[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 22 (Thursday, February 9, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H659-H663]
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 gentleman from Virginia, the
majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the
week to come.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, the Democratic whip, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 1 p.m. in pro forma
session. No votes are expected. On Tuesday, 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. 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.
Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of
the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of
business tomorrow. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 7, the
American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012. The House may also
consider legislation relating to H.R. 3630, the Temporary Payroll Tax
Cut Continuation Act.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information with respect to
the two pieces of legislation and the suspension bills.
If I might inquire, Mr. Leader, of the timing. The conference
committee has met, as all of us know, a few times since being appointed
on December 23. They were supposed to have a meeting today, but
apparently that meeting was cancelled. We adopted a motion to instruct
conferees on January 18, with only 16 Republicans opposing and just a
few Republicans opposing this time on a similar motion to instruct,
urging the conferees to report back by February 17.
You know as well as anybody, we will be off for the President's week
work period, and we will not be back until the night of the 27th, which
only gives us the 2 days and that evening to pass this bill if we do
not pass it before the 17th.
In December, we almost, as you well know, did not extend the payroll
tax holiday or the unemployment or the SGR package. That would have
resulted, as the gentleman knows, in 160 million Americans having a tax
increase, benefits lost for many unemployed Americans--almost 2.3 over
the next 3 months--and we only have 3 full days left before the
February break. Of course, the gentleman, Mr. Camp, the chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee, chairs that conference.
Can the gentleman tell us whether or not there is a reasonable
expectation that we will be able to act on this bill and have the
conference committee report on the House floor?
Mr. CANTOR. I will say to the gentleman, as I said before and as
reflected by the vote that just occurred on the motion to instruct
conferees, we, too, desire a resolution of this issue next week. I
think the gentleman knows that we've been on this floor before in the
same discussion where it is imperative for us to send a signal to the
hardworking taxpayers of this country that they're not going to have
their taxes go up. So it is my hope that we're going to see some
productivity out of the conference committee.
I think the gentleman knows my position as to why there has been no
productivity. Frankly, last week, I urged the gentleman to point his
ire to the other side of the Capitol because it is that side of the
Capitol and Leader Reid who have been unwilling to come forward with a
resolution to this issue.
{time} 1050
As the gentleman knows, the House has taken its position. We believe
we ought to extend the payroll tax holiday for a year and do so in a
responsible manner so as not to raid the Social Security trust fund.
But there's been no willingness on the part of Leader Reid and his
conferees to even offer a suggestion as to how to resolve this impasse.
So, again, I say to the gentleman, we are committed to making sure
taxes don't go up on hardworking people in these economic times.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am pleased to
hear that.
As the gentleman knows, Mark Zandi just a few days ago said that
failure to extend the payroll tax and the unemployment insurance
benefits ``would deliver a significant blow'' to our fragile economic
recovery and could cost our economy 500,000 jobs and raise the
unemployment rate by at least three-tenths of a point and lower
economic growth by seven-tenths of a point.
Now I'm pleased to hear what the majority leader has said, but of
course we still have some concern. Representative Paul Broun, one of
your Members from Georgia said, This payroll tax holiday is just a
gimmick to try to get Obama reelected. This is bad policy.
Representative Chaffetz from Utah, one of your colleagues, said, Tax
holidays just are bad policy. A year is pretty short. The chairman of
your campaign committee, Pete Sessions, was quoted in the L.A. Times.
Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, who heads the House Republican
campaign committee, called Obama's plan--that is, the extension of the
payroll tax--``a horrible idea.'' He said GOP candidates would have no
difficulty explaining to voters why they want to let the tax break
expire. And then, of course, the chairman of the conference committee,
my good friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, apparently
does not agree with what the majority leader just said in wanting to
extend this tax cut, because he said, I'm not in favor of that. I don't
think that's a good idea.
Now that was, admittedly, back in August, so it was some months ago
when he said that. But it gives us some concern that the leadership of
the conference committee, Mr. Camp and others, are in the position
where they don't really think, as seemed to be reflected in the last
year, that this tax cut ought to be extended. They do, however,
believe--very strongly, as I understand it--that the tax cut for the
wealthiest in America, the Bush tax cuts, ought to be extended, and
they ought to be extended without paying for it. And, in fact, you
provided in your rule that you adopted in this Congress that they could
be extended without paying for them.
