[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 57 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2010-H2013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1400
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, the gentleman

[[Page H2011]]

from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), for the purpose of inquiring about the 
schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the 
Democratic whip, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. 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 number of bills under 
suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by 
the close of business tomorrow.
  Among next week's suspensions will be a noteworthy bill, H.R. 2146, 
authored by Congressman Darrell Issa and known as the DATA Act. This is 
an important step in our continuing effort to make government more 
accountable, accessible, and transparent, especially when it comes to 
the expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
  It is also possible that the House will consider a motion to go to 
conference and motion to instruct conferees on the surface 
transportation authorization bill.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, we expect a full debate next week on the 
importance of our Nation's cybersecurity. The House will consider a 
number of bipartisan bills to reduce obstacles to voluntary information 
sharing between the private sector and government, secure our Nation's 
infrastructure, better protect government systems and combat foreign 
threats.
  A number of committees have been involved in this effort, Mr. 
Speaker, including the Intelligence Committee, Homeland Security, 
Oversight and Government Reform, Science, Judiciary, and Energy and 
Commerce.
  Of the bills coming to the floor, we will consider H.R. 3523, the 
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, under a rule. This 
important legislation is authored by Chairman Mike Rogers and 
cosponsored by Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
  The gentleman, in his comments, indicates that we might go to 
conference on the surface transportation bill. As the gentleman knows, 
the Senate surface transportation bill passed overwhelmingly and with a 
very substantial bipartisan vote and a vote led by Senator Boxer and 
Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. There were 22 Republican Senators. About 
half of the Republican Senators voted for it, and so it passed 
overwhelmingly.
  I am wondering, given the timeframe in which we are dealing, whether 
or not the gentleman feels comfortable with some assurance that we are 
going to move to go to conference so that we can get a conference under 
way. I know the majority indicated it wanted a bill so that it could, 
in fact, go to conference. I have had discussions with, I think, you 
but I know Mr. Boehner, the Speaker, and Mr. McCarthy, that that was 
the intent to go to conference.
  What would preclude us, I suppose would be the better way to phrase 
the question, from having a motion to go to conference next week? As 
the gentleman knows, we are going to be out the week following so that 
we will not be back until May, into May; and to the extent that we 
delay going to conference, we are going to delay the resolution of what 
I think is a very, very important bill. I know the gentleman does as 
well. We believe this is a real job creator.
  As you know, Mr. LaHood is the Secretary of Transportation, your 
former colleague on your side of the aisle. He has made it very clear 
that this is a very substantial jobs bill. To the extent that we could 
move quickly, I think it would be in the best interests of our country, 
of infrastructure investment, and the creation of jobs.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman we have every intention of 
going forward, and, at this point, I don't know what could come up and 
preclude us from doing so. But we look forward to working with the 
gentleman over the course of the next two-plus months to come to 
resolution so that we can provide some certainty to States, industries, 
private sector, public, and the rest with regard to our transportation 
infrastructure.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  And in light of the fact that he looks forward to my help, I want to 
tell him that if he brings a motion to go to conference next week, I 
will bring the overwhelming majority of my caucus to a vote with that 
motion to go to conference so that we can get that done. I will be glad 
to help in that respect.
  Will that help him?
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I didn't know whether those votes would help you get the 
job done that I think needs to be done. I don't say that facetiously. I 
think we want to go to conference. I have been told you want to go to 
conference, and I would hope we could move forward on that. As a matter 
of fact, the chairman of your committee, Representative Mica, said 
yesterday we should go to conference immediately, and we would be very 
interested in helping you towards that process.
  Mr. Leader, the Appropriations Committee has started to mark up its 
bills and has dealt with the reconciliation instructions. My 
understanding is the reconciliation instructions, the result of those 
instructions will be coming to the floor probably the first month, the 
month of May.
  Is that accurate?
  Mr. CANTOR. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. With respect to the appropriations bills, much was made of 
the fact that you wanted to bring appropriations bills to the floor one 
at a time and under open rules. I think that's a good practice. 
Frankly, I would have liked to have done that when we were in charge, 
and we didn't get that done. I said then that I didn't think it was 
good for the institution for the consideration of appropriation bills, 
and you, I think, rightfully criticized us for that--not you, 
personally, but the Republican side of the aisle.
  Is it your intention to bring the appropriations bills to the floor 
singly, individually, with an open rule as Speaker Boehner indicated 
would be the case, and, if so, when will that occur?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that, as he 
knows, working through the committee at this point are the CJS bill and 
the energy and water bill. It is our intention to bring one of those 
forward the week that he indicates, May 7, to be debated.
  The Speaker has consistently come down on the side of wanting there 
to be an open process. I think that, given the House's track record on 
appropriations bills and the debates surrounding them, we are hoping 
that we can have a deliberate debate around the substance and policy of 
the issues and set as a model for going forward.
  But I would say to the gentleman, as far as we go right now, we are 
looking at May 7 to be the time in which we bring one of those bills to 
the floor for deliberation and a vote.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I make the additional observation that we passed a budget. Many of us 
voted against that budget, as you know, that passed. We voted for our 
alternative. But the American people, I think, have an interest and, 
frankly, a right to know what the ramifications of that budget that was 
passed are; and obviously they will find that out as the appropriation 
bills move forward, are considered on this floor, open to debate and 
open to amendment. That will educate the American people on what the 
consequences are of passing budget A over budget B, your budget, our 
budget, or an alternative budget.
  It's really in the appropriations bill. The budget doesn't really do 
anything, as we all know, other than set a 302(a) allocation. That is 
the amount of discretionary dollars that can be applied in the 
appropriations process. What that means is that the only thing it does 
is set that limit and does not apportion resources to particular 
objectives in the appropriations bill or, for that matter, in the Ways 
and Means Committee bill in terms of actions that might occur with 
reference to taxes and revenues.

