[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 72 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H3459-H3462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
                          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 the gentleman for yielding.
  On Tuesday, 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 Wednesday and Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 10 
a.m. for legislative business.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A 
complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business 
tomorrow.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider Senate amendments to H.R. 
4213, the American Jobs Closing Tax Loopholes and Preventing 
Outsourcing Act.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, given the fact that he has 
announced only one rule bill for next week, I would ask the gentleman 
if he expects the House to be in session next Friday, and I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to tell the gentleman, although I announced only the American 
Jobs Bill Closing Tax Loopholes and Preventing Outsourcing Act, my 
expectation is we will also deal with the COMPETES Act next week as 
well. That bill, we believe, is a very important bill. We think it's 
very important for jobs. We think it's very important for investing in 
our future, and we intend to bring that bill to the floor as well next 
week.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the gentleman's announcement about next 
week's floor schedule, I'd also like to announce an additional item 
that we Republicans would like to see and will bring up for a vote on 
the House floor next week.
  Yesterday, House Republicans announced an unprecedented online effort 
called YouCut, and this can be found at republicanwhip.house.gov/
YouCut. This program allows the public to vote on wasteful programs 
they'd like to see the House cut. Over 70,000 Americans have thus far 
voted in the program called YouCut.
  I'd say, Mr. Speaker, we will announce the public's choice this 
coming Monday and then provide for debate on the cut of their choosing 
during our first rule bill of the week, which, as the gentleman has 
indicated, is the tax extenders.
  And, Mr. Speaker, therefore I would say to the Members that in 
addition to the majority leader's announced schedule, there will also 
be a vote on the consideration of one of five possible savings 
proposals.
  The first is to eliminate the Presidential Election Fund, and that 
would amount to a $260 million saving. The next could be the 
elimination of the taxpayers' subsidized union activities, a $600 
million savings to the taxpayer. Next could be the elimination of a HUD 
program that funds doctoral dissertations. That is a $1 million tax 
savings for the taxpayers. Also, we could see the people of this 
country vote for the elimination of new nonreform welfare programs that 
could save the public $3.5 billion. Also, Mr. Speaker, among the items 
that the American public is opining on right now online is a proposal 
to eliminate wealthy communities from the CDBG program. That would 
offer a $2.6 billion savings to the taxpayers.
  So I'd say, Mr. Speaker, we on the Republican side of the aisle, as I 
have told the gentleman before, stand ready to work with the majority 
in hopes of trying to encourage legislation that would reflect these 
cuts, encourage the majority to bring those to the floor. But having 
not received any bit of cooperation or at least recognition that we 
need to do something like that, we intend to bring those votes forward 
on these items and whichever items the American people vote on first to 
the floor next week.
  Mr. Speaker, moving on to the gentleman's announced schedule. I 
notice that the majority leader did not indicate whether we would 
consider a budget next week. It's now been 4 weeks since the April 15 
deadline for completing a budget, and I'd ask the gentleman, does he 
still think that the House will consider a budget prior to Memorial 
Day, as he stated before?
  And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I am certainly hopeful that we will deal with the issue of 
spending levels by the time we bring appropriation bills to the floor. 
We are working on that.
  I will say to my friend who has just given us an exposition on his 
new program--and he gave the Web site address, I think--that, first of 
all, let me say that we welcome the interest in the Republican Party in 
cutting spending. Of course, spending was substantially increased when 
you had the Presidency and the House and the Senate, very 
substantially, as you know, at twice the rate it was increased during 
the Clinton administration. We also believe that we are sure that many 
citizens have some very useful suggestions.
  I would also urge them to make their suggestions to the commission 
which the President has appointed to get a handle on not 16/100 of 
spending but on the real dollars that confront us and which the 
American public are very concerned about.
  The commission that the President appointed is to look at how we can 
bring spending down, how we can address the deficit, and how we can get 
back to the place where we were at the end of 2000, at the end of the 
Clinton

