[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 106 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5107-H5109]
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. Madam Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), for the purpose of asking about 
the schedule for the coming week.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at noon for morning-hour 
and at 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 
p.m. This is a change from the legislative schedule that was announced 
at the end of last week. We will be sending out an announcement shortly 
so that all Members are aware of this change. Again, Madam Speaker, the 
House will now convene on Monday of next week, not Tuesday.
  It is critical, Madam Speaker, that we solve our Nation's fiscal 
problem and intend to schedule the House's legislative business as 
intended to accomplish that goal.
  On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. 
for the morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the 
House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the 
week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Friday.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of 
the rules on Monday, which will be announced by the close of business 
today. I do not expect any other legislative business besides 
suspensions on Monday.
  On Tuesday, the House will consider the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, 
which would provide the President with an increase in the debt ceiling 
so long as cuts are made in the short term, spending caps are put in 
place over the coming years, and a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution is adopted so that we never find ourselves in this 
position again. I would encourage as many Members as possible to 
participate in this important debate on Tuesday.
  During the remainder of the week, the House will consider legislation 
relating to the expiring authorization of the FAA, a series of bills 
reported by the Financial Services Committee that deal with the 
impending transfer of authority to the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, and, finally, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
  I would say that it's my understanding now that we are, as the 
gentleman has pointed out, going to be meeting on Monday, and we will 
be voting on Monday at 6:30 rather than commencing on Tuesday at 6:30. 
The gentleman has pointed out that that's to accommodate the challenge 
that confronts us in the crisis that we have been put in with reference 
to assuring, A, that America does not default on its bills, and that we 
continue to pursue efforts to bring the deficit down and the debt under 
control.
  I say to my friend that it is late. He is right. We should confront 
this situation. We on numerous occasions, of course both the gentleman 
and I, have voted in the past to extend the debt limit so that America 
paid the bills that it has incurred.
  The gentleman also notes that a piece of legislation was brought to 
the floor to ensure that we pay our bills. It was brought to the floor 
with the express intention by the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee that it be defeated, and of course it was defeated, and all 
of your members voted against it, although over half of my members 
voted to make sure we pay our bills so that we did not get to this 
position.

  The gentleman and I have been involved in efforts to reach agreement 
with the President, with the Senate, and with ourselves, with both 
sides of the aisle, so that we could not only provide for America 
paying its bills, which if it doesn't will have very serious 
consequences to every household in America, every 401(k) pension 
program in America--and the gentleman and I agree, and everybody at the 
table with the President agreed, that allowing America to default on 
its bills was not something that any of us believed was a policy that 
was appropriate.
  I say to my friend, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, we've been 
confronted with this challenge for a long period of time. It was my 
understanding that you were going to bring to the floor next week a 
balanced budget amendment, which was announced and which I thought was 
coming and which we had told our members was coming. You have now 
substituted for that, as I understand it, am I correct, the Cut, Cap, 
and Balance Act?
  To my understanding, there is no text for that act available at this 
time. Is that accurate? Am I correct that there is no text yet 
available for that bill?
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say back to the gentleman that the bill is 
currently being drafted and will be posted online later this evening, 
consistent with our 3-day layover requirement.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
  Given the fact, as the gentleman pointed out, that this crisis has 
been known to us for over 5, 6 months now, that we were going to 
confront this, I understand that in the Cut, Cap, and Balance pledge 
that has been put forward--I don't know whether it's going to be put 
forward in the legislation--but the pledge says that your side or--
excuse me--the people who sign the pledge, whatever side they're on, 
are going to ``oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the 
following conditions have been met:''
  One, ``Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next 
year and thereafter.'' It seems to me that we passed a budget through 
this House that does that. It doesn't reach balance, of course, until 
some 30 years from now. Secondly, it says, as a condition for voting 
for a debt extension, ``Enforceable spending caps that will put Federal 
spending on a path to a balanced budget.'' As you know, we've had 
discussions in the White House on caps and what they apply to, whether 
they are a percentage of GDP or they're actually caps in spending, 
which obviously escalate the denigration of the ability to deliver 
services over the years, depending upon the flexibility that's 
incorporated. I haven't seen the legislation, of course. And then 
thirdly, on balanced, ``congressional passage.'' Then in parentheses it 
says, ``not mere support.'' Now, I know there are some people on this 
floor who have signed this agreement, so I presume that they're not 
going to vote to make sure America pays its bills on August 3. 
``Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution--but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a 
super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and 
expenses.''
  Now, I presume that that requirement will have to come, according to 
this pledge, to get votes which are included in this Cut, Cap, and 
Balance pledge. Does the gentleman believe that the second two at 
least--one could argue that we've already done the first in terms of 
making substantial cuts and that we've discussed agreeing on making 
substantial cuts, but that the second two conditions cannot possibly be 
met between now and August 2?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that, as he has 
heard me say before in those meetings and on this floor, I don't want 
to pass August 2 without increasing the debt.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand that.
  Mr. CANTOR. I, as well as the gentleman, understand that there is a 
lot of uncertainty if that were to happen, a lot of risks associated 
with that, risks that I am not willing to take.
  To the gentleman's suggestion that it is imperative that we do that 
above all else, I would also add to that, it is imperative that we 
demonstrate that we can arrive at meaningful solutions to the current 
fiscal crisis the country is facing. That is what the Cut, Cap, and 
Balance Act tries to achieve. It offers a way for us to cut spending in 
a meaningful way this year and throughout the budget window. It also 
suggests ways to enforce discretionary levels so that Congress can 
actually begin to do

