[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 7 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H301-H306]
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 my friend, the Republican whip, for yielding.
  On Monday the House is not in session.
  On Tuesday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business.
  On Wednesday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business 
and recess at approximately 5 p.m. to allow a security sweep of the 
House Chamber prior to the President's State of the Union address. The 
House will meet again at approximately 8:35 p.m. in a joint session 
with the Senate for the purpose of receiving an address from the 
President of the United States.
  On Thursday and Friday the House is not in session to give time for 
the Republican Issues Conference to occur in Baltimore, Maryland.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of 
business tomorrow.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, we will consider H.R. 3726, the Castle 
Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2009; and H.R. 4474, 
the Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act, introduced by Mr. 
Minnick and Mr. Simpson.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he can comment on some of 
the press reports that we have seen this morning about the Speaker's 
statement that this House and you will not be bringing to this House 
the Senate health care bill for consideration.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I didn't see the Speaker's statement; so I can't 
comment specifically on it, but I can say this to the gentleman: As the 
gentleman knows, there are significant, critical differences between 
the House and Senate bills and we have been working on trying to bridge 
the differences that exist. We are still in that process.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would ask, Madam Speaker, and I 
would first preface the question by saying that this country saw a 
pretty extraordinary election in Massachusetts a few nights ago. From 
all reports, it seems that part of the outcome of that election was due 
to the health care bill and the difficulties which the gentleman's side 
has had in passing the bill. We on this side, Madam Speaker, would say 
there has been no bipartisan effort to pass a health care bill. And so 
if we are going to see a resolution of the differences that the 
gentleman refers to, those differences are clearly being on his side of 
the aisle because, Madam Speaker, we feel that we continue to be left 
out of the process.
  So I would ask the gentleman if he has not decided whether he is 
bringing up the Senate bill or the House bill again, will we see the 
process start over? Will we see his side take the message from the 
Massachusetts election to involve Republicans in discussion over the 
health care bill and have a transparent process the way we believe 
ought to happen as well as I believe the American people think should 
happen?
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I thank the gentleman for his question and all of 
the premises he adopts in prefacing his question. I don't want my 
silence to be presumed as agreeing to his premises, which I think are 
inaccurate.
  Having said that, first of all, of course, there has been 
extraordinary exposure of the health care bills, both in the House and 
Senate, to public discussion, public debate, public information. It has 
been online for over 4 months, 5 months now, and an extraordinary 
number of hearings held on it over the last 2 years. As the gentleman 
well knows, his party's candidate for President and my party's 
candidate for President, who is now President of the United States, 
both indicated that they thought health reform was necessary. So it 
received extensive debate by many other candidates as well during the 
course of the election.
  The gentleman is well aware because Members on his side have talked 
about

[[Page H302]]

it and Members on my side have talked about it, about the number of 
Americans who don't have insurance and the number of Americans who are 
being forced out because of cost and the number of small businesses 
that are being confronted with 10, 15, 25 percent premium increases.