[[Page H3460]]

administration when we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. Unfortunately, that 
surplus was turned into this administration inheriting about a $5 
trillion deficit while your party was in total control of the House, 
the Senate, and the administration.
  But we certainly look forward to the suggestions that you have or 
anybody has in the public as to how we can bring spending under 
control.
  Your party has talked a lot about earmarks. As the gentleman well 
knows, in 1994 there were some 4,000 earmarks between our 50 States and 
435 districts. That was escalated under Republicans to 15,000--
quadrupled the number of earmarks. Now the gentleman is against 
earmarks, at least wants a suspension of those. We think that that is, 
perhaps, progress.
  But I want to tell the gentleman that we hope you will cooperate with 
us in the findings of the commission. You have three very outstanding 
Members that have been appointed from this House. Hopefully they will 
make substantive suggestions to get the budget deficit under control as 
was done in the 1990s when, for the first time in your lifetime and in 
mine--and I have a lot more lifetime to tout than you do--we had a 
balanced budget for 4 years in a row. That's never happened in your 
lifetime or in mine other than during the Clinton administration. That 
was important.
  Unfortunately, in the following decade that we have just been 
through, again the deficit was exploded. But certainly any efforts to 
get suggestions from anybody, including the American public, of how 
they think that we can reduce spending, bring the deficit under 
control, is welcome, and we look forward to hearing suggestions.
  But I want to say that while some of the programs you have mentioned, 
I have one of those programs being a $200,000 program. You say it's a 
$1 million program. In either event, it's certainly worth looking at to 
see whether it has value to invest dollars in.
  But you and I both know that in a $3.56 trillion budget deficit that 
we have to look at the big numbers where we're spending money and what 
policies we have adopted in order to get to where I think all of us 
want to be, and that's back to where we were in fiscal year 1997, 1998, 
1999, and 2000.
  I yield.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for his sentiments.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, that first of all, if we can't start here 
and instead have to wait until after the upcoming election, what does 
that say to the American people?
  I also have noted that the gentleman has issued statements about the 
relative size of the proposed options online under the YouCut program. 
And nowhere else, nowhere else but Washington could these cuts be 
deemed to not be significant. Just because they are less than 1 percent 
of the Federal budget doesn't mean we ought not at least start there 
rather than kick the can down the road like Washington has under both 
parties' leadership. And the gentleman knows I am the first to admit 
that our party was fired in 2006 much on account of the runaway 
spending. But we have an opportunity to work together to actually begin 
some progress rather than continue to say let's shift the 
responsibility outside to a commission that the President has created.
  The facts are, Mr. Speaker, we've considered 63 resolutions naming 
post offices this year, 62 resolutions congratulating sports teams, and 
we've even supported the designation of Pi Day. Yet you don't think, 
and I really can't imagine why, we wouldn't have time to debate 
proposals regarding the types of savings that I enumerated.
  And that's why, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, if he doesn't 
want to engage in the votes that we are going to present next week, why 
can't we have a bill brought to the floor with these measures? He and I 
can sit here and debate in a colloquy, but I think the American people 
would like to see the House actually engage in these debates.
  So I, again, appreciate the gentleman's indication that he wants to 
work with us, but time and again we see ourselves here on this House 
floor taking up resolutions naming post offices instead of trying to do 
the people's business, emphasizing their priority, which is let's do 
something to cut the debt that is being imposed on our kids and their 
kids once and for all.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. We've done some very substantive things, most of which 
your party has opposed. We passed last year the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act which you voted against and which your party voted, to 
a person, against. I don't know whether you happened to see that, as a 
result of that act, people last year paid the lowest tax rates that 
they have paid since 1950. We reduced over $300 billion in taxes for 
individuals and small business.
  Now, you can make fun of the resolutions that your party introduces 
and my party congratulating people for things or noting that post 
offices are being renamed or things of that nature, but that's a ruse. 
That's not the substance of what we do here. Members want to 
acknowledge their hometown folks. I've been in the legislature for a 
long period of time. They did that in the State senate. They do it 
here. And sometimes it's easy to make fun of.
  But we've done some very substantive things. The gentleman knows 
that. This is one of the most productive Congresses that I've served in 
over the last 30 years in terms of very important pieces of 
legislation. Your party has voted, in many instances, against that 
legislation.
  The proof of the pudding, of course, is in its eating. You didn't ask 
me where the jobs are this time as you usually do. There were 290,000 
new jobs created, 230,000 jobs the month before that, and an average of 
100,000 jobs have been created per month over the last 4 months.
  The gentleman, over the last 4 months, hasn't mentioned jobs, 
apparently because he thinks perhaps we found them where, frankly, the 
previous administration lost them wherever they were lost. We need to 
bring them back.
  We are investing in bills to get jobs back. We're investing in making 
sure that people who have lost their jobs have some sustenance to 
support themselves and their families. We don't think that's de minimis 
legislation. We think it's critically important.

