Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. There are deep linguistic and political divisions within Ukraine. Frankly, that is true of many other countries as well. Democracy by its nature provides an avenue to overcome those differences through peaceful cooperation and dialogue. That is what must prevail in Ukraine, and what must guide all parties forward. Not force, not intimidation, and not separatism. The United States remains committed, Mr. Speaker, to standing with all of the people of Ukraine as they seek the better future they deserve. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly support this resolution and again thank Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Lowey for bringing this to the floor so quickly and decisively.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information he has given to us. Let me say that on Ukraine, I think the House acted properly. It acted in a timely fashion to express the views of this House with respect to the Russian violation of international law and the agreements that they have with Ukraine, and I am pleased we were able to join together to pass that through the House. Hopefully the Senate will pass it quickly. I just make the observation that the Senate I know believes that the reform of IMF will be important to work with that extension. We will see what happens on that. I thank the gentleman and his side of the aisle for acting promptly. We were pleased to join in that action. Let me ask the gentleman, the gentleman mentioned as we know that by March 31 the authorization for the sustainable growth rate payment will expire and the payment to physicians for Medicare services will be substantially reduced under present law. There is, I think, a strong feeling by many of us that this needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed permanently, and it needs to be paid for. It is my understanding that the bill H.R. 4015, a bipartisan agreement on the SGR payment policy, as the gentleman knows, does not have a pay-for in it. Is it my understanding that that will be amended before it is brought to the floor, or will there be an amendment on the floor to add the pay-for? I yield to the gentleman

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Let me clarify, Mr. Speaker, this will be under a rule and there will be an amendment made in order to add the pay-for; is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. So before it comes to the floor, it will be paid for. I ask the gentleman, it is my understanding that the pay-for, I don't know if I am accurate on this, but my understanding is that the pay-for is the repeal of the individual mandate. If so, can the gentleman tell me whether he has any indication that the Senate would be in agreement on that, and I say that because obviously there hasn't been agreement in the past, and if we use that as a pay-for, it seems to me it puts at risk meeting the March 31 deadline.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and I would say I am hopeful in light of the fact that the bill itself is a bipartisan, or at least the two committees have agreed on it, and I think there is general agreement on the fix for the SGR, but the pay-fors have been contentious. I would hope that, as the bill has been a product of agreement, that the pay-for, which is essential, would also be a product of that. I would hope we would see a bill come to the floor that does have agreement of both sides of the aisle so we can, as the gentleman points out and we fully agree, ensure that the SGR is fixed and put on a sustainable path for our Medicare and for the provider community prior to March 31. I would hope that could happen. Next, I don't know whether the gentleman has watched colloquies in the past, but the majority leader and I have had an ongoing discussion about immigration reform. Both of us believe the immigration system is broken. Both of us believe it needs to be fixed. Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any likelihood of an immigration bill coming to the floor anytime soon? Again, we have a relatively short period of time left to go, and we believe this legislation is one of the most important pieces that are pending on the agenda, and I would be, as I told the majority leader, very inclined to try to work with the majority on behalf of the minority, and I know the minority would like to get an immigration reform bill that we can both agree on passed as soon as possible. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I hope if it is not next week, it will be soon. I thank the gentleman for his information. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information he has given to me. I want to comment on one of the statements he made, with which I agree, in which, Mr. Speaker, you just told us--again, I agree--America doesn't work if middle class families are taking home less. I would urge him, consistent with that statement, in recognition of the fact that America works better when working families are making better wages, that we would hope the minimum wage could be brought to the floor. As the gentleman I am sure knows, in 2013 dollars, the minimum wage would now be $10.57 if it were at the same level it was over 40 years ago in 1968. The minimum wage has eroded very substantially in its purchasing power and its ability to give middle class families, as you say, and America a decent take-home pay. We believe both the minimum wage and unemployment insurance extension for the 1.8 to 2 million people who have lost that safety net