                              {time}  1315

  So the gentleman is well aware of the fact that health funding and 
health coverage is a challenge for our country and for our citizens.
  The gentleman mentions the election. The election, obviously, that 
occurred in Massachusetts, like every election, dealt with many issues. 
My own view is that Americans are most focused, as we need to be, on 
the creation of jobs, making sure that Americans get back to work, have 
a livelihood that they can support themselves and their families. I 
think they are very concerned about that.
  They are also concerned about the fact that we pass a health care 
bill. I have just read a poll, an exit poll that indicates that the 
majority of voters who had voted for Obama but voted for the new United 
States Senator-elect from Massachusetts believed that we ought to pass 
a health care bill. So, obviously, their vote for the new Senator was 
based upon something other than that particular issue.
  So obviously, there were a number of issues that impacted on this 
election. But let me say again that almost all the candidates running 
for President last time, when they articulated a focus on national 
issues, focused on health care and the need to make sure that health 
care was available to all of our citizens.
  Now, as relates to the gentleman's bipartisanship, the gentleman was 
quoted apparently just a few days ago about referring to our meeting. 
Our meeting of course dealt with a one-page recitation of three or four 
proposals, many of which are in the health care bill that we passed in 
this House in one fashion or another. Notwithstanding that, of course, 
as you know, no Republicans voted for the bill.
  I was not surprised at that, frankly, because in February, apparently 
not based upon the specifics of a proposal, because the specifics of a 
proposal were not on the table until the summer, your campaign 
chairman, Pete Sessions said, ``I told Republicans that they need to 
get over the idea that we are participating in legislation and ought to 
start thinking of themselves as an insurgency instead.'' He was quoted 
in the Politico, House GOP Bullish at Virginia Retreat, February 2, 
2009, as saying that.
  Furthermore, Senator Jim Inhofe on the Hugh Hewitt Show, 7/23/09, 
said, ``We can stall it. And that is going to be a huge gain for those 
of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election.'' Senator 
Jim Inhofe, as I said, said that. And then Senator Jim DeMint said, 
also in July of '09, ``If we are able to stop Obama on this,'' 
referring to health care, ``it will be his Waterloo. It will break 
him.''
  Very frankly, I tell my friend that I have discussed with him and 
with Mr. Blunt, my good friend, who was his predecessor, and with whom 
he worked in the whip organization, and asked him to participate with 
us. I did that early this year. I did it a little later in the year. 
Sometime before I met with you as well in trying to discuss was there a 
way forward to work in a bipartisan fashion? Unfortunately, that did 
not result in a bipartisan fashion.
  I will tell my friend on a smaller, more defined matter, the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, I spent about a hundred hours 
trying to work with many on your side of the aisle to try to get--in 
the last Congress--to try to get bipartisan agreement on moving 
children's health insurance. And as I am sure you recall, because you 
weren't with us on that issue, we couldn't get bipartisan agreement.
  So the answer to your question is I would like to have bipartisan 
discussions moving forward on this issue, but I have concluded from my 
experience over the last year, and not just these--I quote three, but 
there have been many other statements as well--that indicate that 
opposition for opposition's sake has been adopted at least by some on 
your side as a strategy and as a tactic.
  I think the losers are not so much Democrats in that context. I think 
the losers are the American people. They expect us and want us to work 
together towards resolving the issues that confront them, one of which 
is health care. They know it is an issue. I read the results in 
Massachusetts. But I will tell you I have also read the polls which, 
when asked, not so much about a bill, but whether or not health care 
reform is needed in this country, a very significant majority of 
Americans respond they think it is.
  They think that when they are denied coverage for preexisting 
conditions, that is a problem. They think when their child becomes 26 
years of age, or now 23 years of age and out of college and doesn't 
have insurance, they think that is a problem. They think that when they 
have a very serious illness costing them thousands and thousands of 
dollars, that an insurance company telling them, sorry, you cost too 
much, we can no longer insure you, they think that is a problem. When 
they go deeply into debt for health care costs that aren't covered by 
their insurance company and have to declare bankruptcy and put their 
home at risk, they think that is a problem.
  So, yes, I tell my friend that these are issues that we would like to 
work together on, and we hope that can happen.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, and I take the gentleman's 
comments to heart that he wants to do what is right by his constituents 
and the people of this country. But the question we have before us, the 
question that the voters of Massachusetts had before them, just like 
the voters in Virginia and New Jersey, had a lot to do with the health 
care bill that this House deliberated upon and passed, and the health 
care bill that the Senate deliberated upon and passed.
  And, Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman there is very little 
disagreement among the pollsters that have tested where the American 
people are on these health care bills. They are opposed to these health 
care bills. And you may insinuate that some of the comments that have 
been made by individuals in this body or the other on our side of the 
aisle were meant to obstruct.
  But I can tell the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that the American people 
right now want this health care bill defeated. They want health care 
reform, but not in the way that has been constructed under either one 
of these bills. And if I recall, and I appreciate the gentleman's 
willingness to meet with me several months ago, and I don't want to 
take his comments as being dismissive of our proposal, because I handed 
him a summary, but I can tell the gentleman right here is the House 
Republican bill. And there are elements in this bill we can both agree 
upon. The plan is still before us. And if we take into consideration 
that, we have got a plan. The public doesn't like the gentleman's plan.
  And fast forward to a discussion the gentleman and I had on the 
floor, I believe, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman told me it was not 
worth his while to engage in conversation with Republicans because we 
would not embrace the public option. I would tell the Speaker----
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. CANTOR. I would tell the gentleman we still don't embrace the 
public option. We don't embrace it because it is a path to single 
payer. So I would ask the gentleman again, the Speaker earlier today 
said, quote, ``I don't think it is possible to pass the Senate bill in 
the House. I don't see the votes for it at this time.'' I would ask the 
gentleman, Madam Speaker, if that is an accurate statement that we can 
then count on.
  Mr. HOYER. I don't know about counting on. I don't know what you mean 
by ``counting on.'' I think the Speaker's comments this morning, you 
asked me if it was an accurate statement. I think she believes that is 
an accurate statement in terms of where the votes are today. I 
responded, as I told the gentleman, there is substantial differences. 
We are discussing those differences, as we have been for some period of 
time.
  Let me make another comment. The gentleman is very animated and very 
happy, as I would be in his position, about the results of 
Massachusetts, as we were very happy about the results in New York 23, 
where the health care

