[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 104 (Thursday, July 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4855-H4859]
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. Madam 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.
Madam 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. Last votes of the week are expected no later than
3 p.m.
Madam 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 will consider H.R. 5872, the Sequestration
Transparency Act, sponsored by Congressman Jeb Hensarling. This is a
bill that will bring needed transparency to the administration's
process for implementing devastating cuts to our national defense and
many social programs on January 2. Chairman Paul Ryan and the Budget
Committee passed this bill in a bipartisan fashion, so I expect it to
be brought up under suspension of the rules.
Finally, and in keeping with funding our national security, the House
will consider H.R. 5856, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
sponsored by Congressman Bill Young. This will be the House's seventh
appropriations bill of the year.
I expect the defense funding bill to be on the floor for the balance
of the week. Members should be aware that late evening votes are
possible on Wednesday, July 18, and Thursday, July 19.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that scheduling information.
As the gentleman knows, we have, as I calculate, 12 legislative days
left to go in July and the beginning of August, of which 3 of those
days we will be coming in at 6:30. As a result, we don't have much time
left, and I would ask the gentleman if there is any expectation of
having bills other than the regulatory--I understand one of those weeks
will be the regulatory week. Other than the regulatory bills, will we
have any jobs legislation on the floor?
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for the question.
Madam Speaker, we've been, as the gentleman knows, very transparent
about scheduling the floor, sending out a memo making Members aware of
where we're headed for the remainder of the July period. I would say to
the gentleman that, after next week, we will be focusing on cutting red
tape, reducing the regulatory burden on our job creators. As we know,
the regulatory atmosphere in this country is making it more difficult
and more expensive for small businesses and large to create jobs. We'll
be focusing on that.
The following week, Madam Speaker, will be the week in which we will
bring forward a piece of legislation to stop the tax hikes to ensure
that all Americans know we are not going to see taxes go up for them at
the end of this year.
In addition to that, we'll bring forward a bill that will be focused
on how we get to a pro-growth tax system in this country, laying out
the principles for tax reform and suggesting an expedited procedure so
that we can actually achieve results for the American people so that
our job creators and working families can get back to work.
Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentleman's answer, and I think we have
consensus on this floor about cutting red tape and facilitating
decisions by the Federal Government or by the State government or by
local government. We have all heard that complaint throughout our
careers. I think that's a legitimate concern for us to have. However,
when I ask about a jobs bill, the gentleman responds on a couple of
levels.
I think I may have mentioned this before, but what concerns me is
that Bruce Bartlett, whom I think the gentleman probably knows, a
former President Reagan and President H. W. Bush administration
official, says that no hard evidence is offered for the claim that
regulatory issues have increased. But he says that Republicans have
embraced ``the idea that government regulation is the principal factor
holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a
tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among
businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.''
{time} 1300
As I said, he says no hard evidence is offered for this claim. He
then says:
In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented
by Republicans that allows them to use current economic
problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business
community year in and year out. In other words, it's a simple
case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal
with high unemployment.
Now, that's his opinion, I understand that. But my concern is, if you
ask an economist whether or not many of the pieces of legislation we've
passed that we've called jobs bills--the gentleman's pointed that out--
economists say in the short term--which is really what
[[Page H4856]]
we need to deal, we need to deal in the short term and the long term--
is not going to create jobs. This week, we haven't done anything to
create jobs.
By the way, might I ask the gentleman, because I didn't see it next
week, do we expect a 32nd or a 33rd vote on repealing the Affordable
Care Act either next week, the week after, or the week after that? As
the gentleman knows, CBS opines that we've spent some 80 hours on that
issue, with whatever cost is attendant to that. You can answer both
questions, I suppose, but certainly I would be interested and the
Members would be interested to know whether or not we're going to have
another vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would say to the gentleman about this week's vote--in fact, today--
today we voted on a bill that helps us ``Mine it in America.'' The
gentleman likes to speak about ``making it in America.'' Why shouldn't
we also be mining it in America? So it's very much a bill to facilitate
that business and industry in this country in an environmentally
sensitive way. In fact, 22 of the gentleman's caucus Members joined us
in that vote--"Mine it in America,'' Madam Speaker.
As to the gentleman's question about the suggestion that perhaps the
regulatory environment does not affect the potential growth or real
growth in this country, that is something that I don't believe the
gentleman agrees totally with that statement, because I know he and I
both have worked on trying to streamline regulations here. We don't
want overly burdensome regulations on small or large businesses or
working families.