is both hurting the economy and obviously hurting families. So we agree very strongly with the gentleman's statement. Obviously, the bills he refers to he believes will also have an effect on this issue, but I would hope that you would seriously consider bringing the minimum wage and unemployment insurance to the floor. We believe--although, frankly, I don't have a precise count on your side of the aisle, which I am sure does not shock you--that both of those bills would have the votes on this floor, as the Speaker has indicated, to work its will and to pass those pieces of legislation. So I would hope the gentleman would consider that. Secondly, Mr. Leader, we are pleased that flood insurance is moving ahead, we hope, and we want to thank you for your efforts that you have made on behalf of this. I know that Ms. Waters from the Financial Services Committee has been working very hard on our side. We very much want to see the relief extended to those who have been confronted with these extraordinary increases in premiums which are unsustainable, particularly for middle class families, but for almost everybody; and we appreciate the work that you have done with Ms. Waters to try to make sure that the protections that are extended are sufficient, certainly in the short term, but hopefully also in the long term, to meet both the objective of making it sustainable for families, but also, over the long term, fiscally sustainable for the Nation. So I want to thank you for that. We look forward to considering that next week and hope that will be on the floor next week. If the gentleman wants to comment further, I yield to him.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me say to him that I will ask my staff--and they usually do what I ask them to do--next week to sit down with your staff and to talk about the SKILLS Act. We have significant differences. It was passed on a largely partisan vote, as the gentleman knows, but I agree with him. As you know, I have an agenda that we call Make It In America, and it deals with skills, and it deals with a 21st century workforce education, and so the objective we agree upon. I will certainly look forward to working with him on the specifics to see if we can get an agreement, a consensus, so that we can pass a bill which accomplishes those objectives, because we share those objectives. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, I talk about the minimum wage. The majority leader answers, Mr. Speaker, that yes, the value of wages has decreased, but if we increased the Affordable Care Act to a 40-hour criteria, and less than that, 39 hours, no health care would necessarily be available to those workers, but you would increase their salary by 25 percent. Now on that theory, Mr. Speaker, perhaps if we increased the work to 80 hours a week, we would double their pay. Or perhaps we could triple their pay if you increased it to 120 hours a week. But, very frankly, it has eroded. The minimum wage is not worth what it was, and, very frankly, in 1969, the economy was not going bust. We weren't hemorrhaging jobs. We were doing pretty well. Very frankly, CBO has said that some 25 million Americans, some directly and some indirectly, would be advantaged by increasing the minimum wage and paying a wage that did not leave a worker in the richest country on the face of the Earth in poverty working 40 hours a week. That is not an acceptable alternative in America, and we have raised the minimum wage periodically. We raised it last, of course, when Democrats were in charge in 2007. We raised it to $7.25 over time, now $7.25, but it is substantially less and it replaces 36 percent of average wage, as opposed to in 1968, replacing 54 percent of average wage. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that yes, we can take other steps that the majority leader has pointed out that I think we perhaps can reach agreement on, but that we ought to recognize that we expect people who can and are able to do so work in America, but they also expect us to pay them a wage on which they can have some degree of financial ability to support themselves, a family, and to live decently in America. So I would hope that we could do that. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me discuss a bill that we believe will help the economy greatly. The Chamber of Commerce believes it will help the economy greatly. Farm owners believe it will help the economy, and it is the broadest coalition that I have seen in the country on an issue in many respects: evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Jews, other faiths, all have said, 70-plus percent of America says we ought to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Mr. Speaker, Speaker Boehner came forward with some principles in my State just a few weeks ago for moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform. We were very positively impressed with those principles. We may not have agreed on every jot and tittle of the suggestions, but we thought it was a very good basis to move forward on which to have a discussion and bring comprehensive immigration reform to the floor. As Tom Donohue, the president of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, said it was absolutely essential, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we could bring that to the floor, have a debate and have consideration of it. My view is it has the votes in the people's House to pass if it were brought to the floor. I would hope that could be done. With that, I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, frankly, I