[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 81 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3390-H3393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1240
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 purposes 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 is not in session. 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. The 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 today. I expect the majority of these bills to
come from the Natural Resources Committee, and I want to thank Chairman
Doc Hastings and his staff for their tireless work in assisting Members
on both sides of the aisle with their bills to responsibly remove
Federal red tape that stands in the way of local economic development.
Members are also advised that the House will resume consideration of
H.R. 5325, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, on
Tuesday, our first day back next week. Those wishing to offer
amendments to the bill should be prepared to do so as soon as they
return to Washington.
The House may also consider two additional appropriations bills next
week: H.R. 5855, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, sponsored by Representative Robert Aderholt; and H.R. 5882, the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, sponsored by Representative
Ander Crenshaw. Chairman Hal Rogers and the entire Appropriations
Committee on both sides of the aisle should be congratulated for
helping to restore the open process of allocating and prioritizing the
Nation's spending.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 436, the Protect
Medical Innovation Act, a very important bill for jobs and innovation
in the medical device industry, that Representative Erik Paulsen is
sponsoring. The Paulsen bill will be combined with H.R. 5842, the
Restoring Access to Medication Act, sponsored by Representative Lynn
Jenkins, and H.R. 1004, the Medical FSA Improvement Act, sponsored by
Representative Charles Boustany.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information, and I want to
make the comment that the gentleman correctly congratulated the
appropriations leadership on his side of the aisle.
I also want to observe that on our side of the aisle there has been
cooperation, and there's not been an effort to either delay or
dissemble. That is why this process works. That's the way it should
work. It hasn't always been that way, as the gentleman knows, but I'm
pleased that it is working. I think that's best for our institution,
and I think it's best for the country. So I'm pleased at that, as well.
I tell my friend--and he knows this--according to the schedule I
have, the House is scheduled to be in session a total of 28 days until
the August break and 41 days from now until November.
[[Page H3391]]
Of the 41 days available, 10 are 6:30 days in which we come in for an
abbreviated evening session which usually takes a half hour to an hour
to conclude after afternoon debate on suspension bills.
With the limited time we have available, Mr. Leader, I am very
concerned, as the gentleman knows, of the extraordinarily large number
of very big fiscal questions that will be coming to roost at the end of
this year. My view is that we need to address those. Hopefully, we will
address them in a bipartisan way. If we do not address them, we will
put the economy at continuing risk.
The Bush tax cuts, as you know, expire as of December 31. The payroll
tax cut expires December 31. The sustainable growth rate--which we
affectionately refer to as the doc fix--the alternative minimum tax,
and the debt limit all come to bear at the end of the year.
In addition to that, the sequester--which I think all of us believe
is not the appropriate way to go, but is the way we set up to force us
to take action on a comprehensive, big, bold, balanced plan.
Unfortunately, the supercommittee was unable to reach agreement on
that.
I wanted to say to my friend, the majority leader, I would hope that
you would be urging all of us and I would join with you in that effort
in urging all of us to be ready to make some tough decisions, but
decisions which need to be made in order to stabilize our economy and
stabilize the fiscal posture of the United States. I am hopeful that we
can reach a credible and sustainable fiscal path for our country.
{time} 1250
The only way we are going to do that is if we work together in a
bipartisan fashion. The gentleman and I were very successful in working
on the Export-Import Bank legislation in a bipartisan fashion in which
we got over 300 votes for on the House floor. The gentleman was unable
to make the signing but it was signed this week, I think a very
positive step forward. I appreciated the gentleman's work on that piece
of legislation.
I would like to urge the gentleman that because of the
extraordinarily short number of days that we have left to meet, to
focus on what I think is going to be what some people call a fiscal
train wreck, some people call it a fiscal perfect storm, some people
call it a fiscal perfect cliff. Whatever you call it, it clearly will
have a great impact on not only the confidence that Americans have in
this body and the Senate to work and to make effective plans for
meeting that challenge, but also for getting our country on a fiscally
sustainable path. I don't know whether the gentleman has any comments
on that.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
I agree with him that all of us should be very focused on the months
ahead as we approach the date at which this country will, by operation
of law, experience the largest tax increase in its history, that
sequester will be imposed, that we perhaps will face another debt
ceiling vote as well as many of the items the gentleman mentioned. I
think all of us understand the gravity of those issues.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have also seen in operation around here,
together with the White House, the difficulties that the two sides have
had coming together on two very important issues that run throughout
all of the matters that the gentleman mentioned, and those two issues
are health care and taxes.
As the gentleman knows, we have put forward a solution to the health
care entitlement issue, which is the disproportionate cause of the
unfunded liabilities of the Federal budget. The gentleman, the
President, and his party have rejected our solution that has been
validated by the Congressional Budget Office as an actual fix to the
deficit.
