[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 137 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6215-H6218]
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 the majority leader, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), for the purposes of inquiring of the 
majority leader 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 in pro forma 
session.
  On Tuesday, 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 Wednesday and 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. 
Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Friday.
  The House will consider a few bills under a suspension of the rules 
on Tuesday and possibly Wednesday. A complete list of suspension bills 
will be announced by the close of business tomorrow afternoon.
  The House will also consider a short-term continuing resolution to 
fund the government, and Members are advised that the rule debate for 
that measure may take place on Tuesday. I do not expect the resolution, 
itself, however, to be debated until Wednesday.
  Finally, we will take up H.R. 1705, the bipartisan Transparency in 
Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation, otherwise known as the 
TRAIN Act, which will measure the full consequences of regulations on 
job creation and, in particular, the Utility MACT and Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rules.
  If any additional legislation is added to next week's schedule, it 
will be announced by close of business tomorrow.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information. I note that he 
has indicated the CR will be considered sometime next week, either 
Tuesday, but most likely on Wednesday. It's my understanding that the 
supplemental for emergency requirements of FEMA will be included in the 
CR; is that accurate?
  Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman that what will be in the CR is 
the budgeted amount for all of fiscal year 2012, which is $2.65 
billion, will be in the CR, front-loaded. In other words, the agency 
will have access to all of those funds prior to the expiration of the 
CR November 18.
  In addition to that, we have, as the gentleman knows, funded out of 
this

[[Page H6216]]

House the emergency supplemental, which was $1 billion more than that 
which the agency had requested, all of which was offset. That, too, 
will be in the CR.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  When you say all of that has been offset, it is my understanding that 
in fact in the CR for 2011--not for 2012, but for 2011--there is a $1.5 
billion offset included; is that accurate?