have heard this trust argument before. That would be an argument for not doing anything because you don't trust the administration to execute the laws and, therefore, don't pass any laws. I think that is a make-wait argument, Mr. Speaker. And, very frankly, there is a way to see who is right on this, I tell my friend, the majority leader. The majority leader says he doesn't believe that it has the votes on the floor. There is a wonderful way to test that-- bring it to the floor, and we will see who is right. The American people, over 70 percent of them, believe that we ought to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Polls on their side of the aisle and polls on our side of the aisle and independent polls largely agree: over 7 out of 10 Americans believe we ought to pass this bill. In fact, seven, or very close to 7 out of 10 of their representatives in the other body voted for comprehensive immigration reform. They had a vote. They brought it to the floor. It passed overwhelmingly. It has sat here for months, unattended, but maybe that is our alternative. Very frankly, there have been alternatives passed out of the Judiciary Committee and out of the Homeland Security Committee by the Republicans, and they are not on the floor either, Mr. Speaker. So no immigration alternatives have been offered for a vote on this floor, the people's House, a House in which the Speaker said when he took the gavel here, the people's will will be reflected because they would bring things to the floor. They accused us of not doing that. That was their right to do so, but now I suggest they are following a policy that they have severely criticized and said was wrong. So if they were sincere then, we would simply ask the majority leader to bring the bill to the floor and see if he is right or if I am right; to see whether we have the votes or we don't. The American people deserve that vote because they are overwhelmingly for that vote, and then they can take their own view from there as to who they agree with and who they don't agree with. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for his taking the time here to discuss two critical problems that confront us, first of all, the crisis that is ongoing in Ukraine and the negotiations that are currently underway with Iran. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, mindful of the words of President Kennedy, who urged us never to negotiate out of fear, but never to fear to negotiate. While rooted deeply in the cold war's tense climate, where nuclear war loomed over us all like a Sword of Damocles, his admonition is as relevant today as it was then. Today, we face a starkly different world, a world in which the chief threat to democracy, freedom, and prosperity is not a rival state superpower, but a complex and dangerous nexus of terrorism, instability, and autocracy. America has not shied away from the challenges this new reality presents. We have taken the fight once against terrorism to al Qaeda and its allies wherever they hide, and we have continued to promote peace, democracy, and individual freedom. And together with our allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, we have worked carefully and with determination to confront one of the most dangerous threats to global security and stability in our day: the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran. The extremist regime in Tehran is at the heart of the instability that is undermining America's interests across the region. Those interests are the safety of our troops stationed in the region, regional stability and prosperity, the prevention of an arms race that could spiral out of control, ensuring that weapons of mass destruction do not end up in terrorists' hands, the protection of trade routes and resources that fuel economies across the world, and safeguarding our ally, Israel. Iran continues to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism directed against America and our allies, supporting Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. As Syria's civil war has grown more deadly, Iran remains a primary backer of Syria's dictator, Hafez al-Assad, who has gassed his own people and continues to target civilians. Secretary Kerry said just last week that Iran, along with Russia, has actively been working to subvert the negotiations aimed at ending the bloodshed in Syria and moving the country toward a peaceful transition of power. And Iran's leaders continue to vilify Israel and its people, calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state, something Israel, America, and the world will never tolerate. Let it be absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker: the United States will always stand by Israel. And let it be even clearer to Iran and to the world: America and its allies will never accept a nuclear-armed Iran. A nuclear weapon would give Iran the ability to carry out its threats against Israel. It would destabilize the Middle East, and it would put American troops and our European allies at risk of catastrophic attack. That is why, Mr. Speaker, President Obama and Congress have worked together to enact the toughest sanctions regime in history and bring our allies together to enforce those sanctions. The employment of sanctions to compel Iran's compliance with international norms has been a bipartisan goal going back several Congresses and several administrations, Republican and Democratic. That is because America's policy with regard to Iran, as President Obama has