[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 8 (Thursday, January 20, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H373-H376]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1110
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, the gentleman
from Virginia, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the
coming week.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip,
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour
and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30
p.m.
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate
and noon for legislative business. The House will recess no later than
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 Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative
business.
During the week, the House will consider at least one bill under
suspension of the rules, which will be announced by close of business
tomorrow. In addition, we will consider H. Res. 38, a resolution
reducing non-security spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or Less, and
a bill of the public's choosing--via the
[[Page H374]]
YouCut program--to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by
terminating taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns and
party conventions; saving taxpayers $520 million in mandatory spending
according to CBO's estimate last year.
Mr. HOYER. I want to thank the gentleman for informing us of the
schedule for the week to come.
I want to thank, at the outset, not only the gentleman but the
Speaker as well for the respect and consideration they have given
during this current tragic situation that confronted us in Tucson and
the critical injuries sustained by our colleague, Gabby Giffords. I
want to thank Mr. Cantor in particular for his very strong statement,
as well as the Speaker's very strong statement, that an attack on any
individual who serves is an attack on all of us irrespective of party
or philosophy. I think we all have raised prayers for the victims who
lost their lives, their families, prayers for those who are either in
the process of recovering or are now out of danger, and of course for
our beloved colleague, Congresswoman Giffords, as well.
So I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and the Speaker's
leadership in joining with our leader and myself in leading the House
in what I thought was a very appropriate and united response to that
tragedy.
We are heartened by the progress that Congresswoman Giffords is
making, and we look forward to her quick return.
Now, Mr. Cantor, if I can, next week we are scheduled to leave on
Wednesday. I know there has been an articulation of an intent to try to
get out by noon on the days that we leave. Would you expect that to be
the case this next week?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. First of all, I thank the gentleman for his kind
statements regarding the expressions of grief and support that I think
all Members of this body have expressed to Gabby Giffords, her family,
and her staff. Our thoughts and prayers remain with all of them, and
certainly to the victims and their families. And certainly they all
know that we are thinking of them.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the schedule is concerned, if you will recall,
the commitment on our schedule was the finishing time would be 3 p.m.
on the last day we are here. We specifically had indicated that January
is going to be a little different and an exception due to the
organizing processes, State of the Union, et cetera. The expectation is
to begin that in February, as was originally expressed; although, we do
intend to try to be as expeditious as possible on Wednesday. The exact
timing of our departure and finishing up depends on the actual rule
coming from the Rules Committee, including the amendment debate and the
structure for the Presidential election fund bill. We expect an
announcement by the Rules Committee chairman later today on that.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
Given that response, can I ask the gentleman: Would he expect there
to be an open rule with reference to that bill?
Mr. CANTOR. The gentleman understands, as the Rules Committee
chairman presides over the Rules Committee and entertains the
submission of amendments. As to exactly, I can't answer that right now,
and that will be determined by the Rules Committee.
Mr. HOYER. Not only do I recall that as being a fact, I also recall
it as an answer that I used to give the gentleman on a regular basis.
But I am certainly hopeful, as he was hopeful, given the
representations of transparency and openness, that there would be
opportunities to amend. I know that Mr. Van Hollen spoke to that in the
Rules Committee, and I would hope that we could see that policy which
has been expressed by your side pursued in this instance as well as
future instances. I thank the gentleman for his response.
Let me ask the gentleman: There was some criticism raised when we
passed a budget enforcement resolution that we hadn't passed a full
budget. In that budget enforcement resolution, as you recall, A, we
articulated a specific number; and, B, that number was voted on by the
entire House.
{time} 1120
It is my understanding that the proposition that will be put before
the House next week will provide and give unilateral authority to the
chairman of the Budget Committee to set a number and that that number
will not be voted upon by the House pursuant to the authority granted
in that resolution.
Is that an accurate reading of that resolution?