I don't think that's your position, as I understand it, with respect
to tax cuts for middle class Americans. Would the gentleman like to
comment on those observations?
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say, really it's not productive to engage
in politics and division. We ought to be about multiplication here. We
ought to be about growing the economy. We ought not be talking in the
way that the gentleman suggests, that somehow we Republicans prefer one
group of people over another. That's not true. We're here fighting for
the hardworking taxpayers.
I just said, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman, that we, as Republicans
in this House, do not support taxes going up on anybody. We believe
that Washington spends too much money. We don't believe you ought to
tax anybody, especially the job creators, the small businessmen and
women who we're relying on to create jobs and get this economy back to
where it needs to be, in a growth mode.
So the gentleman knows very well my position, and it is the position
of our conference. We do not want to see taxes going up on hardworking
taxpayers. I said it before, and I will say it again: We hope that the
conferees can produce something for us to vote on, but we are not in
any way, shape, or form advocating for taxes to go up on hardworking
people. No. We are for making sure that doesn't happen. So, Mr.
Speaker, I don't know how many times I can say that to underscore our
commitment.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his recommitment to that
proposition.
Let me ask the gentleman, therefore, given the fact, am I correct
that you do not believe the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
need to be paid for? Is that still your position?
[[Page H660]]
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, again, the question has to do with the
gentleman and his side's and the President's insistence that somehow
the math requires us to raise taxes on small businessmen and women. We
don't believe that. We don't believe that we ought to let tax rates go
up and create a tax hike on the small business people of this country
because, number one, that exacerbates the challenge that we're already
dealing with in trying to get this economy growing. And number two, it
will put more money into the hands of Washington to begin spending that
money without paying down the debt.
The gentleman knows very well our commitment to making sure we get
the fiscal house in order. He knows very well that we believe you've
got to fix the problem and not go in and ask the small businessmen and
women to pay more taxes to dig a hole deeper. We believe you ought to
fix the problem, stop taking small business money away from the men and
women who make it, and let them continue to put it back into their
enterprises and create jobs. That's what we're trying to do. And I look
forward to working with the gentleman to make sure we accomplish that
end.
Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's answer. It doesn't surprise
me, but he didn't answer my question.
My question was: you amended your rules in this House so that the
extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts did not have to be paid for.
I'm asking, is that the gentleman's position now? It's a very simple
question. Yes or no? It is, or it is not.
Mr. CANTOR. If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does
he think that the payroll tax holiday extension for the year needs to
be paid for?
Mr. HOYER. I don't necessarily think it needs to be paid for for
exactly the reason you pointed out. What you pointed out was, you don't
want to depress--either by increasing the taxes on small business, as
you point out--we're not for increasing taxes on small business. We are
for asking those who have made the best in our society over the last 10
years, make the most, make $1 million or more, we do believe, yes, a
greater contribution is in order because our country has a challenged
situation that we need to respond to.
Having said that, I believe that it ought to be consistent, in terms
of your application of not paying for tax cuts, for it to be also
applicable to middle income, hardworking Americans who find themselves
in a real pinch in this present economy, that we would take a similar
position.
All I'm asking the gentleman, is your position on the middle class
tax cut, which we are talking about, and it is in conference, the same
as it is on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003? That's all I'm asking.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I would ask in response to that, does he not agree that there is a
difference between the nature of the tax relief in the payroll tax and
the nature of existing tax rates on the marginal level as well as
capital gains? And along those lines, would he not, then, be advocating
a position that would say, it's okay to raid the Social Security trust
fund if you're not going to pay for the extension of the payroll tax
holiday?
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman goes off in about seven directions on that
question, in my view. What I believe is that it ought to be a
consistent policy, as it relates to keeping taxes down on hardworking
Americans, that we apply to the wealthiest in America. Now whether
they're temporary or permanent, it makes an economic difference to the
people in question. And hardworking Americans--160 million of them--are
hoping that their taxes will not go up on March 1. The only way they're
going to not go up on March 1 is if we pass--as we had a great struggle
doing in December--if we pass a conference report that will be reported
out of the conference committee headed up by Mr. Camp which in fact
makes sure that those taxes don't increase.
You say you don't want them to increase. I say we don't want them to
increase. We seem to have an agreement on that rhetorically, although I
have quoted a number of your leaders who say they think it's a bad
idea.