forcefully and repeatedly emphasized, is not containment but prevention. We have made it clear to Ayatollah Khamenei--and those who conspire with him to spread terror and use it as an instrument of statecraft--that we will use every necessary asset at our disposal to deny Iran a nuclear weapon. While the military option remains on the table--as President Obama and Secretary Kerry have made it absolutely clear--we now have an opportunity to achieve our goals without resorting to the force of arms. That is the most desirable alternative. It is our duty and obligation to seize that opportunity. America is great, Mr. Speaker, not only because of our military might, but because of our moral might, our unwavering commitment to the power of human freedom and dignity that overcame communism and will overcome the terror and tyranny facing the world today. Kennedy was right, Mr. Speaker. We must never negotiate out of fear. And we are not. But neither should we fear to negotiate. And we are. And our objective is clear. The Iranian regime did not resume negotiations last year because it somehow had a change of heart. Iran altered its approach because the sanctions passed by Congress, enforced by the administration, and supported by our allies are having a profound effect on the Iranian economy, and, of course, because the Iranian people, in electing President Rouhani, signaled a desire to stop the confrontation with the West, which was undermining their economic well-being. The Joint Plan of Action that was signed in November of last year is a result of those sanctions and that election. But the authors of the policies pursued by Iran over the last four decades, the mullahs, remain. Iran agreed to the Joint Plan of Action not because it wanted to give up its nuclear ambitions, as they have said, but because it concluded that its national interests were better served by temporarily halting its progress towards a nuclear weapons capability in return for sanctions relief. But that interim agreement is only a first step. It makes important progress, but it does not provide the comprehensive, long-term assurance we need that Iran has abandoned and will not again pursue its goal of a nuclear weapon. Only a comprehensive, verifiable agreement that prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon will meet our and our allies' international security objectives. Given Iran's history of deception and denial, any agreement must include reliable, independent, intrusive, and unfettered verification that Iran is abiding by its commitments and that such a verification regime remains permanently in place. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan's admonition ``to verify'' is doubly essential in light of there being no basis ``to trust'' and that the consequences of breach are too catastrophic. Among the commitments Iran must meet has to be the end of its pursuit of nuclear weapons and compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency's robust and effective certification activities. Mr. Speaker, U.N. Security Resolution 1737 states: Iran shall without further delay suspend the following proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities: all enrichment- related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA; and work on all heavy water-related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water, to be verified by the IAEA. This is the international community, acting through the United Nations, speaking, not only ourselves. Mr. Speaker, the world has a responsibility to ensure that these goals are attained. But let there never be any doubt that should diplomacy fail--and all of us hope that will not be the case, but if it does--our military is, as Secretary Kerry said last week, ``ready and prepared to do what it would have to do.'' When Iran's leaders issue threats, we ought to remember the lessons of the 20th century, when the threats of tyrants and terrorists were neither effectively responded to nor heeded. History teaches us that the only way to change the behavior of regimes that threaten regional or global peace and stability is to stand up to them and hold them accountable. That is exactly what the United States and our allies are now doing. In my view, Iran came to the negotiating table and signed the Joint Plan of Action in the hope that it might gain extended sanctions relief without having to give up the path to a nuclear weapon fully, irrevocably, and verifiably. It is past time that we make it clear to the Iranians that the only path to regaining its economic footings is to comply fully with the Joint Plan of Action and quickly conclude a long-term, comprehensive agreement which assures compliance with U.N. Security Council requirements and elimination of a nuclear-arms capability. Until that objective, Mr. Speaker, is met, there must be no doubt that all relevant sanctions will remain in effect and be fully enforced. Mr. Speaker, I commend the administration, particularly the President, Secretary Kerry, and my dear friend, Assistant Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman. I commend them for the steps they have taken to enforce these sanctions and penalize those who seek to violate them. It ought to be clear to nations and companies around the world that Iran is not open for business. There must also be no doubt that if Iran violates its current commitments or fails to reach an acceptable final agreement, the temporary sanctions relief will be canceled, all sanctions will be restored, and the Congress will act to put additional