[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6042-H6047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
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 from Virginia, the
majority leader, 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 and Tuesday, no votes are expected in the
House. On Wednesday, 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 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 next week, including a prioritization of visas
for foreign graduates of American universities in the STEM fields, an
issue being championed by Chairman Lamar Smith, the gentleman from
Texas, as well as Bob Goodlatte from Virginia and Raul Labrador from
Idaho. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of
business today.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.J. Res. 118,
sponsored by Chairman Dave Camp, which provides for congressional
disapproval of the rules submitted by the Department of Health and
Human Services relating to waivers of work requirements with respect to
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
The House will also consider H.R. 3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act,
sponsored by Bill Johnson of Ohio, which is a package of bills to
expand domestic energy production and help create American jobs.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that with the Senate's
expected passage of the continuing resolution, we no longer anticipate
votes in the House during the week of October 1. This is a change from
the original House calendar.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to
what we're going to consider next week, and also I was going to ask
him, but he has already indicated, that he does not expect the
scheduled week of meeting in October to occur. I thank him for that
information. That would indicate essentially then, therefore, that we
have approximately a little over a day and a half or a day and three-
quarters remaining before the election.
I want to ask the gentleman, first of all, there's been a lot of talk
about the work that has not been done:
We have not done the jobs bill that I've been urging us to consider.
We have not addressed the middle class tax cut in a way that we'll
deal with that and on which I think both sides agree. We have
disagreement on tax cuts for those who are not in the middle class.
The farm bill, I want to discuss that in a second. The farm bill.
The Violence Against Women Act and the middle class tax cut have both
passed the United States Senate.
Postal reform, there is also an agreement on that in the United
States Senate.
Obviously sequestration.
And I want to talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff, Mr. Leader.
But in the farm bill, as you know we have a discharge petition that
is pending, which is somewhat unusual in that our party has initiated a
discharge petition to ask you to bring to the floor a bill that your
committee reported out of committee. That's somewhat unusual in these
discharge petitions. A number of Republicans have signed on to that as
you know.
As a matter of fact, we understand your suggestion to some that they
do sign--not you, personally, excuse me. But that there's been some
suggestion they sign on to that as an indication of their support for
the farm bill.
The Senate passed a farm bill, 64-35, Mr. Leader. We are hoping that
that bill can be brought to the floor next week. It's not on the
calendar. But in light of the fact that 16 Republicans voted in favor
of it in the Senate, it's clear that it does have broad bipartisan
support.
The Ag Committee here in this House reported out a bill 35-11. That
bill has, of course, not been brought to the floor.
We don't have much time left, as you've just announced. Even if we
count Thursday as a full day and even if we count Friday as a full day
of next week, we have essentially 2 days and then suspension votes on
Wednesday night.
Many farmers are facing the worst droughts they've seen in many
years. We passed a drought bill here that is not agreed to by the
Senate. In fact, the farm community, as I think the gentleman probably
knows, perhaps not unanimously, but in large number, opposes the
drought bill that we passed, and the reason they oppose it is because--
and I think you were absolutely right, Mr. Majority Leader, when you
talked over the past years about certainty. The farmers are opposed to
the drought bill that we passed in the House because it doesn't give
them any certainty. They think a 5-year bill is preferable. They've
seen two-thirds of the Senate, almost, pass a bill, and they hope we
would pass that.
I would ask the gentleman, therefore, if there is any, I was going to
ask for assurance, but if there is any possibility that we're going to
consider a farm bill, either the House bill as reported out
overwhelmingly from the Republican-chaired committee or the Senate bill
that was passed in a bipartisan fashion, is there any possibility that
before we leave here, in consideration of the crisis that confronts
many in the farm community, that we will consider that bill?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Before I get to the farm bill, I would just like to respond to the
initial statements about the House's work in terms of jobs and taxes.
[[Page H6043]]
The gentleman well knows that we have sent to the Senate well over 30
measures that are job-creating bills that will help improve the
environment for small business men and women to actually begin to
invest and create jobs again.
We've also, as the gentleman knows, passed H.R. 8, the Job Protection
and Recession Prevention Act. We did that on August 1. It was a
bipartisan vote, including 19 House Democrats. This followed up on over
20 hearings on tax reform in this Congress. What we did in that bill,
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman recalls, is we made sure that taxes are
not going to go up on anybody right now because of the economic
situation that exists throughout this country. We don't believe that it
is a desirable outcome to see taxes go up on anyone and to take more of
their money right now while they're having a difficult time getting
through the month.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we continue to stand on the side of the
hardworking taxpayers, and we ask the gentleman to please, when he
cites the fact that we didn't pass his job bill, we passed a jobs bill.
We passed numerous jobs bills--in fact, over 30 jobs bills--sitting in
the Senate. The inaction has been on the Senate.
So, Mr. Speaker, with the gentleman's question about the farm bill,
I, in fact, just came out of a meeting with one of his members to talk
about the farm bill. We're trying to look for ways forward. Yes, there
can be a possibility that we act again on the issue of the disaster of
the drought. As the gentleman rightly said, we passed a drought relief
bill on the livestock issue. It's sitting over in the Senate. Again,
inaction.
