[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 87 (Thursday, June 10, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4366-H4370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the 
majority leader, for the purposes 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 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 
10 a.m. for legislative business and recess immediately for the Former 
Members Association annual meeting. The House will reconvene at 
approximately 11:30 a.m.
  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. for legislative business.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of all suspension bills will be announced, as is the 
custom, by the close of business tomorrow.
  In addition, we will consider H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending 
Fund Act of 2010; and possibly H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act; and, again, 
possible action on H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 
2010.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, in addition to next week's 
schedule, can the gentlemen tell us what he expects to consider on the 
floor between now and the July 4 recess beyond next week?
  Mr. HOYER. In addition to the legislation I have announced for next 
week--the Small Business Lending Act, the DISCLOSE Act, and the 
supplemental--we will also consider in the future a Wall Street reform 
conference report.
  As the gentleman knows, the conference is having its first session 
today as an open conference, full participation. I expect that to 
hopefully conclude within the next few weeks, perhaps sooner. And I 
expect to have that bill on the floor and to the President by the July 
4 break.
  In addition to that, we have the American Jobs and Closing Tax 
Loopholes Act, which is being considered by the Senate now. We passed 
this bill, as

[[Page H4367]]

you know, 2 weeks ago. The Senate, however, had left town, and they 
could not take action to extend unemployment benefits and to preclude 
cuts to Medicare payments to ensure seniors would get their doctors. I 
know the Senate is now working on this bill. And if they amend it, we 
will look at that and see what House action might be necessary.
  In addition, we are looking at a budget resolution. We are still 
working with Chairman Spratt on a budget resolution that shows we have 
cognizance of the concerns that all of our Members have, A, about the 
deficit and also about constraining spending. As the gentleman knows, 
the President has sent to us a budget that for nondefense, nonsecurity 
spending is frozen not only for this year but for 2 years to come. So 
we are considering that.
  In addition, the gentleman and I have been working very hard on Iran 
sanctions. I was at the White House today. I congratulated the 
President on the administration's success in having passed through the 
Security Council the Iran sanctions legislation. It is good 
legislation. Hopefully, all nations will abide by it, have its impact.
  On the other hand, I think the gentleman and I both agree there need 
to be additional efforts made. We urge the Europeans, who will be 
meeting shortly, to do the same and hopefully have an even stronger 
resolution.
  And then it's my expectation--I have talked to Mr. Berman, and I know 
you have talked to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen--my hope is that we will have--and 
my request, more than a hope, my request is that the conference report 
be brought to the floor the week of the 21st. And I have indicated that 
that is my expectation.
  I want to also congratulate Ambassador Susan Rice for the job that 
she did in drafting the resolution that was adopted and successfully 
passing it yesterday. I am looking forward to working with the 
gentleman.
  In addition to that, as you know, we have a supplemental that we want 
to have considered. We need to fund our troops that are in harm's way 
and make sure they have the resources necessary to carry out the 
mission they have been given. And I expect the supplemental to be on 
the floor possibly as early as next week. I would hope that we could 
get it that early, but certainly I expect it to pass before we leave.
  It is my understanding that funding is available into July so that we 
have some flexibility, but my view is that we will pass it. And I will 
be pushing very hard to pass the supplemental, make sure our troops are 
funded. And I would hope that we could work on that on a bipartisan 
basis.