                              {time}  1330

  We are passing legislation to make sure that people have health care; 
that when they lose their job, they lose their insurance, they get 
sick, that they have a COBRA coverage that they can count on. We don't 
think that is de minimis. We are working on legislation to make sure 
that doctors get reimbursed at appropriate levels so they will continue 
to serve the seniors of America under Medicare. We don't think that is 
de minimis action.
  Now, I could go on and on, as I am sure you know and probably my 
colleagues know; but we believe we are passing a lot of legislation to 
respond to a deep crisis of economic depths, unknown since 75 years ago 
in the Great Depression, that we inherited and we are trying to respond 
to. And we are now creating jobs. We are now expanding the economy.
  Somebody that you may agree with most of the time, Larry Kudlow, 
said, you ought to stop talking down the economy. The facts speak for 
themselves. GDP growth for three quarters in a row, jobs being created, 
stock market up. It has been down and up in little glitches, but it is 
up some 70 percent on the Dow, 80 percent on the S&P, and almost 100 
percent on the NASDAQ. None of that we think is de minimis, I tell my 
friend.
  Both sides, by the way, do what you just did. We did it to you and we 
made fun of these little resolutions that don't take much time but are 
meaningful to the constituencies that hear about them and appreciate 
the fact that their efforts throughout the country were acknowledged in 
one way or another, or that somebody that has great respect in their 
community was honored. Many soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines 
are being honored by having post offices named for them in their 
communities. Others are being honored.
  So I tell my friend, we need to be serious. We have a critical 
deficit confronting us. We have a critical long-term deficit 
confronting us. We have a critical problem of an unsustainable 
entitlement regime confronting us. The Peterson Institute is running 
hearings

[[Page H3461]]