[[Page H303]]

bill was also at issue, as the gentleman knows, in a district that we 
hadn't won for 150 years just a couple months ago. And as the gentleman 
knows, we won that district in a district, as I said, unlike 
Massachusetts, that we had not won in 150 years.
  But let me say something. Your candidate who did win supported the 
Massachusetts plan, which has great similarity to the plan that he now 
opposes. So it is somewhat ironic that we would take that as a 
bellwether, because he, as a member of the State senate, actually voted 
on a plan that, much like our plan, tried to reach the objective of 
covering all people. So he has already voted for a plan like that. He 
has indicated he is not going to vote for this plan. I understand that. 
But it is not like he hasn't got a record of wanting to achieve the 
objectives that the bills that are under discussion are trying to 
achieve.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I would respond simply by saying most indicators are the voters of 
that Commonwealth voted for Mr. Brown because of his stances, and one 
of those stances was that he would vote against the Senate or the House 
health care bill as they were constructed. And I agree with the 
gentleman we need to do something about health care.
  I would remind him that it is the CBO who has pointed out that our 
Republican plan is the plan that actually does reduce health care 
premiums. That is where we started this whole discussion, was to reduce 
health care costs for the American people, and continue to reform the 
system so we can maintain the quality we have.
  And, Madam Speaker, I just say that it is time, I think, for this 
body to finally listen to the American people and what they are asking 
us to do, run this body in an open and transparent way, stop the back 
room deals, the Cornhusker Kickbacks, the Louisiana Purchases, and make 
it so that this is once again the people's body. And we can all then 
deliberate out in the open, agree where we can agree to produce the 
positive reforms that the people expect.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman what his 
intentions are or what he thinks we can see in this House as far as an 
attempt to address the issue that the majority leader said was the 
number one issue on the minds of voters in Massachusetts, as well as 
the country, and that is the economy. Before we left for the winter 
break, we had a bill that came up that was dubbed a jobs bill. There 
was a lot of difficulty I know on his side in mustering the needed 
votes to get it passed. And I was wondering is there legislation he has 
in mind that would be offered to address the situation that Americans 
confront, which is double digit unemployment? And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the question. In answer to his 
question, we passed a jobs bill through this House in December. It is 
pending in the Senate now. We believe that that would substantially 
move forward on creating jobs. It is not the answer, but it is one of 
the answers we think. It focuses, as the gentleman knows, on 
infrastructure, which we think is a very important initiative that gets 
people working immediately, jobs here in America. We think that is very 
important. It also tries to help States so they are not laying off 
teachers and policemen and firemen. We think that is very important as 
well.
  But let me say something. I get a little confused, and perhaps these 
facts are not well known to you, but I thought I would remind you of 
these facts. We pursued an economic program that your party put forward 
from 2001, 2003 on for 8 years. Now, while the people gave us the 
majority in the House and the Senate in 2006, obviously President Bush 
threatened to or did in fact veto any changes that we made in economic 
policy.

