[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 13 (Thursday, January 22, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H470-H472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the 
majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. I'm glad I am here for him 
to yield to.
  On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 
p.m. for legislative business.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour 
business and 12 p.m. for legislative business.
  On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative 
business.
  On Thursday and Friday, no votes are expected due to the House 
Republican Issues Conference.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of 
business tomorrow.
  We also expect to consider the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009. We anticipate as well the Senate taking action on the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. And if they do, our hope is to consider the 
legislation as early as next week.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the Democrat congressional 
stimulus bill will add nearly $1 trillion to the Nation's debt. That is 
roughly $2,700 in additional debt for every man, woman and child in the 
United States. Republicans are hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this stimulus 
bill will be considered openly so as to ensure there is no waste of 
taxpayer dollars.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the public has not been given an extra 
day to review the congressional Democratic proposal prior to committee 
consideration. Further, committees are rushing as we speak to consider 
their respective portions of the bill, completing markups in a single 
day.
  Mr. Speaker, as has been announced, we are going to be hastily 
considering the bill next week. I would ask the gentleman from 
Maryland, will all Members and the American people be given 48 hours to 
review the committee report prior to a vote next week as the House 
rules dictate?
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First let me say I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Clearly we 
have come into this Congress with an economy in crisis. That economy, 
very frankly, was not affected by anything the Democrats did over the 
last 2 years because, on economic policy, of course, we couldn't pass 
anything either through the Senate or over the President's veto. So the 
economic crisis that confronts us we believe is the result of 8 years 
of, in some respects fiscal irresponsibility and economic 
irresponsibility, and taking the referees off the field and with no 
regulation I tell my friend.
  Having said that, I continue to believe the gentleman's point is a 
good point, a point with which I agree. It is my hope that the 
committee markups will be completed tonight, maybe early this morning. 
As you know, the Appropriations Committee yesterday had a full markup, 
adopted six Republican amendments and a number of Democratic 
amendments. I don't know what the amendment status is in Energy and 
Commerce or Ways and Means, but I expect all those markups to be 
completed late tonight. It is my hope that once those markups are 
complete, that by tomorrow night we will post the results on the Web 
and that they will be available not 48 hours, but either Friday night 
or Saturday so that we will have 4 days to review those items.

                              {time}  1345

  But I want to reiterate my hope and my expectation, to state it even 
more strongly, that you and the minority Members, the country, and the 
majority Members will have 48 hours to review the product that is 
reported out of the committee after their markups.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response. I 
appreciate the spirit in which he responds to the inquiry and will set 
aside the supposition that perhaps we have to rush because of some 
policies that were in place over the last 8 years and would point out 
to the gentleman that, again, it is his party that has served in the 
majority over the last 2 years building up to the current situation 
that we are in.
  But I would ask the gentleman, specifically does he know what day the 
actual stimulus bill will be considered on the floor of this House?
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H471]]