To date we have not seen any counterproposal with the gentleman, his
party, or the President coming to the table saying here's how we would
fix it. All we continue to hear, Mr. Speaker, is we need to raise
taxes, and we need to raise more taxes on people who have been
successful.
The gentleman knows that those are the two issues, the taxes and the
health care fix, that we've just had real difficulty in trying to come
together. I would say to the gentleman we remain ready to work with him
and his colleagues on that other side of the aisle to try and produce a
result for the American people so we can re-inject some certainty back
into the minds of the American people that the economy is going to get
better.
Again, we tried to focus on issues having to do with growth in the
private sector. How do we speak to that small businessman or -woman
who's having difficulty now assessing what his or her taxes are going
to be? How do we speak to that working mother there when she questions
whether her health care will still be available given the uncertainty
around the Obama health care bill?
These are the kinds of things we are trying to work together on. So
many other things elude us because the gulf is so wide philosophically
in dealing with taxes and health care.
Mr. Speaker, we remain ready to work with the gentleman. We share the
concern about what lies ahead.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I was not trying to make political
points or rhetoric in raising the issues that I did. I frankly think
that it doesn't get us very far, I would suggest to the majority
leader, and we need to get someplace. America expects us to get
someplace.
Many of your members have indicated that revenues need to be on the
table. The gentleman knows that every bipartisan commission that has
dealt with this says revenues need to be on the table. The same
entitlements need to be on the table. Neither are easy to deal with,
but they must be dealt with if we're going to be responsible stewards
of this Nation's finances and this Nation's future.
Political rhetoric is not going to get us there. We all want to help
small business, and we believe we have helped small business very
substantially. Frankly, if you get into the analysis, small businesses
did very well during the Clinton administration under policies that
were in place at that point in time.
That aside, we need to deal with this, and I think a number of
members on your side have, in fact, indicated that they understand that
everything needs to be on the table, and that is what I think as well.
I think both sides have things that they don't want to deal with, but
Americans expect us to deal with tough things and make tough decisions
on behalf of them, on behalf of their children and on behalf of their
families.
On small business and economic growth, this leads me to the highway
bill. We continue to be very concerned, Mr. Majority Leader, that we
have not reached agreement on the highway bill. The Senate was able to
reach an overwhelmingly bipartisan agreement on the highway bill, which
is a jobs bill.
I was disappointed, and I hope the gentleman was disappointed at the
jobs numbers that came out today: 82,000 in the private sector, lost
13,000 in the public sector, net: 69,000 jobs. That does not get us to
where we want to be after losing millions and millions of jobs in the
previous administration and losing a substantial number of jobs in the
administration before. Over the last 26 months, we have grown 4 million
jobs, but the hole was very deep, and we're not out of it. If you don't
have a job, you know we're not out of it. I would hope that we could at
least, with certainly our side believing, that the highway bill is a
jobs bill.
Ray LaHood, as I pointed out in the past, a former leader in your
party and chairman of a subcommittee in the Appropriations Committee,
says that it's a jobs bill but unfortunately concludes that bill is not
passing, he believes, for largely political reasons. I hope that's not
the case and don't assert it to be the case.
Do you have any idea what kind of progress we're making on the
highway bill so that bill can come to the floor before the June 30
expiration of the highway authorization?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, as he knows,
the House has passed its bill, the Senate has passed theirs, conferees
have been appointed, and obviously we're very mindful, as you see, of
the expiration of the current authorizing language and law. We are
prepared to make sure that there is no stoppage of transportation
programming and funding, all
[[Page H3392]]
the while desiring a much longer term solution to the problem.
I think the problem remains, as the gentleman knows, just not enough
money to address all the things that the country is experiencing in
terms of the needs for roads and infrastructure repair, as well as the
needed expansion. As the gentleman knows, we all are mindful of the
limited resources that are available to address these needs.
Just trying to prioritize, I am hopeful that the conference committee
can come to a solution prior to the expiration of the authorizing
language in place right now. Again, we are very mindful. We don't want
to allow for shutdown of any program at the end of this month.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
I appreciate his observation. Clearly we don't want to have the
authority for the highway bill to expire without action, but I will
reiterate my offer to my friend, the majority leader, and say that
given the bipartisan, the overwhelming bipartisan, support of the bill
that came from the other party, that if we brought that bill to the
floor, I would tell the gentleman that we will have the overwhelming,
perhaps unanimous support, which would be 190 votes on our side of the
aisle for that bill because we believe it is a jobs bill. We believe it
will grow the economy, it will put people back to work.