                              {time}  1330

  That economic policy, which you were a very strong supporter of and 
your party was a very strong supporter of, you continue to mention 
jobs; so I want to make sure you know these statistics.
  In the last 3 months of the Bush administration under the economic 
policies that not only did you pursue then but you still want to 
pursue, because, in fact, the proposals that you have made essentially 
mirror the proposals that were made in 2001 and 2003, those proposals 
were touted by you and others--I'm not going to go through all these 
quotes--as going to grow the economy, create jobs, and have a robust 
growth in our economy. In November and December and January, that 
policy which you pursued lost 2,019,000 jobs in 3 months, and we 
confronted the worst recession, the ``great recession,'' if you will, 
worse than at any time in three quarters of a century. And it somewhat 
confounds me that you still--your party, not necessarily you 
personally--presents an economic policy which was the poorest job-
creating administration, 8 years, since Herbert Hoover, an average of 
approximately 4,000 jobs per month. You needed 100,000 just to stay 
even.
  Now, I would tell the gentleman, since the Recovery Act, which you 
nor your party voted for, since the Recovery Act, let me tell you what 
the last quarter was. Perhaps you know. We still have not succeeded in 
growing jobs, so we haven't had success, but we've had great progress. 
Let me tell you how much progress. Remember I told you that you lost, 
in the last 3 months under your economic program, 2.019 million jobs. 
The last quarter we lost 208,000 jobs, a quarter, 3 months. That's way 
too many jobs. We want to be creating, as the Clinton administration 
did, on average 220,000-plus jobs per month; 22 million in total over 8 
years.
  So I tell my friend that when the gentleman says we haven't had 
progress on this, those figures, in my view, belie that assertion. In 
fact, we made progress. Not only that, the stock market is up 60 
percent. It's had a couple of bad days. It's up 60 percent since we 
adopted the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It had a minus growth under 
your economic policies during the 8 years of the Bush administration, 
minus to the extent it decreased in value so that the investment I had 
in 2001 was about 26 percent less valuable in December of 2008. 
Contrast that to the Clinton administration in its 8 years. The value 
of your stock portfolio or investments went up 226 percent. That's a 
250 percent difference.
  So I tell my friend that we have taken very substantial action. We're 
going to take more action because until we get Americans back on the 
job, until we get America growing so that it creates the kind of jobs 
our people need and must have to support themselves and their family, 
we're not going to be satisfied.
  So, yes, we passed a bill last month which you and your party voted 
against. We think that's unfortunate. If you have ideas, I would love 
to sit down with you again and discuss your ideas. Very frankly, 
however, some of the ideas we've discussed to date are some of the same 
ideas that, in my opinion, led to not such a robust job-creating 
economy; in fact, as I said, the worst economy we've seen in 75 years.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker.
  First of all, I know that it is tempting for the gentleman to delve 
into the past, comparing the Bush policies to the Clinton policies, but 
I know the gentleman realizes we are in the year 2010. We have new 
challenges before us. And I would say that the piece of information 
left out by the gentleman is the fact that it was his party that 
controlled Congress during some of the period in which he cites the job 
losses. In fact, there have been 3.6 million jobs lost just since 
January of 2009.
  I would then say to the gentleman, as far as the stimulus bill that 
you speak of----
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield just on your assertion that we 
were in control?
  Mr. CANTOR. I will yield at the end of my statement.
  My point is that the stimulus bill that passed almost 1 year ago, 
there is growing consensus here that it was not sufficiently targeted 
toward job growth. In fact, even the portion of infrastructure spending 
that the gentleman and his party and this White House decided upon, the 
design of that spending, the Associated Press has come out with a study 
indicating it did not grow employment at the local level in the 
communities which we represent.
  So if we understand and know that that is not the way to grow jobs, 
that is, the design of the stimulus bill, why would we vote for 
Stimulus II? In fact,