[[Page H2012]]

                              {time}  1410

  So I say to my friend that the importance of bringing the 
appropriation bills to the floor is to give that transparency to the 
American public so they can make a judgment on which priorities they 
support. We think it's going to be very difficult, frankly, to bring 
appropriation bills to the floor under the constraints that have been 
imposed. And we regret, as the gentleman knows, very much that we did 
not follow the agreement that was reached when we precluded the 
country's going into default. We agreed on a figure of $1.048 trillion 
to be the figure that the Appropriations Committee would mark to.
  I don't know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to see, but 12 
out of the 14 Senators on the Appropriations Committee voted to honor 
the agreement that was reached today, including Senator McConnell. 
Regrettably, we did not do that in the House. We reduced that figure 
very substantially, and we also shifted some of the resources from one 
object--nondefense to defense--which cuts even further the nondefense 
portion of the budget by about $8 billion.
  So I ask the gentleman, in that context, is the committee going to 
mark to the House-passed budget, which we have deemed adopted? 
Notwithstanding the fact it has not been adopted, is the House going to 
mark to those figures, and will it mark to those figures knowing full 
well what dollars are left for bills that are to follow? In other 
words, are you going to front-load and make those appropriation bills 
sweeter? That will then not leave resources for bills that will come 
after.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, first of all, 
the gentleman knows that we did pass a budget in the House. We didn't 
have a conference committee report to vote on because the Senate did 
not pass a budget, which has then forced us to have to deem what the 
House passed--again, the Senate having gone way past a thousand days 
without a budget.
  So I would say to the gentleman it is our perception that what the 
deal was in August, the BCA, was a ceiling. And that we want to try in 
every way we can to save taxpayer dollars, and that is a rule which 
we're continuing to follow. The Appropriations Committee has taken up 
its obligations and is working on the bills, and we will be bringing up 
those bills consistent with that rule.
  Again, I say to the gentleman, we look forward to a robust, policy-
oriented debate on the spending issues facing this country throughout 
the appropriations process and look forward to a deliberative civil 
process so that we can get our work done and deliver on what the people 
expect--and that is to begin to shave the spending that has gotten out 
of control in Washington over the last several decades.
  Mr. HOYER. I know the gentleman doesn't like to relitigate history, 
but when he says spending got out of control over the last two decades, 
I may agree with him on the last decade we went deeply into debt, but 
certainly the decade preceding that my friend surely remembers that we 
ran 4 years of surplus and a net surplus over 8 years during the 
Clinton administration. A $62.9 billion net surplus after 8 years. And 
we had 4 years of surplus. Two of those were actual surpluses--and we 
counted Social Security's revenues, which obviously were borrowed money 
from the Social Security trust fund. So we swapped Social Security 
money for IOUs. But 2 of those years of actual balance.
  So I would agree with him on the last decade, but I would not agree 
with him on the decade before that because, frankly, working from both 
sides of the aisle and an exploding economy, we created those deficits 
essentially together.
  I want to say to my friend that in that context, yes, the American 
people want to see us use their money wisely. We all agree on that. 
They need to know how we intend to use their money. And if they don't 
have appropriation bills on the floor--because the gentleman talks 
about the fact that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in a thousand 
days. It has had no effect, none, zero on what we are doing. Why? 
Because all the budget does, as the gentleman well knows, is not 
