[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 37 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1751-H1754]
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
inquire about the schedule for the week to come.
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. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the
House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative
business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative
business.
The House will consider at least two bills under suspension of the
rules on Monday, which will be announced by the close of business
today. On Tuesday, we expect to consider a short-term continuing
resolution to fund the government for another 3 weeks. On Wednesday,
the House will consider one or possibly two more bills from the
Financial Services Committee addressing mandatory spending: H.R. 839,
the Home Affordable Modification Program Termination Act; and H.R. 861,
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act. Finally, Mr.
Speaker, on Thursday, the House will consider a concurrent resolution
sponsored by Mr. Kucinich related to the War Powers Resolution.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
He mentioned the CR, the continuing resolution, the continuing
authorization to operate government, which I understand will be for a
3-week period.
Can the gentleman tell us what will be in that continuing resolution
at this point in time?
Mr. CANTOR. As the gentleman knows, our majority is committed to the
process of providing a 3-day notice for all Members, as well as their
constituents, to see what we will be voting on. The Appropriations
Committee is busy preparing the text of that, and it will be presented
online this afternoon. The details will be in that online version this
afternoon.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Now, it's my understanding we are not scheduled, according to his
announcement, to meet next Friday.
Is that accurate?
Mr. CANTOR. Yes. I would say to the gentleman that is correct.
Mr. HOYER. And I take it the gentleman is reasonably certain,
obviously we don't know what the other body will do, but in light of
the fact that that CR will be offered next Tuesday, the gentleman's
presumption is that, in fact, we will be out sometime on Thursday.
Mr. CANTOR. Well, I would say to the gentleman, we certainly look
forward to the Senate acting expeditiously and acting quickly on the
House's 3-week extension. Assuming that goes as well, the gentleman is
correct in assuming that we will not be in session next Friday.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman and I have had this discussion, and I think we both
agree that continuing to fund government on either a 2-week or 3-week
cycle is not what we ought to be doing. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, a
number of economists have indicated that if, in fact, we
[[Page H1752]]
proceed to funding levels that reflect H.R. 1, which is my assumption
of what will happen according to what the gentleman has told me and, I
think, said publicly, the funding levels that are included in H.R. 1 on
a week-to-week basis, which leads me to believe that if we are having a
3-week extension will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 billion in
additional reductions.
Would that be accurate?
Mr. CANTOR. I would agree with the gentleman that, yes, as he and I
have discussed, we intend for the 3-week extension to maintain the
current formula upon which we are operating today, and that is a
reduction of spending of $2 billion per week. I expect the
Appropriations Committee, again, to introduce a 3-week, short-term
extension cutting $2 billion per week later this afternoon, consistent
with the House position as spelled out in H.R. 1.
{time} 1240
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would
observe to him that with respect to H.R. 1, numerous economists have
indicated, including Mark Zandi, who was, of course, one of the
principal advisers to John McCain when he ran for President, Chairman
Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs, Moody's, and
others, that the just rejected H.R. 1, if adopted, would lead to the
loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, in one analyst's point of view,
over 800,000 jobs.
In fact, of course, three Republicans voted against H.R. 1 in the
Senate, and one of those who voted for H.R. 1 in the Senate said this,
Mr. Speaker: Let me be clear that I strongly oppose some of the
proposed cuts in the House-passed bill--that was H.R. 1--particularly
the drastic cuts that would disproportionately affect low-income
families and seniors. Making such deep and immediate cuts to critical
low-income heating assistance, weatherization, and Head Start programs
in the middle of the fiscal year would cause serious problems for those
who rely on these programs. That was Senator Collins, a Republican from
Maine, when the bill was on the floor.
So let me ask the gentleman, do we have a plan to proceed so that we
can, A, retreat from the uncertainty that we keep creating by these 2
weeks? I know that he and I agreed that this is not the way to proceed,
but does the gentleman have a plan, A, to move forward so that we can
fund government through September 30, complete funding for this fiscal
year, and turn our attention and focus on what I know the gentleman
knows the Appropriations Committee is now focusing on, the fiscal year
2012 appropriations and spending plan.