sanctions in place. Iran will either comply with U.N. Security Council and IAEA determinations and foreclose any pathway to a nuclear weapon, or it will face economic decline and increasingly painful consequences. That is not our objective for Iran or for the Iranian people. The United States does not seek war. But we will not take any option off the table to prevent Iran from acquiring the most dangerous implements of war. While I remain skeptical, I support the administration's efforts to achieve a diplomatic resolution to this threat to our national security and to global security. Mr. Speaker, these talks are a test--a critical test. But they are also an opportunity for Iran, for the P5+1 nations, and for all the world to seek a peaceful resolution of this critical situation that confronts the international community. Until now, Iran has failed every test and has refused to negotiate in good faith, ignoring the will of the international community--and I would add, the best interests of the Iranian people. We must see whether this time the pressure of sanctions means that Iran is serious about reaching an agreement to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure permanently and with ongoing verification, abandoning its sponsorship of international terrorism, respects the rights of its citizens, and determines to be a positive participant in the community of nations-- or, on the other hand, if it continues to follow the path of international outlier: fomenting instability and terror in its regions and around the world. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian people are the inheritors of a great history and culture. They have given much to the world, including a long tradition of art, culture, and innovations in math and science. They are people for whom we rightfully have great respect. But we cannot, must not, and will not allow their leaders to continue to put the world at risk. Mr. Speaker, I support President Obama and his administration's effort to resolve this dangerous confrontation through the ongoing negotiations. As I have said, we pray for their success. The fruits of that success will be sanctions relief for Iran and its people. If it continues, however, its path of delay and deception and continues to sow unrest and tyrannies throughout the Middle East, Iran will only exacerbate its economic isolation. Mr. Speaker, I support the administration's conviction that the failure to achieve the expressed objectives of the P5+1 is not an option. Our finest hours as a country and as a democracy have always been when the free and democratic nations of the world came together with courage and resolve to protect and preserve international security and freedom. And our greatest strength has always been our willingness to negotiate--in this case with a determination to attain an agreement that is fair, but with a conviction that it must assure--it must assure--that Iran does not attain a nuclear weapons capability now or in the future. Mr. Speaker, the time is short. The consequences are profound, and success is our only option. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. I thank my colleagues from Florida for being on the floor, and I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that instead we can call up a bipartisan bill to alleviate the anxiety of millions of homeowners in flood-prone areas that their flood insurance premiums won't become simply unaffordable. Should we do any less? Twice already we have had the votes in this House to bring up this bill, a companion of which passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote of 68-32 on January 30. There is no reason why this bill wouldn't pass overwhelmingly. Once again, partisan politics has wedged itself into Congress' best intentions and the potential for achieving results. It is surprising that Republican Members from flood-prone districts have twice voted to block this bill from coming to the floor and to deprive their constituents of the assistance they need and the reassurance they deserve. Sometimes party asks too much. Sometimes party asks for votes which will hurt your constituents. Rise above party and vote for your people. We should not repeat the overwhelming delay that occurred in supplying assistance in response to Superstorm Sandy. After that storm, the Republican leadership blocked Congress from taking action on emergency disaster funding for more than 90 days. The continued obstruction of this bipartisan flood insurance bill is an unfortunate continuation of that same trend of letting partisanship get in the way of doing what is right. I know there are many of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that want to do what is right for their constituents. Do not let party regularity dissuade you from doing the right thing. I appeal to them, Mr. Speaker, to support their constituents, not their party, by setting partisanship aside, working with us to defeat the previous question, and allowing the House to vote on the Grimm- Waters legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation that will make sure homeowners don't find themselves under water in more ways than one. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the previous question, what does that mean? Our constituents, Mr. Speaker, must be watching. What is Mr. Hoyer talking about the previous question? What is all this talk about the previous question?