[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 103 (Friday, July 10, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7992-H7996]
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. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, 
the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's 
schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday, the House 
will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for 
legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, 
the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for 
legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 
10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 
a.m.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of suspensions bills, as is the custom, will be announced 
at the close of business today.
  In addition to the suspension bills, we will also consider the 2010 
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act and 
the 2010 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, this is our first colloquy since the July 
4 recess, and we are scheduled to be in session for 3 more weeks before 
the next recess. So, Madam Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman if he could 
give us a sense of what will be considered on the floor beyond next 
week.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I expect to complete the appropriations bills and 
also the large item that will be on the agenda is the health care 
legislation that we hope to pass before we leave on the August break. 
Prior to that, I intend to have on the floor a provision dealing with 
statutory PAYGO.

                              {time}  1345

  We have not yet determined exactly whether that bill will be free 
standing or whether it will be on another bill that would be reported 
to the House. In addition, the food safety bill is possible. The 
committees are still working on other matters, and we hope to have the 
food safety issue resolved. That came out of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, but there are a number of other committees, including the Ag 
Committee and your own committee, Ways and Means, that have expressed 
interest in that.
  Those are essentially the items that we intend to deal with between 
now and the August break.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, the Senate is scheduled to be in session 1 week longer 
than we are in the House, and I ask the gentleman if he expects us or 
anticipates our working into August, as the Senate is scheduled to do.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman I think knows, because I think he got a preliminary 
schedule from my office which had us working the first week in August, 
I received comments from both sides of the aisle from a lot of Members 
who have young children, school-aged children. One of the realities is, 
we called around

[[Page H7993]]