  That is not all that will be done, but those are the significant 
parts of what I expect the agenda to be for the next 3 weeks.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I specifically, Mr. Speaker, want to thank the gentleman for his 
efforts on behalf of trying to get a resolution out of the conference 
committee on the Iran sanctions bill--again, as he says, Mr. Speaker, 
something that he and I have worked on for some time now. I thank him 
for his commitment to that and working on that.
  I would also ask the gentleman if any of the reports that I have 
heard about a possible resolution having to do with the flotilla, in 
terms of the actions that occurred, that Israel undertook to defend 
itself in interdicting the ship on the alleged mission of aid that it 
was claiming to be on, and whether we can expect any resolution along 
those lines in support of our ally Israel.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question.
  As I am sure most people know, the gentleman and I agreed--I made a 
statement on the floor last night, and I made a statement immediately 
after--Israel, like any other nation in the world that is assaulted by 
a terrorist organization that wants its demise, wants to kill its 
people and push it from its country, any nation on Earth, including 
ours, would defend itself. That is what they did.
  They gave 2 weeks' notice, of course, as the gentleman knows, to the 
Turks and to the individuals who were undertaking this so-called 
humanitarian mission.
  And I might say that the gentleman and I share a humanitarian concern 
about the plight of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, they are 
ill-served by some of those who have, by force, taken over their 
leadership in Gaza.
  But Israel did what any nation would do. It gave notice and said, if 
you will deliver those to Ashdod, the port, we will offload the 
humanitarian material and make sure that it's delivered to its 
recipients, not to a terrorist organization that would use it for 
purposes of terror and attacks on civilians, but use it for the 
purposes of relieving those in some distress.
  I would point out, as the gentleman well knows, international reports 
are that, in fact, there are sufficient food and medicine in Gaza 
today. It is my view that that mission, in effect, accomplished its 
objective, and its objective was to create confrontation and to put at 
risk the security of Israel and its people.
  So that the answer to your question is that I have talked to Mr. 
Berman and I want to talk to you, as well, so that we can determine 
what is the best course of action for us to take.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his continued 
commitment and share with him the commitment to strengthen the alliance 
between ourselves in the United States and Israel in the continuing 
struggle that all of us have in terms of pushing back against the 
terrorist threat, state sponsors of terror and their proxies in the 
Middle East, and as they pose the existential threats to our ally 
Israel as well as U.S. interests in the region. So I look forward to 
working with him on that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the gentleman's statements with 
regards to financial regulation and a conference report. I know there 
has been a lot of indication, especially on the part of Chairman Frank, 
about the willingness to be open and make sure that C-SPAN cameras are 
there so the public can understand and have access.
  I was somewhat alarmed, though, with the statements made by the 
chairman, as reported in the press, when he said, ``Some negotiations 
will take place more publicly than others,'' and just wanted the 
gentleman to assure us that there will be no negotiations ongoing 
without having the light of cameras on and/or at least a fair hearing 
among Members of both parties.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question.
  None of us want to commit to not talking to one another privately, I 
think. I think that's what the chairman was referring to. I am sure he 
and Mr. Dodd will speak. I am sure that he and the gentleman from 
Alabama, the ranking Republican, Mr. Shelby, may be speaking. The 
chairman and I both served with Mr. Shelby, and I am sure that there 
will be discussions with the ranking Republican from our side.
  That may not be in the context of the conference itself where there 
will be cameras, where there will be an open opportunity to offer 
amendments and fully debate and discuss various options. Frankly, I've 
not been too pleased personally with the fact that we don't have a lot 
of conferences. I think conferences are good. I think they accomplish a 
worthy objective of bringing reconciliation between the two Houses and 
frankly giving an opportunity for each perspective that's represented 
on the conference to be articulated. And I think this will be, from 
that standpoint, a model conference.
  And I think Mr. Frank does intend, as he has said, to have an open 
conference with full debate and voting in the light of day on various 
different proposals.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that.
  In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, of wanting to try to work together in a 
civil manner and to try to get the work of the people done, the 
gentleman mentioned the war supplemental for scheduling perhaps next 
week. And obviously we continue to be concerned, Mr. Speaker, on the 
part of our Members, their constituents, about the involvement, 
openness of discussion, debate around the issue of the spending in the 
supplemental bill to fund our troops.
  And this is actually, Mr. Speaker, a bill we can work on together. 
And the gentleman indicates that that bill may be coming to the floor. 
And I would ask the gentleman should we expect that bill to go through 
the appropriations committee before it comes to the floor to allow for 
that open input, that collaboration to result in a better bill

[[Page H4368]]