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CANTOR. Yes, that is accurate.
  Mr. HOYER. And it's further my understanding that that offset, which 
is unusual in that, as the gentleman knows, during the Bush 
administration, as happens, we had natural disasters and emergencies--
hurricanes, floods, even earthquakes--that require local governments 
and local agencies and individuals to respond, and we have responded to 
them with assistance, but the eight times that we did that during the 
Bush administration, we did not offset it. We did not offset it on the 
theory that this was an emergency that occurred that was unplanned for 
and that we would, in fact, obviously pay for it, but pay for it in 
subsequent years.
  It's my understanding that the offset that is being considered is 
$1.5 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicle fund. The problem 
with that, as I see it, is we are talking about creating jobs, and the 
President has presented a jobs bill. I'll talk about that in just a 
minute. But the fund that is in question to date has created 39,000 
jobs, and the loan applications in progress are projected to create 
50,000 or 60,000 additional jobs.
  Therefore, if we use this as an offset, which would set a precedent, 
although I understand that precedent's not being followed for 2012, 
what we are doing, in my view, Mr. Leader, is undermining a specific 
item in the current scheme of things that is, in fact, creating jobs, 
as I said, 39,000 jobs, with the loan applications that are in progress 
now expected to create an additional 50,000 to 60,000 jobs, that we 
undermine that effort.
  Frankly, on our side, we would hope that we could return to what is 
precedent, and that is, in an emergency, respond with emergency funding 
as we did throughout the Bush administration, not with the concept that 
we wouldn't pay for it. You and I both agree that paying for this is 
critically important, and in fact, I think you and I are both of the 
opinion that, hopefully, the committee of 12 is set up to look at how 
we get our finances back in line with our revenues and expenditures, 
that that needs to be done.
  But certainly, this is a new precedent. And, unfortunately, it 
appears that you have targeted--I don't mean you, personally, but the 
CR would target a particular item that is exactly what we want to do, 
and that is creating jobs.
  Would the gentleman like to comment on that?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Sure, I do. And, Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman is 
committed to paying for what we spend, and he, if anyone, would put as 
a priority that we ought to act accordingly.
  I find it somewhat ironic that the gentleman is defending what 
occurred during the Bush administration, as I will posit what occurred 
during the Clinton administration, because President Clinton, under his 
administration, actually signed four separate supplementals that were 
offset, including flooding and the Oklahoma City bombing.
  So the gentleman is correct; there's precedent on either side. I 
think he would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that now is the time for us 
to begin to really put forth a concerted effort to act responsibly, not 
just say we're going to act responsibly and attempt to off-lay the 
obligation to the Joint Select Committee. We have an opportunity to do 
so now.
  And the gentleman refers to the offset that some on his side have 
raised as an objection. I would say to the gentleman, the facts are: 
There's currently $4 billion in unobligated budget authority remaining 
under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program, and 
this so-called pay-for just rescinds a billion and a half of that 
total, and the program will have remaining in it $2.5 billion.
  I think it's worthy of note, Mr. Speaker, that this money has been 
laying around since September 30, 2008. That is 3 years.
  So I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that anyone is intending to do 
anything damaging to potential job creation here. What we're trying to 
do is finally face facts. We in this body, in this town, must stop the 
Federal Government from continuing to spend money it doesn't have.
  And I yield back.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Of course it's money the government doesn't have. As you know, 
revenues are at the lowest point they've been in some six decades in 
America--on one hand because we are not collecting revenue and, on the 
other hand, because people don't have money in their pockets to pay 
revenues. They're not working; therefore, they're not paying taxes, and 
therefore, revenues are down for those two reasons.
  I would say to my friend that it's my understanding that the account 
that you have targeted has some $3.9 billion in pending requests, which 
are the items that would lead to 50,000 to 60,000 new jobs.
  Now, at a time when we're not creating sufficient jobs for our 
people--let's assume, for the sake of argument, you want to offset this 
money. You and I both agree it ought to be paid for. The question is: 
When do you pay for it? Do we pay for it right now?
  The fact of the matter is, if you target this particular fund, you 
are targeting a fund which has demonstrably grown jobs in America. Some 
39,000 jobs have been created as a result of loans out of this fund. 
There is $3.9 billion. You indicate there is still money in the 
account. You're absolutely right on that. But there are pending 
requests, again, which would result in 50,000 to 60,000 new jobs, which 
would be revenue creation for the Federal Government.
  So, in fact, it appears that we may be cutting off our nose to spite 
our face here, and I would urge the gentleman to perhaps revisit this.
  The gentleman mentioned the Clinton administration. As the gentleman 
will well recall, the concerns were not as high then because, during 
the Clinton administration, of course, we were creating over 3 million 
jobs per year on average so that the private sector was humming along 
very well and created 22 million jobs during the Clinton 
administration.
  Unfortunately, that was not the case in the last administration, nor 
has it yet been the case in this administration, although there were 2 
million jobs, as the gentleman knows, created in the last 20 months. 
However, the last 2 months have been stagnant, and that's not good for 
anybody. It's not good for Republicans or Democrats, but, more 
importantly, it's not good for the country. Therefore, I would urge us 
to make sure that we do not target a fund which has already 
demonstrably created jobs.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, if I 
could respond to the gentleman.
  First of all, the gentleman knows good and well that the situation 
with the Federal debt was entirely different back under the Clinton 
administration times.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time. I do know that very, very well. We had 
surpluses, not deficits.
  Mr. CANTOR. And there was also a Republican Congress that was at work 
trying to help job creation then at that time as well. So if one wants 
to claim, we both can claim credit. But as the gentleman knows, I 
prefer to look forward to see if we can work together.
  So with that in mind, the gentleman, of anyone in this body, has been 
committed to trying to take a fiscally responsible approach, and that's 
what we're trying to do here. I would say to the gentleman, instead of 
just trying to claim numbers, as if there is some panacea going on here 
and as if the move to offset using funds obligated for this program 
would somehow threaten job creation, if you look at the numbers, this 
year, all that has been allocated from the available $4 billion is $780 
million. That's all that's been allocated and approved under this 
program. Again, remember, the money has been laying around since 
September 30 of 2008. That's 3 years.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, the gentleman 
claims the 33,000 jobs that were actually created by this program, but 
many would

[[Page H6217]]

say that these jobs already existed at existing Ford Motor Company 
plants. And the administration, I know, has claimed that these jobs 
have been saved when there's no indication that, in reality, that is 
the case.
  So, again, instead of trying to make all these claims and trying and 
continue to make promises that, frankly, can't be substantiated, what 
we're trying to do is do what every family's got to do around its table 
and every small business person has got to do at the end of each pay 
period--figure out how they're going to make it through the end of the 
month.