Does the gentleman have in mind when we might get to a plan to fund
the balance of government, not on 2- or 3-week cycles but between now
and September 30?
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
First of all I want to respond to the first part of the gentleman's
discussions regarding Mr. Zandi and the other individuals he spoke to
regarding the predictions of doom because of our position on H.R. 1.
I would say to the gentleman, and as he knows, there are as many
economists, certainly several hundred, who signed a letter indicating
that the cuts were not something that would produce the results that
Mr. Zandi and others have predicted.
In fact, it's Mr. Zandi's math that was applicable to the stimulus
bill that I think most Americans do know now failed in the promises
made that we would see unemployment not rise above 8 percent.
Again, the gentleman and I have had a discussion before that if the
answer was just spend more government taxpayer dollars to create jobs,
why don't we just go spend it all and then everybody will be employed
again. Well, we know that's not true and that doesn't work.
We also know that Chairman Bernanke did not agree with the
predictions of the kinds of cuts that Mr. Zandi and others have
predicted, according to his testimony. Certainly we believe, very
strongly, that if you cut government spending, we create an environment
for private sector jobs.
And to the gentleman's direct question about when we can proceed with
a longer term solution so that we do not have to continue operating in
stopgap ways, I would say to the gentleman, as he knows, it's not just
the House, it's trying to work with the Senate as well as the White
House.
The Senate did act this week, and we now know that the Senate rejects
our $60 billion, approximately $60 billion cut off of 2010 levels, and
it also rejected the proposed $10 billion worth of cuts by Leader Reid.
In fact, there were more votes in favor of the $60 billion H.R. 1 level
than there were for the $10 billion level off of current spending.
The problem is the White House has not indicated where it wants to
go. And as we both have discussed before, as I have told the gentleman,
I just don't see where the leadership is on the part of the White
House.
It is obviously up to the White House to come to the table as well,
as the President has got to sign the bill. We agree it is much better
for us to be operating with some certainty and not have to be operating
off of stopgap measures every several weeks. But we don't want to shut
government down, we want to cut spending.
If this is how we are able to do it, we are going to deliver on that
promise to cut spending. But I do share with the gentleman the
frustration that we don't see any type of coalescence around a notion
that we should have some type of longer term agreement on this fiscal
year.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I understand the gentleman's issue with respect to the
President. Both the gentleman and I understand and agree that the
Constitution, in article I, gives to the House of Representatives of
the United States and the Senate the responsibility to raise and spend
moneys, so that this is a primary responsibility of the legislative
department of government, which he and I have the privilege of serving
in. While I understand that the gentleman is accurate, both
alternatives were defeated in the United States Senate.
The President put an offer on the table in his 2011 budget. We then,
in December, froze spending at 2010 levels, which was $41 billion less
than the President's offer which he put on the table.
We have now had two additional offers put on the table. The next
offer was, of course, included in H.R. 1. That passed this House but
did not pass the Senate.
The Senate, however, did put an offer on the table, as the gentleman
pointed out, cutting an additional $10 billion above the $41 billion,
or $6 billion above the $4 billion that was included in the short-term
CR which expires on March 18.
What I ask the gentleman again is, does the gentleman now propose,
and will the gentleman and his side of the aisle be proposing, a
counteroffer, as I said last week, or is the gentleman's position you
are staying, as I seemed to hear you say, at the $100 billion figure
that was included in H.R. 1, which implies that unless there is an
agreement to your figure, that we will have to shut down government or
agree to your figure.
I want to make sure that I understand your thoughts on that.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I say to the gentleman again, it is the House that has
taken the position that we want to see cuts of approximately $60
billion off of current 2010 levels. The Senate said it wanted to cut
$10 billion off of 2010 levels.
There is a $50 billion difference here. What we believe is we need to
do everything we can to try to figure out how to do more with less in
Washington.