that would reflect the will of the American people?
  And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have not discussed specifically what actions Mr. Obey--Mr. Obey is 
looking at the supplemental. It was sent over to us. And he's 
discussing it with the various subcommittee chairs, I know. I don't 
know whether he's discussed it with Mr. Lewis at this point in time. 
But I do know that, as you know, he had a markup scheduled on our 
supplemental the week before we left. That was canceled, so it didn't 
go forward; and then the Senate passed its bill.
  But I would certainly hope that your side has input on what they 
want, what you want, what you think ought to be in there. Obviously, we 
want to respond to some of the crisis not only offshore in Iraq--well, 
this is mainly Afghanistan and Pakistan as the gentleman knows, but my 
belief is Mr. Obey will want to have input as well.
  So I can't give you specifically because Mr. Obey has not indicated 
to me at this point in time what his specific plans are. But I 
understand the gentleman's interest.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that, Mr. Speaker, and I would 
indicate that having spoken with the appropriators that Mr. Lewis has 
not heard from Mr. Obey on that, and we will wait to hear, and I am 
sure he's anxiously awaiting.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the gentleman about the budget 
and what we can expect as far as the budget having now been in June, 
there having been no budget, and can we expect a markup in the Budget 
Committee prior to our leaving for the July 4 recess?
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As you know, Mr. Spratt and I and others have been working on this 
for many months now to try to see if there is a budget that can garner 
majority support. There was some indication, I will tell the 
gentleman--he's usually at the White House with us. He wasn't with us 
today. But Mr. Cantor is usually joining us at the White House in our 
meetings with the President.
  But the fact is that the Senate Republican leader indicated he'd like 
to see some bipartisan agreement, at least on spending levels and 
observed that he thought the spending levels the President had sent 
down for our consideration were--he would like to see a lower number 
but he appreciated the fact that that number was sent down and was a 
constraint on spending, in fact, froze non-defense, non-security 
spending at last year's levels and did so for a number of years. So I 
made the observation at that point in time that I was hopeful that we 
in fact could perhaps reach some bipartisan agreement. I will be 
discussing with the gentleman probably early next week that 
possibility.
  But I will tell you that Mr. Spratt continues to work very, very hard 
at trying to see if he can come up with a budget resolution that 
reflects something that can get agreement.
  I want to tell the gentleman that one of the problems we have, as the 
gentleman knows, is we have created a situation of where the budget 
will have some very tough numbers on it. They are realistic numbers. 
They are the numbers. They are what they are. We are where we are. As 
the gentleman knows, I believe that we need to work very, very hard to 
get back to the place where we were when we started in 2001 when we had 
a balanced budget and a surplus projected.
  I would call attention to a statement of Doug Holtz-Eagen, as I am 
sure the gentleman knows, who was with the last administration and 
indicated that this budget would have occurred under Senator McCain as 
well no matter what he did. We inherited an extraordinarily depressed 
economy, an exploding deficit and a substantial decrease in revenues. 
So we have an extraordinarily difficult situation that we've inherited 
that we're trying to deal with.
  The President, as you know, has appointed a commission to try to deal 
with that. We put in place statutory PAYGO to try to constrain spending 
so that we can get back to where I said we were in 4 years before the 
Bush administration where we had 4 years of surplus. And, regrettably, 
we're not there now; but we're working on it.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that. And he knows where I 
stand on that issue and where our side is continuing to want to see a 
budget, just like most of the American people are having to do every 
day is come up with a budget of how they can make their businesses work 
and their families make it through the month. So I appreciate that 
spirit with which the gentleman offers that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I read an article in 
Roll Call this week that had to do with these colloquies that somehow 
indicated that the gentleman and I were unable to come to the floor and 
to ``play nice together.'' I will say I know the gentleman doesn't take 
any of this personally, nor do I, because I enjoy coming to the floor 
to debate substance and policy in these colloquies, something that, 
frankly, is not done often enough in this House, but as it relates to 
the priorities that the majority has as reflected through its 
scheduling abilities.
  And in fact, again, Mr. Speaker, this House doesn't do nearly enough 
of this kind of exchange of opinion to ferret out how we can come to 
some agreement.
  So I know that the gentleman shares in that spirit as we engage, 
specifically as that article points to, over our differences, our 
differences about the priority of cutting spending now. And I know the 
gentleman does know, as I value, the opportunities to work with him on 
issues as we have just discussed having to do with the promotion of the 
U.S. security in the Middle East as it plays out through our ally 
Israel. I enjoy the working relationship that we have had on that 
issue; the issue around the Iran sanctions resolution, as well as he 
knows. As well we've worked together well on the issue of Puerto Rico 
statehood. So there is that history.
  But I would say again there are going to be times where we do 
disagree. And there is, frankly, some disagreement that our side has 
with what the majority does in terms of scheduling, and that is its 
priorities on cutting spending.
  We have become very frustrated that we have no other vehicle to speak 
out as to the priorities of the majority other than our response to the 
scheduling. And these colloquies are focused on priorities the majority 
has as far as how it schedules this floor.
  We have become very frustrated as well, Mr. Speaker, that every time 
we begin even to hint at a desire to bring spending cuts to the floor, 
that somehow we need a lecture on the last couple decades as to what's 
happened in this country from a fiscal standpoint. As the gentleman 
knows, I'm the first one to offer up some contrition. Yes, our side is 
to blame as much as the other side for bringing us to this point.
  But none of that has anything to do with scheduling for the next week 
or the week thereafter. And what my aim is, and hopefully the gentleman 
knows, in engaging in these discussions is to say, please allow us to 
bring up some of the issues that the American people want us to do, 
which is to stop the spending now.
  And as the gentleman knows, we have launched on the Republican side 
of the aisle a program called YouCut, and frankly we have seen some 
bipartisan support of programs under YouCut. We have seen the 
administration take on an announcement today a proposal in YouCut to 
sell excess Federal property.
  We want this to be a bipartisan issue. And as the gentleman has 
reminded me, as he said in the article, this is a colloquy based on 
scheduling.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the minority, the Republicans in 
this House, intend on bringing to the House floor another YouCut vote 
next week. And it will be one of five options that the public will be 
voting on and has begun already. And we are well over 700,000 votes in 
YouCut on a 3-week period. And, Mr. Speaker, I think that indicates 
some real intensity behind the public wanting this House to finally 
stop spending now.
  So we will, Mr. Speaker, be bringing to the floor a vote either on 
the attempt to sell excess Federal property, which is a $15 billion 
savings; a provision to terminate a Federal bike and walking program, 
that's another $1.8 billion; terminate a Federal truck

