[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 95 (Thursday, June 21, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3946-H3948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader, to inquire of the majority 
leader the schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session, but 
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 number of bills under 
suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by 
the close of business tomorrow.
  In addition, the House may consider two appropriations bills next 
week, H.R. 5972, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
Appropriations Act, and H.R. 5973, the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
and Food and Drug Administration Act.
  Members are advised that the House will begin consideration of one of 
these two bills after the 6:30 p.m. vote series on Tuesday and should 
expect an additional late evening series of votes on amendments. Again, 
Mr. Speaker, that is on Tuesday.
  The House is also scheduled to consider a privileged resolution 
finding Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the U.S. Department of 
Justice, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena 
issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Finally, I expect the House to consider legislation dealing with both 
the expiring authority of our Nation's highway programs, as well as the 
pending increase in the Federal subsidized student loan rate.
  Before I yield back, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Members that we 
will accommodate both the congressional White House picnic on Wednesday 
night, as well as the congressional baseball game on Thursday evening. 
Debate may continue on appropriations amendments after the picnic and 
during the baseball game, but during those events no votes will take 
place.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Obviously, the gentleman has spoken to a number of very 
important pieces of legislation, and I want to talk about those. Then I 
want to talk about what I believe to be a diversion from the important 
business of this country. But I will get to, first, the highway 
conference.
  On Friday, it will be 100 days since the Senate has passed a 
bipartisan bill, a bill which had 75 Members of the United States 
Senate for it. That conference has not yet reported out. I understand 
there is some activity on that.
  The House overwhelmingly voted for the Walz MTI, and it said the 
conferees ought to report out a conference report by tomorrow. I don't 
know whether that's about to happen--today is tomorrow--but we will see 
whether or not it proceeds. Perhaps the gentleman can give us some 
information on that issue.
  I've offered a motion, as the gentleman knows, to instruct to give 
the House an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill if we can't wait for a 
bill that comes out of conference. Clearly, if it doesn't come out of 
conference, it's going to cost us a lot of jobs. It will not protect 
the 1.9 million jobs the Senate bill protects, and it will not create 
approximately 1 million additional jobs.
  As the gentleman knows, it is our view that we've been considering a 
lot of legislation which does not create jobs, does not impact 
positively the growth in our economy; but I think there is little 
dispute that the highway bill will in fact do that.
  In addition, there has been a lot of talk about certainty. I agree 
with the premise that we ought to give certainty to the economy and to 
employers and employees, and to States and subdivisions and private 
sector contractors. Obviously, if we don't extend the highway bill, 
that will not be the case. In fact, it will be a very uncertain world 
in which they will be operating.
  So can my friend tell me what the status of the conference is, if he 
knows? I will tell you, very frankly, that the Democratic conferees do 
not know the status of the conference.
  And I will yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I would say to the gentleman the conferees continue to work in a 
bicameral nature. The discussions are proceeding between Chairman Mica 
and Chairman Boxer. And as the gentleman knows, I have said before, we 
are desirous of seeing a bill done, as the gentleman said, to afford 
more certainty to the folks who are relying on the funding of our 
Nation's transportation program. We certainly think it would be a huge 
benefit to producing a bill prior to the expiration of the program next 
week, but knowing full well most of us do not want to see any kind of 
shutdown in the funding, that we would be prepared in any way to make 
sure that does not happen.

                              {time}  1320

  But the intention is to allow these conferees to continue to do their 
work and, hopefully, we'll have a bill to vote on next week.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I hope the 
gentleman's correct.
  My concern, and the concern on this side, continues to be the 
position--as Mr. Shuster, who is the one of the ranking members and 
whose dad, of course, chaired the Transportation Committee at one point 
in time. There was a story that Shuster acknowledged that the House 
GOP's leadership's inability to pass its 5-year, $260 billion 
transportation bill ``weakens our hand in conference.'' And this is 
what concerned me, Mr. Leader.
  But he added, ``It's not an option to give away the House position.''
  Now, he was referring to, of course, a bill which has not passed this 
House, has not even been brought to the floor of this House. And that 
article went on to say, House Republicans say they are willing to walk 
away from the highway bill talks if they cannot get what they want.
  Now, this was an interview--I see Mr. Shuster on the floor, and Mr. 
Shuster's a friend of mine. I'll be glad to hear what he has to say on 
that matter, and I'll yield to him.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And what I was 
referring to is we did send over a position on our extension, and that 
was the streamlining that we wanted in our original bill but was in the 
extension. So that's what I was talking about. That's the House 
position. And as far as I can tell, things are moving in a positive 
direction. But I guess we'll be debating your motion to instruct a 
little later.

