[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.
____________________