[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 109 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5073-H5075]
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, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule 
for the coming week, I yield to the chief deputy whip.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday 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 Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, 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 on Monday and Tuesday, and of particular note will be H.R. 
459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored 
by Congressman Ron Paul. A complete list of the suspensions will be 
announced by the close of business tomorrow.
  Beginning on Tuesday, the House will consider H.R. 6082, the 
Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and 
Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan. And finally, the balance of the 
week will be spent on H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small 
Business Job Creation Act. This is a compilation of bills that are 
sponsored by Representatives Tim Griffin, Reid Ribble, Ben Quayle, 
Dennis Ross, Virginia Foxx, Scott Garrett, and Mike Conaway.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I appreciate 
it. I know the majority leader could not be here this afternoon, but he 
said last week that we should expect legislation on the floor the week 
of July 30 dealing with the tax questions; in particular, the tax cuts 
of 2001 and 2003. The gentleman may remember my discussions at that 
point in time. I don't think decisions had been made.
  We are hopeful on this side of the aisle that there will be hearings 
next week, obviously, because it's going to be the week of the 30th 
it'll be on the floor, and also there will be a markup of that bill 
before it comes to the floor. Can you tell us whether or not in fact 
there will be a hearing on that legislation and also whether, pursuant 
to those hearings, there will be a markup on that bill?
  Mr. ROSKAM. As the gentleman knows, the 2001 and the 2003 tax rates 
have been well vetted and well discussed. They're not news or breaking 
ground in any way, shape, or form. So my understanding is that the 
current thinking is to bring those directly to the floor and that 
there's not a plan for a markup.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. As the 
gentleman understands, although they may be well known, the situation 
that exists today is radically different than existed in 2001 and 2003 
when President Bush, who recommended both of those tax cuts, projected 
a $5.6 trillion surplus, as the gentleman may recall. Unfortunately, 
that prediction was radically wrong. And when I say radically wrong, in 
fact, we increased the debt by over $4 trillion rather than have a 
surplus--a $10 trillion turnaround in the projections.
  As a result, I would suggest to the gentleman and his party that the 
situation confronting us, as I said, is very, very different than it 
was in 2001 and 2003 when the Bush administration projected those 
surpluses, which it inherited, of course, from the Clinton 
administration.
  In addition to that, the Republican majority has said that we'll 
govern based on their pledge to America. Openness in the House is a key 
part of that pledge that you made.
  I want to read you a quote:
  ``We have nothing to fear from letting the House work its will, 
nothing to fear from the battle of ideas.''
  The Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, went on to say:
  ``That starts with the committees. The result will be more scrutiny 
and better legislation.''
  He said that in October 2010. Of course, it was in the throes of a 
campaign. But I would hope and I tell my friend very sincerely that 
that premise prevails today. In light of the change of circumstances, 
but much more than that, in light of the significant differences 
between the two parties in the Ways and Means Committee, the 
transparency and openness to which Speaker Boehner referred, 
referencing that that would apply in committees as well, would almost 
dictate that you would have a markup in the committee and give members 
of the committee the opportunity to vote on that legislation, offer 
amendments, offer alternatives, and offer their opinions for the 
consideration of other members on the committee as to the ramifications 
of the actions proposed in the committee by the majority party.

                              {time}  1920

  I would ask my friend if he has a view on whether or not, 
notwithstanding the fact that the position of the majority is that the 
subject matter is well known--it is also well known there are 
differences of opinion on this. And what the Speaker said in his quote 
was, let that difference be spread across the Record, let Members have 
the opportunity to express their differences through their vote; and 
that premise applied to the committees. I would hope that the gentleman 
could assure us that, in fact, there would be a markup in the 
committee.
  I have talked to Mr. Camp, who is a good friend of mine and for whom 
I

[[Page H5074]]