all over this country to say, Americans, tell us what you think. I 
don't think your idea is a bad idea of asking Americans. We all want to 
ask Americans: What do you think? So we can come together to solve what 
we both agree is a very serious economic ditch into which we have 
fallen. We need to get out of it. We need to work together to do that. 
The American public expects us to do that.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say, first of all, I think the gentleman knows I 
have never, never rooted against this economy or this country. In fact, 
I have gone out of my way to make public statements when we have 
positive job growth to say, when we see jobs growing, it is a good 
thing. Period. I have been consistent in that message.
  So I just wanted to speak to that and correct the gentleman's 
assertion that somehow I am not giving credit for job growth. But I 
would say we do have much work to be done.
  He indicates that somehow this last year was a year that Americans 
paid lower taxes than ever before in recent memory. I would say they 
paid lower taxes because we have a progressive tax system; and the fact 
that the recession reduced income by over $200 billion last year versus 
2008. That is the reality. If you want to get serious, that is the 
reality. Not some fantasy that we have somehow lowered tax rates, when 
we know good and well at the end of this year tax rates are expected to 
skyrocket again on top of what we have just done with the new 
entitlement bill and the health care bill.
  So I would say to the gentleman, I am not questioning his intentions. 
I am not saying that there haven't been substantive proposals brought 
to the floor. I am saying there have been a disproportionate number of 
times we have been on the floor doing things that we could have been 
spending time on others to do more productive things for the people of 
this country.
  I agree; the gentleman says we are at a crossroads. Yes, we are. The 
problem is, the substance and the policy proposals that the gentleman 
and his party have been bringing to the floor over the last year and a 
half have serious consequences, and they are aggravating the future 
prospects for growth in this country.
  He just indicated, Mr. Speaker, that entitlements, if we don't get a 
handle on entitlements, we could see our standard of living go down. 
Well, you are absolutely right. The gentleman is correct on that. But 
what did we just pass a few months ago? The largest entitlement ever.
  So, again, we can say things and we can have good intentions; but 
when they are matched with the deeds, something just doesn't add up.
  And I would say, Mr. Speaker, the issue is about spending. It is 
about the debt we are amassing. So when the gentleman points out that 
they have brought to the floor the stimulus bill of 800-some billion 
dollars, that has proven not to be a good, quote-unquote, investment 
and in fact has now saddled our kids and their kids with even more 
debt, and sent a signal to the global investment community that America 
may have trouble paying its bills.
  That is why we are intent on trying to bring forward the You Cut 
proposals to begin changing the culture here in this town, in this 
body, to begin to save taxpayer dollars, not with an emphasis on 
spending.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Maybe the public gets 
tired of this back and forth. But the gentleman talks in ways that 
indicate that all of a sudden, in 2009, January, when President Obama 
took office, somehow the world fell apart. In point of fact, as the 
gentleman knows, in the last year of the Clinton administration, we 
gained 1.9 million new jobs. In the last year of the Bush 
administration, under the policies that the gentleman supported and his 
party was very enthusiastic about, we lost 3.8 million jobs. That is a 
5.7 million job turnaround.
  Yes, we were in dire straits. And conservative economists, Republican 
economists, Mr. Zandi and others, as well as progressive economists, 
liberal economists, call them what you will, all said: If you do not 
invest in this economy, if you do not invest in stabilizing this 
economy, very frankly, you are going to lose 800,000 in additional 
revenues. Which meant that you would be in the same debt position 
whether you invested that money or didn't.
  Now, in investing that money, I say to my friend, with all but maybe 
2 months over the last 15 months we have had a straight line out of the 
almost 800,000 jobs that under your policies were lost in the last 
month of the Bush administration. Almost 800,000 jobs. We have been on 
a straight line to now where 5 of the last 6 months, we have had 
positive job growth.
  Is it enough? It is not. Should we do more? We should. Should we 
cooperate in doing that? Absolutely. That is what the American public 
expects us to do. But don't forget the fact of how we got here. Don't 
forget the fact that an awful lot of economists on your other side of 
the aisle said we needed to invest or the economy was going to fall 
even further, and we wouldn't have that straight line out of the depths 
of loss of jobs into the positive numbers of creating jobs.
  Let me also say to you, you mentioned taxes, and you mentioned the 
fact that somehow it was because incomes fell. Incomes did fall, and 
that was unfortunate. They fell because, we believe--we don't agree on 
this--it was because of the economic policies that were pursued. We 
think our facts are valid.