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. It is simply a vote by which it says that, if the previous question is not approved, we can offer the bipartisan legislation to give the relief that is so desperately needed now, not 90 days from now--now. So defeat this previous question. And my Republican colleagues, if you care about your flood-ravaged and flood-risk constituents, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I share my friend's view that we need to be worried about the solvency of our Nation. We haven't done such a good job at that. We are, by the way, going to have a bill on the floor pretty soon which won't do much for that either, somewhat irresponsibly, in my view. But the solvency that I am worried about right now is the guy who lives in a $190,000 home with his family and has got a $25,000 premium facing him yearly, annual premium. It is going to make him move out of his home. But the problem he is going to have is nobody is going to buy his home. We need to act.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York and I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Let me start by saying this issue ought not to be subject to debate. America, the greatest land on the face of the Earth, and one of the most successful economic countries in history, ought to pay its bills. I can't believe there is any American who thinks that America should or would welch on that which it owes. That is not a very sophisticated argument. I can make a more sophisticated argument, but when it comes down to it, that is the issue: will America pay its bills? Will it give confidence to the investor community? Will it give confidence to the business community? Will it give confidence to our own citizens? Indeed, will we give confidence to the world that the world's leader can manage its own affairs responsibly? I want to join Leader Pelosi in congratulating the Speaker for bringing this bill to the floor. He brings it to the floor because he knows, as I have just said, there is no alternative for America but to pay its bills. He brings it to the floor because he knows that if he doesn't, the business community is going to think that the majority party in this House cannot manage the affairs of the United States of America in a responsible fashion. Lamentably, he brings it to the floor, apparently, with some doubts as to whether or not those who have elected him Speaker will follow him in taking a responsible path. My presumption is, although I don't know, is that the gentleman who chairs the Ways and Means Committee will vote for this. My presumption is Mr. Cantor, the majority leader, will vote for this. My presumption is that Speaker Boehner will vote for this. My presumption is based upon the fact that they have represented that there is not an alternative that is a responsible one. I doubt that there are many people on this floor who have urged us to pursue a big deal more than I have. I voted against the last budget agreement, otherwise known as Ryan-Murray, because I thought it was too small and did not move us toward fiscal responsibility and sustainability in the magnitude that it should have. Having said that, however, there is no alternative to pay the bills that we have incurred, that the House, the Senate, and the President on behalf of the American people have incurred, and because we are a great Nation, we will certainly not welch on our debts.

Mr. HOYER. So we come to this time with not many people on the floor, although we have demagogued this issue in the past. We, both sides. Let's be clear. On our side, we said that the Republicans cut revenues; therefore, they were responsible for the debt. On their side, they say Democrats spent money and invested money; and, therefore, they are responsible for the debt. The fact of the matter is we were all responsible for the debt. The fact of the matter is under the Reagan administration, when I came to Congress, we substantially increased the national debt, and we could only do so with Ronald Reagan's signature. Then under George Bush the first, we substantially increased the debt. We could only do so with George Bush's signature. Under Bill Clinton, we brought the debt down for 4 years running, and we ran surpluses for the next 4. Of course, Republicans were in the House and in charge for 6 years. So it was a team effort, if you will, and we had a budget surplus. Then in the second Bush administration, we substantially increased the budget deficit. We had two wars, and we paid for none; trillion dollar-plus in additional deficit, many trillions over time. So, my friends, we come to the floor today to do the only responsible alternative available to us, but that does not mean that anybody who votes for this believes that it is not critically important for us to have America on a fiscally sustainable path. The Business Roundtable has urged us to pass this bill. As Leader Pelosi quoted, the Chamber of Commerce said not to do so will put our country and our economy at risk. Yet, I fear there are going to be apparently a significant number of people who will come and vote ``no,'' vote ``no'' on paying America's bills; vote ``no'' on giving confidence to the international community that America is in fact able to manage its affairs. There ought to be no debate, as I said, when it comes to making sure that we pay our bills on time, the bills Congress has incurred. As I said, the Business Roundtable was quoted as saying: Urgent action is required on the part of Congress in order to prevent a default. In fact, they said if we defaulted, every American, all 315-plus million, would feel the negative effects. Why would anybody vote against such a bill?

