[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 184 (Friday, December 2, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8106-H8111]
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 from Virginia, the
majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring 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. However, no votes are expected in
the House.
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.
We currently expect last votes for the week no later than 3 p.m. on
Thursday, but Members are advised to keep their plans flexible as we
continue to work towards adjourning for the first session.
Similarly, Members were informed yesterday that we now expect to be
in session and voting the week of December 12. The exact voting
schedule is not known and will depend on the progress of our
legislative business.
Next week the House will consider a number of bills under suspension
of the rules on Monday and Tuesday. A complete list of these bills will
be announced by the close of business today.
For the remainder of the week, the House will consider two bills
which are part of the House Republican jobs agenda: H.R. 10, the REINS
Act, sponsored by Representative Geoff Davis of Kentucky; and H.R.
1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, sponsored by
Representatives Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Robert Hurt of
Virginia.
In addition, we may be able to go to conference on a couple of year-
end items, and we may consider legislation related to expiring
provisions of existing law.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
If I can clarify, and I understand that we are coming up to the end
of the year. There is a lot of business which needs to be done in the
time remaining, and so I understand his urging to be flexible.
My Members have asked me, I'm sure Your members have as well, Friday
the 9th is scheduled on the calendar to be a nonwork day, as a matter
of fact, the 8th was the target date. Either side very rarely meets its
target. But in your flexibility--clearly we've told our Members the
following week, the week of the 12th, that undoubtedly we're going to
be here. But can you give them some sort of confidence level with
respect to the 9th, or is that not possible?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, as I've said earlier, it is our intention to
finish legislative business for the week next Thursday at 3 p.m. and
again to remain flexible while we monitor the progress of all of the
discussions going on with the gentleman's side of the aisle, both in
this Chamber and the one across the way.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, thank you for that.
Let me posit a possibility here. Thursday at 3 o'clock we clearly, I
don't believe, aren't going to finish the business that we need to
finish before we leave. Therefore, my presumption is we will be back in
the following week. Therefore, Friday would not be the last day and
therefore we could do whatever we have to do on a Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday and we should plan on a five-day week at least for
the following week.
Is that correct?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman again the
request is for Members to leave their schedules flexible. As I
indicated we do expect to be in session the week of December 12 but the
exact voting schedule is unknown at this time and will depend upon the
discussions surrounding the issues that we need to address prior to the
Christmas holiday.
Mr. HOYER. Further on the schedule, just so our Members have pretty
clear information, the week of the 19th, which is the following week,
can you give me some thought on what you are advising your Members with
respect to the week of the 19th?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman I join with the
Speaker in saying that we want to be out of here by the 16th, and it
will all depend on whether we get the work done. It is not our desire
to be here the week running up to Christmas. And I would say to the
gentleman that it is my hope that we can finish our business by the end
of the week of the 12th.
{time} 1230
Mr. HOYER. I want to tell my friend that there is overwhelming
bipartisan unanimity on the gentleman's hope; but for the purposes of
my Members, I will say that I would hope our Members would take the
flexibility beyond the week ending on the 16th and make sure, at least
on the 19th and 20th and 21st, that they're flexible as well. I think
none of us want to be meeting that week, but we have a lot of work to
do, as the gentleman knows.
The gentleman has announced that we may go to conference next week on
the MilCon bill that was passed by the House and the Senate. It is the
only bill that, I think, is in that status.
Do you anticipate other bills being added in that conference? Of
course, we all know there are nine appropriations bills which still
remain unpassed, a number of which have not passed the Senate and some
of which have not passed the House, itself.
Will the gentleman clarify the situation that may result or may be
effective as it relates to such a conference with respect to the other
appropriations bills.
Mr. CANTOR. The gentleman is asking about the shape or form of an
appropriations package and what it is we'll be voting on. As the
gentleman knows, the committee on both sides of the aisle is engaging
in discussions to try and finish up our work, and I look forward to
that happening, again, within the time frame in which both of us would
like to see it happen.
Mr. HOYER. That doesn't clarify it very much, but I understand the
gentleman's problem with respect to what is being done. Let me ask the
gentleman:
If we can't get agreement, in light of the gentleman's focus on the
16th as the date of adjournment, is the gentleman saying that we might
consider a CR for some period of time, either a balance-of-the-year
continuing resolution or a continuing resolution for some other time?