[[Page H304]]

I would remind the gentleman, as I know he remembers, the 
bipartisanship around the Stimulus II vote in December was against the 
bill, as well over 30 Members on his side of the aisle voted against 
the bill because, again, I believe it is trying to get it right this 
time.
  And so instead of the gentleman's continuing to refer to years ago, I 
would remind him that we have presented to him as well as to the 
President a Republican no-cost jobs plan. The gentleman has dismissed 
that document and that plan saying there is nothing for free, that we 
shouldn't be talking about things that we could do together that don't 
cost anything.
  I would say to the gentleman, the President himself has said that 
within the passage of three trade bills sitting in this body, we could 
see the creation of 250,000 jobs. We have had discussion on this floor 
about whether those trade bills are coming forward; 250,000 jobs at no 
cost. It seems to me we really should go about doing that as well as 
the other items that we listed in our no-cost jobs plan that the House 
Republicans have put forward.
  And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  First, let me observe that the gentleman--I don't blame you at all 
for not wanting to look back at history. I wouldn't want to stand on 
that record either, but it's important to look at history so that we 
don't repeat the same mistakes.
  The assertions that were made for the policies that you pursued of 
great growth and economic expansion--which did not occur. That's why I 
point it out, because, frankly, your proposals mirror those that have 
been made in the past, and the premises that you have pursued are the 
same that you are pursuing now.
  It is instructive, I think, for the American people and for us who 
represent them to look at what worked and what didn't work. Your party 
unanimously opposed the Clinton economic policies. Mr. Armey, an 
economist who was your majority leader, said that they would fail 
miserably. In fact, they succeeded mightily. They created those 22 
million jobs that I said. In fact, in the last year when there was a 
slowdown, they created 1.8 million jobs as opposed to losing 3.8 
million jobs under the last year of the Bush administration. I think it 
is instructive to see what worked and what didn't.
  So that is why I refer to it, not because I think that will solve our 
problems going forward. I agree with the gentleman. What is important 
is: What are we going to do now? But we would be fools, as the writer 
said, to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.
  So I say to my friend, when he asserts that we were in charge in 2007 
and 2008, he and I both know that economic policy was not changed. Why? 
Because the President of the United States, who had the veto pen and 
the votes to sustain a veto, even when we tried to give 4 million 
children health insurance in America, that veto was sustained. They 
were not given that insurance until President Obama signed the bill, 
which was one of our first bills.