  I would remind you, 216,000 jobs per month for 96 months under the 
Clinton administration, average, 216,000; 21 months of over 400,000 
jobs. The Bush administration had 5 of those months, and the Bush 
administration's average job creation over 96 months was 11,000 jobs; 
216,000 versus 11,000 jobs.
  So the economy was in great distress. Yes, we had to invest. Yes, we 
had to borrow. Because, if we didn't, our grandchildren--and I have 
grandchildren. I have a great grandchild. I am very worried about what 
they are going to inherit, and I knew that we could not allow the 
economy to fall through the floor.
  But let me say this. This is from USA Today, from an article that 
appeared: Taxes Paid Have Fallen Much Faster Than Income in This 
Recession. Your proposition was taxes fell because income fell. 
Personal income fell 2 percent last year. That is 2 percent too much. 
Actually, it is about 10 percent too much, because we would have hoped 
they would have gone up 5 percent or 6 percent or 7 percent.
  But listen to this next sentence. I know you will want to get this 
next sentence: ``Taxes paid dropped 23 percent. The BEA classified 
Social Security taxes as insurance payments.''
  So I tell my friend, we inherited a terrible economy from the Bush 
administration, and we have been working very hard to bring it back. 
And almost every indication indicates that in fact it is coming back. 
We invested in trying to keep the automobile companies employing 
people, and they are doing that.
  So I tell my friend that I did not, as you recall, imply that you had 
talked down the economy. What I said was Larry Kudlow, talking to his 
fellow conservatives, said, Don't do it, because the facts don't 
warrant that kind of attack.
  So we are going to continue to work. I want to work with you. We want 
to get this economy moving. We want to create jobs. You will have 
legislation on the floor next week, hopefully you will work with us, 
that we think will do that. It will create summer jobs. It will invest 
in infrastructure with the America Bonds program. So there are a number 
of things that you will have an opportunity to vote on next week, I 
hope you will join us, which are going to continue to stabilize those 
who don't have jobs and to create jobs for them in the new economy.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And I know that the gentleman 
knows, having quoted the article that he did, in that same article the 
writer gives a lot of credit to the impact of the so-called Bush tax 
cuts as being economically generative, causing some of the positive 
results.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will just yield on that, are you 
referring to the paragraph that says: ``Presidents Clinton and Bush 
pushed through a series of tax changes, credits, lower rates, higher 
exemptions that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class 
families''?

[[Page H3462]]

  Mr. CANTOR. That is correct, I would say to the gentleman. I am 
referring to that.
  And so while we are on that subject, we know very well there has been 
no indication whatsoever that the ability for entrepreneurs to continue 
to experience an atmosphere that is conducive to their investment and 
assumption of risk will continue, because we are facing the largest tax 
hike in American history at the end of this year and the majority has 
been unwilling to say that is not coming. That is hanging over this 
economy as a veil of uncertainty.
  And I would say to the gentleman, if he is so excited about the 
positive results that he indicates, largely due to the fiscal policies 
in place that will be not in place after the end of this year, I would 
say that maybe we should consider extending the rate cuts and cap gains 
and dividends and marginal rate reductions that are in place now.
  I would also say to the gentleman, listen, we have been now for weeks 
and months through this: Your fault, our fault. Your fault, our fault. 
The public and the American people are upset. They don't want blame 
games anymore; they want to stop the spending. And just next week, the 
gentleman is talking again about bringing more spending. He indicates 
that all economists supported the stimulus bill. He knows that is not 
true. But, like a good lawyer, he is going to present his case. But 
what I would say to the gentleman, let's stop the spending now.
  That is why we have started and launched the You Cut program. And, if 
he alleges incremental modest steps, fine. Join us in that. But let's 
stop the spending, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. I don't want to get too personal on this, but what do you 
think about cutting the spending for the high-speed rail between 
Richmond and Washington?
  Mr. CANTOR. Well, I would say to the gentleman, I have always, way 
before we have even encountered that stimulus bill, supported job-
generating projects. The studies in the metropolitan area from which I 
come and represent indicate that Virginia could grow 165,000 jobs with 
that kind of investment.
  Mr. HOYER. Is that a ``no''?
  Mr. CANTOR. That has always been my position.
  But when we are looking at some of the items that we are discussing 
here on the You Cut options, these are items that are niceties. They 
may be well-intentioned; but if we are worried about job creation and 
we are worried about deficits growing, we ought to begin to take action 
now.
  I would ask the gentleman, he mentioned the tax extenders bill for 
next week, and I wonder if he could tell us the content of that bill. 
Will there be a markup on the bill? Reports have indicated, and perhaps 
the gentleman has said, that the bill will be nearly $200 billion. And 
what kind of rule, whether it be open or not, would he expect?
  Mr. HOYER. I don't think I mentioned a figure on the extenders. I am 
pretty sure I did not, not today or, frankly, any other day, because it 
hasn't been finally completed by the Ways and Means Committee. As you 
know, they are working with the Senate Finance Committee as well, and 
working with Republicans. As you know, this was a bipartisan bill when 
it came from the Senate, Republicans supported it, and we hope it is a 
bipartisan bill as it leaves here.
  But let me say the fact is what the Senate sent us, we are working 
on. The process that we will consider it has not yet been finally 
determined, so I can't tell the gentleman exactly what that will be. 
But some of the things I have already mentioned will be in it, UI and 
COBRA, FMAP, Build America Bonds for local infrastructure programs, 
summer jobs programs so we can get young people to work this summer so 
that they will have some livelihood and can help their families who are 
in distress.