It will give confidence to the American people, as we did with the
Export-Import Bank in my view, give confidence to the American people
that we can come together and move forward through reaching agreement.
{time} 1300
Obviously, the Senate was able to do that. And they did it
overwhelmingly, with over half of the Republican caucus voting for it
in the Senate and three-quarters of the Senate voting for it.
I would say to my friend, I think that would be a real shot in the
arm for the economy. And I agree with the gentleman, certainty is
important. Confidence building is important. And if we did that, in my
view, and if you could bring half of your caucus to that vote, we would
pass that bill overwhelmingly. And I think it would be a very positive
step for the economy, very positive step for the confidence of the
American people and our economy and put people back to work.
I don't know whether the gentleman wants to comment on that further,
but if he does, I will yield to him.
Mr. CANTOR. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman I have no further comment.
Mr. HOYER. Lastly, if I might, the student loan interest rate, as you
know, will go up at the end of this month from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. That
will add substantially additional cost to literally millions of
students, some thousand dollars of additional cost to most students at
a time when we want to make higher education, so necessary for success
in our country, available to as many people as we possibly can so we
can be competitive worldwide and, from our perspective further, a Make
it in America agenda of growing our economy and getting jobs for our
people.
I know that there was opposition to that reduction when it was
originally on the floor in 2007. I know there was some opposition to it
earlier this year. But I also know that I think both you and the
Speaker have indicated now that they support that. We passed
legislation on this floor which brought that down when there was,
obviously, very substantial disagreement and controversy with reference
to the funding source, given the preventive health fund that was used
to fund the student aid.
Can the gentleman tell me whether or not he believes there's a
possibility for us to reach agreement on how to do this? I know the
Speaker said this was a ``phony'' fight, but it is a real fight and it
will have real consequences if we don't resolve our differences. Can
the gentleman comment on what he believes to be the possibility of
reaching agreement with the Senate on the student loan bill?
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman that the Speaker and I,
together with the Republican leader and whip in the Senate, have sent a
letter to the President--perhaps the gentleman has seen it--suggesting
a way forward on the issue of student loans so that there will not be
an expiration of the subsidy provided to students.
We suggested two options to allow for the continuation of the lower
rates for students to be paid for by provisions which the President has
suggested that he would agree to. The two options are to limit the
length of in-school interest subsidy and the other is to revise the
Medicaid provider tax threshold and to phase it down so that we can
actually achieve some savings so that we can allow for the continuation
of the subsidized rates for students who are struggling on their
tuition bills.
These are two options that we suggest. They are bipartisan in nature.
There shouldn't be any reason why we couldn't get this done prior to
the expiration of the current law.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
Just for his information, I would be a very strong opponent of your
first option, which continues to want to reduce the take-home pay of
Federal employees. Federal employees, under the plans that you have
passed through this House, will have already been asked to pay $105
billion in reduction in pay and benefits over 10 years. That's $10
billion per year you're suggesting that our employees have their net
take-home pay reduced.
In addition, the additional proposal in your reconciliation bill
would add another $78 billion to that, $183 billion in total, or $18.3
billion per year reduction in pay and benefits for Federal employees.
The gentleman, in his State, has a lot of those Federal employees. They
happen to be civilian employees.
I know the gentleman supported the pay raise for the military
personnel, which I supported as well. The gentleman is aware that
largely, through my tenure in the Congress, we've treated our civilian
employees and our military employees with parity. I would hope that the
gentleman would not think of continuing to go to the Federal employee,
as we go to no other employees, and the gentleman is not interested in
asking anybody else to participate more in paying for this in terms of
revenues. But your side has been continuing to propose reducing the pay
and benefits of the Federal employees.
My view is, and I have said this publicly, that if we can reach a
big, bold, balanced deal and it's balanced--but just going to one
pocket, one group of people, who studies show, depending upon the level
you're working at, many are not paid comparably to their private
sector, some others are, is not a fair, balanced way to proceed. I
would hope that that option would be not on the table. I know the
administration put it on the table for a larger deal, but I'm going to
urge that that not be an option.
I know that I have talked to some of your side from your State who
believe that's not an option that ought to be pursued. As a matter of
fact, one of them voted against the MilCon bill yesterday because of a
provision dealing with further reducing the net take-home pay for
Federal employees.
So I would hope that would not be an option, and I would hope that we
can reach an option so we can contain the cost of college for young
people, because that's not only good for them, it's good for the
competitive stature of the United States of America.
With respect to the reconciliation bill that you mentioned, you
mentioned the fact that you were dealing with the deficit. In fact, as
the gentleman knows, in terms of your health care provisions, they do
not, within the next 20 years, get the Federal budget to balance in the
Ryan budget. So although you deal with that in some respects, it
doesn't get us to balance and therefore does not, in my opinion, give
the confidence and certainty that the American economy needs and that
American citizens need.