the country, and a lot of the schools are going back into session 
anywhere between August 15 and August 25, some later, but a lot of the 
schools, and Members on both sides of the aisle were concerned that if 
we did not break on July 31 that they would be unable to have a 
vacation with their children during the summer months. As a result, we 
concluded that we would end our session on the 31st, a week before the 
Senate concluded. Originally, as I say, we were both scheduled to be in 
the first week of August. Obviously, as the gentleman knows, the good 
news is that because of our rules, we are able to get our work done 
more quickly than the Senate is able to get its work done. So we think 
that we can accomplish what we need to accomplish within the time frame 
available.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Speaking of rules, I want to, first of all, thank the gentleman for 
the ongoing dialogue that he and I have had over the last several weeks 
regarding how the House will go forward in terms of deliberating on 
appropriations bills. I sincerely express my gratitude for his 
engagement, his patience and the back and forth; and I know that we 
have been unsuccessful thus far in getting to what I believe is a 
mutually desirable goal, which is to return to the precedents of the 
House in terms of open rules surrounding appropriations bills.
  Madam Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, he has noticed two approps 
bills for next week, and I would like to ask him, what kind of rules 
does he expect these bills to be considered under?
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation with respect to 
trying to work together to reach an agreement under which we would have 
confidence that we could consider the appropriation bills within the 
time frame available to us. We are on a good schedule now. As you know, 
we have passed seven of the 12 bills from the House. We have five more 
left to go. My expectation is that we will complete those.
  Let me say that he and I have now been talking, I think, for 
somewhere in the neighborhood of about 3\1/2\ months about this issue. 
Early on I made a proposal that, from my perspective, did two things: 
one, it provided for time frames in which we would consider 
legislation; and two, it provided to the minority party, which does not 
control the Rules Committee--we were both in that situation for a 
period of time--but nevertheless, provided your party with the 
opportunity to offer such amendments as it deemed desirable, that it 
wanted to offer.
  With respect to the two bills that you asked me about, I have not had 
an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Obey or with the subcommittee Chairs 
of those two committees the specific rule that they are looking for and 
whether or not they've been able to reach any agreements with their 
counterparts, the ranking members on those two subcommittees. So I 
can't answer your question at this point in time; but as we have had 
discussions, I want those discussions to continue. I will say to my 
friend that I had a discussion with one of your Members who is on the 
Appropriations Committee today who came over to this side of the aisle. 
We were talking about it, again, with a continuing effort to see if 
there is some way we can provide for the objectives of, I think, both 
of us.
  Mr. CANTOR. I do want to, again, express my gratitude for his belief, 
as a former appropriator, that we ought to be operating under open 
rules and an open process when we are talking about deliberating and 
executing our constitutionally mandated role of expending and 
authorizing taxpayer dollars. And I do know that the gentleman shares 
my belief that we ought to get there. And I do also know and the 
gentleman has been very forthright in telling me and the leader on our 
side about his desire to want to get the work done of the people. I 
don't think that we disagree on trying to get the work done. I do 
believe, though, that we do owe to the American public the ability to 
see our work and the ability to have a full discussion on the separate 
issues that surround each appropriations bill. As the gentleman knows 
even more than many in this House, as he has served here and on the 
Appropriations Committee, the precedents of the House is open rules. 
And he and I have had discussions about what, perhaps, our party did 
when it was in the majority. During the Republican majority, the most 
appropriations bills ever to be considered under a restrictive rule 
during any one year was in 1997 when there were four bills discussed 
under a restricted rule. Again, that was in 1997. As the gentleman 
knows, so far this year--it's his party in the majority--there have 
been six bills that have been deliberated and discussed and debated 
under a restricted rule, and we, seemingly, are on track for 12.
  Again, I know from the gentleman's discussions with me that we agree 
that we need to be under an open process. But as the gentleman has told 
me, it is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, who has basically overruled nearly all of us here in 
the House. And essentially, Madam Speaker, it seems that the gentleman 
who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee closed down the 
process again this week, prevented Members on our side and the other 
side from exercising their constitutional duties while disenfranchising 
the millions of American citizens that they represent. So I, for the 
life of me, don't understand how it is that any individual, much less 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is content to spend the 
taxpayer dollars without allowing there to be a full and open debate. 
In fact, I would bring a quote to the majority leader's attention from 
the gentleman from Wisconsin from October 6, 2000, when Mr. Obey of 
Wisconsin said, in the context of discussing the need for open and full 
debate, ``We have gotten so far from regular order that I fear that if 
this continues, the House will not have the capacity to return to its 
precedence and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to 
the term representative democracy.'' He went on to say, ``The reason 
that we have stuck to regular order as long as we have in this 
institution is to protect the rights of every Member to participate; 
and we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called ``the greatest 
deliberative body left in the world.'' And I say that and I bring that 
to the gentleman's attention for exactly the point of what he and I 
have been trying to achieve. Let's open up the process. Again, bearing 
in mind, Madam Speaker, the gentleman's goal of trying to finish the 
work, I know that he knows--I have represented--I will do all we can; 
and we on this side feel that we can meet his time frame. I would ask 
the gentleman if he is still in the posture of being able to deliver 
the ability for us to have the choice of the amendments that we offer. 
So if we were to now say--and I'm willing to offer this to the 
gentleman--if we were to say, fine, as the gentleman suggested 2 months 
ago outside the precedents of the House, if we were to agree to time 
limits, then we could have the ability to offer the amendments and have 
full and open discussion on the appropriations bills, as he had asked 
several months ago; and I yield.

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, the gentleman puts a lot of thoughts and words into my 
mouth that aren't necessarily there. Let me say to the gentleman that 
as he knows, some 3\1/2\ months ago I did, in fact, come to the 
gentleman, I subsequently came to the leader and indicated that I 
thought that we could reach agreement if, in fact, we could reach an 
agreement on time limits; and I was prepared under those agreements to 
have the minority choose such amendments as they wanted to offer, 
rather than have the Rules Committee do that. That offer was rejected, 
as the gentleman knows. It was rejected relatively emphatically by Mr. 
Boehner in a meeting in my office, attended by Mr. Lewis, Mr. Obey, Mr. 
Boehner and myself.
  Now you quote Mr. Obey. In November of '06 the American public 
decided that they wanted to change the leadership in the House and 
Senate. They did so. Mr. Obey took over as chairman of the committee, 
as he had been chairman in years past. Of the 12 bills, Mr. Obey 
brought 10 bills to the floor under open rules. We did so under the 
understanding that you would give to us exactly what we gave to you 
under time agreements. Notwithstanding that, we debated those bills for 
50 hours longer than the time constraints that we had agreed in '06 
with you, the year before, when you were in charge of the House of 
Representatives.
  So Mr. Obey concluded--and I did as well--that those time agreements