                              {time}  1340

  Just as if a family was facing a situation where they had saved 
$25,000, $30,000 and they wanted to use that money to buy a new car, 
and God forbid somebody got very sick that needed that money in their 
family. Most families are going to take that money and decide not to 
buy the new car and instead help the family member who needs it.
  That's what we're trying to do here, Mr. Speaker. We're not trying to 
suggest that perhaps there isn't some laudable intent under this 
program. What we've identified is moneys unspent that have been 
obligated, moneys that apparently do not go out as quickly as the 
gentleman may suggest to, as he says and claims, create jobs, and take 
that money and prioritize it by saying it belongs to help the people in 
a disaster so they can get the relief they need.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response.
  We could go back and forth on how many jobs were, in fact, created. 
My belief is that there were substantial numbers of jobs created by 
this fund and the prospect of those 50,000 or 60,000 jobs is real, not 
ephemeral, not just a debating point.
  But I would say to my friend, my friend has been recently quoted, I'm 
sure accurately, perhaps--and correct me if I'm wrong--in saying that 
during the first 8 months we focused on cuts of our ``cut and grow,'' 
and now we need to focus on grow. I would tell my friend, assuming that 
quote is accurate, that, in fact, here we are again focused on cut, not 
on grow.
  Clearly, whatever the specific number is, I think that is, frankly, 
not refutable, that the investment in advanced manufacturing technology 
vehicles is, in fact, going to make us more competitive globally, is 
going to enhance the ability to make it in America, not only to succeed 
in America but to make ``it''--in this case, advanced vehicles which 
are competitive in the international markets.
  This is a specific area where we have tried to invest in making sure 
that we make ``it''--in this case, advanced technology vehicles--and I 
don't think it's good policy for us to be focused on cutting back on 
those areas which have the promise of growth and jobs. That is what I 
tell my friend.
  Obviously, the gentleman is correct, but I want to tell the gentleman 
also that if you keep cutting revenues, as we did in 2001 and 2003, and 
then you keep escalating spending, as we did over the last 10 years, 
inevitably you're going to get to the point where that family is not 
going to have any revenues to pay its bills, as the gentleman points 
out.
  But it's inevitable that when you continue to cut revenues and if you 
don't cut spending, you're going to be in trouble. That didn't happen 
in the last decade. It didn't happen in the last administration. In 
fact, as you know, exactly the opposite happened. We escalated spending 
more than we did under the Clinton administration; and, therefore, we 
find ourselves in a hole. The economy went into the tank, and it's 
struggling.
  I agree with you. It doesn't matter why it's struggling, who's to 
blame. It's struggling. As a result, what the President has done is 
come before us and said, Look, here's a jobs bill. We need to build 
jobs. I'm not going to go through all the polling data. I'm sure my 
friend has seen it. There's a recent CNN poll which shows that the 
public, by big numbers, wants us to focus on creating, building, 
expanding jobs. And very frankly, the public believes that you need to 
invest to do that, by pretty good numbers.
  I'm for disciplining spending. I will vote to discipline spending, 
but I don't think that targeting job-creation projects is the way to 
discipline it when Americans all over this country are really hurting 
because there are not jobs available for them.
  I want to thank the gentleman for what I think are very measured and 
positive responses to the President's suggestion on how we create jobs 
in this country. I would ask the gentleman what plans the gentleman has 
and his party has to move forward on the legislation that the President 
has asked to create jobs, to invest in growing our economy, and to help 
those small businesses expand and create jobs and to help those who do 
not have any job and who are worried about how to put food on their 
family's table, as well as investing in infrastructure and keeping 
teachers on the job.
  We think this legislation is critically important. We think the 
American people in the most recent CNN poll have responded very 
positively. They think this is a productive way to go forward.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there are plans to have the 
committees move forward or for us to move forward on this legislation?
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman may have seen remarks I made earlier in this week and 
last week about the President's job plan. What I said is there is a lot 
of area I think that we can actually work together on. I do reject the 
President's demand for an all-or-nothing approach, that perhaps his way 
is the only way, because there are items in the President's plan that 
we take strong disagreement with.