allocate money. It sets a ceiling--as the gentleman likes, apparently, 
ceilings and not agreements--a ceiling on what discretionary spending 
will be. Other than that, it doesn't do anything. Therefore, it sets 
forth a plan.
  But the key is going to be how you carry out that plan and let the 
American people know how you're going to carry it out. We do that in 
appropriation bills and the Ways and Means tax bills.
  Does the gentleman have an idea of when a Ways and Means tax bill 
carrying out the budget might come to the floor?
  Mr. CANTOR. As the gentleman knows, Ways and Means is continuing in 
their mission to conduct hearings as far as tax reform is concerned. 
They just had a hearing on retirement provisions and what comprehensive 
tax reform means when it comes to retirement provisions.
  The gentleman knows that tax reform doesn't come easy in this town. 
And we are all, I think, bound by the commitment to try and simplify 
the code with the differences that we have. And we're going to continue 
to look to see what Chairman Camp and the committee's work produces. 
But with maintaining our commitment that we believe, as you do--Mr. 
Speaker, I would say the gentleman joins me in wanting to simplify the 
code, bring down rates, get rid of loopholes, and the rest.
  Again, I would say we're looking to our committees to continuing 
their work. They're doing good work toward that end exposing the issues 
and identifying them so that we can get this in a way that is 
responding to what the public really wants to see, which is a 
simplified Tax Code and a much fairer way.
  Mr. HOYER. We passed--if I can go to another subject briefly--we 
passed a bill today which the gentleman was a principle advocate of 
which cost $46 billion in terms of revenues in effect forgone, if you 
will, that otherwise were being expected, if that bill passes. Does the 
gentleman believe that if that bill passes and is signed by the 
President, that in light of the fact it's a 1-year bill, does the 
gentleman believe that it will be only 1 year or does the gentleman 
intend, if his party happens to be in charge in the next Congress, to 
see that lapse and that tax increased again on small businesses? What 
is the gentleman's thought on that? I ask him that question, if I 
might, in light of The Wall Street Journal's observation today that 
certainly this did not give small businesses much certainty.
  Mr. CANTOR. First of all, I'd say the gentleman has a very 
interesting question if we're talking about the scheduling of the floor 
and how we're going forward, but I'll be delighted to answer the 
question.
  The bill that we passed today in a bipartisan way is a bill that 
responds to the urgency that small business is feeling and, frankly, 
the people of this country are feeling that the economy is not growing 
quickly enough.
  Is it a panacea? No. Do we want to see comprehensive overall tax 
reform? Absolutely. But as the gentleman knows, our side and his have 
big differences when it comes to tax reform.
  Unfortunately, the discussions that ensued last year were hung up on 
the notion that your side really, really continues to advocate higher 
taxes. You want to start with a baseline that's just higher than ours. 
We don't believe right now that we ought to assume Washington has a 
revenue problem. Instead, we ought to fix the spending problem before 
you start jacking up more taxes, if at all.
  So this measure that we passed is something that is a first start 
towards a pro-growth outlook to empower businesses and allow men and 
women who are out there taking risks starting businesses and creating 
jobs a little easier time in doing so, allowing them to keep more of 
the money to put back into their business and allocate the capital the 
best way they see of doing so, not Washington.
  Again, I know the gentleman knows we have a difference of opinion 
when it comes to that. But, again, it is a small step in a bridge 
toward what we all would like to see but are unable to accomplish right 
now, which is overall tax reform.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and he is correct, we do have a 
very substantial difference of opinion. The indication is this is a 
start. Frankly, we were told it was a start in 2001. We