  So I say to my friend, looking back is useful only to the extent that 
you ensure that you do not repeat the mistakes of the past. The Clinton 
economic program worked and the Bush program did not.
  I want to tell my friend on his points for recovery, this so-called 
free recovery, supply-side recovery, if you will, one of the first 
things you want to do is stop the deluge of rules and regulations. Very 
frankly, I tell my friend one of the reasons we faced such a crisis was 
the last administration took the referee off the field. As a result of 
the referee's being off the field, the players on the field went wild 
and did irresponsible things and, unfortunately, the taxpayers of this 
country, in order to prevent a great depression as opposed to a great 
recession, had to respond. The good news, hopefully, is that we are 
going to get paid back. The President has made efforts to make sure 
that happens. I hope, and you hope, I'm sure, that we do get paid back.
  You want to block tax increases and cutting taxes. We cut taxes for 
95 percent of Americans, as I'm sure you know, in the Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act. You want to freeze investment in items like job 
training, infrastructure, and education to rein in deficits and debt. 
You want to freeze investments in giving people new skills so they can 
get the jobs that are being created. We don't think that's good policy. 
Your program says you want to reform the unemployment system by 
requiring people to participate in job training. We agree with that, 
but you have to make sure that the job training is available to them.
  Approving the free trade agreements, as the gentleman knows, I am a 
supporter of the free trade agreements. I don't think it would create 
those 250,000 jobs tomorrow or the next month or the month after, but I 
agree with the gentleman that that's a good policy. It's controversial 
policy, I say to my friend, as he well knows, on both sides of the 
aisle.
  You want to reduce tax barriers that inhibit domestic job creation. 
The Recovery Act, as you know, had tax cuts for small businesses to do 
exactly that. Your side didn't support that.
  You say address the housing crisis by giving regulators incentives to 
deal responsibly with banks and their borrowers; however, as I pointed 
out earlier, in fact, and history shows that, regulation and oversight 
and the referee's being on the field was a policy that the previous 
administration thought got in the way. Well, I think that referees that 
get in the way of the game are not useful, but referees that make sure 
that people play by the rules are essential.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I would simply respond that the Republican no-cost jobs plan is a 
plan that was fashioned around the principle that we've got to remove 
the uncertainty gripping the small businesses and job creators in this 
country. So contrary to the suggestion that the gentleman made about 
the fact that we just want to get rid of regulation, what the plan 
actually said, Madam Speaker, was to halt any proposed regulation 
expected to have an economic cost or result in job loss or have a 
disparate impact on small business.
  In the same way, we call for lowering the deficit now without raising 
taxes because, as we all know, people don't know where Washington's 
next move is going. And so we say let's just freeze domestic 
discretionary spending at last year's level. My goodness, every small 
business owner, every family in this country is having to go through 
that exercise and, frankly, is having to cut, not just freeze.
  In the same way, the suggestion that perhaps Republicans wouldn't 
support transparency and an even playing field and regulations that 
will control the amount of leverage on Wall Street, that's silly. Of 
course we support efforts like that. But what we do know is this 
administration, and, frankly, the majority in Congress, has been very 
slow at getting the message out to auditors and regulators in the field 
that they should be reflecting the sentiments that the Secretary of the 
Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve have said, which is, 
we need to return back to some sense of normalcy in the assessment of 
risk, because we all know this country has been built on 
entrepreneurialism, on opportunity. It is not that we have seen our 
prosperity come from this government. That's where, really, Madam 
Speaker, the differences lie because we don't believe that the way back 
to economic revival is through more Keynesian economic policy.

                              {time}  1345

  The gentleman can go ahead and suggest that the Bush policies failed. 
Obviously, I disagree. He would probably defend the Carter policies. I 
would certainly disagree with that and would say that they were an 
utter failure. He would probably say that the policies of Ronald Reagan 
were a failure. I would say we disagree on that.
  At the end of the day, what's really the problem here is this 
government, under the majority's rule and the President's, has 
continued to expand. We haven't put an end to the bailout culture. 
Every time we expect to see the TARP program end, there is another use 
that has come up for that money, which is an emergency program. Every 
time we expect to say to business owners and their working families, 
let's stop sending signals that we're going to impose costs on you.
  So, if it's a cap-and-trade bill, if it's a card check bill, or if 
it's a tax increase, why can't we just say, ``stop''?