[[Page H7994]]

would not be honored and were not honored. Now I know there is a 
disagreement between your side and our side as to why they weren't 
honored. But there is no disagreement that they took 50 hours longer to 
consider those bills than was the case in '06.
  Now having said that, we then went to Rules. I offered an agreement 
some 3\1/2\ months ago that was rejected. We then went to the bills, 
and we had gone to markups. Now we had a markup just the other day in 
committee on the Financial Services bill and the Energy and Water bill. 
I'm not sure exactly the number of amendments that were offered but 
most of which were not germane to the bills. That markup took until 
after 1 a.m. in the morning on nongermane amendments.
  You and I have been discussing, trying to come to grips with time 
constraints. But I will tell you that time constraints--and you've 
indicated, trust us on good faith. I tried to get some indication of 
what ``good faith'' means, what criteria could I judge good faith on. 
We haven't reached agreement on that. But I will tell you that during 
the CJS debate on the rule, Mr. Lewis was asked on the bill that came 
to the floor under an open rule--Mr. Lewis said this after being asked, 
``Can we reach a time agreement?'' He said, Because of that--referring 
to the 127 amendments, et cetera, et cetera, that were preprinted in 
the bill, 104 of which were Republican amendments.
  Now under an open rule, of course, as the gentleman well knows--
which, by the way, he serves on a committee that hardly ever reports 
its bills under an open rule. Hardly ever does a bill come out of the 
Ways and Means Committee that has an open rule. It's closed. You guys 
decide what to do, you bring the bill to the floor, and say, Take it or 
leave it.
  Now here's what Mr. Lewis said in response to that question: ``I 
think the time limitation you were discussing was like for 8 hours or 
something,'' which is essentially what the bill took in the year 2006 
when you were in charge. ``I'm afraid my conference might very well 
have a revolution on its hands, and you might have a new ranking 
member,'' was in response to, could he agree to time constraints.
  So I tell my friend that he is right. I have tried to reach an 
agreement on where we could have a time agreement, and you would offer 
such amendments as you deemed to be appropriate within the time frame 
agreed upon. Unfortunately we didn't reach such agreement. I talked to 
Mr. Obey about that, and I talked to the Speaker about that. I believe 
that had we reached agreement, we would have proceeded on that course.
  Now that does not mean because we did not proceed on that course that 
I don't want to continue discussing it. I want to assure the gentleman 
of that, because I believe that the more open our debate is, the better 
we are. The gentleman is correct when he characterizes my feeling as 
that. But it has to be within the context of being able to get the 
American people's work done in a timely fashion. I know the gentleman 
has indicated he agrees with that. Unfortunately in 2007, the last time 
we really did appropriation bills--we didn't do them last year, again, 
because extraneous amendments were offered to a number of the bills in 
the Appropriations Committee, and we didn't move ahead on those, as you 
did not move ahead in some of your years. I think that was, from my 
standpoint, unfortunate.
  But I tell the gentleman in closing that I am hopeful that as we move 
ahead, we can do so perhaps through agreement. Now in terms of Mr. 
Obey, Mr. Obey is the chairman of the committee. Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis 
have talked. They have not reached agreement, as Mr. Lewis indicated he 
could not. And frankly, the subcommittee chairmen have not reached 
agreement. I'm sure that the gentleman understands that, as majority 
leader, I'm very concerned about what the chairmen of both the 
committee and the subcommittee feel in terms of how their bills are 
handled on the floor, and we try to accommodate them.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 10, 2009 on Page H7994 the following appeared: Mr. Speaker, 
I thank the gentleman.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. CANTOR. Mr. 