Mr. CANTOR. To be clear, once the House adopts the resolution next
week, the resolution will then instruct Chairman Ryan to cap non-
security discretionary spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011
at fiscal year 2008 levels. That is the purpose of our adopting the
resolution, acting as the House as a whole, instructing Chairman Ryan
to cap non-security discretionary spending at 2008 levels for the
remainder of this fiscal year.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, I know he shares with
me the realization that people across this country--families,
businesses--are having to face some tough choices. We started this
Congress, I think, together, committed to demonstrating that we are
willing to make those tough choices--thus, the resolution for next
week.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response.
I do not want to be argumentative, but I have just received your
amended copy of the resolution, and as I read on your second page, it
says ``the remainder of fiscal year 2011 that assumes non-security
spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less.''
The implication in that, it seems to me, is that Mr. Ryan
unilaterally can set a number which has not been agreed to by the
House, but under the power granted in this resolution would bind the
House to a number to which it had never agreed.
Is that an accurate reading of that? Could, in fact, under this
resolution Mr. Ryan set a number that is less than, as your resolution
says, 2008 numbers?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that the resolution
provides for the capping of spending levels at '08 levels.
The gentleman also knows that the Speaker has been very consistent in
his statements, saying that we are going to have an open rule process
when it comes to spending bills. In fact, that is what we said during
the last campaign season in the Pledge to America.
So, in working with that commitment as well as the language of this
resolution, the budget chairman, Mr. Ryan, will be instructed to enter
into the Record a cap of spending levels for the remainder of the
fiscal year to be placed at 2008 levels.
Mr. HOYER. So would it be therefore accurate that the ``or less'' is
superfluous and is not intended to give Mr. Ryan the authority to set a
figure at less than 2008 levels?
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman I disagree with that
characterization of the language ``or less,'' and would just say that,
again, the Speaker is committed to an open process on spending bills. I
assume that we will see coming to the floor every attempt and effort to
try and maintain some sense that this Congress is going to be a cut-
and-grow Congress and that we are about trying to find savings
everywhere we can so that we can get this country back onto a
trajectory of fiscal sustainability.
So I say to the gentleman, no, this is not something that we intend
to be meaningless, that we are serious. The cap is consistent with our
commitment to the people of this country that the levels of spending
for the remainder of the fiscal year will not exceed 2008. It is our
hope that we can continue to find additional savings so that, yes, we
could even find ourselves below '08 levels; but the cap is 2008 levels.
Mr. HOYER. The point that I am trying to make, and perhaps not as
clearly as I need to make it, is that what we are in that resolution
giving is to one person--one person--in this Congress the authority,
without consideration by this House, to set the number, without
hearings, on what we will, as you articulate, cap spending levels at
for fiscal year 2011.
As I understand it, there have been no hearings by the Budget
Committee, no hearings by the Appropriations Committee, no hearings by
the Ways and Means Committee, or by any other committee involved in
fiscal matters as to what the ramifications of that cap will be to
individual programs or individual Americans.
[[Page H375]]
I share the gentleman's view and have voted consistently, as I voted
for the balanced budget amendment, as the gentleman knows, last we
considered it, to bring our fiscal house into order. I think neither
party can necessarily take sole responsibility for doing so or not
doing so when it comes to fiscal balance.
But I do tell my friend that, with respect to transparency and
openness and to the inclusion of all the Members of the body, it is, I
think, not consistent with that objective to give to one person,
however brilliant that person is--and I happen to have great respect,
as the gentleman knows and as I have said so publicly in the press, for
Mr. Ryan, who I think is a very positive, effective, important Member
of this body; but I am not for giving any one person in this body the
authority to unilaterally set the number at which we will fund
America's government for the next 7 months.