have a great deal of respect, and asked him to have a markup. I would 
hope the leadership would support that effort and urge that markup to 
occur consistent with what Speaker Boehner said in October of 2010.
  And I yield to my friend.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  One of the points I think that's important to focus in on is the last 
time this Congress dealt with the '01 and the '03 tax rates was not in 
'01, not in '03, but in December of 2010 when President Obama signed 
these into law. So this is an arena where we do reflect back, but 
ultimately we need to look forward. So the question is how do you 
create a sense of predictability by which businesses can deal with 
these situations?
  So the gentleman is right to point out past forecasts that were 
incorrect. But it's also correct to point out that the White House made 
one error after another--this White House--one error after another as 
it relates to the predictions of the stimulus, for example, where 
unemployment was promised to peak at 8 percent, and it didn't turn out 
to be so.
  So as we move forward, this is not new ground, these are not new 
concepts, and it's consistent with what then-Minority Leader Boehner 
said in the Pledge to America. This process has been open, this process 
has been dynamic, this process has been participatory, and this bill 
will be considered under the same rules and the same commitments that 
were made in the Pledge to America.
  Moving forward, what I would like to announce to the gentleman and to 
the membership is that there will be an opportunity, I'm told, for the 
minority party to offer the President's alternative as an amendment on 
the floor, to have the debate. Because as the gentleman and I both 
know, that's really the crux of the matter. So to have an up-or-down 
vote, as I would characterize it, is a bad idea. I know the gentleman 
has a different view of that, but I think, particularly in light of 
this week's study from Ernst & Young, I think we should be chastened, 
actually, with the notion of moving forward and raising taxes on 
anybody.
  I accept the world view of the gentleman who has been articulate in 
the past in communicating that. But I think that really is the 
crystallization of these two competing views of how to create economic 
growth, and I think the gentleman will be fully satisfied.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those comments. That is new 
information for us. I will tell you, please, I would still like to have 
a markup in the committee, which I think is consistent. No matter how 
much this has been discussed, there has been no markup of this bill. So 
while it may have been discussed for a long period of time and while 
there have been hearings on tax reform, there has been no markup of 
this bill in the committee, as the gentleman well knows.
  But I'm pleased to hear that the minority will be allowed an 
amendment to be made in order of our choosing to offer on this floor. I 
think that's a positive sign. I appreciate the gentleman's notice of 
that, and I will certainly notice our Members of that ability. We're 
pleased at that.
  I will say, however, to the gentleman that I did note the Ernst & 
Young story. I noticed it was paid for by people who may, absent its 
conclusions, receive a tax increase to help us bring down the deficit. 
But notwithstanding that, I was sure we were going to hear about that 
on the floor. I'm not surprised, and you're not going to be surprised 
that there will be other studies referenced on the floor as well. So I 
thank the gentleman for his information, and I'm pleased with that.
  As I said, I will note that, in fact, there will be an amendment, and 
hopefully that amendment will be allowed some significant period of 
time for debate. That is much superior to the only other alternative 
that we would have had, which was an MTR 5 minutes on each side. So I 
thank the gentleman, and I thank the leadership for that information.
  Let me ask the gentleman, does the gentleman expect the farm bill to 
come to the floor before the August break?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank my friend for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, the farm bill has created a lot of concern on 
our side of the aisle. It's my understanding that there is concern on 
the gentleman's side of the aisle. Your ranking member supports the 
bill. It's my understanding that Leader Pelosi does not support the 
bill. So we're in conversation with our Members, as I'm sure you are 
with yours; and we're not prepared to make an announcement today in 
light of continuing to get Member feedback.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  For the gentleman's information, which may help you in determining 
whether or not you have the votes for the farm bill, I think it fair to 
say that we would have a majority of our party for the Senate-passed 
bill which passed, as the gentleman knows, with 62 votes, 12 Members of 
the Republican Party voting for that bill, 50 members of the Democratic 
Party. Obviously, it is a significant bipartisan bill. If the gentleman 
perhaps is talking to Mr. McCarthy, you can convey to him information 
that if that bill were to come to the floor, we would try to work with 
you to pass that piece of legislation.
  Obviously, there are a lot of farmers in our country who are 
struggling right now. We have an extraordinary drought in America. They 
are suffering, they're at risk, and the gentleman talked about 
certainty. I agree with him on certainty. By the way, because I didn't 
ask him when he brought it up, does that certainty mean that you would 
be suggesting that the tax cuts that were in effect in '01, '03 be made 
permanent?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Well, as the gentleman knows, making things permanent in 
this arena with this conundrum of rules and limitations--and 
limitations particularly in the other body--make that difficult. I, 
speaking on behalf of myself, think that that rate at that level 
permanent is a wise course. But as the gentleman knows, based on the 
difficulty of the rules, what I have to say on that is fairly limited 
based on the reality of the rules.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer.
  Going back to the crisis that the agriculture community is confronted 
with by the drought, if the farm bill--and we would urge that the 
bipartisan farm bill be brought to the floor for consideration to give 
certainty to farmers, to give some sense to farmers as to what they 
might rely on in the coming year or coming years; but absent that, the 
gentleman did not mention, do we have any expectation that we will deal 
with drought emergency legislation vis-a-vis the farm community prior 
to our August break?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I don't have information to announce at this point in 
terms of the timing. I have a high level of confidence that no one is 
going to be going home for very long absent a remedy and a joint 
response on all of our parts.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer.
  Lastly, Mr. Cantor is not on the floor, but both Mr. Cantor and I 
have made representations that we are going to work together, as we do 
from time to time, cooperatively and effectively, I might say. We are 
very concerned that the Iran sanctions legislation, which is in 
conference, be passed by this Congress prior to our leaving on August 2 
or 3--I'm not sure which days we are going to be leaving, but one of 
those days.
  Does the gentleman have any information on the status of the Iran 
sanctions legislation which we passed overwhelmingly in this House and 
the Senate has passed? It's in conference, and I know Mr. Cantor and I 
both support getting this done before we leave.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yes, there is every intention to move forward on that which the 
gentleman and the majority leader have been working so cooperatively 
on, and there is an expectation that that will be done before the 
August recess.
  Mr. HOYER. I'm very pleased to hear that. I thank the gentleman for 
that information, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5075]]



                          ____________________