Speaker, I thank the gentleman.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  He and I have talked about Ways and Means, and again, he and I both 
agree that as far as the duty of this House to deliberate on 
appropriations bills, precedent has always been, by and large, for open 
rules. We have diverted from that precedent wholly at this point, and 
we are just trying to see if we can turn back to some open and full 
debate around the bills.
  So I hear the gentleman, and he, as he properly says, accurately 
reflects discussions that have gone on between a variety of 
individuals. But I'm here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman 
has asked for us to commit, and he wants to know what is reasonable and 
fair and what our good faith means.
  So I would respond to the gentleman by saying this: Because we were 
unable to fulfill the full return to the precedents of the House, 
although I do think that the gentleman from Maryland would like to, 
because Mr. Obey has seemed to get his way in shutting out the millions 
of American people, I will sit here and tell the gentleman that in 
consultation with our leader, John Boehner, as well as the ranking 
member, Jerry Lewis, we are committed to fulfilling the leader's desire 
to finish the appropriations bills in a timely manner, but with full 
and open ability of our side to discuss the issues that we and our 
constituents feel should be discussed.
  So I would ask the gentleman, is he in the position to readily accept 
at this point the ability for our side to have 20 amendments, 20 
amendments, and give our side 10 minutes on each amendment to discuss 
those? That is a fair and good faith proposition, largely divergent 
from the precedents of this House. But in trying to meet the majority's 
desire to do what it can, the minority then proffers this offer.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will certainly 
have a discussion with that. It sounds to me a little bit like the 
offer that I made 3\1/2\ months ago, so I certainly am going to 
consider it in light of the fact it sounds a lot like the offer I made. 
I will be in further discussions with the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the very thoughtful 
remarks coming from my friend, the distinguished majority leader, I am 
reminded that he came to Congress just a few months after I came in 
1980. And I am reminded how we stood here on opposite sides engaging in 
the first Oxford-style debate, if the gentleman recalls, Mr. Speaker, 
on the issue of trade policy being used to enforce human rights. That 
was the discussion we had two decades ago. I simply put that forward, 
Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to underscore the fact that we are both 
institutionalists. We both served nearly three decades here, and we 
feel strongly about this institution and about the responsibility that 
we have to the American people.
  I know that my friend understands full well that if one looks at the 
Constitution and the precedents that have been set in the past, there 
is a clear differentiation between the Ways and Means Committee's work 
and the Appropriations Committee's work. And there is also clearly an 
understanding of the disparity between the notion of opening up the Tax 
Code to a completely open amendment process and dealing with the 
appropriations process through an open amendment process which has, for 
220 years, been the case, with some exceptions.
  The interesting thing about those exceptions, and I know we have had 
both private discussions and we are engaging in public discussion now, 
and I thank my friend, the distinguished Republican Whip, for yielding 
to me, one of the things that I believe has not been tried, I know has 
not been tried in this process, is to allow not the top elected leaders 
of the party to make these kinds of decisions, not even the chairman 
and ranking member of the full committee.
  But just to report to my friends here, Mr. Speaker, in the Rules 
Committee the day before yesterday we had an opportunity to hear from 
the distinguished Chair of the Agriculture subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro, 
and the ranking member of that committee, Mr. Kingston. And recognizing 
that

