[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 188 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8296-H8299]
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, before yielding to the majority leader to
inquire about the schedule for the week to come, let me say I join with
the gentleman from Virginia, and I know certainly Mr. Cantor, who also
represents Virginia, but the entire country as
[[Page H8297]]
well. We don't know the facts yet. We don't know exactly what's
happened. But the information I have is that two people may well have
lost their lives at this point in time. We certainly want to send our
deepest sympathies to Virginia Tech and to the families that are
affected by this incident and hope sincerely that there is no further
loss of life.
On that issue, let me yield to the majority leader, who I know will
want to say something as well.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the
Democratic whip, for yielding.
I too want to join the gentleman in expressing our sorrow and
extending our thoughts and prayers to those in the Hokie Nation in
Blacksburg who, unfortunately, have endured more pain today,
reminiscent of the pain that so many have felt in that fine university
in the past. Hopefully, things can look up. I know that there are
reports that law enforcement was involved. We also want to extend our
thanks to law enforcement in that community as well as everywhere else
in this country--certainly in this Capitol--for what individuals of the
Capitol Police and other police forces across the country do for us
every single day.
Again, we express our sorrow to those who are mourning the loss of
life and extend our thoughts to President Steger at Virginia Tech and
to that community.
I do thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour
and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30
p.m.
At this point, the House is scheduled to be in session for the
remainder of the week, with a weekend session possible. Per our usual
weekly schedule, I would expect morning hour on most days to begin at
10 a.m. and legislative business to start by noon. However, because
this will likely be our last week in session prior to the end of the
year, the daily convening times may fluctuate to accommodate our year-
end business.
I can assure Members, however, that we do not expect votes on
Tuesday, December 13, prior to 1 p.m. That is as far as Tuesday,
December 13 is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, our legislative business next week will include a number
of suspensions, a complete list of which will be announced by the close
of business tomorrow. In addition, we expect to consider a conference
report on the remaining appropriations bills for FY12 as well as a
conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act. I want to
thank both Chairman Hal Rogers and Chairman Buck McKeon for their
incredibly hard work throughout the year.
Finally, we anticipate a vote on a year-end package of expiring laws
that will include extensions of the payroll tax holiday, unemployment
benefits, and the physician reimbursement issue.
If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I want to take
a minute to highlight a bipartisan event that took place here in the
Capitol this week.
{time} 1450
Yesterday the Democratic whip and I hosted the first-ever Facebook
Hackathon, allowing private sector programmers and software developers
to get together with us to work on ways to utilize social media in
making Congress more accessible to the public. I'm happy to report that
over 200 developers from all over the country participated in this
bipartisan event and shared their ideas.
I thank the gentleman for joining me and for his help in facilitating
this noteworthy cause, and I look forward to working with him to
continue to make Congress a more transparent and accessible institution
for the people who have sent us here.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments and his leadership
on the Hackathon event that occurred yesterday.
He and I both had the opportunity to address a large number of--over
250, I think--individuals who were there who will, in fact, bring their
expertise, their technical knowledge to bear on what the gentleman
referenced as making our institution more accessible and transparent to
our citizens. We all believe, I think, that doing that will make the
products that we produce better and make citizens better able to make
judgments on the work that we do.
So I want to thank the gentleman and his staff for their leadership
on this effort. We were glad to join in that.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the unemployment insurance, the
payroll tax issue, which will continue to give the middle class tax
cuts to those who need it most, the unemployment, which will keep
millions of people from losing their unemployment, as well as the
physician adjustment are scheduled next week. It's my understanding
that that bill has not been filed yet.
Can the gentleman tell me when he believes that bill will be filed?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman by saying
that we are still in discussion about that bill and in drafting; and we
do intend to abide by our necessary 3-day notice period so that all
sides and all Members, as well as the public, can enjoy their right to
know what will be in that legislation. But the gentleman is correct, we
do expect that bill on the floor next week.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment.
I have had discussions with the gentleman, and with Mr. McCarthy in
particular--and also briefly with the Speaker--that we are certainly
prepared to participate in discussions leading towards a successful
passage of those three pieces of legislation, particularly the
unemployment insurance and the payroll tax extension, which we believe
are critical before we end this year. So we're pleased to see that
legislation moving forward. But I will tell my friend that I would be
pleased to participate in discussions with him so that we can assure
that that bill will in fact pass and, hopefully, pass in a bipartisan
fashion.