The American public sent us to Washington to spend their money the
way they would. I think most people also, certainly our conference,
believe you cut government spending, you create private sector jobs.
That's what we are about. We are waiting to see what position the White
House will take so that we can move forward and begin the job that we
are supposed to be about right now, which is the next fiscal year.
As the gentleman knows, we are here because, unfortunately, the last
Congress did not pass a budget, did not pass appropriations bills. We
are trying to clean up that mess.
So we are waiting to see what the White House's position is so we can
begin to see how we can maximize efficiencies in government, cut
spending,
[[Page H1753]]
so that we can see more private sector jobs.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer. I think
I did not receive an answer in terms of whether or not the gentleman is
saying it's either $100 billion or nothing, and that there will be no
counteroffer to the offer that is on the table, either from the
President or, more accurately at this point in time, in terms of the
timing from the Senate, which got us to $51 billion in cuts, which,
although the gentleman would like to say it's between zero and $60
billion, the gentleman in his Pledge to America said he was going to
cut $100 billion. The reason he got to $100 billion was he counted the
$41 billion cut from the President's initial offer of 2011 spending.
What has happened, since the gentleman and his party made that offer,
Mr. Speaker, is that, in fact, $41 billion of that $100 billion was
accepted in the CR that was passed which expired 2 weeks ago.
{time} 1250
Since that time, we've put from the Senate's perspective an
additional $10 billion on the table to get us to $51 billion. The way I
calculate it, that is more than halfway from the gentleman's offer, not
of $60 billion in his Pledge to America but $100 billion. And the way
he got to $100 billion is the $41 billion that we already cut in the
first CR, the additional $10 billion is now $51 billion. I say to the
gentleman, we've come halfway, a little more than halfway. And we are
now asking the gentleman, is he going to have a counteroffer for us
that we can consider from our offer of $51 billion which we believe is
more than halfway?
I will tell you further, Mr. Leader, that it is my staff's belief,
and I could be corrected on this, that the offer that is on the table
represents the single largest cut from one year to the next since I
have been in the Congress of the United States, which is largely under
Republican Presidents.
We obviously are prepared to agree and have agreed on very
substantial restraints in spending, cutting spending, trying to get a
handle on this deficit. As you know, I'm concerned about the fact that
in the rule we adopted on the first day of the session that you
provided for $4.7 trillion in additional tax expenditures, if you will,
tax cuts, cutting of revenue, that is projected currently by CBO which
will lead to $4.7 trillion of additional spending, while you have
proposed a trillion dollars of cuts, leaving a net appreciation of the
deficit of $3.7 trillion, increased deficit that is in fact planned for
under your rule.
All I am asking for now is, do you have and will you have a
counteroffer to our $51 billion offer so that we can then try to move
on and reach compromise? If it is simply, no, we want $100 billion or
nothing, then we'll have to make a decision, as I have told the
gentleman, on our side of the aisle: What do we do at that point in
time? We obviously have the majority in the Senate and we have the
President of the United States, the American people have elected. And
as Newt Gingrich, your former Speaker, our former Speaker, said in
1998, we have to reach agreement. And the way you reach agreement is to
get offers back and forth. We think we have an offer on the table and
we'd like to hear your counteroffer.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. First of all, the problem is that the $10 billion off of
current spending, that that is the largest cut that has ever been
proposed since the gentleman has been in Congress, that's the problem.
That's the problem.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I did not say it was the largest cut
that had ever been proposed in Congress. I said it is the largest cut
from one year to the other, from the previous year's spending. And it
is $13.6 billion, I believe. Seventeen billion. My staffer, who's
brilliant, much more brilliant than I am, reminds me that I am----
Mr. CANTOR. I'm told the gentleman has a lot of those.
Mr. HOYER. Right. Both of us do.
Mr. CANTOR. Yes.