[[Page H7995]]

there has been difficulty, recognizing that sometimes the appropriation 
process has, as my friend correctly has said, seen Members engage in 
dilatory practices, Mr. Kingston made it clear that if we were to have 
an open amendment process, that he would do everything within his power 
to ensure that shenanigans would not take place on our side of the 
aisle that could delay the process, because we all acknowledge that we 
want to get the work done. Mr. Cantor has said that. Mr. Lewis has said 
that. We very much want that to take place.
  What we are arguing is that if you look at when we have had 
structured rules in the past, they have, in almost every instance, 
followed the inability of the subcommittee chair and ranking member to 
successfully propound a unanimous-consent agreement.
  So while Mr. Cantor just made an offer, I frankly believe that we 
should do everything we can to at least attempt, just take one of the 
appropriations bills, and see if, not the majority leader and the 
Republican Whip, or the Republican leader and the Speaker or whatever, 
the top elected positions within our party, rather let the subcommittee 
chairmen make an attempt at doing that.
  I say that, Mr. Speaker, because as we look at even the notion of 
what we began with, which was what created the high level of 
frustration for us--and yesterday I did a ``Dear Colleague'' explaining 
this process, the notion of somehow having a preprinting requirement 
does create undue constraint on both Democrats and Republicans when it 
comes to the appropriations process. And that is what led to the over-
100 amendments being filed, because of the fact that when we considered 
the bill that we just passed 1 hour ago, in this House, last year, the 
unfortunate thing was there was no chance for even perfecting 
amendments to be offered to technical concerns that were there. In 
light of that, we felt very concerned about even having the preprinting 
requirement.
  So my request would be, since we have now--unfortunately, having 
passed the five appropriations bills that we have, I guess it is six 
now that we have passed, six now as of this afternoon--we are 
unfortunately creating what I'm describing as the ``new norm.'' I know 
that as an institutionalist, the majority leader would not like to see 
that continue.
  I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that we are able to at least make an 
attempt to embolden, as has been the case in the past, our Chairs and 
ranking members of the appropriations subcommittees, who are expert on 
these bills, to work on them and work with our colleagues on that.
  I thank my friend for yielding. I hope very much we can at least make 
that attempt on one bill as we move forward.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from California. He really echoes 
the remarks, I think, and my sense in the beginning of this discussion 
many, many weeks ago that he and I have spoken, as well as spoken with 
the gentleman from Maryland. I do think the gentleman from Maryland 
agrees.
  But I would just leave this subject, Mr. Speaker, with that fact that 
the gentleman from Maryland has said he will get back to me in terms of 
the offer that is on the table. And as he may know, and certainly the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee does know, that in the year 
2007, when the Republicans became the minority, it took 23.3 days to 
discuss appropriations bills for a total of 170\1/4\ hours. If we 
compare that, and I'm sure that the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee does know this, or could find this out, in 1995, the first 
year that his party took minority status or was relegated to that 
status, the appropriations bills took 31 days and 205 hours. So we are 
not talking about anything other than the Record here, and the Record 
indicates the minority in 1995 took a lot more time than we did in 
2007.
  Now, in keeping with the gentleman from Maryland's desire to get the 
work done, the gentleman from California says he shares that, as do I, 
as does our leader, as does our ranking member on the Appropriations 
Committee. We are committed to doing that. I look forward to the 
gentleman's return in terms of the offer that I have expressed. And my 
friend, the gentleman from California, I will yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  One other caveat, as we talk about these committees, one of the 
things that I think my colleague should know about the Rules Committee 
is that we have the ability to do virtually anything that we want in 
the Rules Committee. And as we have heard over the past few weeks, the 
concern that has been raised is this calendar issue, trying to get this 
work done before we head into the August recess to deal with these 
issues.
  I think that it is clear that after this process goes on, an outside 
time limit could be put into place on each of the appropriations bills. 
That could be the rule that comes down, if that is something that the 
majority chooses to do. The concern that I have as we look at the 
amendments, traditionally there have been opportunities for bringing 
about real spending cuts in appropriations bills.
  As we look at these double-digit increases in the appropriations 
bills, unfortunately, cherry-picking amendments, which is really what 
has happened so far with this process--and I understand the offer that 
my friend made early on about minority amendments and the opportunity 
to offer that. But right now what we have is a situation where the 
Rules Committee is choosing these amendments. If, in fact, it simply is 
a time issue, rather than choosing those at all, the Rules Committee 
could, as my friend has pointed to the 200 hours that have been spent, 
it would be very easy to simply say, 8, 10, 12 hours would be the 
outside time limit for the appropriation work of a subcommittee here on 
the floor, and then we can do it under an open amendment process.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we are wondering on this side, having read the news 
reports, having listened to the gentleman this past Sunday on FOX News 
about his, in my opinion, refreshing comments about his disappointment 
as to where we are in this economy and the stimulus that was supposed 
to have addressed this economy. Again, ``refreshing'' not because the 
economy is bad, but simply because I think there is a recognition that 
the ``stimulus'' bill, that it was called, that passed has not 
delivered on the promise that this administration made about keeping 
unemployment down.
  I would ask, since we see unemployment nearing 10 percent, since the 
promises that were made of the stimulus bill was that we would stave 
off that unemployment, and it would be no higher than 8\1/2\ percent, I 
would ask the gentleman if he expects to be able to return to the 
subject and be able to put in place a plan to really do something to 
create or foster an environment to create jobs, or should I believe the 
reports that I am reading that perhaps we are going to have yet another 
stimulus bill the likes of which we have already seen that has not 
worked?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, before I go to the gentleman's specific issue, I want to make 
it very clear that, first of all, Mr. Obey, contrary to what was 
represented, did not make his decisions in a vacuum. This was 
discussed. I don't want any implication that Mr. Obey arbitrarily and 
capriciously acted on his own.
  When the determination was made, as a result of the conversations 
that ensued between chair and ranking members, both of the full 
committee and of the subcommittees, that was a collective decision that 
was made. It was not Mr. Obey's alone. So any implication that that was 
the case is not accurate, I tell my friend.