                              {time}  1345

  We also, as I said, are going to deal with the SGR to ensure seniors 
can keep their doctors. We'll conclude provisions to close tax 
loopholes, crack down on outsourcing of jobs overseas and protect 
American jobs here at home. Those are all the things that I think will 
be in it. That's not necessarily an exclusive list, but that is 
certainly a bill that we think will be pro-business, and confirming 
many of the tax benefits that are given to businesses, as you well 
know, that we regulate, continue, including the investment tax credit 
so that we can encourage businesses to grow and invest and to create 
jobs.
  So that is an outline of it. This process has not yet been decided. 
I'm sure there will be discussions about that tomorrow with our Rules 
Committee chair and with the committee. Perhaps we can know at a later 
date.
  Mr. CANTOR. Again, just to clarify, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that 
the bill will not go through committee?
  Mr. HOYER. I think, as you know, there was a bill over from the 
Senate, which was bipartisan in nature, and I think that we need to 
move this bill before Memorial Day. I think that the committee is going 
to have to decide how to get that done in the fastest way possible so 
that many of the expiring issues do not expire, which would be very 
detrimental to docs and to many other people.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have been working 
together for some months now on the Iran sanctions bill. And also 
crucial to the national security of this country is the war 
supplemental. He has indicated before that the Iran sanctions 
conference report and the war supplemental will be coming to the House 
floor prior to the Memorial Day recess. I'd ask whether that still is 
the case.
  Mr. HOYER. I'm sure everybody listening now will be glad to hear that 
there is some cooperation and agreement. The gentleman and I are both 
strong supporters of the Iran sanction legislation. We believe that not 
only is the Middle East region at risk, but the international community 
is at risk as long as Iran is pursuing its intent to arm itself with 
nuclear weapons.
  I tell the gentleman that I have been working very closely with Mr. 
Berman, and it is my hope and expectation that this conference report 
will be reported back to us before the Memorial Day break, and it is my 
intention to work towards having that sent to the President before we 
leave here for the Memorial Day break.
  Mr. CANTOR. And I would ask, Mr. Speaker, would the same be for the 
supplemental as well--before the Memorial Day recess?
  Mr. HOYER. I don't think the same would be because of both the Senate 
and the House. I'm hopeful that we will pass the supplemental through 
the House, but it won't be in the same position because we haven't had 
a conference on the supplemental. The Senate is working on a bill, as 
the gentleman knows. We're working on a bill. I have talked to the 
chairman, and he is trying to get the matter together for the 
committee. And I am hopeful that we will pass it through the House. My 
urging is that we pass it through the House prior to the Memorial Day 
break. But, obviously, the gentleman knows we will not have effected a 
conference by that time. But we want to do so very shortly because, 
clearly, we need to make sure the resources are available for our men 
and women in harm's way in both Iraq and Afghanistan and in other 
troubled spots of the world.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I look forward to continuing to 
work with the gentleman in a fiscally responsible manner, which starts 
with passing a budget blueprint for this year, just like American 
families have to do.
  I thank the gentleman once again for his time, and I yield back.

                          ____________________