Mr. HOYER. I will conclude because my friend is running out of time. This is not a partisan vote and should not be viewed as such. Republicans and Democrats have voted to protect the American people, provide for the national defense, and provide for the general welfare of our country pursuant to our constitutional responsibilities. Having done so, there is no responsible alternative but to pay our bills. That is what this vote is about. Let's show the courage, the wisdom, the common sense to do just that. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Mr. Cantor, the majority leader, for the recitation of the schedule. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. The gentleman ends with the observation that you expect action to avoid default as soon as possible. As you know, Mr. Leader, very well-- as we all know--beginning tomorrow, the Treasury Department will have to start using extraordinary measures because the authorization for the debt limit to be extended will end on the 7th. Secretary Lew has written to all of us and warned us that, on Monday, stating that: Time is short. Inaction could cause harm to our economy, rattle financial markets, and hurt taxpayers. I know that my friend has made similar comments, as I have made similar comments. We agree on this proposition. But I am concerned that we only have 7 legislative days scheduled for the rest of the month. Does the gentleman expect that we will take an up-or-down vote on a clean debt limit extension next week or before the end of this month? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that information. I want to say that the debt limit extension will have--Mr. Leader, I want to give you the information--in my view, well over 180 votes on our side of the aisle if that is a clean debt limit so that America can pay its bills and default is not a risk. As the gentleman indicates, we don't want it to be. The Speaker has indicated that it would be solved long before we would come to any deadline precipitating another crisis and undermining confidence. I want to tell the gentleman, the majority leader, that I will assure him that if we get a clean debt limit extension on the floor, that Democrats will work with him and his party to pass that in a way that we have a significant majority for that bill. Mr. Leader, I was encouraged to see last week at your retreat that the House Republicans put forward a set of principles for immigration reform and have now expressed a readiness to discuss how to fix our broken immigration system. I am sure you have seen the response from my side of the aisle, not only from the President, but myself and Leader Pelosi, has been positive. We see the steps that have been taken as positive steps. We do look forward to working together on these principles. We were just somewhat disappointed, however, that one of your Members, Raul Labrador of Idaho, was quoted yesterday as saying there was: Overwhelming support for the idea of doing nothing this year. It is a mistake to have an internal battle this year about immigration. I would hope that Mr. Labrador's remarks do not lead us to a place where we will either not proceed or to pass immigration reform on this floor. The majority leader has indicated in some of our colloquies that he believes the immigration system is broken. Again, we share that view, and I think almost all Members share the view that the immigration system is not working as intended. There have been four bills passed out of Judiciary and another out of Homeland Security. Homeland Security was essentially unanimous in terms of dealing with security. We have introduced, as the majority leader knows, H.R. 15, which is a compilation of the bipartisanly passed Senate provisions, dropping the border security provision and inserting the border security passed out of the Republican-led Homeland Security Committee, I think by unanimous vote, but maybe it was by voice vote. I would hope that we could, therefore, move forward and that Mr. Labrador's observation that there was ``overwhelming support for the idea of doing nothing this year'' would not be the prevalent view. We will again be ready to discuss this, and I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of my party, as I think the gentleman knows, would vote for the Senate bill. We don't think that the Senate bill is perfect. We would like to see a House bill. We have introduced a House bill, and we would like to consider it on the floor. I will close with this observation with reference to immigration. I am sure the gentleman read the comments of former Speaker Dennis Hastert: The House will act in its own way, as it should; but it should act soon. Immigration reform is necessary for our economic recovery. Again, this is former Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois. He goes on to say: First, securing our borders, so we know who is entering our country and for what purpose. I think there is unanimous consensus that needs to be addressed. He continues: Second, a legalization of those folks who are already here. Again, I think there is consensus on that. He goes on to say we should provide them with: A path to citizenship, much like any other immigrant would have. Apparently, there is not necessarily consensus on that, but we do have consensus on the first proposition. He goes on to say: These two things being satisfied, I believe immigration reform can move forward. It will make us economically stronger. It is politically smart, and morally right. That was quoted in Politico on February 2. Those are words of former Speaker Hastert. I would hope and I know the gentleman has been very constructive in his comments that we can move forward together in reaching some agreement so we can see comprehensive immigration legislation on the floor consistent with the principles of both parties, and we can come together and pass some legislation. I yield to the gentleman as to the prospects of doing so.