  So I do think the American people do want us to try and drive towards 
results here, and I do think there are some areas we can work on 
together.
  We support the extension bonus depreciation. We support removing the 
pending application of the withholding on government contractors. We 
support facilitating and increasing small business access to capital. 
We support incentives to hire veterans. We support reforming the 
unemployment insurance system in this country, free trade agreements. 
We would love to entertain serious discussions on how you reform this 
system so that we can get a better return and improve infrastructure 
spending in this country.
  There are many areas. Small business tax relief, the President 
discussed. We have our own ideas. As the gentleman knows, the House is 
proceeding on our agenda for job creation. It's rolling back 
regulations that are impeding job growth, the one that was just passed 
prior to the Members leaving the Chamber today. We will have one every 
week that we believe, after having consulted with small businesses 
around this country, are getting in the way of their jumping back in 
the game of job creation.
  So we all have ideas. It's not just the President's plan that will 
come up in this House. We are going to work together to find areas of 
agreement.
  So I look forward to working with the gentleman to achieve that end 
so that, yes, the middle class in this country can get back to work as 
we see small businesses beginning to rev up again towards an economic 
recovery.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I also want to say that, yes, I have seen his comments. I think they 
have been positive. I think the gentleman has just gone through a list 
on places where we can, perhaps, find common ground. What we need, of 
course, is a vehicle, hopefully on this floor in the very near future, 
in which to find common ground and also to offer alternatives that each 
of our parties or individuals in this House think will, in fact, grow 
the economy and create jobs. I think that would be very useful.
  The President indicated in his speech a sense of urgency that the 
American people feel. They gave us that message very loud and clear. I 
think all of us share that message. To think about somebody being 
unemployed for 3 months or 6 months or 18 months or 2 years, not want 
to, and have the ability to work and can't find a job is a crisis, is 
in fact a depression in that person's life--not only psychologically 
but actually.
  So I would urge the gentleman to bring something to the floor as soon 
as possible that incorporates that on which we can agree and gives us 
an opportunity to offer solutions that, perhaps, the House will agree 
on. And if not, we won't agree.

[[Page H6218]]

  I also welcome the gentleman's rejection of the philosophy of ``my 
way or the highway.'' We welcome that recognition, that, in fact, we 
have to reach compromise if we're going to move this country forward.
  If I might in closing, let me, perhaps, ask you about the schedule 
longer term than next week.

                              {time}  1350

  Obviously, we have a special committee. I think the gentleman and I 
are both committed to--I know I am committed to--the success of that 
committee. I think it is absolutely critical to give our business 
community confidence, to give our people confidence, and to give the 
international community confidence that this government can, in fact, 
work and can address very serious problems--in this case, the debt and 
deficit--but also confront the problem of growing our economy. As both 
the Bowles-Simpson Commission and the Rivlin-Domenici Commission said, 
we ought to address both. That's what the jobs bill is about, and 
that's what the special committee is about.
  Does the gentleman have any thoughts in terms of the probability of 
the schedule that you have issued that indicates that we'll get out on 
December 8? As we know, the committee has to be voted on by December 
23. That doesn't mean we have to wait until the 23rd, assuming the 
committee comes out with a positive report.
  Could you elaborate somewhat on what you see the schedule to be and 
the certainty with which Members can plan based upon the schedule that 
has been issued given what faces us?
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I think, as the gentleman knows, we've been really trying to stick to 
the schedule and to afford Members some certainty so that they can 
schedule their business and their time with their constituents in their 
districts. The hope is at this point for us to absolutely stick to the 
schedule. We, at this point, have no changes in the recess times.
  As for whether we are going to go longer than December 8, obviously 
the work of the joint select committee bears greatly on that. As the 
Speaker and as the gentleman knows, the joint select committee is 
expected to report by November 23. If all goes well, we should be able 
to live up to the schedule as printed. Again, it all depends on the 
work of the joint select committee.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I thank him 
for his time today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________