I yield to my friend to see if he might have a response to that
because, in his responses to me--and I understand the cap--but at any
number below that, at 2007, 2006, 2005 levels, it seems to me this
resolution authorizes Mr. Ryan to set such figures as he unilaterally
determines is an appropriate figure. In his mind, that may be an
appropriate figure; but it is not necessarily the same figure that this
body voting in a transparent, open way might select.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will just respond to the gentleman by
saying we are in the position we are in because the majority that he
participated in in the last Congress failed to live up to its
obligation in passing a budget and in even passing any appropriations
bills short of a continuing resolution. That's why we are here today,
because there is a mess that has been created from the last majority,
and we are trying to clean that up.
We have committed to a transparent and open process; and I have said
to the gentleman that, when the CR comes to the floor, we will see
Members on both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to amend the
continuing resolution according to the way they think that we ought to
be saving taxpayer dollars.
So, again, I disagree with the gentleman's assertion that somehow
there is a lack of transparency here. We have said all along the cap on
our spending will be at 2008 levels for the remainder of the fiscal
year. If this House works its will and if Members on either side are
able to gain the majority of votes in this House to achieve even more
spending below the 2008 levels, then that will be the will of this
House.
Again, the gentleman understands well why we are where we are, and we
look forward to working together to go and produce a spending
resolution here that begins to address the mess that was left before.
Mr. HOYER. Let me ask the gentleman: Is the gentleman representing to
me that this resolution will, in fact, result in 2008 levels of
expenditure so that Members, who are being asked to vote on this, will
have a certitude of the number on which they are voting--that's my only
question--so that they will know on what authorization they are giving,
what budget direction they are giving, to the members of the
Appropriations Committee?
Mr. CANTOR. The budget directive is 2008 levels or less. As the
gentleman well knows, the intention is to allow the Appropriations
Committee to do its work, to report a resolution to the floor. The body
will work its will according to the insistence of the majority and the
Speaker that we have an open process on spending bills.
{time} 1130
It is our hope that we can work to achieve even greater savings for
the taxpayers of this country.
Mr. HOYER. I understand that, and I thank the gentleman. I know that
he has indicated that we are going to be considering what I believe to
be a $52 million cut--that's important money--to reach your $100
billion. However, if you do it at that level per week, of course, you
will take approximately 50 years to get to $100 billion if we consider
one every week that we are in session.
My presumption is that you will be informing us of those
opportunities to cut as well, giving us opportunities on our side.
There may well be Members on our side who want to join in making sure
that we spend our money as effectively and efficiently as possible. But
we also know and the commissions that have reported know that while
these types of expenditures are important to review, I don't know that
there have been any hearings on this YouCut. I know that this has been
in response to the Web page question that you have propounded to
people--I don't know how many responses you have received to that. But
are you intending to have hearings in relevant committees on future
propositions to cut?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, first of all,
as far as the $520 million--not $52 million--is concerned, as he knows
that is mandatory spending, that is not discretionary spending, and
would be different and apart from the commitment that we just spoke
about at '08 levels.
I would also say to the gentleman that we will be glad to have
hearings once committees are organized. As the gentleman knows, it's
been a little bit slow in upstart just given the transition of
leadership, et cetera. We are waiting for your side in some instances.
But we hear from committee chairmen things are working well, so we hope
that committees will be up and organized to have hearings.
But in order for us to deliver on our commitment that we are going to
bring up a spending cut bill every week, this body will be considering
a bill providing for cutting the Presidential election fund that has
been in existence for some time. As the gentleman well knows, this
tends to be of some controversy in some quarters. There are those who
believe that this is an attempt to drive this country towards a public
finance system for campaigns. Obviously there are those in this country
who believe that's what should happen. But knowing full well the
controversy, I'm sure we will have a robust debate. And I am looking
forward, Mr. Speaker, to as many cuts to this fund as the gentleman's
side may offer and look forward to a robust debate on the issue.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
And let me ask again, does the gentleman intend, once the committees
are up and running--I understand in a transition it takes some time--
that the cuts that you are going to propose on a weekly basis will have
been subjected to committee oversight and hearings, with the public
having an opportunity to testify on the consequences of those cuts?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman again, yes, it is our
intention to have a full and open debate on all of these issues. As the
gentleman recalls, this process began last June, or in the spring or
so, that we said we were going to redirect the focus to make sure that
we are in line with the will of the people, and that is trying to do
everything we can to remind all of us of the import of cutting
spending, and therefore this process begins. But yes, to the
gentleman's question about hearings, we welcome that and would expect
that.