                              {time}  1415

  Now, with respect to the stimulus package, the Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, we believe the Recovery and Reinvestment Act is 
working. We believe there are an awful lot of policemen, firemen, 
teachers, who are still protecting the public safety, fire and police. 
And teaching our children, class sizes have not increased because of 
the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, because of the investment we made in 
States to try to stabilize their fiscal condition, which is very, very 
bad, as the gentleman knows.
  The gentleman was not here, of course, but in 2001 and 2003, Mr. 
Dreier

[[Page H7996]]

and I were here, some others on the floor were here. We adopted an 
economic program that the leader, your present leader said, and others 
said, Mr. DeLay said and other members of your leadership said, and the 
President of the United States said, would build an extraordinarily 
robust economy, would take our country to new heights of economic well-
being.
  The gentleman I am sure probably knows these figures, but during the 
last year of the Bush administration, after having passed, without the 
Democrats stopping it or changing it or modifying it, after adopting 
the economic program and pursuing it for 7 years, from 2001 to December 
of 2008, in the last year from January to December, we lost 3.189 
million jobs. 3,189,000 jobs were lost, the worst economic performance 
of any administration over 8 years in the last 75 years. In other 
words, since Herbert Hoover. The worst performance.
  Now, in the last year of the Clinton administration, I tell my 
friend, we gained. In the last year, when, as you recall, there was a 
slight slowdown, we gained 1.9 million jobs. So the turnaround from the 
last year of the Clinton administration and the last year of the Bush 
administration was 5 million jobs. That was the economic status that 
was left, the legacy of the Bush administration and of the policies 
adopted by the Republican Congress from 2001 to 2006 which was not 
changed, as you recall, because President Bush had, of course, the 
veto.
  The fact of the matter is that the Clinton administration created an 
average of 216,000 jobs per month on average over 96 months. The Bush 
administration, under the economic policy that you promoted then and 
are promoting now, I don't mean you personally, but your party is 
promoting. And let me say this again, under the Clinton administration, 
96 months, an average of 216,000 jobs a month were created, plus. Under 
the Bush administration, the average job performance over 96 months was 
4,240 jobs per month. You need 100,000-plus to stay even in America.
  Now let me give you an additional figure. In the last 3 months of the 
Bush administration, you lost an average of 650,000 per month. Over the 
last three months, we have lost far too many, but an average of 450,000 
per month. In other words, while we are not in the plus place, which is 
why I expressed on Fox News my disappointment, I can't imagine there is 
anybody in this Chamber, the President is disappointed, the Vice 
President is disappointed, the American people are disappointed that we 
are not creating those 216,000 jobs per month that we did under the 
Clinton administration, and we are still losing jobs because of the 
disastrous economy that was inherited.
  I tell my friend that it was not just the facts that argue that, but 
Secretary Paulson, Ben Bernanke and President Bush said we had a 
disastrous economic crisis that confronted us at the end of the Bush 
administration's economic policy conclusion and asked us to respond 
very vigorously to that.
  As you know, during the course of the Bush administration, we did 
that. Unfortunately, it has not been enough. We did that again with the 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act which we think is succeeding. But my 
friend would, I think, fairly observe that his 2001 tax cut after 130 
days had not turned America around; in fact, in my view, never turned 
America around.
  Now your leader talked about on that same show, well, we created 5 
million jobs. There was a spike up, and a disastrous spike down, which 
is why, as I said, 3.18 million jobs were lost during the last year of 
the Bush administration.
  We believe that the Recovery Act can work. We think it will work. We 
hope this economy comes back from where it was left us on January 20, 