[[Page H5108]]

what all of us would like to see us do, which is to stop spending the 
money that we don't have.
  The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act also provides for caps on total 
spending levels recommended in our budget resolution. These levels are 
spending as a share of GDP, and it provides, lastly, for ensuring that 
even beyond the 10 years that we actually can get back to balance. 
That's what the people of the country want. I know that the gentleman 
shares with me a desire to manage this situation back down to balance. 
So I'm hopeful that the gentleman and his colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle take a look at this legislation. As I have said to the 
gentleman, it will be posted online to comply with our 3-day layover 
requirement to provide adequate notice to the public and Members.
  Mr. HOYER. I'm not sure the gentleman answered my question with 
condition two and three of the Cut, Cap, and Balance pledge. Again, I 
haven't read the legislation. So I see the pledge. I'm not sure what's 
in the legislation.
  I thank the gentleman for his observation that we need a meaningful 
and, I would say, robust addressing of the problem that confronts us. 
In fact, as you know, because we have discussed it at the White House 
for 4 days now, from Sunday night through last night--I guess 5 days--
the President of the United States has been indicating that we need--he 
calls it a ``big''--a grand design, if you will, along the lines that 
have been suggested by two of the commissions, which on a bipartisan 
basis recommended a grand design. That grand design would have reached 
at least $4 trillion in deficit reduction and debt reduction, and, in 
fact, that is a figure somewhere close to the budget that was passed 
through this House. I might say to the gentleman parenthetically that 
it's my understanding that the Cut, Cap, and Balance might get closer 
to the RSC numbers than your budget number that was passed here. The 
RSC number that I refer to, of course, was the amendment that was 
defeated on this floor by one vote.
  But I would say to the gentleman that the President wants to do a 
grand design to reduce that deficit not by $1 trillion or $2 trillion 
or $3 trillion but by $4 trillion. There was a commission or a group--
the ``Biden group'' we call it--in which the gentleman participated. 
There were other discussions between your Speaker and the President all 
looking at achieving a large deficit reduction. The gentleman at some 
point in time decided that was not something that he wanted to continue 
working on and suggested that it be, I suppose, pushed up the line, and 
it was. So I said, the President was for a grand design. The leader of 
the Senate, Mr. Reid, was for that. Mr. Durbin was for it. Ms. Pelosi 
was for it. I was for it, and the Vice President was for it. But 
unfortunately, we couldn't proceed on that discussion in a successful 
way, at least, because the gentleman observed and his colleagues 
observed that, as long as there were any revenues attached to that, it 
would not be acceptable to your side of the aisle, notwithstanding that 
every bipartisan commission that has dealt with this issue has 
indicated that it needed to be a balanced package, that it needed to 
include substantial cuts, that it needed to deal with discretionary 
spending, defense spending, entitlement spending, and that it needed to 
deal with tax expenditures.

  The gentleman says correctly that we want to balance our revenues 
with our expenditures. The problem is, if you keep cutting revenues, 
you're just going to be chasing yourself down. Obviously, you want to 
bring revenue rates down. I hope we can do that. But if we bring them 
down to a place where we don't have the money to pay for what we buy--
which is, of course, what happened in this past decade--then we will be 
confronted with a situation that the gentleman wants to avoid, and that 
is: raising the debt limit. What we have done over the last 10 years is 
buy more than we can afford; therefore, we have a debt. That's why the 
gentleman, as I say, voted for extending the debt limit. That's why I 
voted for it.
  I will tell the gentleman that I have a Gallup Poll here that says, 
``Seventy-four percent of the Republicans agree that a responsible 
deficit reduction plan should include both tax increases and spending 
cuts, and 77 percent of independents believe the plan should include a 
mix of revenue and spending cuts.'' I say that so that I can elicit 
from the gentleman--I know there is sentiment on your side of the 
aisle; I know there is sentiment on my side of the aisle. And I told 
you--and you know the President of the United States believes this as 
well--that we have an opportunity, a critical time in our history, when 
we have the makings of a bipartisan agreement, the creation of a 
bipartisan consensus, that will move us in the direction that you and I 
know we have to move.