But having said that, my question to you is: is your position
consistent with both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and these tax cuts?
That's all I'm asking.
{time} 1100
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman, I was not in
seven different directions. It's very simple. I asked the gentleman:
Are you okay with raiding the Social Security trust fund? Because your
response to my question indicated to me that it's fine for you and your
side to say: Let's just raid the Social Security trust fund, extend the
payroll tax holiday without any pay-fors; is that okay?
Mr. HOYER. Your President, who you supported very strongly, of
course, as I recall, when he wanted to raid the Social Security trust
fund said there was no trust fund. Now, I believe there is a trust
fund, and I think we have a moral responsibility to make sure that that
trust fund is kept whole. And, in fact, as you well know, we will keep
it whole. We will sign the proper IOUs so that that trust fund is
intact. There will be no reduction in the Social Security tax, and the
gentleman knows it. The gentleman knows that that trust fund will be as
secure tomorrow as it is today, and I presume that both of us have a
commitment to that end. Yes, we will have to make whole the trust fund
money that does not come in on the tax cut, just as we had to make
money for the war, for the prescription drug bill, and the Bush tax
cuts whole by borrowing from somebody, usually China and other nations
around the world.
We went from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $10-plus trillion deficit.
Why? Because we did things and didn't pay for them. So if the gentleman
is asking me do I believe the Social Security trust fund ought to be
kept whole, the answer is an emphatic, absolute yes.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I'd say to the
gentleman, he has answered the same question in two different ways. And
he's also gone off not in seven different directions but nine or ten
when he starts talking about the former President George Bush. George
Bush has nothing to do with this debate, has nothing to do with the
issue before it.
What I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, is, number one: Does he not agree that
if we pay for the extension of the Federal tax holiday, we are making
sure that we attempt to address the raid on the Social Security trust
fund? And is that not different than talking about marginal rates on
small business men and women? Is that not different than talking about
keeping the capital gain rates the same on investors and entrepreneurs
in America? We need to put investment capital back into the economy,
the private economy. And so my point was not seven different
directions, my point is just that.
Again, I would say to the gentleman that it bothers me to hear that
the gentleman just wants to rely on an IOU. The public is tired of
saying, yes, we'll owe it. We'll owe it. We'll pay it later. What we're
saying is let's make sure that we don't dig the hole any deeper. Let's
make sure we don't raid the Social Security trust fund. That's why we
are saying let's pay for it.
But again, to the gentleman's point about trying to expedite things
so we can have a result out of the conference committee, there has been
no activity, no activity on the part of the Senate. They're not
serious. They're not serious on wanting to address the issue--at least,
they've not been thus far--and we're running out of time.
So again, I guess the gentleman's solution is go ahead and raid the
Social Security trust fund and let's extend the payroll tax holiday.
And if that's the gentleman's position, then we know the position I
would imagine of the minority on this position.
Mr. HOYER. Well, the gentleman has talked a lot but hasn't answered
my question. And the question was a simple one: Do you believe the same
principle applies to the '01-'03 tax cuts as applied to the middle
income working people's tax cut that we're talking about?
And I'll tell you this, my friend, if we were talking about the taxes
that you're talking about, they would go through like greased lightning
and there would be no question but, oh, of course, we've got to
continue those tax cuts. But when it comes to average working
Americans, and the only way we can get them a tax cut--this is the
first time we've really talked about real tax cuts for middle-income
working Americans. It has got a logjam that
[[Page H661]]
has hit. It hit in December, and we came that close to not having that
tax cut, and we're about to come that close again. I'm just telling the
gentleman that if he applies the same principle, we could get this
done.
Now I'm for paying for, frankly, the middle-income tax cut. I'm for
paying for it, as the gentleman well knows, by a surtax on those who
have done the best, not because I want to penalize them, but because
all of us in this room, maybe not all of us, but most of us in this
room, have done pretty well. There are some people in this country who
haven't done pretty well. And as Clint Eastwood walked down that road
that we saw during the Super Bowl, he said at half time, ``We can do
better.'' And I'll tell you what they said in the locker room: Every
one of us, according to our ability to get it done, needs to get it
done. That's what I'm saying to my friend.
I think the position you would be taking would be radically different
and that that conference committee would have had a report out on this
floor if we were talking about tax cuts for millionaires that would
have passed like that. Absolutely, that's my position. I believe it.