Mr. HOYER. Good. I appreciate that response.
Lastly, I ask my friend, one of the significant issues that will be
confronting us in the coming months will be the extension of the debt
limit to ensure that America continues to pay the bills that it has
incurred and therefore maintain fiscal stability not only in this
country but throughout the world. The Speaker and you have both made, I
think, very positive comments on the fact that, as unwanted as such a
vote may be, it is, nevertheless, as the Speaker pointed out, an adult
vote--that I took to mean a responsible vote--to ensure the fiscal
stability of our country.
Does the gentleman anticipate a clean up-or-down vote on that issue
when it becomes timely to vote on that issue sometime in March of
April?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would begin by saying to the gentleman, as
he knows, it's unclear when the Federal Government will actually hit
the debt ceiling, and we will be closely monitoring that date. But
before we reach that date, it is very, very important that we prove
that this Congress is willing to cut spending. And the House, as the
discussion today indicates, will be taking those necessary steps each
week that we are here, leading up to an eventual vote. In fact, I would
call on the leader on the other side of the Capitol, Mr. Reid, to
follow suit.
[[Page H376]]
The continuing resolution vote gives us the first real opportunity to
demonstrate our commitment to cutting spending. The debt limit will be
another opportunity for this Congress to cut spending. And as I think
the gentleman knows, I have said repeatedly that we will not accept an
increase in the debt limit without serious spending cuts and reforms,
and I look forward to joining with the gentleman debate on this House
floor. Hopefully we can have the Senate join us, as well as the
President, towards that end.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
It's my understanding, from the gentleman's response, that if in the
eyes of you or Mr. Boehner or your side of the aisle serious spending
cuts have not been effected, that you would oppose the extension of the
debt limit.
Is that what I hear you saying?
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman this: We have been charged
with an obligation by the people of this country to get our fiscal
house in order. We intend to be very deliberate and focused on cutting
spending while making sure we are doing all we can to grow the economy
and the private-sector jobs. It is our intent to prove that this House
and this Congress--hopefully Leader Reid will follow suit--will deliver
on that commitment.
The public, as the gentleman knows all too well, is tired of business
as usual. They don't want to see this country continue to incur debt as
it has in the past without some indication that things are changing,
without some indication that serious spending cuts have been
implemented and reforms effected, and that will be our intent.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response. And I hate to
keep pressing him, but if his hopes are not realized--and I don't know
the answer as to whether they will be, but at some point in time we
will be confronted with an alternative of whatever the facts may be
with respect to what we are able to pass through this House, the
Senate, and get signed by the President, we will be confronted with the
consequences of our past behavior, and I underline ``our,'' o-u-r,
spending that we have incurred. And I don't want to go through the
entire debate that you and I always go through, so I won't do it, but
we will be confronted with, as the Speaker says, an adult moment as to
whether or not we will, in light of the consequences of past behavior,
take actions necessary to preclude America from defaulting on its
debts. And I simply ask the gentleman, will we have the opportunity to
have an up-or-down vote on that issue under the circumstances where we
have reached, as the gentleman points out--we don't know the exact
date--the extent of present authority?
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that the vote
on the debt limit comes within the context of our demonstrating a
commitment to cut spending, to effect reforms. And the President as
well as the gentleman's side here in this House have said both that
they would like to see and join us in cutting spending. This debt-limit
vote comes in the context of all that we are going to be able to do
over the next several months. And we've got to be demonstrating that or
frankly the public will not want us to accept any notion that we're
going to continue business as usual unless we've demonstrated that
things are changing. That's why I continue to say to the gentleman that
we will not accept an increase in the debt limit without serious
spending cuts and reforms.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
____________________