Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 31 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 31 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1553-H1556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, to
ask about the schedule for the coming week.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland,
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the House will meet at 2 p.m. for morning
hour and 4 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will
meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and recess immediately. The
House will reconvene at approximately 11 a.m. for the purpose of
receiving, in a joint meeting with the Senate, the Honorable Julia
Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia. On Thursday, the House will meet
at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On
Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with
last votes expected by 3 p.m.
The House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules on
Tuesday and possibly Wednesday, which will be announced by the close of
business tomorrow. The House will also consider two bills that were
marked up by the Financial Services Committee today: H.R. 836, the
Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act, and H.R. 830, the
FHA Refinance Program Termination Act. These bills will eliminate two
ineffective mandatory programs that, without congressional action, will
continue spending on autopilot.
The House has already had a robust debate on the discretionary side
of Federal spending, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to do so, but it's
time we turn our attention also to the mandatory side of government
spending. I expect further debate on mandatory spending throughout the
month of March.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. He mentions
that we will be considering some bills under suspension, as is normal,
and two bills, H.R. 836 and H.R. 830, presumably under a rule.
I ask the gentleman, will those be open rules? And before I yield to
him for his response, I want to say that I want to congratulate the
gentleman on

[[Page H1554]]

the process that we considered H.R. 1. While those of us on this side
did not ultimately support H.R. 1, I know that the Speaker and the
leader are both pleased with the openness and transparency of the
process. There was a preprinting requirement, of course, so it wasn't a
totally open rule in that sense. But does the gentleman expect there to
be open rules on H.R. 836 and H.R. 830?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And to the
gentleman's specific question about next week, I would respond to the
gentleman that we are working with the Rules Committee and its
chairman, Chairman Dreier, to be able to announce an open process for
the consideration of next week's bills.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Can I inquire is an open process,
is that somewhat of a nuance of an open rule?
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman also indicated in his remarks the
preprinting requirement in the CR of H.R. 1 provided for it to be a
modified rule. And it is in that spirit that I think the Speaker
initially began this session, that we are committed to an open process,
to have the ventilation of ideas, to have the participation of as many
Members as possible in debate of measures coming to the floor. We
continue to want to go in that direction, as we have thus far.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Let me say to the gentleman in
terms of a constructive discussion that we might have, and I happen to
believe that the preprinting requirement is a positive requirement in
that it gives notice to people. One of the things, as we know, that it
requires, however, is the printing of amendments prior to the time you
know the status of the bill at the time you might offer the amendment.
I suggest that perhaps we have discussions about how to take into
consideration the process where you preprint an amendment, prior to
getting to your amendment something is changed by a previous amendment
that might require a modification of your amendment in terms of an
understanding on both sides that perhaps we would accommodate, either
by unanimous consent or some other process, that change.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for raising the point that did come
up during the debate of H.R. 1. I would say back to the gentleman that
it is probably a very good discussion to take place within the context
of the Rules Committee. And we look forward to having that discussion
with the gentleman as well.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
The current CR, as the gentleman knows, expires March 18 that we
passed earlier this week, the Senate passed, the President has now
signed. Can I ask the gentleman his thoughts on going forward what we
might be expecting with respect to funding government from March 19
through September 30 for the balance of the fiscal year?
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And as the gentleman has already
pointed out, the House, Mr. Speaker, has produced its position in H.R.
1. The difficulty is the Senate has failed to produce a Senate
position. So there really is very little foundation upon which to
engage in any discussion as to how we are going to get through the
remainder of the fiscal year. I know that the minority leader was
recently today out saying that the position on the part, I guess, of
the Senate, and perhaps your caucus, is that there is a desire to bring
about $41 billion of cuts.
I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, $40 billion is not a cut.
That's the status quo. And that's been our position all along, is we
want to make sure we change the status quo, that we actually do what
most Americans are having to do, which is tighten the belt and to cut
spending in order to get this economy going.
So I am saying to the gentleman we would encourage the Senate and
Leader Reid to act so that we can move forward. And until then, Mr.
Speaker, I would say to my friend from Maryland that I would expect the
House to continue its process of cutting $2 billion per week until we
can see where the gentleman's caucus and then the Democratic leader in
the Senate is.