So again, I would take issue with the suggestion that economists
would say that regulatory atmosphere and framework don't have anything
to do with job creation. Of course it does. It has to do with the
environment for one to take a risk, for investors to put capital to
work, for entrepreneurs to go out and sign their name on the dotted
line with the bank. Of course regulation has something to do with job
creation and growth. That is exactly our point. And I hope the
gentleman will join us in the week that we bring these red tape
reduction bills to the floor to help us accomplish something so that we
can roll back the unduly burdensome framework and make sure we have a
smart framework of regulation so that we can see America grow.
As to the gentleman's final question about scheduling another repeal
vote of ObamaCare, if the gentleman would like to do so, I'm happy to
meet with him. Right now, as the gentleman knows, we have done that
this week. And I would say to the gentleman, the reason why perhaps we
spent so much time on that issue, it is the most personal issue to many
millions of Americans. It's their health care; it's their family's
health care. At the end of the day, this election season will
underscore the importance of people engaging in this discussion and
participating in our democracy because the kind of health care that we
will have in this country will be determined by the outcome of the
election.
The real question is, Madam Speaker, are we going to have Washington-
based health care or patient-based health care? That's what it comes
down to. Who's in the driver seat, patients and their doctors, or
Washington-based bureaucrats deciding what kind of coverage we can
have? We all know what's happened with that approach under ObamaCare:
costs have gone up, employers are beginning to shed the plans, and
people will not be able to have the health care they have. That's why
we've spent the time we have on this bill.
Mr. HOYER. Well, the gentleman knows full well I think you have
wasted a lot of time on this House floor, wasted a lot of effort on
this House floor knowing full well that that had no chance of passage
and that you were simply appealing to the base that you were just
appealing to. In fact, this gentleman believes that what you would do
if your bill is passed, you would take away benefits from millions and
millions and millions of people. I think that's incontestable. It's
incontestable that seniors, who are now getting more help with the
doughnut hole for their prescription drugs which enhance their quality
and length of life, would lose it if we repealed the Affordable Care
Act.
It is incontrovertible, I will tell my friend, that millions of young
people who can't find a job unfortunately in this economy--and we
haven't gotten any immediate jobs legislation that was offered by the
President on this floor to even consider, pass or fail--millions of
young people would lose their insurance.
Millions of children who have a preexisting condition, who now, under
the Affordable Care Act, cannot be precluded by the insurance
companies--which is really who you want to put in--not you personally,
but who the defeat of the Affordable Care Act would put insurance
companies back in charge, not government bureaucrats, but insurance
companies.
So many of your Republican Governors don't want to set up the
exchanges. All the exchanges are is setting up a free market of private
sector insurers where people can make a judgment: Do they like policy
A, B or C? It's very tough for consumers to determine right now whether
they're getting a good bargain for the price they're paying for their
health insurance, which is very expensive. And I will tell the
gentleman that the Affordable Care Act will also create--CBO says,
economists say--millions of jobs in the health care area. So, contrary
to the gentleman's assertion that we are taking away care, in fact we
are adding 30 million people access to affordable quality health care.
As Mr. Romney said, we are requiring responsibility. So everybody
takes personal responsibility to make sure that, if they can, they will
insure themselves. So, what? So that the rest of us won't have to pay
when they go to the hospital or get sick. They will be responsible for
themselves. And if they need help, as Mr. Romney said in Massachusetts
when RomneyCare was adopted--a model just like we've adopted for the
Nation--it's important to make sure that they get some help. That's
what that bill does.
In addition to that, we've made sure that people didn't have a
serious illness and have the insurance companies--not government
bureaucrats, not the government, but insurance companies--say you're
too sick, we're not going to cover you anymore.
So I will tell my friend, he and I have a radically different view on
what the consequences are of the 31 votes that we've had, that the
gentleman knew were not going to pass the Senate, knew the President
wasn't going to sign, and knew you didn't have the votes to override.
You're making a political point, I understand that. There are people
who disagree with the Affordable Care Act; I understand that as well.
But I frankly think that, had we dealt with jobs legislation during
that period of 80 hours and considered the President's jobs bill, we
would have millions of more people employed today in America right now.
Now, let me just, so that there's no misunderstanding, so I don't
neglect to respond to the gentleman's assertion, he's right. He and I
agree: we need to cut government red tape; we need to speed approvals;
we need to make sure that we do not impede, by regulation, the growth
of our economy and the growth of jobs. I couldn't agree with him more.
I think we ought to deal with that on a bipartisan basis, and hopefully
we will continue--or perhaps start to do that, I might say, or continue
to do that in some instances. But the gentleman is correct.