[[Page H4369]]

parking program, $62.5 million; terminate a funding for private bus 
companies, $120 million; or a proposal to terminate the Ready to Learn 
TV program at $270 million of savings.
  And I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman the purpose of our 
bringing these to the floor is, first of all, to reflect the will of 
the American people to cut now, to go forward, to admit we are in a 
real tough situation fiscally in this country. We're at a crossroads. 
We've got to start changing the culture here in Washington.
  So I would say to the gentleman that is the purpose as well as, Mr. 
Speaker, we have no other alternative unless the majority would 
schedule actual spending cuts for this debate and vote on the House 
floor.
  I would also say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, these votes will 
occur, and we will proffer these each week. This will begin to amass a 
record on which Member supports spending cuts now and which doesn't. We 
have already demonstrated a commitment on this side of the aisle, as 
well as some on the gentleman's side of the aisle, to cut $85 billion 
over the last three votes in YouCut and will continue to do that each 
week.
  And I would hope that the gentleman could join us in reflecting the 
priorities that our constituents are asking us to put forward, and that 
is to get the Federal deficit under control.

                              {time}  1515

  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would thank the gentleman for his time 
and will yield to him for a response.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to tell my friend that I don't seek contrition. I do seek 
reconsideration of policies that have not worked, of policies that were 
projected to grow the economy, bring the deficit down and make us a 
healthier, wealthier country. Frankly, the policies that we pursued in 
2001 through 2006, and actually through 2009 because we couldn't change 
policy although we were in charge of the House and the Senate, we 
couldn't override a Presidential veto--again, not contrition, but 
recognition that the policies did not work.
  Benjamin Franklin said, It's not a good thing to be penny wise and 
pound foolish. I tell my friend that he and his colleagues from 2001 
and 2006--I think he voted for each one of these--voted for over $2 
trillion in unfunded spending. That is the real problem.
  The gentleman is probably prepared to support, as I am--he and I will 
probably vote together, I hope, on a supplemental that provides for 
funding our troops. That won't be paid for. We will expect our children 
and grandchildren to pay for that. Mr. Obey has suggested a tax to pay 
for this war. If it is worth fighting, if it's worth protecting this 
generation, it is worth paying for. I tend to agree with that.
  As the gentleman knows, I'm a lot older than he is. I have three 
grandchildren, and I have a great-granddaughter. Tragically, history 
tells us that my grandchildren and my children are going to have their 
challenge from a security standpoint, from a health standpoint, from a 
natural disaster standpoint as we have today, and they're going to have 
to have resources to respond to that.
  I don't criticize the gentleman and I applaud him for asking the 
American public what we all ought to ask the American public, what do 
you think we ought to cut. The fact of the matter is that your side, 
your ranking member, has prepared a budget. As I've told you before, I 
think it's a budget with a great deal of integrity, great deal of 
political courage, and the gentleman's indicated it's a 75-year budget. 
It's a budget that affects today, tomorrow, but yes, it has a vision. I 
applaud Mr. Ryan. As you know, I'm a big fan of Mr. Ryan's. I don't 
agree with Mr. Ryan, but I don't have to agree with somebody to have 
great respect for their intellect and their political courage and their 
willingness to be real, to put something on the table that really will 
make a difference.
  My side, for the most part, doesn't agree with his treatment of 
Social Security, Medicare, and some other things. But I asked the 
gentleman last time if he wants me to put that budget on the floor with 
whatever we put on the floor on our side so that both of those can be 
considered. We're prepared to do that.
  But my friend, I will tell you, I'm not looking, as I said before, 
for contrition. I am looking for recognition that we need to work 
together and be honest. Be honest with those American people that 
you're asking questions to. The items you put on your list are worthy 
of consideration, but they will not get us to where we need to get.
  As Mr. Eakin, who was one of McCain's advisers, former Republican 
director for the OMB, as the CATO Institute indicates, the policies of 
the Bush administration dug a very deep hole. You have contrition about 
it but that doesn't solve it. What's got to solve it is us coming 
together and being honest with the American people. That's what the 
commission is hopefully going to do, and it's going to give us tough 
recommendations, and we will have to clasp hands together frankly if 
those recommendations are real, honest, and effective because they will 
be politically controversial because the medicine doesn't always go 
down very well.