                              {time}  1300

  What is holding us up, as I understand it, is that your side believes 
that these 77 percent of independents and 74 percent of Republicans are 
not correct, that revenues ought not to be part of this package. 
Clearly, we agree and have agreed that spending cuts need to be a part 
of it.
  So I ask the gentleman, is there any possibility that these 74 
percent of Republicans are correct that, in fact, if we are going to 
have a successful package, it will be because it is balanced? Because 
my view is, I tell my friend, that, if we do this, it's going to really 
create jobs.
  Now, we haven't done any jobs bills, we believe, in this Congress. We 
believe the only jobs bill you really did so far was the patent bill. I 
know you are going to talk about all these bills that you did, but we 
don't think that, because you put ``jobs'' in the titles, it makes them 
jobs bills.
  But the fact of the matter is that, if we can create confidence in 
the market, if we can create confidence that we can deal with our 
fiscal situation in a responsible, bipartisan, collegial way, it will 
have an extraordinarily positive effect on every household in America, 
the confidence of America that we can work together in a bipartisan 
way, and we will stabilize the markets and provide for paying our bills 
and bringing our deficit and debt down.
  So I ask my friend, again, does he believe there is any possibility 
at this point in time that we can reach a balanced agreement on what is 
called a ``grand design'' along the lines of the recommendations of the 
bipartisan commission's recommendations?
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say regarding the gentleman's 
discussion about what happened at the White House this week and my 
insistence that the President's, at least, statements in that meeting--
because we don't know what the details were of his proposal on this so-
called ``big deal.'' My insistence was consistent with our speakers 
that we not raise taxes, and that's why that construct doesn't work. We 
don't have the votes on this side of the aisle. I am not supportive of 
raising taxes on people who are trying to make it right now and can't.
  So I would say to the gentleman when he refers to the other groups 
that have been out there, all of whom he states suggest that somehow we 
need to raise taxes, what the gentleman is talking about is how are we 
going to produce more revenues.
  We believe, Mr. Speaker, that you produce more revenues by having 
growth in our economy. We don't believe that you promote growth in the 
economy by cranking up the government spending machine by taking money 
from people who earn it, washing it through Washington's bureaucracy, 
and sending it back out. We don't believe that.
  We believe that growth is created through investment, through hard 
work in the private sector by entrepreneurs, small businessmen and -
women, people who want to succeed but want to earn their success and 
are not waiting for government to grant it to them. So I would say to 
the gentleman, if the aim is for us to create more revenues, one word 
in response: It's growth.
  I would say to the gentleman as far as his reference to the Gallup 
Poll and when he says that overwhelmingly people in this country want 
to have taxes raised as part of the so-called ``solution'' to our 
problem----
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on that, because I didn't say 
that.
  Mr. CANTOR. I will yield to the gentleman when I am finished.
  To the gentleman's suggestion that that is where the American public 
is, I just disagree.

[[Page H5109]]

  I haven't talked to anybody right now--when we have got unemployment 
over 9 percent officially, when people are out of work and month after 
month can't find a job, when small business people are having trouble 
just keeping the lights on, I don't talk to anybody that says, ``Please 
raise my taxes.''
  That's what we should be focused on are the hardworking people, the 
people of this country who want a job, who want to see this economy 
return to growth. They are the ones who understand that it's cutting 
taxes; it's cutting the overly burdensome regulatory system in this 
town that will bring back middle class jobs.
  So to the gentleman's suggestion that somehow we have not been 
talking about jobs in this institution, I know it's not surprising to 
him that I disagree with that.
  Mr. HOYER. It is not.
  Mr. CANTOR. Right. Because I say to the gentleman, week after week we 
brought bills to the floor, yes, that deal with our fiscal situation--
that cut spending--because we have got to address that, just like 
people address it in their homes, their families, their businesses.
  But we brought numerous bills week after week to the floor that go to 
the root of the cause of uncertainty in the business community in this 
country, and that is Washington's overly aggressive and burdensome 
regulatory reach. We have got to get back to a growth posture, Mr. 
Speaker.
  That means cut spending, lower taxes and implement a balanced and 
sensible pro-growth regulatory system as well as, finally, hopefully, 
returning to a monetary policy that promotes a strong dollar.
  Mr. HOYER. First of all, of course, I didn't say anybody wants their 
taxes raised, including me. I would like to have all the prices for 
things I buy cut in half, a 50-percent-off sale. We all like that.
  I like going and using my credit card--it's so much easier--and 
that's why credit cards encourage the economy. But you and I both know 
what happens when you use your credit card: At some point in time you 
get a bill. The people who sold you the goods or loaned you the money 
expect you to pay them.
  I will tell my friend that I understand what he is saying. We have 
just come through, arguably, the worst recession that we have 
experienced since the Great Depression, and it was consistent with 
economic policies which, by the way, started, as you know, in December 
of 2007 and in which we lost 8 million jobs.