[[Page H3947]]

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I certainly 
hope that we are moving in a positive direction because we've been a 
long time getting to resolution of this matter.
  Next I would like to ask--you indicated that student loans may be on 
the calendar as well. Can the gentleman tell me what his expectation is 
on that, if he knows?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, it has been our 
position all along that we do not want to see the expiration of the 
funding of the program to impact the students that right now are 
struggling, and we have presented to both the White House, as well as 
the gentleman's side of the aisle here in the Capitol, various ways of 
accomplishing that end in a responsible manner, in a fiscally 
responsible manner so that we're not digging the hole any deeper, we're 
not incurring any additional debt in order to do that, and thus far, 
have not seen a willingness on the part of the White House.

  I am aware that there are discussions ongoing on the other side of 
the Capitol to see if there can be some resolution on this issue. And 
that's all I can say to the gentleman as far as I know.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I'm hopeful that we can resolve this in a way that 
is agreeable to at least the majority of both Houses and to the 
President of the United States because if we don't, as the gentleman 
knows, we're going to increase interest rates by doubling them from 3.4 
to 6.8 percent.
  Today's college students are leaving with an average of $26,000 in 
debt. This would add another $1,000 of debt to those students, and 
right now, with students owing more than $1 trillion, placing more debt 
on their head. And I would urge us, therefore, to come to an agreement, 
come to an agreement that both sides could vote for.
  Obviously, as the gentleman knows, the House bill that passed was a 
pay-for that Democrats didn't vote for here, and I think it was well 
known that the Senate would not agree to that, so I'm hopeful that we 
do reach an agreement that will provide for its passage.
  Now, let me ask the gentleman--we, of course, made the representation 
that we ought to be focused on jobs. We believe that's critically 
important, and we believe that ought to be the focus of this Congress. 
It's the focus of the American people.
  We went through, in years past, distractions. You say, with just some 
30 full days left between now and the election, that you're going to 
bring up a resolution that came out of committee, as I understand, 
yesterday, without much time for consideration or deliberation, a very, 
very serious matter.
  Attorney General Holder, of course, has been involved in making sure 
that votes are not suppressed all over this country. He has, in my 
view, conducted himself in a way that brought credit to the Justice 
Department, to himself, and to this administration.
  I don't know--well, let me ask the gentleman. How long do you expect 
to spend on this motion?
  I don't think any of us have seen the final bill that's going to come 
to the floor or the resolution that's going to come to the floor 
suggesting that Mr. Holder be held in contempt. I don't think anybody 
outside of the committees has had an opportunity to consider this very 
weighty, important matter, very disruptive matter, if I would say, and 
distracting matter.
  What procedure does the gentleman suggest is going to be pursued next 
week on this matter?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd respond to the gentleman, and I think 
the gentleman does know this is a privileged resolution of which he 
speaks, and it would be subject to the 1-hour rule, just as privileged 
resolutions were under their majority, Mr. Speaker, and we will expect 
to proceed accordingly.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. Which means 
that a matter of great weight is going to be brought to the floor 
within just a few days of being passed out of committee, with a 
relatively short period of time for either debate or for consideration.
  There is, of course, precedent, and the gentleman's correct. It is a 
privileged resolution, and I understand the rules under privileged 
resolutions. But I do understand that this is a matter that's going to 
require a very careful, judicious, if I can say, consideration. And to 
bring it up at a time when we ought to be focused on jobs, when you're 
trying to do two appropriations bills, when you're talking about the 
highway bill and we're talking about the student loan bill, and to 
treat it as somewhat of a suspension bill provision, with little time 
to really have it discussed with the seriousness that the subject 
matter requires, I would suggest to the gentleman that this is going to 
be not only a distraction, but an unfortunate taking our focus off of 
creating jobs here in America.
  I yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, this is an issue 
of making sure that the American people are given an opportunity to 
have all the information surrounding the issues involved with the Fast 
and Furious program.
  This is an issue that we feel, as has been indicated by the actions 
of Chairman Issa, that in acting with all reason, asking of the 
administration and the Attorney General to produce certain documents, 
the Attorney General, having agreed to produce certain documents, then 
refusing to do so, Chairman Issa, leading up to the vote in committee 
the other day had said all along, if the Attorney General had produced 
the documents, that there would be a postponement of the hearing.
  And in the same fashion, Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, the 
Democratic whip, if the Attorney General would do what it is he 
committed to do and produce the documents, we'll postpone the vote. 
We've not seen any indication of that. He has not done that. And that's 
why I've announced the vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Let me ask the gentleman, does the gentleman intend to go 
the Rules Committee to get a rule, or bring the privileged resolution 
directly to the floor?
  I yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say that some of that is still in 
discussion, but this resolution does have privilege.
  Mr. HOYER. With respect to another piece of legislation, I would like 
to ask the gentleman about the Violence Against Women Act, which, 
again, the Senate passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and 
which we passed in a relatively partisan fashion over here, where the 
parties were split.
  Will the gentleman tell me whether or not he knows the status of that 
legislation and whether or not we expect to consider that anytime soon.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, as he 
knows, the Senate has the so-called ``blue slip'' problem with its 
bill, and that is about as far as I know as to the progress in the 
Senate.
  As the gentleman knows, we passed the bill here in the House. We did 
so in recognizing the suggestions and incorporating the suggestions 
that the GAO had made as to how to streamline the grant programs on the 
Violence Against Women Act to allow for dollars to reach victims in a 
more expeditious manner. We wholeheartedly support the passage of that 
as the gentleman saw when it passed the House. We would like to see a 
resolution on this.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  As the gentleman knows, we believe that the bill that passed the 
House on the Violence Against Women Act left out a lot of women. It 
reduced the scope that the Senate passed with, again, a bipartisan vote 
with, frankly, all the women on the Republican side of the aisle in the 
United States Senate voting for the Senate bill. We think the House 
bill restricted the coverage of that bill. It seems to me that we ought 
to be against violence against all women and other persons who may be 
subject to domestic violence. We would hope that that matter could be 
resolved, frankly, along the lines of making sure that all people are 
protected from domestic violence.
  Lastly, may I ask the gentleman what he expects the schedule for the 
balance of July to be. Again, I would reiterate, as the gentleman 
knows, we have very, very few days left, less than 30 full days between 
now and the election following this week. There are another 8 days that 
are 6:30 days, or some number, either 7 or 8 6:30 days, so we don't 
have very much time to deal with