[[Page H2013]]

were told it was a start in 2003 when we cut taxes very substantially. 
Unfortunately, we didn't cut revenues very substantially. And when you 
don't cut revenues after you cut taxes, what happens is you have 
deficit. And that's why we went from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus 
after the Clinton administration, projected by the Bush administration, 
to an $11 trillion deficit at the end of the Bush administration--
because we cut revenues and we increased spending.

                              {time}  1420

  We were not in charge for 75 percent of that time. In fact, we 
weren't in charge of ultimately passing legislation any of that time 
because the President, of course, had an 8-year term. So I say to my 
friend, we dug another $46 billion hole.
  My belief is that your side of the aisle will not want to reinstate 
that tax next year no matter what the economy is doing, no matter how 
good the economy is. That's my suspicion. But it's based upon 30 years 
of experience, I tell my friend. And if that's the case, then we're not 
talking about $46 billion, we're talking about a half trillion dollars, 
which is $46 billion times 10 with escalation for inflation, so about a 
half-a-trillion-dollar additional hole in the deficit unless the 
gentleman is prepared to say, look, if the economy recovers, we're 
going to reinstate that revenue.
  The difference between us is you want to talk about tax increases, 
and I want to talk about paying our bills. And I believe that if we 
don't want to buy, then we don't have to tax. But if we buy, we have a 
moral responsibility to have the courage to ask people to pay for it.
  Very frankly, I think you've taken the discipline out of the system. 
I think supply-side economics takes the discipline out of the system. 
What supply-side economics does is, we can cut revenues but don't have 
to cut spending because magically we're going to get more revenues.
  Very frankly, Mr. Greenspan thought for a while that that worked. He 
said 3 years ago, no, he was wrong. I think he was right the second 
time. He was demonstrably, graphically not right the first time when he 
rationalized the 2001 and 2003. We cut revenues, they did not raise 
sufficient additional dollars and growth in the economy.
  As a matter of fact, whether there was a direct result, we had the 
worst economy I've experienced in my adult lifetime at the end of the 
Bush term and at the beginning of the Obama term as responsibility for 
the economy went over to President Obama.
  Now, there's a lot of debate during this bill about how we've lost 
jobs. That's true. Those jobs were lost in the early part of the Obama 
administration. As the gentleman knows, over the last 24 months, we've 
had 4 million new jobs created, 10 quarters of economic growth in our 
country, and the Dow has doubled. The Dow has doubled since March of 
2009. It's hard for me to see how that was a failure. It certainly 
hasn't been the success we'd like, but not a failure.
  I tell my friend that, yes, we have a difference, and the public 
needs to come to grips with that difference and that debate, and that 
is whether or not we're going to pay for things we buy. And if we don't 
want to buy them, we won't have to pay for them, and we can cut taxes.
  Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                          ____________________