I want to tell the gentleman that I'm a little bit concerned, and I
want to ask him whether this principle will be followed. I think I used
this quote last week, but it bears repeating. Speaker Boehner said:
We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass
legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we
will advance major legislation one issue at a time.
That was in the Republican Pledge as well, and the Speaker has
reiterated that at the beginning of this session.
Now, I am concerned because Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim
Jordan of Ohio is quoted in The Washington Post as saying the
following:
``The fact the President doesn't like it''--the ``it'' referring to
the Keystone pipeline provision, which we understand is under
discussion. I'm glad to hear those discussions have not concluded. But
he again quoted, ``The fact that the President doesn't like it makes me
like it even more . . . said of the GOP leadership proposal as he left
Thursday morning's closed-door meeting.''
I will say to my friend that we are at the end of the session. We are
hopeful, as I have said--and as we have demonstrated on the two CRs and
the debt extension and on the minibus appropriation bill that we
passed--that we are prepared to respond in a bipartisan fashion to
assist in passing must-pass legislation and would hope very much that
we don't put controversial items in that. The President has clearly
annunciated that he will veto a bill that has the Keystone pipeline.
I will say, as my friend clearly knows, there is bipartisan concern--
as a matter of fact, the Governor of Nebraska, a Republican, and the
Republican legislature, which although nominally nonpartisan, as the
gentleman knows, is two-thirds Republican, one-third Democrat, have all
voted to delay this project because of their concern about the aquifer
and the impact that the Keystone pipeline, as currently platted, will
have in reference to the aquifer, so that there is a bipartisan
concern.
As the gentleman knows, as a result of Nebraska's passing legislation
which said they wanted to do a study on the aquifer and alternative
siting of the Keystone pipeline course, that that study would take them
5 to 6 to 7 months, as a result, the President indicated they would
give time to the Nebraska Governor and the Nebraska Legislature--again,
Republican organs--to look at that, has given them
[[Page H8298]]
additional time and said he won't act until the beginning of 2013.
I ask the gentleman, does he believe that provision--I understand
what Mr. Jordan says. It may be a nice political gesture, but I would
hope that that would not be the kind of provision that would be
included in the legislation, whether it's individual bills or a
comprehensive bill, including those three items that hopefully we can
pass in a bipartisan fashion.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I understand the point he is trying to make.
Mr. HOYER. If I may, I thought I did make the point.
Mr. CANTOR. Well, you may have made the point.
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to say is that I disagree with
the gentleman, that if the provisions dealing with the Keystone
pipeline are in the measure that makes it to the floor that we
shouldn't join together and do what was done in the past, and that is
demonstrate a strong bipartisan vote in support of that project.
Because, as the gentleman knows, organized labor in this country is
very supportive of that bill, of that provision. It means immediate
jobs. The President continues to say he is for creating jobs, doing all
we can to get America back to work. This is a provision that allows for
that.
We also have seen, Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman's
concerns about Nebraska and the issues raised by its Governor as well
as its State legislature, I believe and am told that there have been
many discussions in which an alternative route has been determined, and
there is agreement on that to allow for the proceeding of the
construction of the pipeline.
Again, knowing that there is strong bipartisan support for the
project, knowing that labor is in support of it, knowing that it puts
people back to work immediately, it would seem to me that this is a
consistent provision to go along with making sure that we deal with the
unemployment situation in this country through an extension of the UI
provisions--with, hopefully, some reforms--as well as the extension of
the payroll tax holiday.
As the gentleman knows, our side is concerned. We don't want taxes to
go up on anybody, especially in an economy like this. But again, I hope
the gentleman can consider joining us in terms of helping promote an
environment for job creation.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
I will say this, though, it seems inconsistent, when the President of
the United States yesterday said he would veto such a provision, that
we would include it in legislation that is must pass.
By the way, the unemployment insurance, economists tell us, will
provide for 100 times as many jobs; so, therefore, we're for that. Some
500,000 jobs may be affected by extending the unemployment insurance.
In addition to that, I tell my friend, the President has offered a
jobs bill. I know that you're concerned about jobs. The pipeline bill,
in and of itself, is about 5,000 to 6,000 jobs over the lifetime of the
pipeline. The jobs bill, economists tell us, is 1 million jobs, or 200
times as many jobs. Notwithstanding that, very frankly, that has been
languishing since September and not brought to this floor.
So it seems to me that, if we are really interested--and I think you
are--in extending unemployment insurance and providing for a continued
tax cut for middle-income Americans and for providing for the payment
of doctors who are serving Medicare patients, that we not include in
that bill an item that apparently is popular on your side just because
the President doesn't like it, according to Mr. Jordan.