[[Page H305]]

Let the American people regain their sense of economic security and let 
the ingenuity in the private sector take hold again.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I've heard that rhetoric for 24 years here, and I've certainly heard 
it for the last 8 years. The gentleman likes to put words in my mouth 
about previous administrations of what I might say or did say.
  We're talking about policies that you want to replicate which have 
been pursued. That was my point. It remains my point. I think it's a 
valid point.
  Did your policies work? You can argue all you want and say the Bush 
administration policies worked. You have not in any way said that the 
figures I have said on this floor, and not only today, but you've had 
many opportunities to look to see whether I'm accurate on those 
figures, are wrong. In point of fact, they did not produce what you 
said they were going to produce. We need to adopt policies that do 
produce.
  The reason I compared the Clinton administration and the Bush 
administration is that, under the Clinton administration, you said the 
policies wouldn't work. I don't mean you personally. Your party said 
the policies wouldn't work. In fact, it's the only administration--not 
the Reagan administration, not the first Bush administration, certainly 
not the second Bush administration--that produced surpluses. After 8 
years, they had a net surplus. No administration in your lifetime has 
had a net surplus after 8 years other than the Clinton administration 
under the economic policies we pursued then. not one. So from that 
perspective, it's not a question of failure.
  I will tell you here--and again, these statistics you don't like. 
You'd prefer that I simply look at the problems that we're confronting 
now. Why are we confronting these problems? Because your economic 
program did not work and plunged us into the deepest recession we've 
had in 75 years. Now, I raise my voice only because you simply ignore 
that. You say that's just carping. You say, Oh, we don't want to look 
at what happened. We don't want to look at what our policies produced 
for 8 years. We want to look into the future. We do, too. What we want 
to do and what we have been doing, as I pointed out to you, is trying 
to bring this economy out of the ditch in which we found it, in which 
the American people feel very stressed, properly so.
  So we've got to get them back the jobs. The first thing we had to do 
was to stop losing so many jobs. Again, I would point out, in the last 
3 months of the Bush administration, we lost 2 million jobs. In the 
last quarter, in the last 3 months, we've lost 200,000. It's way too 
many, but it's one-tenth of what your policies produced or did not 
produce in the last 3 months of the Bush administration.
  So what? you say.
  Let's not repeat those mistakes. Let's invest in our future, which is 
what we did in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Mark Zandi says that 
we saved over 1 million jobs--1.6 million, I believe is what Mark Zandi 
says--which we would have lost had we not passed that bill. So did it 
work perfectly? It worked better than the policies we were pursuing, 
frankly, that we inherited. That was my point. I think it is a valid 
point. If the gentleman disagrees with my figures, I'd be glad to be 
corrected. I think they're accurate.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Oh, let me say one additional thing because you talked 
about certainty.
  Mr. CANTOR. I didn't yield, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, you took back the time. I really didn't yield back, 
but if you don't want me to continue, I won't.
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Thank you. I just wanted to say something about certainty.
  I agree with you. We need certainty. We tried to give certainty in 
the estate tax. Your side voted against that. We tried to give 
certainty in tax extenders. We tried to extend the tax extenders, and 
your side didn't vote for that. I don't think you did either, but I 
agree with your premise and wanted to make that clear. That's one of 
the reasons we tried to pass making sure that doctors treating Medicare 
patients knew what they would be getting years out so that Medicare 
would have the stability that it needs.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker.
  I would say again, somehow, in the gentleman's memory of these past 
years, there is something that has been left out, which is this body 
and Congress, because, during the Clinton years, the Clinton years that 
saw prosperity, there was a Republican-controlled Congress. The 
Republican-controlled Congress yielded tax policies that we believe 
could once again get us back on track.
  In the same way, referring to all the job losses that the gentleman 
continues to recite and point fingers at and blame the prior 
administration for, if we're going to play that game, I would say since 
his party has taken control of this body, we've lost in this country 
6.1 million jobs. As he says, none of the job losses are acceptable.
  I would say to the gentleman that there are many ways to look at 
these figures and who was responsible for what and who could claim 
credit for such, but at the end of the day, what we are facing right 
now is a situation where the American people and the small businesses 
and the working families of this country need to regain some 
confidence.
  So I would ask the gentleman directly: If we're about removing 
uncertainty, is he willing to say to the small business owners out 
there and to the people of this country, no card check bill this 
session, no cap-and-trade this session, no death tax this session, and 
no hiking taxes in the time of unemployment that we are in? Those are 
the things from which we could send a message to the entrepreneurs and 
small businesses to lift this veil of uncertainty.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Cantor, this is a scheduling colloquy. It has gone on 
for a long time, and it is a very political colloquy, more political 
than I was involved in with Mr. DeLay, I think. That's good rhetoric. 
None of those are scheduled. The gentleman knows none of them are 
scheduled.
  The gentleman doesn't like the figures, and he harks back to the, you 
know, we were in charge in 2007 and 2008. He knows well what we are not 
talking about is blame; we are talking about what policies were in 
force. The gentleman says we changed the economic policies in 2007 and 
2008. I'm glad to hear what policies we were able to change and that 
President Bush signed on to. That's the issue. The gentleman wants to 
avoid that issue. The question is not blame; the question is what 
policies worked and which policies did not.
  I suggest to the gentleman that of all of the issues to which you 
referred in your question about the so-called ``death tax,'' the estate 
tax, which affects approximately half of a percent of the American 
estates, as the gentleman knows, and which we wanted to, frankly, 
increase by $2.5 million permanently from what it will be under your 
policies of 1 million and 55 percent January 11--it's now at zero, as 
you know. That was not intended to be the permanent policy, and you 
simply said you'd revert under the bill that you passed, not you 
personally. So we want to make that certainty.
  So the answer is, yes, we want to make that certain. We think that 
$3.5 million per person is a reasonable amount and will cover all but 
one-tenth of 1 percent of the estates in America or thereabouts.
  The other items to which you refer, which animate your party and some 
in my party as well, are not scheduled, as the gentleman knows. I'm not 
going to make assertions on what we will or will not schedule at this 
point in time, but I can tell you we don't have them scheduled.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his indulgence in 
this lengthy colloquy.
  If the scheduling piece of this colloquy has now yielded, the fact 
that there is an uncertainty as to whether we'll see card check or 
whether we'll see cap-and-trade or whether we're going to see tax 
hikes, then that's the message, I think, that is going to be delivered 
to the small businesses that we are going to count on to create jobs.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I would note that, from Virginia to New 
Jersey to Massachusetts, the people of those States, and I believe the 
people of