The gentleman indicates the reason for opposition to that bill. There
is nothing in the bill that is controversial. It's a fact that some who
insist on having something else in the bill didn't have it. Well, one
thing we know in common is we're all for allowing the relief on the
livestock issue for the farmers.
Why can't we get that done? Why can't we just finally decide to say,
You know what? There are some areas of disagreement, and we realize
that, reasonable people do, and certainly in election season it sort of
emphasizes that, unfortunately. But we also know there are things in
common. Addressing the livestock drought issue is something we do have
in common. We passed that out of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman any indication that he
could give that perhaps there would be some movement on that would be,
I think, a positive thing for the farmers. We continue to work on how
to go forward, and, yes, there could be a possibility there is some
action next week on the issue of the farm bill, looking to find ways
that we can work together on issues that we all support, not issues
that divide us.
{time} 1240
Mr. HOYER. I think the comments of the gentleman are interesting and
I appreciate his comments.
We do have agreement in the Senate on a farm bill; they voted for it
with 64 votes--almost two-thirds of the Senate. We may not have
agreement, but we had a bill that came out of the Republican-led
committee, your committee, with over a two-thirds vote, and neither one
of those have been brought to the floor? So we're arguing on something
that we had pretty significant disagreement on--yes, there were some
Democrats that voted for the drought relief, particularly from farm
country. I can understand their view. But the farm community is opposed
to the drought relief bill--not unanimously, but in significant part.
So the gentleman points out that we ought to pass that on which we
have agreement. Let me suggest to him that 98 percent of Americans and
97 percent of small business people agree on not having a tax increase.
The gentleman is worried about those people who are making about
$20,000 a month. Some of them don't feel well off, I understand that;
but I'm worried about the people who are making $2,000 a month, very
frankly. I'm worried about the people who are getting by and who are
having trouble. We need to give them assurance.
The gentleman just said that we ought to be able to act on that on
which we agree. Maybe I'm incorrect, but I would tell the gentleman on
this side of the aisle, we will produce the overwhelming majority of
votes on our side of the aisle for a bill that ensures that there will
be no tax increase on those who are making, either individually under
$200,000 a year, or as a husband and wife $250,000 a year. I assure the
gentleman that I will produce and we will produce on this side well
over 180 votes for that proposition. So I tell my friend all he has to
do is produce 40 votes, but I think he will produce many more than
that. Because unless he says I'm wrong, I think when you say nobody
ought to get a tax increase, we have agreement--and that's just what
the gentleman is talking about, where we have an agreement--we have an
agreement that nobody under $250,000, couple, $200,000, individual,
should get a tax increase on January 1 of this year.
We could pass that bill, in my opinion, next week. We could pass it
under the suspension calendar, in my opinion. We could send it to the
Senate. They've already passed a bill. They've already passed a bill
through the Senate which adopted that proposition. So we have the
majority votes in the Senate, and I would hope we would have almost
unanimity in the Senate on that proposition. But I think what I hear
the gentleman saying is, unless we have agreement on 100 percent, the
fact that we agree on 98 percent and 97 percent, we're not going to
move the bill.
Now, I agree with the gentleman, if we have agreement, that's
something central that we have agreement on, I would hope we could move
it.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would say that there is not agreement right now that we ought to
raise taxes in this economy. The reason is, Mr. Speaker, that we are
concerned about those individuals that the gentleman speaks about that
perhaps may be out of work, or underemployed, or trying to make it and
having a real difficult time. We're concerned about those people, and
the best thing we can do is create a job and see them go back to work.
We saw that this summer Ernst & Young put out a study demonstrating
that his tax policy--the gentleman's tax policy, the President's plan
to raise taxes--is going to destroy 710,000 jobs, slash $200 billion
from the economy, and lower wages for all working Americans by 1.8
percent. That's what that study said.
So, no, there's not agreement that we should raise taxes like that
because if you raise taxes, there are going to be less jobs, there is
going to be less growth. We're trying to focus on those people who need
to get back to work, who want to get back to work. That's where the
agreement is--that we all want to help people. We just don't believe
that you help people right now by laying down a tax increase, putting
more money into the government that can't seem to figure out a way to
fix the problem once and for all. That's what we want to do, fix that
problem, help those people.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response--I don't think it
answered my question.
We understand that you want to see no tax increases, no additional
contributions from people making $1 million net taxable income or more,
or $10 million taxable income. We understand you don't want to do it.
We don't agree on that. You're correct. But we do agree on the fact
that 98 percent of Americans who make less than $200,000 individually,
less than $250,000 as a couple, those 98 percent of Americans and 97
percent of small businesses ought not to get a tax increase on January
1. Very frankly, you didn't respond to me; I presume you agree with
that.