[[Page H3948]]

some of the pressing problems, including dealing with middle class tax 
cuts to make sure that working people in this country who are having a 
hard time making ends meet don't get an increase in their taxes on 
January 1.
  Will the gentleman tell me what he expects the schedule to be in the 
month of July.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentleman and say to 
the gentleman that, again, if he looks at the schedule, we are 
scheduled and have been in accord with that schedule and in session 
more days this year than we were in a similar year last session. So I 
would say to the gentleman the schedule is right on track. The 
predictability, the certainty of this schedule, has allowed for the 
work to continue.
  We will be here throughout July. Our intention is to continue to 
focus on job creation. We will be looking, obviously, towards the 
Supreme Court and what its actions may bring next week on the issue of 
ObamaCare. If we have to act in response to that to assure all 
Americans that we want and care about their health care, we will do so. 
If the Court does not strike down the bill in its entirety, the 
gentleman knows our conference is fully committed to the total repeal 
of the ObamaCare bill.
  In July, we will continue to focus on that bill and its impact on 
employers. We also are very concerned about the overreach of the 
regulatory agencies in this town and intend to bring forward a bill 
with a series of provisions which will address the red tape that has 
begun to strangle the innovation and growth in this economy.
  We will also be very focused on a measure to stop the tax hike that 
is facing the American people this year. If you look at the enormity of 
the tax hike, it is something that is hanging over this economy, that 
is hanging over the mindset of small business people and working 
families. I don't think anybody would advocate raising taxes, 
especially in this economy.
  That will be the outline of our work with, obviously, some other 
measures that may be brought up in July.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
  Let me just add, Mr. Speaker, that, clearly, when you look at the 
Congress to which he referred in terms of its productivity in the 2007 
and 2008 years, we think the productivity was very much higher. I won't 
go through the litany of those figures; but I think, if the majority 
leader reviews them, he will see in terms of the productivity of the 
Congress that we moved America much further forward.
  Having said that, I want to say that we hope that we will continue to 
focus on jobs. I know I share the gentleman's view--and I think all of 
us share the view--that we want to have reasonable regulations that 
help grow the economy, not impede its growth. We're for that. We may 
have a difference of opinion on what that does when we think of 
deregulating the protection of our environment, when we think of 
deregulating the safety of our financial markets. When we took the 
referee off the field, it had an extraordinarily negative impact on 
this country and on every taxpayer in this country and on every 
business in this country. It was not useful. It was not helpful.
  I think we have a difference of opinion on whether or not we want to 
make sure there is a level playing field, a fair playing field, for all 
the participants in our economy--both businesses and consumers. 
Clearly, there was an effort that was being made to undermine the 
ability of the CFTC to fully oversee what was a market that went out of 
control. As a result, there were dire consequences to our country and 
its fiscal status.
  So I am hopeful that we don't pursue a regulatory agenda, which is an 
agenda with the net result of taking the referee off the field. I don't 
think the American public wants that, and I don't really think that 
that's reasonable. Further, I think they think we really need to be 
focused on things that will immediately grow this economy. The highway 
bill would have done that. Unfortunately, that highway bill has stayed 
in limbo for too long a time. I am hopeful that we can move it.
  Unless the gentleman has something further to say, Mr. Speaker, I 
yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________