[[Page H306]]

America, have spoken. What the people want is a Congress that will work 
in a bipartisan fashion to get the American people back to work. 
Republicans, on our part, will continue to offer solutions just as we 
have done for the last year, and we hope that----
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on that issue?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Does the gentleman believe that America spoke in November 
of 2008? Not just a State, not just Virginia, not just New Jersey, not 
just Massachusetts. Does the gentleman believe that America spoke in 
2008 in voting overwhelmingly for the policies that this President put 
before to respond to the crisis that confronted our country? Frankly, 
none of us even at that point in time perceived how deep the crisis 
was.
  We understand about votes. All of America voted handily for this 
President, who has put policies before this Congress to try to address 
the issues of bringing our economy back, giving Americans health care 
they could count on, making sure that we were energy independent.
  You know, you talk about votes. This President was elected just 
approximately a little over a year ago to carry out the policies that 
he has been presenting, and notwithstanding that election, as I recall, 
your party has not supported his policies at all.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that.
  I would say, Madam Speaker, in closing, yes, America voted in 2008 
for Barack Obama to become President of the United States. It was this 
November that the people had the opportunity in the two States with the 
gubernatorial election and then just this week the people of 
Massachusetts had an opportunity to vote for their Senator based on the 
policies that have come out of this new administration and the majority 
in Congress.
  It is those policies that were voted on this time, and it is those 
policies that I believe do not reflect the mainstream of America and 
where the Republicans stand, ready to work with the gentleman and his 
party in trying to bring the debate and these policy solutions back 
towards where most Americans feel we ought to be heading in terms of 
direction for this country.
  I do thank the gentleman.

                          ____________________