Now, let me ask you something, however, about the tax vote, because
you also mentioned bringing taxes down. Let me ask you something: Do
you expect that vote to come the last week that we are in session
before the August break? I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I'd say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman, can you repeat
the question?
Mr. HOYER. Yes. Do you expect the vote on taxes, which you have
referred to, to occur the last week--which I believe is the 29th of
July, the week of 29 July--to be on that week?
Mr. CANTOR. I would respond to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that,
yes, we have scheduled for that week a vote on the bill to extend
existing rates. That extension will be for a year.
We will also be bringing up a bill that will outline the principles
for tax reform that I know the gentleman also
[[Page H4857]]
has said we need to reform our Tax Code so that we can help make it
fairer, more simple, and so that we can see the economy grow again.
Those vehicles will be brought up that week, yes, Madam Speaker.
Mr. HOYER. I'll look forward to seeing the latter bill because the
gentleman is correct, I think we do need to reform our tax system. We
need to make it simpler. I would like to see us reduce preference items
and bring rates down, as the Bowles-Simpson/ Domenici-Rivlin--Gang of
Six, whoever you want to refer to--has suggested. I think that's moving
in the proper direction.
{time} 1310
I also think we have to, however, frankly, make sure that we bring
down the deficit and debt confronting this Nation. And I think, as
Bowles-Simpson pointed out, you've got to do that in a balanced way.
Let me ask you something on these packages that you said are coming
that last week. There have not yet been hearings on the ramifications
of either of those bills, as I understand it, in the Ways and Means
Committee.
Does the gentleman expect there to be hearings on those? And does the
gentleman expect there to be a markup of either one of those bills in
the Ways and Means Committee?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, I think I
disagree with the gentleman, there haven't been hearings.
I think, for the last year and a half, Chairman Camp and his
committee have been fast about looking at the Tax Code, talking about
tax reform, divulging what it would mean for us to have an increased
tax environment for this economy. We've been all about the economy and
growth.
I'd say to the gentleman, he likes to say, why can't we do jobs
bills? We have been doing jobs bills. He complains about the 30-some
bills we've been doing relating to ObamaCare. I would say we've done
even more than that relating to jobs.
I would ask the gentleman to just remember where those bills sit
right now. They're on the doorstep of the Senate, and the leader over
there refuses to bring them up.
And so, again, I'd say to the gentleman, we stand ready to work
together so that we can produce results for the people that sent us
here, and that is the purpose of bringing forward the bills that have
been talked about, have been dissected, in terms of existing tax rates,
where they may or may not go, how they affect growth in this economy.
That's what we're doing.
We've had multiple votes, multiple hearings on tax reform, on what
the tax rates mean, and this vote will be very clear. If you want to
stop the tax hike for all Americans, at all income levels, you'll vote
for the bill. If you want to engage in tax reform, if you feel the Tax
Code is too complicated, it needs to be simplified, rates brought down,
loopholes closed, you'll vote for the bill. It's that simple.
Mr. HOYER. When you say, I presume, as the gentleman said, we're
talking about two different bills, are we not?
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, that is correct.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
Let me say to the gentleman that when the gentleman says there have
been hearings on tax reform, I think that's probably accurate. What
there has not been, in my view and in Mr. Levin's, who's the ranking
member of the committee, there's been no hearing on the ramifications
of the bill, which, apparently, is going to be brought to the floor,
which simply extends all the Bush-era tax cuts, ramifications to the
deficit, ramifications to the debt and, indeed, ramifications to the
economy.
I would say, with all due respect to my friend, the majority leader,
I don't believe there have been hearings on that issue. There have been
hearings on, should we reform the Tax Code. The gentleman and I agree.
We should simplify it. We should reform the Tax Code. We should make it
more compatible with economic growth, and very frankly, for average
individual Americans who want to pay their taxes, would like to pay as
little as possible, all of us would like to do that, but want to
support their country as well.
So I don't really share the gentleman's view that there have been
hearings on the ramifications of the bill that the gentleman says he's
going to bring to the floor, and that's what I asked.
Now, let me ask you the other question, which was the second part of
it. Is there going to be a markup of the bill which you're going to
bring to the floor in terms of taxes? To clarify, so that Members on
both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to offer amendments in
committee, make observations in committee as to the ramifications of
that action, and that Members will have an opportunity to reflect on
that bill.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, this is a
very simple and clear choice here. Given this economy, if one wants to
raise taxes on all Americans, you vote against the bill. If you want to
go and help folks through a more simple Tax Code, and you want to look
towards tax reform, you vote for the next bill. Straight up or down.
There has been enough discussion, enough hearings, in the Ways and
Means Committee, as well as the Budget Committee. These issues were
central to our budgets. Your Members on the Budget Committee, as well
as ours, I had a full open hearing on that budget document and a
markup.
