions of hardworking Americans. The legislation before us today will at least prevent the unnecessary intrusion of the IRS into our health care. Members of both parties should be focused on removing the Federal bureaucracy from the everyday lives of the American people, and this act will do just that. Again, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for his hard work on this issue, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measures we're bringing to the floor this week aimed at stopping government abuse. With millions of working middle class Americans struggling, House Republicans have chosen to lead on the issues that matter to them. We've focused on creating jobs, lowering energy prices, offering children a better education, and lessening the burden of regulations and red tape on their lives. This week, we are holding government accountable to them by increasing transparency, cutting waste, and giving them new protections from an out-of-control bureaucracy. Our plan is to stop the reckless waste of taxpayer dollars with new controls for Federal agency spending and to give new powers to our citizens so that government bureaucrats can be held accountable for any political intimidation or poor customer service that may occur. These reforms are reforms that our country needs because many in Washington simply have forgotten the most important principle--the Federal Government works for the people and not the other way around. I'm surprised that the Democratic leaders have urged opposition to several of these commonsense measures. Why do they want to forbid citizens from transparently recording conversations with Federal regulators? You have to ask: Why do they want to keep paying out hefty bonuses to well-compensated executives in these times of fiscal stress and economic restraint? Why is it that the opposition leaders want to keep paying senior Federal officials who are under investigation for serious ethical wrongdoing? Why do they want to use taxpayer dollars to do that? It just defies logic, Mr. Speaker. The package of bills being brought to the floor this week are common sense, and they should easily garner bipartisan support. There's simply no reason for Members of either party to support megabonuses, expensive paid vacations, and zero accountability measures for Washington bureaucrats. We are here to represent the people, not the government. Working families in America want to trust their government, and they want to rebuild their faith in our economy. These bills are a much-needed step in the right direction toward accomplishing this goal. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation. I urge the Senate to join us in this effort and not waste time while these abuses continue.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act. I want to commend the gentleman from California, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I also would like to commend Congressman Engel for his leadership in working through this issue bringing forward this piece of legislation. The authoritarian regime in Iran is a brutal theocracy that suppresses dissent at home and sponsors terrorism and chaos abroad. For years, our State Department has listed Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and many Americans have lost their lives at the hands of Iranian-backed killers. In a bid to establish reasonable dominance, Iran foments instability in neighboring countries and is a co-belligerent in Bashar Assad's ruthless war against the Syrian people. Despite rhetoric that may lead some to a contrary conclusion, this is the nature of a regime that continues its headlong effort to acquire nuclear weapons capability. Like all Americans, I want to see Iran abandon its nuclear aspirations through peaceful negotiations, but its leaders must understand the path they are on now will only lead to more condemnation and pressure. Considering that Iran continues to flagrantly violate numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions that call for the suspension of its nuclear enrichment program, while denying inspectors access to suspected nuclear sites, it is clear that Iran has negotiated again and again in bad faith. America's policies must be based on facts and not some hope about a new government perhaps in Iran that somehow will change the nature of the clerical regime in Tehran. We must respond to Iran's policies and behavior, not to its rhetoric. This act will strengthen the sanctions already in place and provide the President with new economic tools to pressure Iran to change course before it is too late. Strengthening these measures will help our diplomatic efforts to encourage Tehran to become a responsible member of the international community and, once and for all, to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California, the gentleman from New York, and the rest of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their hard work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the Democratic whip for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Senate acted on the student loan bill the House passed last month, and I expect the House to deal with it promptly next week. In addition, I expect to consider H.R. 2610, the Fiscal Year 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, authored by Representative Tom Latham. Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that the House will begin consideration of this bill on Tuesday afternoon and should be prepared to offer amendments at the appropriate time in the reading of the bill. Members are further advised that the 6:30 p.m. vote series that day could be longer than normal. For the remainder of the week, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills to restrain a runaway government and re-empower our citizens. To stop government abuse and protect the middle class, we will first bring a number of bipartisan bills to the floor under suspension of the rules on Wednesday. Following that, we will debate two bills pursuant to rules focusing again on stopping government abuse and protecting the middle class. The first, H.R. 367, the REINS Act, sponsored by Representative Todd Young, requires congressional approval of regulations that cost over $100 million. The second, H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act, sponsored by Representative Tom Price, prevents the IRS from implementing any portion of ObamaCare. When Federal bureaucrats abuse their power and waste taxpayer dollars, liberty is eroded, the economy is slowed, and the rule of law betrayed. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his tenacity, as this is a weekly discussion between he and I, and I'm delighted to respond to say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that it is something that we should commit ourselves to working out. But as the gentleman knows, the position of the majority is that we don't want to enter into discussions if the prerequisite is you have to raise taxes. The gentleman has heard me every week on this issue in that we believe strongly you fix the problem of overspending and you reform the programs needing reform to address unfunded liabilities first. Then, if the gentleman is insistent that the taxpayers need to pay more of their hard-earned dollars into Washington, that discussion, perhaps, is appropriate. But as a prerequisite for entering budget talks that we agree to raise taxes is not something, I think, that the American people want this body to engage in.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his question. I would note for the record that I believe, if I have my facts correct, that during the time that the gentleman was in the majority last, the last Congress, the 111th, 48 times there was an avoidance of going to conference. All of the sudden the gentleman says that that's the panacea. So I would tell the gentleman, given his litany of examples of who's talking to whom around here, there is a lot of talk about how we resolve our differences. In fact, I do know that Chairman Ryan is talking to Chairman Murray across the Capitol of how we go forward. But I would underscore again to the gentleman that it is not our intention to discuss taking more hard-earned taxpayer dollars from Americans while we have not fixed the problem they expect us to fix. I'd also say to the gentleman that as far as appropriation bills are concerned, he is correct that I did announce that the T-HUD bill would be coming to the floor next week, and it will be the fifth bill that we will do prior to the August work period. I would remind the gentleman that when he was last in the position of the majority, the appropriations bills did not come to the floor under an open process. In fact, there were structured rules on every one, if my memory serves me well. It's much easier that way to shut out diverse opinion. But instead, the Speaker has this Congress insist that we have an open process and allow for robust debate on some of the very difficult issues. The gentleman knows we have been true to that word. So I remind the gentleman that, yes, there is a commitment to open process; there is a commitment here to trying to resolve these challenges before us. The gentleman is correct, we're going to have a very busy fall trying to address the needs of this country, whether it is the spending and budget needs or whether it is the needs of the middle class families who are struggling out there every single day wondering when the economy is going to pick up, wondering what's going to happen to their health care. We have a looming ObamaCare law that already the administration has admitted is threatening job growth. Therefore, they offer relief to businesses but refuse to do so for working people. We don't think that's too fair. We have Democratic union leaders who have said that this law is going to provide and has already created nightmare scenarios for millions of working Americans insofar as their health care and economic well-being are concerned. There are real issues to be resolved, Mr. Speaker, and I do hope that the gentleman will abide by what I know he has always been for, and that's solving problems. I do hope that he will work with us to do that in the coming months.

Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, the answer to that last question is no. But I would say to the gentleman, the discussion the gentleman just had was so full of various and sundry issues, I don't know really where to begin, other than to say what I think is lost in the gentleman's comments is the focus on the hardworking families and businesses of middle class America. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman is full of ``that's not going to happen'' because Washington says that's not going to happen for political reasons. And what we ought to be focused on is how we can act to solve the anxiety that seems to continue to grow on the part of the American public when they wonder about their job, they worry about their tuition costs, they worry about their children's education, they worry every night when they go to bed. The gentleman is so sure that we can and can't do things for political reasons, the President is out giving campaign speeches, some of which we have heard dozens of times during the campaign season, that what all of us should be absolutely focused on is coming together not for political imperative, but to solve the problems to provide the relief to the middle class of this country that is asking us to do that. So instead of the political demands and imperatives that the gentleman's list of issues was about, let's focus on the people that sent us here. Let's make sure that this body of any in Washington can begin to work for the people rather than the other way around.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANTOR. In September, yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman that it is our hope that we can work together across the aisle to solve the problems, to come up with the answers as to how we are going to pay back the additional debt that we'll have to incur in this country. And I think whatever budget you look at, their side or our side, Mr. Speaker, in any iteration, calls for the incurrence of additional debt. The object should be for us to reduce the need for us to incur that debt so we can relieve the American people of that contingent liability. And our side has said we would like to do so within the next 10 years, to bring the budget to balance. I hope that the gentleman will join us in that spirit, rather than saying we should just continue to borrow into eternity, without some recognition that that just can't be a sustainable solution either. So I would say to the gentleman, when he is off talking about the need to go to conference, and frankly, some of the statements he made about VAWA and the farm bill were inaccurate. But I do think that there were a lot of things that this House has done that the President nor the Senate seems willing to respond to. And as I've said before, Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is to address the needs of the working people, the middle class of this country. We passed the SKILLS Act. That was a bill designed to try and align the worker training programs at the Federal level with the employment opportunities out there across the different regions of the country so we could respond to the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of job openings in certain industries, simply because our workforce doesn't have the proper skills and training. The President, if he wanted to help the middle class families, instead of off campaigning again, giving the speeches, he could come and call up Harry Reid and the Senate and say, Bring that bill to the floor, Mr. Leader; we can do something for the American people. In the same vein, this House, last week, passed a bill which I believe--and I'm sure the gentleman shares my sentiment, that ultimately what we've got to do to grow our economy and secure our economic future is to provide for a quality education for our kids. We passed a landmark piece of legislation last week, without any bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker. But again, if the gentleman is so intent on wanting to help and wanting to do something, not because of Washington's needs, but because of what we've got to do for the kids across this country and their families, then let's help try and forge an answer on reauthorizing the education bill. We also, Mr. Speaker, passed a bill that made it easier for working families to spend time with their kids and hold down an hourly wage job. Is there any movement on that? The President could certainly say, Let's do that; let's provide some relief to the middle class. We also passed in the House, Mr. Speaker, several energy bills to help the families out there across this country who are on their vacations right now, choking when they see the price of gas at the pump. We have bills. The President could go ahead and approve the Keystone pipeline. Where else in the world could you have an environmentally sensitive people, other than in America? We do it cleaner and better than anyone. And to sit here and deny us the opportunity to take advantage of our indigenous resources, all it does is cost our working families and businesses more money. We also have passed bills to allow for safe and environmentally sensitive ways of going into our deep oceans, to go in and to tap into the resources that are there, things that technology has unleashed. But yet, neither the Senate nor the President seems interested in helping the middle class and the working families, because all we hear from the other side is what we can and can't do politically here in Washington. I would say to the gentleman, there are plenty of things that we could get done together. Let's start to focus on the people of this country, not the political imperatives of this institution.