2009. America is experiencing pain. Too many of our people are 
experiencing pain. We regret that. It is disappointing. We need to take 
such efforts as we can to correct that.
  I will tell my friend in addition to that, at this point in time 
there is no intent to have an additional bill on the floor. The 
administration is not talking about it. We are not talking about it. I 
was asked a question in the press and I said rightfully, we certainly 
wouldn't put that off the table. We will consider steps that need to be 
taken in order to address the economic crisis that confronts our 
Nation, but there is no plan at this point in time to offer an 
additional bill of that type.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and just say 
historical facts can be applied and used at will, and that there were 
plenty of opportunities to point and cast blame and claim credit as 
there were Republican Congresses and Democratic Presidential 
administrations and the like. So we could go on for a long time about 
the past.
  My point, Mr. Speaker, in posing the question to the gentleman is as 
a result of the mere fact that promises were made by this 
administration, goals were set. We were told this stimulus bill, if we 
were to act in haste, the way this Congress acted, and in fact no one 
in this body read that bill of 1,100 pages, we were told if we were to 
pass that bill and it were to be signed into law that unemployment in 
this country would not exceed 8.5 percent. As we know, as the gentleman 
knows, in many parts of the country it is well in excess of 10 percent. 
Nationally, we are on the way to 10 percent.
  We must and should, Mr. Speaker, in this House do all we can to try 
and get this economy back on track. It is not that we should repeat the 
mistakes of the past in that stimulus bill, and we await the 
administration, the gentleman's prescription as to how to address, as 
he says, the very real pain that America's families are experiencing.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, let me say that looking in 
the past is not fruitful unless you learn from the past.
  The point of my recitation was that the policies proposed in 2001 and 
2003 demonstrably did not work, and I read the results of those 
policies which were the policies of the Bush administration. What I 
pointed out is that it is the same formula that is being recommended 
once again from your side of the aisle. So it is instructive to learn 
from what didn't work in the past.
  I reject your assertion that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act hasn't 
worked. I have pointed out to you that we have lost a third less jobs 
over the last 3 months than we lost during the last 3 months of the 
Bush administration.
  Is losing one job one too many? It is. Is it a disappointment? It is. 
But after a quarter and a little more of effectiveness, 95 percent of 
Americans got a tax cut, got money in their pocket, as you know, as a 
result of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There is $65 billion of 
construction jobs being affected. Has it gone out fast enough? It 
hasn't. Is it starting to pick up? It is. Was the thought 10 to 15 
percent would be spent within the time frame we are now talking about? 
Yes, that was the projection. Has that happened? Yes, it has. So that 
projection was correct. Is unemployment higher than we anticipated? 
Yes, it is, because the recession and almost depression, according to 
Bernanke, that we inherited from the last administration was so deep 
and so endemic that we are having real trouble getting out of it.

  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, and in closing, I would leave the 
gentleman with two points: one, the plan that the House Republicans put 
on the table and presented to this President was focused on small 
businesses. If he looks at that plan as the President did, and the 
President clearly said there is nothing crazy in this plan, which meant 
that these are things that could work.
  The President also, to my second point, claimed that we may have 
philosophical differences on tax policy and the rest, but he said to 
me, ``I won.'' So it is, Mr. Speaker, this President's and this 
Congress's economy. We stand ready and willing to proffer up yet again 
our plan to address the economic woes of the American families. We have 
a plan that would be at half the cost of that stimulus bill and produce 
twice the jobs.

                          ____________________