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

  
  June 10, 2010 on Page H4369 the following appeared: As Mr. Ekin, 
who was one of
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: As Mr. Eakin, 
who was one of


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

  But we have all dug a hole. I was not for most of the Bush policies 
that put us in those holes. I think giving up revenues--that's part of 
the $2 trillion of spending that you made, YouCut revenues--but you did 
not pay for them. The thing to do if you're going to cut taxes is to 
cut spending. The American public understand that, but pay for what 
you're still going to buy. Don't expect the credit card to be used by 
us and paid for by our children.
  So I tell my friend that the individual items which you have just 
outlined are worthy of consideration, and asking the American public 
their recommendations is absolutely the right thing for us to do as a 
democratic body, but let us not kid the people that we can deal with 
the budget hole that has been dug over the last 8 years from surplus to 
deep deficit, surplus in 2001, deep, deep deficit in 2009, January of 
2009, is going to be solved by simply nibbling around the edges, no 
matter how big those figures may sound, and they are big. But in the 
magnitude of the problem that confronts us, they will not get us to 
where we need to be.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I would say I hear 
the gentleman, that he thinks that contrition is not enough. I hear the 
gentleman who says that he and his side is to blame as well, and I 
think enough is enough about going backwards.
  The gentleman's heard me before on the floor in this colloquy quote 
Winston Churchill when he said, Of this I am quite sure, that if we 
open a quarrel between the past and present, we shall find that we have 
lost our future. And I would say to the gentleman in the spirit of that 
quote, let's go forward. Both of us can differ on policy, but it seems 
that the gentleman is more interested in settling a score to have this 
side of the aisle admit that somehow our policies were failing.
  I have said here--I think most of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle would say--spending was too high. The gentleman indicates that we 
voted on $2 trillion of spending while we were in the majority over the 
last several years.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield just to clarify?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. We all voted for more spending than that over that period 
of time, given the size of our budget. What I said was, to be precise, 
you voted for $2 trillion of unpaid spending.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that correction, and would say 
that with that $2 trillion figure out there, we could also look to see 
how much spending is going on now, and the national debt has increased 
by $4 trillion since the Democratic Party took control of this 
Congress, and we've added $4.8 billion in debt per day under this 
President. So there is no side immune to blame for more spending, which 
is why we continue to plead that let's work together now. Let's not 
kick the can down the road.
  The gentleman continues to say that the YouCut proposals are too 
small, though worthy, too small to even fix any problem. That is not 
true, Mr. Speaker. We are about trying to change the culture here in 
Washington. The gentleman shares with me concern about the life our 
kids, their kids and theirs will have in this country given

[[Page H4370]]

the actions we are taking and those we're not on the floor of this 
House.
  So I thank the gentleman, again, for his willingness to engage in 
these substantive discussions. We need more of these debates on 
substance in the workings of this House, and I appreciate, again, his 
time.

                          ____________________