And, very frankly, I think the American people believe it.
I yield to my friend if he would like to comment on that, and then we
will go to the infrastructure bill, which I know you'd like to talk
about as well.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'll just wrap it up by saying I don't think
there was anybody, any working American that did not benefit from the
'01-'03 tax relief. So again, the gentleman's attempt to divide this
country, saying that some benefit from this and others benefited from
that, it's not the way that I think most Americans look at it. We're
all in this together, okay.
So again, we're trying to make sure that taxes don't go up on
anybody. We're trying to do it responsibly. And the gentleman does, and
acknowledges, that the payroll tax holiday involves a tax that is
dedicated to the viability of the Social Security trust fund. And the
gentleman knows that if we pass that bill because of his insistence and
the insistence of the leader on the Democratic side of the aisle in the
Senate, the majority leader in the Senate, that if we have to go ahead
and just do it unpaid for, then we have created more of a problem and
raided the Social Security trust fund.
So again, if that's the choice, if the gentleman is saying that his
side is not going to support an extension of the Federal tax holiday
unless it's unpaid for, then I guess we know where we stand, and the
American people know where we stand, because they'll force a raid on
the Social Security trust fund.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
The gentleman has a habit that, frankly, disturbs me, I'll tell my
friend. I didn't say that at all. As a matter of fact, my last comment
was I think it ought to be paid for. Now, let me explain what that
means.
I think it ought to be paid for. I have been consistent on that
position. Frankly, I was consistent on that position on all of the
bills that we passed through this House, including your two tax bills
of '01 and '03. I thought they ought to be paid. You thought they ought
not be paid for. And the gentleman talks about looking at the past;
they didn't work out so well. They were supposed to grow our economy.
They were supposed to explode jobs. We lost jobs in the private sector.
The only reason we had a plus 1 million over 8 years was because we
grew in the public sector. We lost jobs in the private sector on that
economic program. It didn't work, in my opinion. Paid for or not paid
for, it did not work. But it did blow a hole in the deficit.
What I'm saying and will say again, yes, I think it ought to be paid
for. What I think it ought not be paid for with is by taking it out of
the hide of average working people in this country, which is part of
the way you want to pay for it. I don't think that is good policy
because I think that will further depress the economy and take dollars
out of the hands of hardworking people.
Yes, I think it ought to be paid for, and paying for things is tough.
And we didn't pay for things in the last decade, and that's why we dug
this deep, deep hole we're in.
Now, if we want to go on to the infrastructure bill, I'd like to do
that unless the gentleman wants to make an additional comment.
On the infrastructure bill, you indicate that it may come to the
floor. Can you tell me under what kind of a rule that will come to the
floor? Will it be an open rule, as has been projected?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman, the Rules Committee has
announced that there is an amendment deadline for Members to get their
amendments in by Monday morning, and it will then proceed in the normal
process to vote on a rule to govern the debate on the American Energy
Infrastructure Jobs Act.
Mr. HOYER. It's my understanding, Mr. Leader, this bill is over 1,000
pages long. It was marked up just shortly after it was introduced and
finalized. Is the gentleman concerned by the length of that bill and
the short time that Members have to review it? And the very short time
that the public, which will essentially have almost no opportunity to
review it, is the gentleman concerned about that?
{time} 1110
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman is confusing this
majority with the one he was the leader in, because we have now seen
all the committees, Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural
Resources, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and
Commerce, mark up and consider amendments from both sides. H.R. 7, in
its entirety, was posted at approximately noon yesterday, February 8.
At noon yesterday, it was on line for everyone to see. The vote is
scheduled for next Friday, February 17.
Given the process of all the committees and all of the markups and
the willingness to entertain amendments from both sides and now posting
yesterday, Wednesday, when the vote is next Friday, I think that we are
providing and living up to the commitment we've made, that we're going
to have a much more open process, that the public is going to be able
to enjoy its right to know what we're doing, and Members and their
staffs, as well, can do what they need to do to prepare for their
amendments and their votes on this bill.