Mr. CANTOR. Our hope is, again, to be able to avoid that so that we
can have a full appropriations package to dictate the priorities that
we can agree upon for spending in the rest of the year.
Again, as the gentleman knows, we are operating within the context of
the Budget Control Act, the agreement that was put into law at the end
of the debt ceiling discussions at the beginning of August of this
year. The amount of spending reductions is not enough for many of us on
our side of the aisle and perhaps may not be enough or too much on his
side of the aisle; but we are operating under the
[[Page H8107]]
deal that was agreed upon, and the hope is to try and finalize all
bills; and we're working towards that end at this point.
I thank the gentleman for the question.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
I am pleased to hear that he is going to be sticking with the level
of funding that we agreed upon. I think the gentleman's observation is
correct: there are many people on my side who believe that is lower
than is necessary to meet the responsibilities they would like to see
met, and on your side it's too much in terms of the fiscal situation
that confronts us; but I am pleased to hear that we're going to be
consistent with the 1.043 discretionary number that was set forth in
the Budget Control Act.
My friend knows that, in the Budget Control Act, we also provided for
some headroom for emergency spending as a result of disasters. The
gentleman well knows our region in the Northeast was hit very hard by a
hurricane. We've had an earthquake. We've had tornadoes and other
natural disasters. That gave $11 billion of headroom.
Will we continue to honor that part of the agreement as well?
Mr. CANTOR. As I said earlier to the gentleman, our intention is to
operate and abide by the terms of the Budget Control Act.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that.
I was profoundly disappointed that the so-called supercommittee, or
the special committee on deficit reduction, either was unable to reach
an agreement on at least a $4 trillion agreement to reduce our deficit
or, as I had urged individually, to extend its life for a period of
time, 60 to 90 days, which would have allowed us further opportunity to
reach such a deal.
I think that it is absolutely essential for our country. I think it
would be an extraordinary plus for our economy if we were to reach such
an agreement. I think it would raise the confidence of the American
people and raise the confidence of the international community and, not
inconsequentially, that of the rating agencies as well. We didn't reach
an agreement. We didn't extend the life of that commission. I would
like to see us set up another process which would give us accelerated
consideration of such an agreement.
Having said that, we built into the Budget Control Act a disciplinary
consequence of that failure, which was the sequester--a $1.2 trillion
across-the-board cut, divided equally between defense and non-defense
discretionary spending. The Speaker had said that we are morally bound
to accept the defense cuts if the supercommittee failed.
I wonder if you support the Speaker in that commitment.
Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman that I don't know the quote from
which the gentleman pulls as to the Speaker's statement. I know that I
share with the Speaker a commitment towards fiscal discipline and that
there will be the requisite cuts to go along with the increase in the
debt ceiling that will occur by law at the end of this year.
It is my hope that we can act in a bipartisan way to find a way to
implement cuts that can replace the across-the-board cuts that will do
what, I believe, is irreparable damage to the Defense Department and
our ability to defend this country.
If I could, Mr. Speaker, quote from Secretary Panetta, who said as
recently as Monday, ``If Congress fails to act over the next year, the
Department of Defense will face devastating, automatic, across-the-
board cuts that will tear a seam in the Nation's defense.''
He went on to say, ``The half-trillion in additional cuts demanded by
sequester would lead to a hollow force incapable of sustaining the
missions it is assigned.'' Furthermore, ``the Pentagon's ability to
provide benefits and support for U.S. troops and their families also
would be jeopardized if the automatic cuts,'' as designed, ``are
allowed to go into effect.''
Mr. Speaker, he ended his statement by saying, ``Our troops deserve
better and our Nation demands better.''
I'd say to the gentleman that it is my hope that we can work in a
bipartisan fashion to try and do that which eluded the supercommittee
and the other efforts along the way this year to try and come up with
the requisite cuts. Again, I hope that we could do so and make sure the
cuts are there, not avoid the cuts, but also not allow them to
eviscerate our ability to defend this country.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I appreciate
Mr. Panetta's quote. I believe Mr. Panetta's quote is an accurate quote
and, I believe, substantively correct.
Let me give the gentleman another quote from the former chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen. I know the gentleman
knows Admiral Mullen, who served so ably as the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
He said, ``The most significant threat to our national security is
our debt.''
He went on to say, ``And the reason I say that is because the ability
for our country to resource our military--and I have a pretty good
feeling and understanding about what our national security requirements
are--is going to be directly proportional--over time, not next year or
the year after, but over time--to help our economy.''