We believe now's not the time to raise taxes on working people, small
businesses and large. The economy is anemic. We don't have enough job
growth. Why do we want to take more of people's hard-earned money?
That's why we're bringing this bill forward.
This bill is straight up or down. Stop the tax hike or not.
Mr. HOYER. I take it the answer is no, there will not be a markup on
a bill that will have extraordinary consequences to all Americans, and
possibly extraordinary consequences to the deficit and debt and to our
economy. Am I correct in interpreting your answer as no, there will not
be a markup of this very important bill? You will bring it straight to
the floor without committee consideration? Is that an accurate
interpretation of what you said?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman has heard my
response.
Mr. HOYER. Well, I did hear the response, and apparently I accurately
characterized it. I think that's a shame, Mr. Majority Leader.
Mr. Boehner said that we were going to be an open House, that we were
going to consider matters, and that everybody would have their
opportunity to have their input.
Usually, tax bills are brought to the floor, not subject to
amendment. You have just said, as I understand what you said, this
bill, our way or the highway. If you don't like the bill the way we
brought it to the floor, you're out of luck. You don't have an option.
You can't put any of your ideas into this bill.
If that's the way you intend to consider this bill, Mr. Leader, I
think that's unfortunate.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, the gentleman knows that his side of the
aisle will have an opportunity to posit their position on taxes through
the regular process of a motion to recommit. And as I had said publicly
yesterday, when asked, are the Democrats in the House going to be able
to offer the President's tax proposal, I said, absolutely they will.
So we'll see. We'll see, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman decides to
put forward the President's tax proposal calling for a tax hike on
American small businesses. We'll see if that happens, Madam Speaker.
But we will see, and that will be the week it will happen.
You're either for stopping tax hikes or you're not.
Mr. HOYER. My way or the highway. That's what you just said, Mr.
Leader. I understand that concept.
Very frankly, in my view, we have agreement. We have agreement on
something that you won't bring to the floor, and it is that all middle
class, working Americans will not get a tax hike, all of them. And
everybody, up to $250,000 of income, will have no tax increase.
But we have a big deficit and a big debt, and we need to pay our
bills. We have a debt limit vote coming up at the
[[Page H4858]]
end of this year. Very frankly, we took the country to the brink of
default and very adversely affected our economy by undermining
confidence.
You talked a lot about confidence in the last campaign, Mr. Leader. I
agreed with you. I think we need to instill confidence, not undermine
confidence.
But I will tell my friend that if you wanted to work together, as
you've said on a number of occasions now, as for instance we did with
the Export/Import bank, the bills that you sent over there, we didn't
work together on. They were passed on a partisan vote, for the most
part. Not all of them. And some votes were overwhelmingly bipartisan.
And guess what happened? They became law. The President signed them.
Export/Import bank, the jobs bill that you promoted and which I voted
for.
You said you want to work together. Now, it's interesting when you
say ``work together,'' because what you say you're going to give us is
a motion to recommit. And what you will instruct, and what your whip
will instruct, is for all of your Members, vote ``no,'' and your side
will inaccurately say it is a purely procedural vote. And as you have
for the last 18 months, your Members will vote ``no'' on motions to
recommit, notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the
substance.
And the fact of the matter is, Mr. Leader, we can have a vote that
ought to pass with 435 votes, 435 votes. Everybody in this Congress
says that we ought to not have a tax increase on working Americans, on
working Americans making less than $250,000 in taxable income. As you
know, that's more income.
{time} 1320
But we won't get that vote except on an MTR, on which you have
instructed your Members to vote ``no,'' incorrectly arguing that it's a
procedural vote only and not a substantive vote. I would say to my
friend, not only will you not allow us an amendment on the floor, it
appears, but you won't allow an amendment to be offered in committee so
that we can vote on that.
Yes, we have disagreement; but you're prepared to hold hostage
working Americans by saying, if the richest people in America might
have a little bit of a tax increase, then everybody else is going to
get a tax increase. You said it a different way, I understand; but the
reality and the ramifications of the actions that you are proposing to
follow will mean that we will not get a vote, which I think there is
overwhelming support of, in making sure that working Americans and,
yes, 97 percent of small businesses don't get any tax increase at all.
We have agreement on that, Mr. Leader.
Why don't we bring that to the floor and show the American public
that, yes, we can come together, as you have suggested; that yes, we
can agree; and that yes, we can make sure that they don't get a tax
increase? Then, yes, we can have a debate on the balance. You will take
one position, and I may take another position, and the American public
will see that, and then they can make a judgment as to with whom they
agree.