Mr. CANTOR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANTOR. There was no vehicle to go to conference on, Mr. Speaker. If the gentleman recalls, there was a blue slip on the Senate bill, Mr. Speaker, and so we took up the bill in the House and went ahead and passed the bill. So, I don't even know why that is even pertinent to this discussion, Mr. Speaker. I'd also say, the gentleman understands as well, there was a bipartisan farm bill that came to the floor. And if I recall, that bipartisanship faded away, which is what now then caused the House to bring up another farm bill. This time, trying to be transparent in the process, brought up the agricultural policy piece, which has passed the House without any bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker. Then we are also, as the gentleman knows, engaged in discussions with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee as to forging a consensus on a nutrition piece so that we can, yes, act again on that. So I'd say, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman, it is not accurate that we don't intend to eventually go to conference and iron out the differences between the House and the Senate on both of those issues, on the ag policy, as well as the nutrition policies.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday, July 30, 2013, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, a good education is the first step in the long walk to living the American Dream. That is what this amendment is about, Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman, what I'd say to the gentleman from California, first of all, this is an amendment which provides States the option, if they want, to allow this type of funding or flow of Federal dollars. No one's forcing any State to do anything or any local school district. I'd also point out, Mr. Chairman, that I believe there are several cities--I think one in the gentleman's State, in San Francisco--which actually have allowed for State dollars to follow the kids. So I think to the point that it's a bookkeeping difficulty, certainly there are localities, school districts who've figured out that this can be easily done. And I want to follow up on the point that the gentleman from Utah has made. This is about how Federal dollars currently are allocated under title I. And in the school districts, once the school districts have the money, the way the Federal requirement is now, there are some schools that receive a lot of title I money, and there are others that could receive none, if very little title I money. But, in fact, what the amendment is about is trying to provide all title I kids with the resources that I think all of us want them to have.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the state of the law is such that there is a requirement now that title I moneys at the local level go to schools with 75 percent or higher of population. It is the overpopulated, poorest schools that are, in the law, said to get the moneys first. The problem is: What if your school doesn't quite make that cutoff? What if that population isn't quite at that benchmark? What about the title I kids in those schools? That's what this is trying to address, Mr. Chairman. And so, again, too many of our underprivileged children today are finding themselves in schools that cannot address the problem, and this amendment is aimed at trying to restore those children and those parents' ability to have the quality of education that all of us want. Again, this amendment does so by granting the States the power, if they so choose, to allow title I funds to follow the students. I believe the current system clearly is leaving some kids behind that exist in these schools that aren't getting any money. And the lack of access to quality schools and quality teachers will and can hold children back, and, most especially, those children living in poverty and those often with special needs who do require help. Many States are reforming their system to address these inequities and these shortcomings and, in fact, as I indicated earlier, there were some major school systems, and I know of one in the gentleman's State, that have actually tried to redirect State and local moneys according to this spirit, which is: allow every child to have equal access to funds and resources. But, unfortunately, those States don't have the flexibility to match up Federal funds with these type of reform efforts that are ongoing at the local and State level. Federal title I funding was created to help the most vulnerable of our students--foster children, the homeless, those living below the poverty line--and this amendment will give States the option to allow title I funds to follow each student to the public school--including charter school--of their choice. Again, right now, Federal dollars do not follow all of the students that they are supposed to help. This amendment will make certain that, no matter what school a low-income student attends, he or she will benefit from these dollars. Mr. Chairman, improving our education system is a bipartisan issue, and this amendment builds on the bipartisan work being done at the State level. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, at this time, just thank the leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota, the Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, for his commitment to responding to the desires of all of our constituents who believe that education is the fundamental building block for all to achieve the American Dream. I salute him and his work and his tenacity to try and get things right in the reforms that are necessary to allow for that promise to be realized by all of our kids. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 2397, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, authored by Representative Bill Young. This bill provides the resources necessary for our men and women in the armed services to carry out their vital mission. There are also a number of bills the Appropriations Committee has reported which may come to the floor in the near future. Furthermore, the House may consider two energy bills out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The first bill, H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, authored by Representative David McKinley, would create an enforceable minimum standard for the regulation of coal ash by the States, allowing their use in a safe manner that protects jobs. The second bill, H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, sponsored by Representative Bill Cassidy, will require the EPA, before finalizing any energy-related rule costing more than $1 billion, to report to Congress on specific energy price and job impacts. Both of these bills, Mr. Speaker, foster an environment of economic growth and lower energy costs for American families and businesses. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the House acted last month to prevent the doubling of the student loan interest rate. Should the Senate send us legislation, the House may act as soon as next week.