  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. My expectation is it will be Wednesday.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama has actively solicited Republican ideas 
to be included in his stimulus package. I would like to ask the 
gentleman from Maryland, and I yield to him to respond to the question, 
will congressional Democrats allow all ideas to be considered as 
amendments on the House floor without restriction?
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  As the gentleman knows, a very large portion of this bill will be tax 
cuts. Almost half of this bill is going to be tax cuts for working 
Americans and for business. As the gentleman knows as a member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, rarely, if ever, I'm not sure that I can 
remember a Ways and Means tax bill that came to the floor as an open 
rule, which is what the gentleman suggests. So you would be shocked if 
I said, yes, that's the way the bill is going to come to the floor 
because your bills never come to the floor that way, whether they're 
Democratic Chairs or Republican Chairs.
  So my expectation is it will not come as an open rule, but I do not 
want to prescribe right now exactly--I have not talked to the Chair of 
the Rules Committee nor have the markups been complete, so I don't want 
to prejudge what the rule will be. But I certainly understand the 
gentleman's proposition that you would like alternatives considered, 
perhaps not to the tax provision. I don't know your particular 
position. I do know the position of the Republican leadership of the 
Ways and Means Committee historically and the Democratic leadership of 
the Ways and Means Committee historically. There has been bipartisan 
agreement that once a tax bill is forged, amending it on the floor 
becomes very complicated and very risky.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just respond by saying that perhaps because of 
the expedited nature of the process, given the severity of the crisis, 
that we would have an opportunity to change that tradition and open up 
Ways and Means bills. But I accept the gentleman's response, although I 
may not agree with the outcome.
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama has asked that 40 percent of the 
stimulus bill be reserved for tax relief. Republicans agree on the need 
for fast-acting tax relief for families and small businesses. 
Unfortunately, it seems the Democrat majority in its proposal includes 
far less tax relief than what President Obama requested. Some estimates 
say there is only 10 percent tax cuts. The estimates that I have had 
that seem reasonable and accurate is that there is only 33 percent of 
this proposed bill that includes tax cuts and the rest, the 66 percent, 
is just pure government spending.
  I'd also note that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
reported that less than half of the spending on infrastructure in the 
congressional Democrat proposal will be spent by the end of 2010. That 
hardly seems stimulative. By contrast, Mr. Speaker, our position would 
be tax cuts can have an immediate impact.
  So I would like to ask the gentleman from Maryland, the majority 
leader, will Democrats allow amendments to be considered for a vote on 
the floor that increase the tax relief in this bill, as President Obama 
has requested?
  And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I'm not sure that President Obama has requested specifically what you 
suggest he requested. He did say that he wanted a very significant 
portion of this bill to be tax cuts for working Americans. He promised 
that in his campaign. He promised that he was going to give 95 percent 
of taxpayers in America a tax cut. This bill will do that. And I'm not 
sure of the exact percentage, but I think probably between 30 and 40 
percent. You're correct in that approximate range.
  I think, as I have said before and maybe being redundant, as you 
know, and you're a member of the Ways and Means Committee, we 
appropriators sometimes felt constrained by this rule that your 
committee had, but, nevertheless, your committee has generally felt 
that tax provisions are very complicated and need to be worked on 
carefully and, once proposed, should be voted either up or down.
  I don't think that your representation that President Obama's saying 
that it ought to be amended on the floor is necessarily accurate, I 
tell my friend. But he does want and we will have and you will have the 
opportunity and every Member of this House will have an opportunity to 
vote for a tax cut for 95 percent of the taxpaying public. Not only in 
terms of individuals but also significant tax cuts for those in 
business to try to make sure that they can be more successful, that 
they can have an increased investment tax credit, and that they can 
have a look-back provision for applying to profits they made in the 
past, significant losses that are occurring now. The reason for that, 
obviously, is to try to keep them in business, keep those jobs able to 
remain with those businesses. So I can tell the gentleman that he's 
going to have a very significant tax cut for the American taxpaying 
public to vote for or against.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  It's my understanding that the President has said he expects 
Washington to act differently, that we should and owe it to the public 
to have an open and transparent process, up-or-down votes in the light 
of day. That's simply our request, Mr. Speaker, that we be given an 
opportunity to propose and vote on our tax relief. Obviously, there are 
differences in what types of tax relief are appropriate in terms of a 
stimulus bill, and that's being the spirit of my question.
  Mr. Speaker, the House just voted to stop the administration from 
spending another $350 billion in bailout funds. However, I would like 
to clarify the outcome of that vote for the people that elect us. Last 
week the Senate voted to allow the additional $350 billion to be spent. 
Therefore, the House and Senate are in disagreement about whether the 
$350 billion should be spent or not under the TARP program.
  So I would like to clarify, even though the House voted against the 
$350 billion, the administration will still be allowed to spend that 
money. And I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?
  And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Essentially, if I might clarify for our Members and their 
constituents, obviously the vote today was symbolic and everybody knew 
it was symbolic. Symbolic to the extent that the Senate voted last 
week, as the gentleman pointed out, to defeat a resolution of 
disapproval. Under the statute that was passed by this House and Senate 
and signed by President Bush, the process is that those funds are now 
available for expenditure because the House and Senate did not pass 
resolutions of disapproval. Very frankly, President Bush had indicated, 
if we had done this earlier, he would have probably vetoed such a 
resolution.
  I want to say to my friend that, in a bipartisan way, President Bush 
sent this request to the Congress. He indicated he sent it to the 
Congress at the request of President Obama. They both agreed that this 
request was necessary. So our two leaders, elected in 2000, 2004, and 
2008, have said that given the crisis that confronts us, they believe 
that this money is absolutely essential if they are to have the ability 
to stabilize the economy. Secretary Paulson believed that was 
necessary, who was the Secretary of the Treasury under President Bush. 
Secretary Geithner, who was just confirmed by the Senate, has said he 
believes that is necessary.
  So I say to my friend that the legislation passed, signed by 
President Bush, provided for a process which said that if either House 
voted against a motion for disapproval, the money would go forward. And 
as the gentleman has pointed out, in light of the Senate action, the 
money will, in fact, be available to President Obama and Secretary 
Geithner to try to continue to stabilize this economy, which is in such 
crisis.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed a bill to provide further 
restrictions on this next $350 billion that, as the gentleman points 
out, the Senate has approved. Yet it is my understanding that the 
Senate has no intention of taking the House bill that was passed out 
yesterday.
  So I would like to ask the gentleman, do you expect the bailout 
restrictions as passed by the House yesterday to become law?

[[Page H472]]

  Mr. HOYER. I would hope they would. I voted for it. I believe that 
they were a response to what we have seen is a lack of transparency, a 
lack of as much accountability as the taxpayer has the right to expect, 
and also the failure of the TARP funds already approved to help average 
people around this country who are faced with losing their homes, 
having their mortgages foreclosed on. The legislation that we passed 
yesterday, in a bipartisan vote, as you know, was legislation which 
said we ought to have greater accountability, greater transparency so 
the American public knows how their money is being spent and also that 
we need to have a greater focus on Main Street, not exclusively on Wall 
Street. I think the American public are for that legislation. I would 
hope the Senate would pass it.
  Very frankly, I will tell my friend one of the problems that it has 
in the Senate is that there is a large number of Members in your party, 
I believe, who are not for money being diverted to mortgage relief. I 
disagree with that as a policy, but the issue is whether they can get 
60 votes to take it up. I tell the gentleman I'm hopeful that they 
will.
  In addition, as I said on this floor in response to Congresswoman 
Foxx, it is my understanding that Chairman Frank and President Obama 
have had discussions and that President Obama believes that conditions 
and transparency and focus on helping people whose mortgages are at 
risk is something that his administration is going to follow whether or 
not that legislation is passed into law.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say in closing that I would hope that 
the standard of transparency and openness that should be applied to the 
expenditure of the TARP moneys can be applied to the conduct of the 
proceedings of this House over the next 2 years during the 111th 
Congress. I think we owe it to the American people. We owe it to the 
American people to know what the Members that they elect are doing, 
what they're voting on, which is why I again say to the gentleman I 
hope that the proceedings next week on this unprecedented amount of 
money in the bill that is currently being marked up, this unprecedented 
amount can come to this floor in the most open, transparent way 
possible, giving the minority, the Republicans on this side of the 
aisle, the ability to make their proposals known, to have votes on 
those ideas because, after all, that is the spirit in which we would 
like to work not only with the gentleman and his party but certainly 
with the new President.

                          ____________________