So I would agree with the gentleman that we need to reach a
bipartisan agreement. I would hope the gentleman would share my view
that we need to reach a bipartisan agreement on a big deal. A little
deal, as the Speaker and I have discussed, will simply push off until
next year a decision and the year after in just doing it incrementally.
That will not give confidence to the markets. It will not give
confidence to the business community. It will not help our economy
either domestically or internationally.
So my concern, I tell my friend, is if we now walk away from the
sequester, as we have walked away from too many agreements in the past,
we will again remove the discipline, remove the incentive, remove the
imperative, as the gentleman points out, for coming to a bipartisan
agreement, which is Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin-Domenici, the Gang of Six.
As the 100, the 40 Republicans and 60 Democrats, as the 46 equally
divided between Republicans and Democrats have said, we need to reach a
balanced deal: a deal which will restrain and cut spending, a deal that
will deal with entitlement sustainability over time, and a deal that
will provide a revenue stream that will allow us to fund what we
believe to be absolutely essential, of which, as the gentleman points
out, and he and I agree, national security is one.
{time} 1240
So I would hope that we would not walk away from that disciplinary
incentive to, in fact, have Republicans and Democrats come to an
agreement.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, no one is talking about walking away from fiscal
discipline, and I share in the gentleman's desire to try and address
the real problem here, which is Washington spending.
As the gentleman knows, the Republican majority in the House has the
only plan on the table that actually is a big deal that fixes the
problem. Unfortunately, there's just not an agreement on those very big
issues.
As I've said and indicated earlier, there have been at least three
attempts this year to chase the so-called big deal, and the problem is
there's no agreement. There's no agreement on doing what's necessary to
fix the real problem. And so if we've been there--and the President,
himself, has said that there may be some issues that have to be
disposed of or resolved in next year's election, but it doesn't mean we
can't make some incremental progress.
I disagree with the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that somehow if we make
some progress, that that somehow takes away from our ability to solve
big problems. We have already demonstrated around here the bar is
pretty low when it comes to fixing big problems, and that's
unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that we can't work incrementally
together to address priorities.
I'm with the gentleman. I know that the response from the markets and
otherwise are not going to be as positive if we don't fix the problem
through a so-called big deal. But the point of contention is, one, the
unwillingness to fix the real problem, because it's we in the majority
that have put forward the only fix, long term, as CBO would say; and
then the other point of contention
[[Page H8108]]
is we don't believe that now is the time to raise taxes on small
business men and women.
And it's not the millionaires and billionaires; that's not the point.
We don't believe that when you want to grow the economy, when you want
to create jobs, that we should be putting a higher burden on the small
business people of this country to create the jobs we want.
So if we know that there's that divide--we have already seen it play
out for 8 or 9 months--let's try to work incrementally together in a
bipartisan way, the way most people do that have differences, come
together where you can set aside the differences.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I think that both sides have shown some flexibility in some respects.
Certainly a number of Republicans and Democrats showed flexibility on
the Bowles-Simpson Commission.
Now, none of the House Members on the Republican side showed that
flexibility, for reasons that I've heard them articulate. I understand
they had reasons. But, unfortunately, we didn't get to the 14 votes in
a bipartisan way on the Commission. As you know, I was not on the
Commission, but I supported the Commission's report, would have voted
for the Commission's report, as did Mr. Durbin, the majority whip in
the Senate.
Let me say to the gentleman, with respect to small business, nobody
wants to put taxes on small business. As a matter of fact, we want to
reduce taxes for small business. We offered that on the floor in the
United States Senate yesterday. Every Democrat but one voted for that
yesterday. Unfortunately, it did not pass. Your side, as you know,
offered an alternative, an alternative which didn't even enjoy the
support of the majority of your party.
So we need to get to bipartisan support, but I wish the gentleman
would, when we talk about trying to ask some of the wealthiest people
in America to pay a little more--not a lot more, but a little more--to
meet the obligations so our country is fiscally sound, would not keep
putting forth this, what I believe to be, windmill of small business.
We are for small business. This tax cut would reduce substantially
taxes on small business. Your party, the majority, voted against it in
the United States Senate. It hasn't been brought to the floor.
We would hope that we would extend the tax cut for middle class
working people and not restore that tax, and that that would affect
both individuals and, as the gentleman knows, small business. So we
have a tax cut that we're recommending. The President has gone all over
the country and talked about it, but it hasn't been brought to the
floor. We think that's regrettable. We would hope you would do that.