Now, my view is an overwhelming majority of the public will agree
with me, and you will think the overwhelming majority of the American
public will agree with you. That's what democracy is about. Let us have
this debate. Let us have this vote. Let us make sure that working
Americans aren't held hostage to the wealthiest in our country.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, what I would say to the gentleman is
holding hostage working families is denying them a job. It's about
jobs. The gentleman can play with the statistics all he wants and claim
that 97 percent of the small businesses will get a tax break this way
and that let's leave the other for later; but the significant fact is,
it's with the others where the significant job growth can be.
Why would we want to go and tax job creators? We know that 50 percent
of the people who will get a tax hike under the President's proposal
get at least a quarter of their incomes from small business, and the
more their incomes the more the percentage. That means the jobs
So why would we want to stop job creators from hiring people? Because
Washington takes more of their money. Why would we want tax rates to go
up on anybody in this anemic economy? And why would we want to go and
raise taxes when we haven't put an end to the out-of-control spending
in Washington? Because what you're doing is digging the hole deeper.
That's our position, Madam Speaker.
So I would ask the gentleman straight up: Is the gentleman going to
bring to the floor a motion to recommit for his proposal, the
President's proposal? Is that going to be the motion to recommit? Will
the gentleman actually put his words to work and have that be their
motion to recommit?
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman is asking me am I for the President's
proposal, the answer is absolutely yes. I don't want the gentleman
confused in any way. If the motion to recommit is the only option we
have available, we are certainly going to discuss that option, but
we're not going to pretend, either to ourselves or to the American
people, that your side will treat it as a real vote.
Do you want to put it on the floor as an amendment? Do you want to
have a real debate on it, not 5 minutes on one side and 5 minutes on
the other side, which the motion to recommit is limited to?
You're shutting us down--you're gagging us--and, yes, you're putting
middle class taxpayers at risk because you know, I know, and the
American people know the President of the United States has said he
would veto your bill. He has said he will sign a bill that together we
could pass making sure that 98 percent of Americans do not get a tax
increase. What you are proposing to do, Mr. Leader, is to bring to the
floor a bill which simply protects the 2 percent, that says that the 2
percent should not pay more. The gentleman says, oh, they're great job
creators. I understand what the gentleman is saying.
By the way, the program you're going to offer, it was in place. It
was in place from 2001, 2003 to 2009. You and I both know what
happened, not solely because it was in place, of course--let us
stipulate to that. The fact is we had the deepest recession in your
lifetime and my lifetime and the lifetimes of anybody who is younger
than 90 years of age under the program that you're proposing we
continue with. I will tell you, Mr. Leader, I don't think that's a
great way to proceed. At least we ought to have the opportunity to
debate it. At least we ought to have more than 5 minutes on our side to
tell the American people where we're coming from. At least we ought to
have a vote where you don't instruct your Members it's a procedural
vote and don't vote for it.
I will tell the gentleman with all clarity that the consequences of
your act--and you do it knowledgeably--will be that middle class
taxpayers will be put at risk. Why? Whether you agree with it or not,
the President will veto it. The Senate, I don't think will pass it. The
fact of the matter is we can do for 98 percent of Americans that which
we agree on. You don't want them to have a tax increase. I don't want
them to have a tax increase. We agree on that. Americans can not
understand, when we agree on that, why we can't at least pass something
on which we agree which will help 98 percent of Americans in this
struggling economy, which is as you clearly point out.
Now, you point out--you didn't use the term--that we only added
80,000 jobs last month. I was disappointed by that; that was
unfortunate. But in the last month of the previous administration, we
lost 818,000 jobs in 1 month with your program in place. That's an
890,000, almost 900,000, turnaround. From 818,000 minus to 80,000 plus,
we created 4.4 million jobs in the last 28 months. Not enough. Not
enough by far.
I want to work with the gentleman to create many more--work with him
on jobs legislation, economic growth legislation, Make It in America
legislation. If we could get some of that legislation to the floor, we
think it would be helpful.
So I say to my friend that I feel very strongly, as you can tell,
that if we are going to have this vote, which is an extraordinarily
consequential vote, at least we ought to have a substitute--at least--
not just an MTR, which your side incorrectly argues is just a
procedural vote, not just a 5-minute debate on our side and a 5-minute
debate on
[[Page H4859]]
your side. Don't you think Americans expect more of us in terms of a
very substantive debate on the floor of this House, not in a political
forum but in a legislative policy forum? I would urge the gentleman to
consider that objective.
If the gentleman has nothing further, I yield back the balance of my
time.
____________________