{time} 1420

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response. I might want to
pursue that response just a little bit, however.
The Pledge to America, as I understand it, said that you were going
to cut $100 billion; is that accurate?
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman that the Pledge to America
said that we were desirous of reducing discretionary spending, non-
security spending, to '08 levels.
Mr. HOYER. And H.R. 1, as I understand it, is scored at $102 billion
or thereabouts; is that accurate?
Mr. CANTOR. I would say back to the gentleman, as he knows, the
figure of $100 billion was taken from the difference between the
President's FY11 request and the '08 levels, which is how that figure
has become.
So I would say to the gentleman, if he is trying to make the point
about 100 versus 61, the gentleman is accurate when he says that the
$100 billion of cuts off the 2011 request by the President is the same
as $61 billion of cuts against the current level of spending at FY10
levels.
So if I could make the gentleman's point for him, which is exactly
why I say that insistence upon $41 billion or $40 billion in cuts is
nothing but defense of the status quo. That's what I would say to the
gentleman. That's unacceptable to our side. It's unacceptable to the
American people.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for explaining my proposition, but
if I might clarify a little more, what the gentleman has said, the way
you get to $100 billion is counting that $41 billion that you say is
the status quo and adding $60 billion, or $61 billion to it, to get to
$102 billion, or a little short of that. My point clearly is that the
gentleman and his side of the aisle have clearly counted the $41
billion that he says is the status quo.
The reason he has done so is because, he said, during the course of
the campaign, and others said during the course of the campaign, they
were to cut $100 billion. In fact, as I recall, the Speaker and
yourself and other leaders made the point during the course of your
initial consideration and the offer that was initially made to your
conference, that, in fact, the $41 billion was, in fact, a cut from the
President's request of $41 billion.
We agree with that, but we now believe that your side is saying, oh,
no, that doesn't count, notwithstanding the fact it is $41 billion less
than the President requested and you counted that $41 billion less as
part of the $100 billion you represented was part of the cuts that you
had said you were going to make and that you, in fact, made.
So my point is, as the gentleman has pointed out, that your $60
billion, by your side's argument of cutting $100 billion, only gets to
$100 billion because you are counting the $41 billion, which we have
cut. Now I say that for this reason: You made the $100 billion pledge
prior to December. You made it prior to the election. Then we, in fact,
cut from the figure you were using as the base, the 2011 base of the
President's request, we cut $41 billion by freezing at 2010 levels.
Now, very frankly, my point to you is, as I am sure you know, that we
have already come $41 billion, which means 41 percent of the way to
where you wanted to get. We continue to want to discuss this matter.
Hopefully we can move together and come to a compromise figure.
I know the gentleman has not served on the Appropriations Committee.
He serves on the tax writing committee. But in the Appropriations
Committee, we found an ability to come together and make agreement. I
am hopeful that we can do the same. But I think it unfair and
incorrect, frankly, not to count $41 billion because we are now
starting at 2010 levels as opposed to the level that you started at and
we started at, which was the President's 2011 request, and both of us
have come that $41 billion, and the issue is how much further we are
going to go.
Mr. CANTOR. I would respond to the gentleman that we have already
discussed the math here. The problem is the American people are waiting
for us to act. If the gentleman knows the position of Senator Reid and
where he would like to go, other than maintain the status quo, then
that's what we are looking for. The House has made its position known.
Its position, again, is $100 billion off the 2011 request or $61
billion off the

[[Page H1555]]

2010 levels of current spending. We have maintained that position all
along, Mr. Speaker, that freezing spending at today's level is
unacceptable. It will bankrupt us if we continue to spend at these
levels. We have got to begin to show some fiscal restraint so we can
get people back to work in this country.
I am delighted to hear the gentleman say we need to cut more, and I
am hopeful that we can continue to see progress on that front. But thus
far, the gentleman's colleagues and all of our colleagues on the other
side of the Capitol, Senator Reid, has not indicated where his position
is. That's what we need to know to move forward.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I ask the gentleman, might I advise the leader on the other side of
the Capitol that there is, in fact, a willingness on your side to
compromise between zero and 100?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, does the
gentleman know of any position having been taken, any vote that has
been taken in the Senate to indicate where they are and whether they
have come off their position of defending the status quo?
Again, I would say to the gentleman, his leader, the minority leader,
earlier today was in the press indicating that that is her position.
She wants to defend the status quo, $41 billion in cuts. There is not a
cut on the current level of spending.
Mr. HOYER. If that's the status quo, then I suggest to the gentleman
he is not going to get to $100 billion, which he represented and his
side represents they want to get to. We will see whether or not they
are prepared to do that. But I will tell my friend, if that's the
position, then I think we will not be able to reach agreement because
there appears to be no ability to compromise in that context.