Furthermore, frankly, the millionaires' tax, the billionaires' tax
is, as you know, a net taxable income level. It's not going to hurt
small business at all. It's not going to hurt job creators at all. And,
very frankly, I will tell my friend, we continue to follow an agenda
which I don't think you can quote me an economist that will tell me
that your regulatory bills that we've been spending time on, day after
day, week after week--which I know sounds good to your people. We need
regulatory reform. We need regulatory simplification. We need to make
it in America. One of the ways we need to do so is make it profitable
to make it in America. I agree with that 100 percent. But I don't have
any economist who has told me that that's going to create jobs. As a
matter of fact, Bruce Bartlett, an economist for the Reagan
administration and Bush administration, said specifically it will have
little, if any, effect.
Do you have an economist who said that that's going to grow jobs?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to some of the gentleman's
questions, first about Bowles-Simpson.
I think maybe some of the position that was taken by the House
Members on Bowles-Simpson reflects the fact that it didn't fix the real
problem. Again, it didn't fix the entitlement problem we have in this
country given the demographics, and so that's the real problem.
And so if you don't fix the real problem and you go raise taxes,
which the Bowles-Simpson plan suggested and gave you options to do,
it's like throwing good money after bad. And I think the American
people are tired of it. We have to fix the problem, and that's what we
want to do.
And as far as the sequester is concerned, I want to reiterate that
we're not talking about, and I'm not suggesting, on not doing all the
cuts, because we believe--and this is the change that we put in place
here when we became the majority. We believe you shouldn't be raising
the credit limit of the country without turning things around and
stopping the spending.
So we're not talking about or not suggesting not doing all of the
cuts. What I am saying is we need to work together to find the
commensurate cuts that aren't those that disproportionately affect the
defense of our country. And I think the gentleman agrees with me; a
priority is the defense of our country.
That's why if we can't see our way clear to even finding $1.2
trillion through the Joint Select Committee process, then let's look to
see how we come together in an incremental way. But I think the
American people are looking for some progress here.
But I want to tell the gentleman, again, I don't believe that raising
taxes is a good thing. And, again, the gentleman continues to talk
about balanced deals, and that is a euphemism for saying raising taxes.
But, look. If we disagree on that, if the gentleman thinks it's good
to raise taxes, then we have a disagreement. So let's, instead, focus
on areas where we can actually find common ground, and the common
ground should be, as the gentleman suggests, on small business.
Now, every economist there is will tell you that uncertainty, that
added costs will provide an impediment to job creation. Now, I'm sure
the gentleman has visited small business people in his district like I
have in mine. And the kind of regulatory measures that we brought
forward, whether it's regulations being proposed by the EPA, those
being proposed by the NLRB, or any of the other measures, the ones that
we passed on the floor today, these are measures to remove the
uncertainty of added costs to our businesses, our small business men
and women. Today's measures and this week's measures went to the fact
that we need some common sense put back into the regulatory process.
{time} 1250
We want to make sure that agencies take into consideration their
actions and the consequences that those actions have on small
businesses. We want to make sure that the agencies are going through a
cost-benefit analysis that's a balanced and sensible approach. And yes,
I think you will find agreement among economists, if you've got that
kind of certainty, you will lend the process towards a better economy
to create jobs, and I yield back
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. I take from his
comment, however, that he doesn't have an economist who has said that
these bills are going to grow jobs. I agree with him that economists
certainly believe that over the long term certainty is a good thing. We
all agree on that. I hope all of us agree on that, and I would like to
accomplish that. That's one of the reasons I'm for a big deal.
But let me give you a quote from Ben Bernanke as it relates to your
saying we want to raise taxes. Nobody wants to raise taxes. I will tell
my friends, I've been in office now for a long period of time, some 40-
plus years. It takes zero courage, zero courage, to spend money and not
pay for it. We believe we ought to pay for things. That's the
difference.
Taxes are the money we collect to pay for things: taxes that we
collect to pay for our national security, taxes we collect to pay for
researchers at NIH, taxes we pay for FBI agents to protect us from
terrorists, both domestic and foreign. Those are what our taxes are.
Taxes are to help our kids get a college education so we can be
competitive in the international community. It's paying for things that
we're for.