I want to ask the gentleman, lastly, if he expects all 12
appropriations bills--I know we're going to do Energy and Water; we've
now already done two of our bills--whether or not he expects all 12
appropriations bills to be on the floor, considered, and completed
prior to the August break.
Mr. CANTOR. If I could, Mr. Speaker, just point the gentleman's
attention back to the student loan issue.
I specifically did not offer up the option of the Federal employee
pay-for because I do know that we have a difference on that. So the
gentleman explained the differences. We understand
[[Page H3393]]
that. That's why we're trying to avoid differences and come together
where we can agree, which is why I discussed the two other provisions
which are bipartisan in nature and that the President has said he
supports, which could, in a responsible fashion, allow us to continue
the lower rates.
Mr. HOYER. I don't want to interrupt, other than to clarify.
As I understand the two options, one was the option of making
additional--in the letter I read. Maybe I'm incorrect. If you can
correct me.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, there were two options: One was the Federal
employee pay-for in and of itself, the reductions in the size of the
Federal Government, would have taken care of the pay-for, if you will,
for the student loan issue. The other option was composed of two
different provisions, both of which are bipartisan in nature and the
President says he supports. One of those is to limit the length of in-
school interest subsidies; the other was to revise the Medicaid
provider tax threshold. It was those two components that comprise
option two. That is my point.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.
Mr. CANTOR. I'm not quite sure about the note he made about our
budget not balancing within the budget window. I would say to the
gentleman, we understand that, but it is a plan that we could adopt
that would provide a blueprint for getting us back on track as far as
managing down the debt and deficit. And my point originally was, Mr.
Speaker, there's been no such plan, there's been no such proffer from
the President or the gentleman's side of the aisle.
{time} 1310
So in order for us to move forward, we need participation from both
sides. We can't just have one side providing a solution without the
ability to get that solution put into place because the gentleman's
party is in control in the other body and in the White House. So how do
we go about trying to find commonality if there is no proffer of
solution? That was my point, Mr. Speaker. And there has been no
solution, balanced or not, provided by the other side.
And I would say lastly to the gentleman's inquiry about the
appropriations process, we certainly maintain the position we'd like to
see all of our bills brought to the floor through regular order,
consistent with the Speaker's policy of an open debate that we have
seen thus far in the appropriations bills. We had a successful
completion yesterday, and we are continuing in the Energy and Water
appropriations measure today and as we come back next week.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information, and I want to
say to the gentleman that I disagree that there is no plan. Mr. Van
Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, did in fact have a
plan, presented that plan, and it was voted on on the floor of the
House. It did not prevail, but that is a plan which, frankly, was a
more balanced plan from our perspective. Obviously, the House did not
agree with that. But it is a more balanced plan that would have reached
balance in fact more quickly, I believe, than the Ryan plan.
So we do have a plan. We presented that plan. We offered it on the
House floor. I voted for that plan. The overwhelming majority of the
party on this side of the aisle voted for that plan. So there is a
plan, so I think the gentleman is not correct in saying that we haven't
offered a plan. We have; the plan has not passed, the gentleman is
absolutely correct on that. The Senate and the House have not agreed on
a plan. I'm not sure that they will be able to agree on a plan. I think
that's unfortunate, but perhaps we can agree on the appropriations
bills.
We are hopeful that the appropriations bills will be agreed upon
consistent with the agreement that we thought we had at the funding
levels of $1.047 trillion for discretionary spending. The bills that
have been offered are closer to that number than I think we will find
as later bills come, we don't know that, but that is the speculation.
The Senate has agreed that we ought to mark up to that figure, but we
haven't marked up to that figure in the appropriations bills. But if we
complete the appropriations bills, as the gentleman says he wants to
do, I think it would be good to do.
Is it the gentleman's perspective that we will mark to $1.047
trillion or $1.028 trillion? That's a $19 billion difference, a
substantial difference, we understand that. In the Senate, the
Republicans and Democrats have agreed to mark to the higher number. Can
the gentleman comment on whether or not at the end of the day we'll be
able to get agreement on the agreement that we thought we had in the
Budget Control Act?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, he and I
have discussed this before in these colloquies, and I would suggest
turning attention to a Senate that hasn't even begun considering its
appropriations bills, to suggest that we would come to an agreement
with the Senate, I think, you know, the Senate has got to really start
to do its work as far as the appropriations process is concerned.
I yield back.
Mr. HOYER. I don't have a rebuttal to that, so I will yield back my
time.
____________________