The gentleman counted the $41 billion during the course of the
campaign. The gentleman counted that $41 billion when he made a
representation to his caucus as to why you were offering a $32 billion
cut because, together, given the fact that it was halfway through the
year, that that would, in fact, be tantamount to. But again, in each
one of those instances, the gentleman counted the $41 billion. He is
now saying, oh, no, that is the status quo.
Does the gentleman know of any budget that President Bush signed in
'01, '02, '03, '04, '05, and '06 that maintained either the status quo
or cut below the so-called status quo, when your side was in charge of
both the House and the Senate and the Presidency?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have had similar
conversations over the last couple of years. I really think it is best
for all of us to see how we are going forward, not looking back. I know
the gentleman would make the suggestion we could learn from past
history. I am all about that.
But what I could say, Mr. Speaker, is we need a position by the other
side in order to go forward so we can actually do what the American
people want, which is to cut spending from current levels.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
I would simply suggest to the gentleman and hope that we can work
together, as the gentleman suggests, come to resolution for the balance
of the fiscal year.
The gentleman has made a number of comments in the past, with which I
agree, that uncertainty undermines the economy. A quote that the
gentleman said on the floor last year: Working families and businesses
remain gripped by economic uncertainty, and to this day Washington has
only made the problem worse. If we want to cut into the 9.8 percent
unemployment, Mr. Chairman, we have to instill confidence in the
economy and begin to foster an environment for job creation.
I suggest to the gentleman we will not do that until we come to an
agreement. Both sides need to work toward that end. I agree with the
gentleman on that. I am hopeful that the Senate will, in fact, make a
suggestion in the near term; I mean, hopefully, in hours and a few days
rather than weeks.
The 18th will be on us, as you know, very soon. If we don't reach an
agreement by next Thursday, in my opinion, we will not be able to get
the paperwork done to get a bill ready to pass by Friday the 18th, 2
weeks from tomorrow.

{time} 1430

I think that will be unfortunate and will lead to uncertainty and
disruption, both in the public sector and in the private sector.
Let me ask you one more question on the issue of compromises.
Assuming the Senate makes an offer and assuming it passes an offer or
reaches an agreement, when it comes back, will there be any hearings on
the proposed cuts and the ramifications of those cuts?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, first of all, as to his
suggestion about our adding to uncertainty and perhaps facilitating a
government shutdown, we have said all along we do not want to shut down
the government. We want to cut spending. And as I've said before to the
gentleman, it is our intention to continue to go forward reducing
spending at the rate of $2 billion a week until we can see some signal
from the Senate that they're serious about wanting to cut spending.
As for the gentleman's inquiry about hearings on specific cuts, as to
a potential bill that will govern the route forward for the rest of the
fiscal year, I would bring the gentleman's attention to ongoing
hearings now as we proceed throughout this fiscal year about the 2012
budget and spending that we should be about anyway.
And let us not forget the reason why we find ourselves where we are
is because the majority from the 111th Congress did not finish the
business of this fiscal year, which, again, is why we find ourselves in
the position of these expiring short-term CRs.
We are dedicated to the notion of open process, as the gentleman
knows, and I know he shares that goal as well, and we will continue to
operate in that manner.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer.
The reason I ask that question, however, I don't know whether the
gentleman had an opportunity to read a column in The New York Times by
David Brooks, a relatively conservative columnist in The New York
Times, as the gentleman knows, in which he wrote a column called, ``The
New Normal,'' and in paragraph 4 in which he stated, ``In Washington,
the Republicans who designed the cuts''--which are included in H.R. 1--
``for this fiscal year seemed to have done no serious policy
evaluation.''
He goes on about four paragraphs later to say, referring to his
austerity principle--there are three austerity principles that he
propounds. He said, ``Never cut without an evaluation process.''
I think that we need cuts. I've said that. The gentleman said that.
We are proceeding. In fact, we have done some of those and we have
agreement on some of those, as the gentleman knows. But there were no
hearings. That's why Mr. Brooks says that they seem to have done no
serious policy evaluation of those cuts. That's why I asked that
question. But I understand the gentleman's answer.
I will bring this to a close. We have some concerns by the fact that
a number of economists, a large number of economists, have expressed
concern about the economic ramifications of some of the cuts and the
magnitude of the cuts that are included.
As you know, Ben Bernanke indicated that this spending plan could
cost a couple of hundred thousand jobs, a number he called ``not
trivial.'' And according to Goldman Sachs, we might adversely affect
GDP by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters
compared with current law or as the gentleman refers to, the status
quo.
I ask the gentleman: Is that of concern to you or do you believe that
those evaluations are incorrect?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I would say I am always mindful of opinion makers, commentators, and
economists and their view as to what's going on here in Washington. But
I would say to the gentleman, I think we've been down the road that the
gentleman suggests is preferable before. We, on this floor, passed a
nearly $800