And I will tell my friend, I'm glad to see you come to the point
where we're going to pay for things because very frankly, as the
gentleman knows, we're collecting revenues at a far lesser rate than
your budget asked to spend, than
[[Page H8109]]
your budget, the Ryan budget, which, as you well know, did not balance
the budget within the next 20 years and was all on the cut side, and
the gentleman well knows was not a viable document. It did pass the
House of Representatives; it did. I'm not sure it would have passed the
Senate even if the Republicans had been in control of the Senate.
But notwithstanding that, let me give you a quote from Ben Bernanke
because I agree with you--and you and I have talked about this
privately, and we're now talking about it publicly. We ought to come
together. We ought to sit down. We ought to reason together. We ought
to be courageous together. We ought to have the will to address the
extraordinarily dangerous fiscal crisis that confronts us.
Ben Bernanke said this: We aim to push our elected leaders to face
the Nation's long-term fiscal challenges with civility, honesty, and a
willingness to sacrifice their own reelection. This means not kicking
the can anymore. That's why, if we abandon the sequester, that will be
kicking the can. If we abandon trying to get a big deal, that will be
kicking the can. This means--as he said--means reaching a deal on debt,
revenue, and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall. Well,
it came and it went and we failed. It means considering all options
from entitlement programs, and the gentleman knows I've given a number
of speeches on having to deal with the entitlement programs. We need to
do that, but we also need to deal with taxes and revenues so we pay for
what we buy, and we ought to tell the American people we can't buy that
if you don't want to pay for it.
Now, very frankly, I think in the short term, given the economic
crisis, lack of jobs, and the struggling economy, raising additional
revenues in that timeframe, as Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin both
said, is not good policy, and they would not propose that, and it has
not been proposed, as the gentleman knows. But I would tell my friend
that paying for things--and as the gentleman knows, one of the reasons
we've gotten into this problem was we didn't pay for things in the last
decade. We have bought a lot of stuff, and we didn't pay for it. We
asked our children to pay for it because it's a delayed effect.
We didn't pay for the wars, and we didn't pay for the prescription
bill, and we didn't pay for the tax cuts. Simply giving up revenue,
voting for tax cuts, and continuing to buy things is, frankly, I think
not only not courageous but it is a disservice to this generation and
generations yet to come
And I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman asks what
regulations did we put forward, bills removing impediments in the
regulatory process. Well, I mean the Keystone Pipeline, look at that
bill. That bill says we'll create 12,000 construction jobs right away
if we can remove the necessary government redtape getting in the way of
that project. So I don't see that there's any disagreement over that,
but somehow we have your side saying that we shouldn't do that.
And if the gentleman is so interested in paying for things--because I
don't believe that that's an issue now because we're not saying remove
the sequester. What we're saying is finding cuts elsewhere but imposing
that discipline. But if we're talking about not paying for things, what
about the stimulus? My goodness, that was an 800-plus billion dollar
effect at the end, didn't pay for anything, and it ended up imposing
all kinds of debt now on us and our children and theirs.
And so I am with the gentleman: let's be courageous. Again, our
budget was put out there. In the joint select committee process, our
side proposed a plan to come together, and I think that the gentleman
knows on his side there were comments made that there was never any
coalescence on the part of the Democrats as to a way to come to some
solution.
So I'm for the courage, but seemingly, after looking at the three
processes that have taken place, the Biden talks, the White House
talks, and those between the Speaker and the President and the leader
on the other side of the Capitol, as well as now the joint select
committee, all of those did not come to a result. So if that's the
case, let's then say, well, wait a minute, maybe something's not
working here. Then let's try and see what can work and what can't work.
We really can come together in a bipartisan way and find some things
that we agree on. Let's set aside those big differences, and the
President even suggested back in the spring those big differences may
get in the way. So, fine, let's find a way for us to at least make some
progress because some progress is better than none. So incremental
progress is better than no progress. That's for sure.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment, and I agree with
it. Some progress is progress, however you describe it.
Let me clarify, because I want to make sure in terms of coming
together and reaching some progress; you mentioned the--I'm not sure
that every Republican agreed to it, maybe the gentleman knows, but
there was--Mr. Toomey put a proposal on the table which offered $300
billion in additional revenues. Of course, that was offset by an $800
billion increase next year in tax cuts or a net reduction of $500
billion in revenues for next year, excuse me, for January 2013.