Mr. HOYER. I want to clarify so the public understands as well when
they hear us, what we're talking about cutting from is 14 percent of
the budget, the discretionary, non-defense, non-security, part of the
budget. So let me focus on that. And when I speak of the cut, and it is
$17 billion in non-security, that from year to year, since I've been
here since 1981, is the largest single cut in non-defense, non-security
discretionary spending from one year to the other. Yes, it is. And
that's in a very small 14 percent slice of the budget. Frankly, the
discussions we have had to date ignore the other 81, 82, 83 percent of
the budget. Obviously interest rates are not subject to being reduced.
We need to pay our debt.
So I just want to clarify, A, that I am speaking of the discretionary
part of the budget, non-defense, non-security; and, yes, from year to
year it is in fact what's sitting on the table as an offer to you the
largest cut we've had in non-defense, non-security discretionary
spending in the last 30 years.
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly
the problem still. Because, as the gentleman alludes, we have over a
trillion and a half dollar deficit this year alone. I understand the
gentleman's point about there being just a smaller piece of the budget
from which these cuts are being taken. But the bottom line is, that's
the problem. We've got to work harder to cut more so that private
sector jobs can be created.
I would say to the gentleman two things: One, I look forward to his
support, then, of the budget that we bring forward, because we are, as
the gentleman knows, going to be dealing with how to reform the
entitlement programs, which are the significant driver of deficits into
the future as he knows. So I do look forward to that. We will be
dealing with that within a month's time. I look forward to that debate.
But I would lastly say, Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman know what
kind of cuts the Senate can support at the 60-vote level? Because I
don't. So I don't see a counteroffer there. I don't see a position that
the Senate or the gentleman's side of the aisle has taken. I don't see
the President having come down at a level that is acceptable at all
because he hasn't come down to a level.
This is the problem, Mr. Speaker. We have made our position known.
The House wants to cut 60 some billion dollars off of the 2010 levels
or $100 billion off of the 2011 proposals. We don't want the status
quo. We want to continue to cut spending. We can't come to any
agreement when the other side doesn't come forward with any offer, and
that's why we have been forced into this situation where we are once
again proposing a stopgap measure so that we can see the government
operate, so it doesn't shut down, in the name of trying to do more with
less.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend.
Let me make a point here, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the
gentleman continues to take the position until we get to 100, there is
no credible counteroffer. Two billion a week.
The gentleman served with a very conservative Member, also a great
Member of this Congress, a guy named Joe Scarborough. Most of America
knows Joe Scarborough. Let me give a quote from Joe Scarborough:
``There are elements of the GOP spending plan that cause me great
concern. The belief of some on the right that America can balance the
budget by cutting education, infrastructure, the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, and home heating assistance for the poor is tantamount to
budgetary witchcraft.''
That's not a Democrat. That's Joe Scarborough, conservative Member
from northern Florida, with whom I served. Now a lot of people see him
on Morning Joe every day. The fact of the matter is that's what he
said. Now we're looking for a counteroffer, because we don't agree with
some of H.R. 1, as you well know. As a matter of fact, every
conservative Democrat, every liberal Democrat and everybody in between
voted ``no'' on H.R. 1, as did three of your Republicans over there and
Susan Collins, who voted for it, said she didn't like the elements in
it.
So what I am saying to my friend, very sincerely, is, he can preach
all he wants about we need to cut spending. We agree with that. And the
issue is where you cut it from. What impact does it have? Does it
sustain the economy or does it deflate the economy? Does it create jobs
or does it lose jobs? Does it help people who need help or does it
abandon people who need help? That's the issue.
And what I am saying to my friend with all due respect is, we have
made
[[Page H1754]]
an offer. The gentleman wants to talk about the President. Article I of
the Constitution says we need to do this. This is our responsibility.
The people elected us to do it. And the people elected us to reach
agreement.
And how do you reach agreement? This is what I want. This is what you
want. We have come up. We have moved; pretty substantially. We think it
was appropriate to move. Now we are asking you, are you prepared to
move from the position you have taken consistently at your figure,
which a lot of your folks think has problems in its constituent parts?