  But the gentleman continues every time to say he wants to have 
policies which in 1991 and 1993 were argued were policies that were 
going to grow our economy, expand jobs and have those folks that you 
talk about do well.
  Now, the gentleman misrepresents our position. I want to make it very 
clear: We are not for asking people who are trying to make it in 
America. We are not for asking those who are struggling in America. We 
are not asking for those who rely on Social Security. We are not asking 
for those who rely on their Medicare benefits to pay the burden of the 
spending that we have been involved in over the last decade, which took 
us from $5.6 trillion of debt to over $10 trillion of debt.
  We are not asking for those struggling Americans which the gentleman 
raises as the specter of those we think ought to pay their fair share. 
Oh, no. We are asking for those who have done extraordinarily well over 
the last decade, who have made millions per year in the last decade, 
some billions of dollars over the last decade--oil companies that are 
now making the biggest profits they have ever made and others--to pay a 
little more so that we can stabilize the finances of America.
  So don't represent that it's Democrats who are asking those 
struggling small business people--we are not doing that--or those 
struggling working people in America who, by the way, have been stuck 
in the mud under the economic policies that were pursued consistent 
with the 2001 and 2003 economic programs, which have seen a growing 
disparity between working people and the wealthiest people in America.
  Now, we can continue on that path and put on the backs of those 
struggling people you talk about, my friend, the responsibility to pay 
for things or we can have a fair and balanced program. That's what the 
74 percent in the Gallup Poll want. They don't want their taxes raised.

                              {time}  1310

  What they want is a fair and balanced obligation, a fair and balanced 
participation in contribution to paying the debts of this country that 
we've incurred, and we've incurred them together. You're not all 
responsible. We're not all responsible.
  Now, on our side of the aisle, as you well know, this deficit was 
increased by almost 90 percent under the Bush economic policies, far 
less than that under the Clinton economic policies--as a matter of 
fact, about half. But that's not the issue. Under both, the debt went 
up. We're confronted with it; we've got to pay it, and you and I 
believe not paying it is not an option.
  The Chamber of Commerce says clearly that, first, it is critical the 
U.S. Government not default in any way on its fiscal obligations, and 
the President of the United States and our side have said, you bet, we 
don't want to do that. So let's ask all of us to come to the table, and 
those who can't afford it ought not to be asked, but those who can--
those who can--should be asked to do so, not to penalize them but to 
say we're all in this together. Those who are the best off in America, 
those corporations like the oil companies that are getting subsidies at 
this point in time which said they didn't need subsidies if oil was 
over $55 per barrel--they testified in Congress some years ago to that 
fact. It has been twice that, and we're still giving them subsidies.
  All we're saying is that doesn't make sense, and we ought to have a 
balanced program, and that's what those 74 percent and 77 percent of 
independents are saying. They're not saying they want their taxes 
raised. They're not saying we ought to raise taxes and incur more debt. 
They are saying we ought to pay our bills. They are saying that we 
ought to have a fair participation by all Americans in meeting this 
crisis that confronts us.
  And I would hope that over the next 3 weeks that we could get to a 
place where we could come together in a bipartisan way and ask all of 
us to participate. Those who are able can help us confront this: bring 
this deficit down and balance our budget. For those who can't but who 
are working hard to make themselves and their families live a quality 
of life, we'll help them out. Then I think, as I said, we'll stabilize 
the economy; we'll grow jobs and we'll have a better country. I would 
hope we could do that, Mr. Cantor, and I'm looking forward to it.
  Again, I don't know that this cut, cap, and balance will get us 
there; but as I said, we're not going to get there, clearly, under 
those provisions between now and August 2. I think the gentleman knows 
that, and I hope he has some other thoughts in mind, some other plan in 
mind. Obviously, there have been a number of plans talked about. The 
President gave a speech about his plan. That was rejected. The 
gentleman says it wasn't specifically line by line. That's right, 
because it was rejected before we got there.
  Mr. Boehner, your Speaker, discussed trying to get a construct. So 
perhaps you have a plan that is above and beyond the Cut, Cap, and 
Balance Act that we might see that would be a balanced plan that would 
help us.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________