[[Page H1556]]

billion stimulus bill, at least on the gentleman's side passed it, and
we saw the effects of spending that kind of money did not produce the
kind of job creation that was desired or was promised. And if I recall,
some of the economists that the gentleman refers to probably were ones
that supported the notion that the stimulus bill would make sure that
unemployment didn't exceed 8 percent if we went ahead and spent that
money. I think we've tried that before.
The gentleman also knows that we are borrowing nearly 40 cents out of
every dollar we are spending. That is unsustainable. And so if the
gentleman's focus is to spend more money from Washington to create
jobs, then essentially we are creating jobs and paying people we can't
afford to pay.
So what the position is from our side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, is
we want to be honest with the people. We want to look for long-term
solutions that get this economy going again.
We all know that most jobs are created in the private sector. We all
know that most jobs come from the entrepreneurial aspirations of the
people of this country. It is they who continue to point to Washington
as the problem. It is they who say that government's explosive growth,
government's continued and increasing appetite for capital is making it
so we can't see investment occur here in this country. And if you want
to fix the economy, deal with the deficit. That's what we're trying to
do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
And certainly, I agree with him that we need to deal with the
deficit. As the gentleman knows, I've been pretty vocal about that and
indicated that we need to look at the whole spectrum of spending.
Focusing on 14 percent of the budget will not get us there. I think the
gentleman probably agrees with that proposition. I know the chairman of
the Budget Committee agrees with that proposition. I may not agree with
the chairman of the Budget Committee on how he wants to get there, but
I think we do agree that we have to look at all of the spending that we
do, and that bringing down the deficit is of critical consequence.
Let me say to the gentleman, however, when he speaks about jobs, as
he knows, we lost 3.8 million jobs in 2008, the last year of the Bush
administration. The last year of the Obama administration, the last 12
months, we have gained 1.1 million private sector jobs. So when the
gentleman says that the Recovery Act did not have the effect that the
administration hoped for, he is correct. We went up above the 8 percent
unemployment. But the gentleman, I'm sure, knows that during the last
12 months we have gained jobs on an average of 569,000 over the last 5
months, so half a million jobs.

Is that enough? It's not. Frankly, we are going to have to be at
300,000 or 400,000 per month to overcome the number of jobs that were
lost prior to or during the recession which started, of course, in
2007.
So I want to agree with the gentleman and hope that we can work
together on looking at the entire challenge that confronts us in
bringing this deficit down. But I tell my friend to continually focus,
as the gentleman has been doing in this colloquy and in other
colloquies, on simply the discretionary spending, non-defense and non-
security spending, while we certainly need to cut fraud, waste, and
abuse, cut duplication and make government simpler and more accessible
and more cost effective for the American people, we also need to be, as
you said, honest with the American people that if you cut out every
penny of the portion of the budget at which you are looking, we will
not solve the deficit problem.
So I say to my friend, I will look forward to working with him. Our
side looks forward to working with him and his side. I have had
discussions--I see Mr. Dreier on the floor. We need to work together on
this issue because the gentleman is correct; it is a critical area.
Unless the gentleman wants more time, I will yield back.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. I would just say to the gentleman--and thank you for the
courtesy of yielding--that is exactly why we are turning to mandatory
spending next week. As the gentleman knows, we'll be fast on the
discussion of the budget as well. As the gentleman knows and can expect
that our budget will approach the issue of entitlements, and we feel it
very necessary for us to begin that discussion. And, frankly, we're
dismayed by the fact that the White House did not include any mention
or discussion or did not deal with entitlements in its budget proposal.
So we hope, and I know the gentleman is earnest in his desire to want
to try and deal with the deficit both on the discretionary and the
mandatory side. I look forward to working with him toward that end.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
Just in concluding on that, the administration did, of course,
appoint a commission, Mr. Bowles and Senator Simpson, which did, in
fact, look at the spectrum of spending and made some very substantive
recommendations. The administration has commended those recommendations
to us for consideration.

{time} 1440

But the administration also said that we need to make sure that we
invest in growing our economy if we expect to bring the deficit down,
investing in the education of our children, investing in our
infrastructure, investing in innovation and invention. I agree with the
administration on that. I think we need to be very careful that we pay
attention to both the investments and to the reduction of the deficits.

____________________