Let me ask the gentleman, in reaching that, the gentleman mentioned
entitlements. I agreed with him on entitlements, but the gentleman then
said he's not for any increased revenues. All three of the bipartisan
commissions, the two commissions and the Gang of Six, all three have
said that revenues must be part of that picture. That's taxes--a fancy
word for taxes. Does the gentleman agree with that, because that
certainly was the basis for bipartisanship in all of three of those
fora?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Again, I'd say to the gentleman, I think our side has
demonstrated--we've put forward a number of plans, both in these
processes that we're talking about and in the joint select committee,
as well as with our budget. And I think we come from the perspective,
Mr. Speaker, let's fix the problem. If you don't fix the problem and
then you want to raise taxes, especially on small businesspeople, you
are throwing good money after bad and you're aggravating the crisis
that is gripping this country right here and now as well, which is the
jobs crisis.
So, again, Mr. Speaker, I would say, let's agree to work towards
common ground. We have laid out very well several times where
differences are, but it's time for us to really work to transcend those
differences and work in a bipartisan manner and see where we can come
together. We've done it. We've done it in the House on the trade
agreements. We've done it in the House on the 3 percent withholding
bill. We've done it in the House when it comes to the veteran hiring
bill. We can do this. Now, yes, it's not everything that all of us
want, and I share the gentleman's frustration.
{time} 1300
The gentleman has been here a lot longer than I have. But I will tell
you I think the gentleman's career has been built on progress. So let's
work towards progress again. That's all.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I didn't get an answer to my
question, however. He's gotten an answer to his ``solve the problem''
issue. And what he means by solving the problem is we have to deal with
the sustainability of entitlement programs. I've adopted that premise
myself in speeches that I've given on numerous occasions on this floor
and in other fora around the country.
What I'm asking him is, does he also agree--that proposition was
adopted by all three of the fora that we have discussed--does he also
agree, as Mr. Bernanke points out, that revenues, or taxes, however you
want to call it, resources to pay for what we believe are priorities--
for instance, the gentleman correctly believes we need to invest in our
national security. I feel very strongly about that.
For 30 years I have voted on behalf of the national security of this
Nation--to pay for it and to pursue weapons systems, personnel levels,
strategies to assure our national security. So I have no qualms with
saying that is a priority. If it is a priority, if it is important, it
is important to pay for it. Paying for it is through revenues. If we
don't pay for it, if we borrow--we're going to borrow over a trillion
dollars to protect our country in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places
around the
[[Page H8110]]
world, but particularly those two. That's important. That's important
to do. He and I agree. But I think it's important to pay for it and not
have my children and grandchildren pay for it, who are going to have to
pay for their security in their time. And if we leave them only a
legacy of deep debt, they will not be able to do so. That is an immoral
policy, in my opinion, as well as a fiscally irresponsible policy.
So I ask my friend, I understand we've got to fix the problem. What
you're talking about is make sustainable demographics of change, costs
of change. We have to make sustainable entitlements. But does the
gentleman agree that a component of the solution has to be dealing with
revenues as well?
Mr. CANTOR. We've always said, certainly, there needs to be more
revenue. But we need to be focused on how we can have a sustainable
revenue flow, and that's from a growing economy.
The gentleman asked me before whether we have economists that will
endorse our Republican jobs-creator agenda. And, yes, the Speaker, as
he knows, has issued a letter with 132 economists listed on that
letter. And I'm going to send it to the gentleman so he can be reminded
yet again that, yes, there are plenty of economists who embrace the
notion that if we take away the impediments that Washington has put in
place, that we can see a growing economy and produce more revenues.
I would say to the gentleman about his assertion about fixing the
problem, he's correct, we need more revenues. We believe we need more
revenues. Let's first see if we can fix the problem, because just
paying for things by raising taxes doesn't fix the problem.
We know the demographics of this country. We know 10,000 people every
day turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare. We know that Medicare is
supported by premiums and taxes paid in. And those revenues cover only
a little over half the cost of the program. We know that means that
every day times 10,000, you're 50 percent in the hole. You cannot tax
your way out of that. You can't grow your way out of that. You've got
to fix the problem.
Back to my original notion. We're the only ones that have put a real
fix on the table to that problem. And so what the gentleman says is,
No, no, no, we don't want to fix the problem; we just want to tax
people more until sometime, somewhere we come up with a solution to fix
the problem. That's like throwing good money after bad. And raising
taxes on small business people is going to get in the way of getting
more revenues into Washington because you're not going to spur the
economy into a growth mode.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we have been over and over this for months. We
know where our differences lie. Let's come together.