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Labrador, and I will quote again, said there was: Overwhelming support for the idea of doing nothing this year. Now in light of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the observation is that the system is broken, and in light of Speaker Hastert's observation that it is morally the right thing to do, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't place much stock in this what I would call a rationalization of trust. Mr. Speaker, let me remind this House that George Bush, President George Bush, couldn't get the support of his party for immigration reform. His party rejected President Bush on this issue, this issue of trust. There are less illegal immigrants having come over the border in the last 5 years than there were during the Bush administration. There have been more people deported, in many cases with tragic results of separating families, over the last 5 years than there were in the Bush administration. This is a question of what is morally right to do. This is a question of what is morally right to do, to fix a broken system that is breaking apart families, undermining our economy, and abandoning what so many say is the right thing to do. So with all due respect to, frankly, trying to distract us on this trust issue, this is not a trust issue. This is an issue of law and the administration's performance both on border security and enforcing the law in this respect, a bad law and a law that ought to be changed, a law that is causing families to be torn apart. Mr. Speaker, I have stood on this floor as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe with my colleague, Frank Wolf, and I believe Mr. Cantor, perhaps, has been in some of these discussions himself when we have been dealing with the Soviet Union about keeping families together. So I will tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of trust. This is a matter of whether the House of Representatives is going to do what Speaker Hastert has urged us to do, what President Bush urged us to do, and for which I think there are the votes to do on this floor if a bill is brought to the floor that accomplishes the principles that both parties have articulated. Are there differences? There are some. Do we need to resolve them? We do. But we need to act. I say with all due respect to my friend, the majority leader, that I hope that those principles do not fall by the wayside as Mr. Labrador projects there is a consensus in your party to allow to happen. So I would urge us to move and urge us to work together on the principles that Mr. Boehner and yourself have put forward and which we have responded to in a positive way. Mr. Leader, there is also other business that needs to be done. We continue to be concerned, we were concerned when there were 1.2 million people who had fallen through the cracks and had no help. Now there are 1.7 million Americans who have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since December 28. An additional 72,000 will lose their insurance next week. We believe that needs to be addressed and reinstated, as we have done every time that we were in a similar place as we are today in terms of the availability of jobs and the seekers of jobs. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader if he can give us some view of the sustainable growth rate reimbursement for doctors who give our senior citizens medical care? That was extended with a temporary patch to March 31, Mr. Speaker, and that needs to be addressed permanently. There is a consensus, I understand, among the committees for a fix on that, but there is no pay-for on that. That is always the problem. It is easy to say we are going to fix; it is very difficult to pay for those fixes. On both of those issues, I would ask the gentleman on unemployment insurance and the SGR, whether the gentleman has any view on either one of those coming to the floor any time soon? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I might say the SKILLS Act, of course, was considered on this floor. We could have had a bipartisan bill, and I would like to see a bipartisan bill. As the majority leader knows, I have been a strong proponent of an agenda that we call Make It In America, which wants to expand manufacturing in America. We believe that when we expand manufacturing, grow jobs in America, Americans are going to be more likely to Make It In America, succeed, get a job, be able to support their families. So there is, I think, not disagreement on that. There was disagreement on the SKILLS Act. We believe the SKILLS Act essentially retreated in investments with skills.

Mr. HOYER. I will certainly yield.