{time} 1500
I think that's not the way we ought to be operating. The last 7 days
of the session, or 5 days, 6 days, 7, assuming we went through Sunday,
we shouldn't be doing that, I suggest respectfully to my friend, the
majority leader, because it will simply put us back into the situation
the American public doesn't want us in, and that's confronting one
another, playing chicken with one another, bringing us to the precipice
of defeat and lack of success.
The public doesn't want us there. We shouldn't want us there. And I
would urge the gentleman not to include items, as I have urged you with
respect to the appropriation bills that also must be passed. That's not
in this list, but you did mention it, of course, in the announcement,
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks have been working hard, and others have been
working hard to get our appropriations bills done.
We have urged that we not put controversial items in that, and we
showed our good faith on that representation when we passed the
minibus, and 165 Democrats joined 135 Republicans to pass that
legislation.
So, again, I would urge the gentleman to, if he feels strongly about
that, and I know that he feels--he said labor is for that bill. Labor
is for that bill. I think I'm for that bill, I want the gentleman to
know. So this does not come from my particular opposition to this bill.
I am concerned about the alignment and the aquifer. I think that's a
legitimate concern. But I think that that oil is going to be drilled no
matter what we do. It seems to me that it's better for us to have it
than for others to have it and have that availability.
But having said that, gratuitously putting it into a bill that the
President has already said I don't agree with that is simply playing
chicken on legislation that's very important.
If the gentleman wants to comment on that, I would be glad to yield
to him.
Mr. CANTOR. I'd just say to the gentleman I've already responded to
the notion of issues arising in Nebraska that I am told have been
resolved, so the issue that he is concerned about has apparently been
resolved.
I would say to the gentleman there are 47 Members on his side of the
aisle, including five ranking members of committees, that have
supported the measure allowing for the construction proceeding on the
Keystone pipeline.
There's no gratuitous move here. It's an attempt to try and bring the
two sides together on the most important issue, which is creating jobs.
This is a provision that I believe has been demonstrated has support on
both sides of the aisle.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the gentleman could refrain from
trying to say and impute motives here. We're trying to work in a
fashion--open, transparent, together so that we don't come to any kind
of end that doesn't produce a result for the people. That's it.
Again, I appreciate the gentleman's sentiments.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I was quoting, not imputing. Mr.
Jordan's comments seem to be pretty clear.
Before we conclude, the STOCK Act, Tim Walz had a bill that was ready
for markup in the committee. We understand that was pulled.
As you know, that bill has 220 cosponsors and is a bipartisan
sponsorship. It simply says that Members should not use insider
information to trade with, information the general public may not have
about legislation that may or may not be reported or passed to the
floor. And I understand that was pulled. I think that was unfortunate.
Can the gentleman tell me what the status of that piece of
legislation is?
Mr. CANTOR. Sure. Absolutely.
First of all, the issue of insider trading is something that we abhor
as well, do not tolerate, and believe that all Members of Congress
should fall under the same laws that apply to anyone, and want to make
sure that is the case, if it is not.
And transparency is the key because the public needs to know what
their Members are doing. We intend to take this issue, make sure that
concerns that have been raised by Members on both sides of the aisle
are being vetted. This is an issue of extreme import for the confidence
of the public towards this institution. We intend to do so in a
deliberate manner.
There were issues raised again by Members on both sides of the aisle
about this bill not being brought up in a vetted way. There are many
other chairmen who have jurisdiction in this matter who need to be
involved in this with a full vetting, and we intend to do that. And I
do hope the gentleman will work with us in doing so.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
[[Page H8299]]
As he knows, Congressman Walz has been working hard on this, and I
know that he will be very inclined to work with you and with the
committees of jurisdiction; and I will certainly be able to work with
you as well on this issue because, as I say, Congressman Walz has
worked very hard on this.
I think all of us agree, as you just indicated, that no Member of
Congress ought to be using insider information to trade in the stock
market to disadvantage, obviously, others who are trading in the stock
market. So I thank the gentleman for his comments, look forward to
working with him and, again, in closing, hope that we can reach
bipartisan agreement on so many major pieces of legislation that we
need to pass prior to leaving this.
I will tell the gentleman I hope his side agrees, my side will not
want to adjourn, nor will it support adjournment, until such time as we
act on the unemployment insurance and the middle class tax cuts.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________