I would say Keystone pipeline: again, the gentleman has a lot of
support on his side for the unions in this country. They want to see
the Keystone pipeline built. Twelve thousand new jobs right away--
almost 13,000 construction jobs. We've got manufacturing jobs and spin-
offs that will come from that. Why can't we come together on jobs?
So, again, we can do this. We really can. It's time for us to begin
to work together towards a productive end. Let's get America back to
work, get this economy growing again, and then maybe we can then tackle
some of the bigger problems that have eluded us in this quest to try
and accomplish it all that has failed this year.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
We ought to come together on jobs. I would urge the gentleman to
bring the President's jobs bill to the floor with such amendments, such
changes, such improvements, such deletions as the gentleman feels
necessary.
The President put out a jobs bill which every economist has said will
grow the economy, will grow jobs; and it has been languishing in this
House since September while people are losing jobs.
Now, the good news is we had some improvement in the economy. By the
way, the Recovery Act worked, as the gentleman knows. I want to comment
on his going into deficits as a result of the Recovery Act. As the
gentleman knows--and he voted for--George Bush suggested $700 billion
in unpaid spending to staunch the financial crisis brought on by the
meltdown on Wall Street in September of 2008, when President Bush was
President. He offered a bill. He didn't offer to pay for that. And we
didn't pay for it.
You and I both voted for it because we thought it was the responsible
thing to do to stabilize the financial structure of this country. I
believed we were absolutely right at that point in time. It was a very
unpopular bill but, nevertheless, I think absolutely essential.
So in terms of some 5 months later, confronted with the deepest
economic crisis since Herbert Hoover, we acted. We acted with the
Recovery Act. And the Recovery Act has worked. It was not as big as
some asked it to be, but it created some 2 million jobs over the last
36 months. It has not been as robust because we lost 8 million jobs. So
if you add 3 million back, you lose 8 million, you haven't gotten to
where you need to be.
But I tell my friend that we ought to come together. We ought to
reach agreement. We ought to reach a balanced agreement. Your side
thinks when we talk about balance, we're talking about revenues. He's
right. But when we talk about balance, we're also talking about fixing
the problem the gentleman talks about. We're talking about a balanced
deal.
I would urge my friend in these coming few days that we have left,
where we're apparently going to do either a CR or an omnibus
appropriation bill--and we were criticized greatly for not doing every
appropriation bill individually. You have an appropriation bill, as the
gentleman knows, that hasn't even passed subcommittee much less full
committee or the floor of the House. But we need to get those bills
done because it will give certainty and confidence to the American
people that we can work together. I'm hopeful that over the next few
days that we can, in fact, do that.
I would urge my friend to let us keep the discipline of the sequester
in everybody's mind because we don't want that alternative. But we want
to have that as the alternative to people so that we can give
incentives to work together to summon the courage, to summon the
judgment to reach an agreement which will get our country on the right
track and give our citizens the confidence in their government that we
wish they would have.
But they will only have it if we do, as the gentleman suggests, come
together and work constructively toward a balanced package not only in
terms of a fiscal package, but appropriations.
Let me say as well on appropriations, this side of the aisle did what
your side of the aisle didn't do over the last 4 years when we were in
charge. We made sure those bills passed. Your bills had your levels
that we agreed on. And we congratulate you on sticking with the
agreement we reached. I will tell my friend we will do so again if you
do not put in the riders that Mr. Boehner and your Pledge to America
said ought not to be in must-pass bills.
You will recall, I'm sure, that Mr. Boehner said we ought not to have
extraneous controversial items which are not germane in bills that must
pass. We ought to consider those on their merits. And I will tell my
friend that if you do that, as the whip, as I have done on the two CRs
we passed, on the debt limit extension we passed, and on the omnibus,
or the ``minibus'' that we just passed, I will help you get those
through. We will work together, and America will have greater
confidence in us if we do that.
I yield to my friend.
{time} 1310
Mr. CANTOR. I just want to thank the gentleman, and I look forward to
working with him over the next 2 weeks.
I just want to clarify, no one is talking about removing the
sequester, absolutely not. The gentleman knows where I stand on that.
I'm talking about making sure that we come together to find the cuts
commensurate with those aimed at the Defense Department, and in lieu of
those cuts, putting others in place so we can maintain our priority of
the national defense of this country.
Mr. HOYER. I will assure the majority leader that we will maintain
our flexibility on schedule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H8111]]
____________________