{time} 1300
I'm asking you, and I can't get an answer, and you apparently are not
going to make a counteroffer as to, okay, we took 100, we passed it,
couldn't pass the Senate, you offered something in return. And what I
mean by ``you,'' the Senate didn't pass it. The gentleman is absolutely
correct. But we Democrats have made the offer here and there of the $51
billion. The President has indicated he could sign that. He said that
publicly.
Now, that's our offer sitting on the table. My suspicion is you've
rejected that offer. And if you have rejected it, what is your
counteroffer? That is my question.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman again.
Not to belabor the point, but I did say, Mr. Speaker, that there were
not 60 votes in the Senate for the offer he speaks of. In fact, there
were more votes for the $60 billion off of the current funding levels
that is our plan. So there is really no offer on the table that is
valid because it can't pass the Senate.
What is the Democratic Senate's offer on the table? The gentleman
rightfully says it is up to us in Congress. The people elect us to try
and come together and agree upon a spending plan. What is the offer?
There is no offer that could pass in the Senate. We passed the House
version. We know where the House stands. So I'm just having difficulty
in understanding where the offer is.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has made his points. He is
frustrated because he sees there is no movement because the Senate has
been unable to get an offer on the table that can garner 60 votes. So
the gentleman wants us to negotiate with ourselves. No. We want to cut
spending and keep the government open. That's why we're in the position
we are, to do another stopgap measure so that we can hopefully iron out
some differences, cooperate in trying to keep the government open, and
cut spending so that people in the private sector get back to work.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
As I understand what the gentleman is saying, if the Senate can't get
60 votes--which, of course, we have seen the gridlock for a long period
of time where the Senate can't get 60 votes--that we're not going to go
anywhere from the offer that he's made to pass something that can, in
fact, garner 60 votes in the Senate.
I regret that the Senate, frankly, didn't get 60 votes for our offer.
And he is correct that he got a few more votes for H.R. 1 than was
gotten for the Senate majority leader's counteroffer. But the fact of
the matter is this is really an issue between the Republicans and the
Democrats.
Senator McConnell has said, as I know the majority leader says, we'll
pass what the House passes. That's what he said. Now, if that's the
case, then we need to pass something that can garner 60 votes over
there. We know that H.R. 1 couldn't get 60 votes. We know that Senator
Reid's proposal couldn't get 60 votes.
And if we're going to move this government forward and not fund it on
2-week cycles--and Senator McCain has said that funding the Defense
Department on 2-week or 3-week cycles is undermining our national
security. So there is no disagreement that doing things 2 weeks at a
time does not make sense. And if the gentleman's view is simply you
will not make some offer that we think--and we can have a discussion
about trying to come to agreement on that--that we can get 60 votes for
in the Senate and we're going to fund it on 2-week cycles, I say to my
friend, that's going to be damaging to the economy, create great
uncertainty, and undermine our national security. And I would hope that
the gentleman would see fit to determine where we can meet somewhere in
the middle.
We think we've come 51 percent of the way towards your hundred.
Towards your hundred. You keep talking about 60. That was not your
pledge. Your pledge was 100. And the way you got to 100 was to count
the 41. We've done that. We've done another 10. So we've come, we
think, 51 percent of the way. You don't count it that way, and we
understand that. But whatever way we come, we need to move on.
You won the majority. God bless you. I'm sorry about that, but I live
with it, and there it is. You have the majority. And with the majority,
you have the responsibility to see if we can move this country forward.
That's what Newt Gingrich said. And you can't be the perfectionist
caucus, as he referred to, of sticking just at a number that doesn't
have the votes in the United States Senate.
And if we're going to be on this 2-week cycle, I will tell my friend,
you may keep passing these 2 weeks at a time. None of us want to shut
down government. But I will tell you that while I and my colleagues,
some of my colleagues, may vote to do this one more time, for me, it's
the last time. We need to have a plan to fund this government for the
balance of the fiscal year to September 30. It is irresponsible for us
not to have that. And just each of us sticking to our number, you
sticking to your number, and just pointing fingers at one another
saying ``the Senate can't get 60 votes for anything we propose'' will
not serve our country or our people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________