Mr. HOYER. What I was confusing was your rhetoric now and your
rhetoric as it related to a bill that was longer in pages but had 10
times a greater period of time for debate and discussion, considered by
an extraordinarily large number of committees in both the Senate and
the House, town meetings all over this country about that bill. What
I'm confusing is your rhetoric as it related to the Affordable Care Act
and your rhetoric related to the transportation bill, which has had
probably one-twentieth or one-thirtieth of the time to be considered by
the public. I don't know that anybody has had a town meeting or had the
opportunity for the public to have input on this bill as it is now
written. Very frankly, I may be confusing it with the bill that we just
adopted on suspension of the calendar without any opportunity to amend
it, which was filed less than 24 hours ago.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows where I'm going on that
last comment, because I will just point out the fact that, when he was
the majority leader, that bill, the STOCK Act, had sat dormant, and he
refused as the majority leader to pick up the bill and bring it to the
floor of the House.
Given the vote that we just saw, I think that there was probably
legitimate work to improve and strengthen the bill, which indicated and
was reflected in the vote that we just had on the STOCK Act. As for the
gentleman's suggestion that somehow I'm confusing this bill with others
and his reference to the Affordable Care Act, the public doesn't like
that bill; right? It doesn't. I'm thinking that perhaps the gentleman
is confusing this bill with one that came up during his term as
majority leader when the cap-and-trade bill was filed at 2 a.m. and
then we were asked to vote on it at 10 o'clock the next morning.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that we have provided for over a
week's time and then some for Members to take a look at the full
version and to give Members time to prepare their amendments until next
Monday so that we can have a full and robust debate on this bill.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman says full time, but very frankly there wasn't
participation
[[Page H662]]
by everybody in this full discussion. In fact, as I said last week and
I will reiterate this week, because he hasn't changed his position, Ray
LaHood, Republican, former chief of staff to the Republican leader in
this House, former chairman of an appropriations subcommittee on the
Republican side of the aisle, says:
This is the most partisan transportation bill I've ever
seen, and it is almost the most antisafety bill I've ever
seen. It hollows out our number one priority, which is
safety; and, frankly, it hollows out the guts of the
transportation efforts that we have been about for the last 3
years. It is the worst transportation bill I've ever seen
during 35 years of public service.
Ray LaHood, Republican, Secretary of Transportation.
Whatever time the gentleman has spent that he thinks exposing this
bill, he didn't expose it on our side and he apparently didn't expose
it in a way that reached bipartisan agreement from the Secretary of
Transportation.
I will tell you, I lament the fact, Mr. Leader, when I was the
majority leader--the gentleman likes to refer to that--the
transportation bill passed with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.
Every transportation bill that I've seen in the 30 years I've been in
the Congress of the United States has passed on an overwhelmingly
bipartisan vote, and it came out of committee almost unanimously. This
bill, as the gentleman knows, came out on a purely partisan vote.
Actually, it was a bipartisan opposition because Mr. Petri, long-time
member of the Transportation Committee, and, of course, Mr. LaTourette
are not too happy with the bill either, as the gentleman knows, who is
a senior Member on your side, one of your leaders on your side of the
aisle. So I will tell my friend that unfortunately we have a situation
where you're going to bring a bill up next week which clearly is a
partisan bill, which does not enjoy bipartisan support, contrary to
every transportation bill that I think we've passed in this House in
the 30 years I've been here.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am just marveling at the fact that I don't
understand what the gentleman is seeing here. The Washington Post has
just done extensive coverage and a story on that transportation bill
and the 5,000-plus earmarks that were involved in the bill that he is
bragging about.
We're in a new day here. We're shining the light of day. We're saying
no more earmarks. We're not doing things the way we used to do them,
and that is exactly what the people want. They want a reformed Congress
that belongs to them, that works for them, and not the other way
around.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I look forward to his
amendments that he submits for Monday to be considered by the Rules
Committee so that we can proceed, as we have on so many bills, in an
open debate on the floor of this House, unlike we ever experienced in
majorities past. I would say to the gentleman, let's really try and
agree. We have to reform this system. We are standing up for reform,
whether it be no more earmarks, whether it be continued positing of
positions online so that Members have enough time to review, with an
open announcement of how long the amendment deadline is, with a
continued pattern of allowing for debate on amendments on both sides of
the floor. We're trying to change this institution so it can actually
live up to what the people are expecting and for us to be able to abide
by their trust.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment.
I think the American people apparently don't think we're
accomplishing that objective that you want to accomplish by virtue of
their response to the polls about what they think of the job that we've
done over the last year.
Let me say in addition to that, the bills I was referring to, my
friend--yes, while I was the majority leader, we had the House and the
Senate. I said 30 years. Of the 12 years that your party had the
chairmanship of the Transportation Committee, we passed bills on a
bipartisan basis, and we respected transparency.
As the gentleman knows on earmarks, you quadrupled the number of
earmarks under your leadership--not your personal leadership, but under
Republican control of the House of Representatives. When we came in,
what we did was said they all had to be online. Members had to put them
on their Web site, and committees had to identify where those came
from. Now, personally, we made them very transparent. You've eliminated
them temporarily. We'll see whether that holds.
But we will move on to the question of whether or not, when you say
we're going to have open amendments, whether or not the amendments that
are germane will be made in order so that, in fact, we can impact on
the bill.
The gentleman says he is interested in seeing my amendments. I think
most of the amendments will come from our committee members. They are
the ones that are struggling to find out exactly what this bill does.
And we don't believe it is paid for, by the way, as I think the
gentleman probably has seen in the CBO report.
Let me ask you this: do you believe this bill is a jobs bill?
Mr. CANTOR. I believe that what is needed, Mr. Speaker, is some
certainty so that the agencies at the State level can operate with
their plans going forward for infrastructure needs. I believe that the
private sector that is heavily involved with the infrastructure
industry can know how to plan so they can make investments necessary so
that we can see the maintenance, repair, and expansion of our
infrastructure system in this country.
We're about trying to say let's grow. Let's grow. Let's try and work
together so we can grow this economy. The economy is dependent upon an
infrastructure future that is certain.
{time} 1120
The gentleman also knows that we have in the bill a pay-for that is
derived from the expansion of the ability to explore in the deep ocean
off our coasts because it's an energy resource that we should be
utilizing. That, as well, holds a potential for thousands of new jobs.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are all about job creation. And I hope that the
gentleman can join us in what is titled the American Energy
Infrastructure Jobs Act.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
Am I to take it, therefore, he disagrees with Speaker Boehner when
Speaker Boehner said, just a few days ago, We're not making the claim
that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects creates jobs.
We don't make that claim.
So, this would not be a jobs bill from that standpoint; am I correct?
Mr. CANTOR. Again, the gentleman, if he wants to play gotcha----
Mr. HOYER. I'm not playing gotcha. I want to figure out whether this
is a jobs bill. We haven't had a jobs bill in over 400 days.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just heard what I said: we can
create jobs if we open up the ability for more energy exploration. We
can create jobs if we provide some certainty to the industries and the
State agencies--as well as the Federal agencies--that are involved in
planning and charting the course for infrastructure maintenance, repair
and expansion in this country.
Growth requires infrastructure that is at top notch, and we know
we're a far cry from that in this country. So the gentleman understands
my point: growth comes from better infrastructure; growth comes from
expanding the ability to explore our natural resources off our coast,
something that, unfortunately, most Members on his side of the aisle
have not been supportive of in terms of charting a more certain and
responsible energy future.
Does the gentleman have any more scheduling questions?
Mr. HOYER. These are all scheduling questions. These are scheduling
questions as to whether or not we're going to have legislation on the
floor that can get us from where we are to where we want to be.
The gentleman knows that the Senate has passed a bipartisan bill out
of committee with Senator Inhofe, a Republican, and Senator Boxer--not
exactly ideological soul mates--coming together and agreeing on
infrastructure. Why? Because they believe it creates jobs.
What I'm trying to figure out from you, you go from other aspects of
the bill that create jobs, and you say infrastructure is necessary for
growth. My
[[Page H663]]
reading of that is, as the President's pointed out, investing in
infrastructure does, in fact, grow jobs.
To the extent that we can pass a bill, scheduling a bill that has
bipartisan support here and bipartisan support there, and the support
of the President of the United States, is what we ought to be doing.
Doing it in a partisan fashion undercuts our scheduling of moving that
forward. That's my point. I think the gentleman understands that point.
But I would hope that, as we work on this bill, we could do what the
Senate's done, which they don't do very often, and come together in a
bipartisan way, as we have historically done in this House on
Transportation and Infrastructure bills, so important for the growth of
our country and the creation of jobs and the moving forward--as you
say, and I believe as well, we ought to come together and accomplish.
Unless the gentleman has anything further, I yield back the balance
of my time, Mr. Speaker.
____________________