What you don't agree with is that, if we don't do it all on something
we disagree with--that's what's causing gridlock in Congress. That's
what's causing this Congress to be the least productive Congress in
which I have served in 32 years. That's what's causing us to not listen
to one another, talk by one another, and not agree. That's why the farm
bill hasn't been passed; that's why the Violence Against Women bill has
not been passed; that's why the postal reform has not been passed;
that's why middle class tax cuts have not been passed; because if you
don't get it all, you don't want to do any of it.
I say respectfully to the majority leader, we agree that 98 percent
of
[[Page H6044]]
Americans ought not to get a tax increase. We do disagree on whether or
not those who are better off can make a contribution to bringing this
deficit down and dealing with our debt. What the gentleman responded
was, unless we're for 100 percent, we're not going to be for any.
That's what I hear you saying.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Again, no, that's not why these bills haven't passed. First of all,
the Violence Against Women Act passed out of this House. It's sitting
over in the Senate because the Senate's got its own bill that has a
blue slip problem. Let the legislative process work over there, send us
a bill, and we'll get something done. The gentleman did not, on his
side, overwhelmingly join us in the VAWA bill. Okay. So the fact that
the minority didn't get their way, they wouldn't join us on the bill.
We went and did our work.
And I'll say more to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. The postal reform
bill, the fact of the matter is his side, Mr. Speaker, the minority
will not agree to reforms. Everyone knows the post office needs
reforms. Everyone knows the debt that that organization continues to
incur and lays on the U.S. taxpayers. We're trying to fix that problem.
But because the gentleman and his colleagues refuse to go along with
reforms like a 5-day delivery--this is something that the President
supports. But because his side refuses to go along with trying to
reform that organization, we can't move. Again, it's this insistence:
We can't do that. We all know that's common sense. Common sense is
reforming the postal service--something everyone knows needs reform.
That's why that bill didn't pass, Mr. Speaker.
We've got another issue on the farm bill. There are issues of policy
differences. And the gentleman knows throughout last year we went
through a lot of these policy differences in the SNAP program and the
rest. We have GAO recommendations year in and year out about that
program, but unwillingness on the part of the minority to ever engage
in a discussion of real reform in those programs.
Again, let's remember what we're talking about in a farm bill. Most
of it by far are not farm programs, they're food programs. Again,
raising the question of how it is we're going to go forward, we need to
understand the specifics and know there are real policy differences.
Yes, we're all willing to work together--or at least we are on this
side. So I really take exception with the gentleman's assertions that
somehow we're sitting here demanding everything. No. We want to work
together and set aside differences and agree on things we can find in
common. That's how anybody in everyday life tries to run their business
or run their family. It's not all or nothing. It's not black or white.
Mr. HOYER. I said we agreed on 98 percent. The gentleman has not said
we don't agree on 98 percent.
He brought up a lot of stuff on the farm bill and other pieces of
legislation. The farm bill, you're not bringing your own bill to the
floor. Forget about what we think on this side. You reported out a farm
bill. You reported out a farm bill some 4 or 5 months ago--I'm not sure
exactly when, but it's been months ago--and you haven't brought it to
the floor. It's not a question of whether we agree or not; your own
bill you haven't brought to the floor.
Now, in terms of the Violence Against Women Act, you knew that the
Senate wouldn't do that and the President said he was going to veto it.
You didn't sit down with the President to do it because you wanted to
exclude some people. You wanted to exclude some people who were subject
to domestic violence in this country when all the experts say if you
exclude people, we don't get reports, we can't get domestic abusers out
of circulation, if you will. So I think the gentleman's
characterization is not accurate, I would say with all due respect.
Mr. CANTOR. Would the gentleman yield for that fact? Because that's
not true, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HOYER. Which is not true? I said a number of things.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will please address their remarks to
the Chair.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, it's not true.
We don't want to exclude anybody from the benefits under VAWA, and he
knows that. It was simply a matter of new language inserted by the
Senate that, really, we don't want to deny those benefits to anyone. We
want everyone to have the benefits and not exclude some by specifically
identifying others, and the gentleman knows that. It's unfair to
characterize anything we're trying to do to exclude people from
benefits when they are subject to domestic abuse. All of us care about
those victims.
{time} 1250
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations.
We have a difference of opinion on whether or not they want to exclude
people, because the Senate bill was inclusive, and every woman Member,
Republican, of the United States Senate voted for it. Every one. That
was the difference between the two bills, those who were included, and
a more specific group that are now included, which we think they ought
to be. But we also think there aren't people who were included who need
to be, and that was the difference between the two bills.
So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think my characterization
was absolutely accurate. But it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that we
still haven't answered the question. We tend to want to talk about
other things.
Ninety-eight percent of Americans should not get a tax increase on
January 1 who are making less than $200,000 individually, or $250,000
as a family. I think we agree on that, Mr. Speaker. Now, I haven't
heard that we don't agree on that. But we agree on that, which means
that there are 2 percent on which we do not agree, and that bill has
not been brought to the floor, that passed the United States Senate,
dealing with that 98 percent or 97 percent of small businesses.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me if we have agreement on 98 percent,
and the President of the United States will sign that bill, the
majority leader knows that, I know it and the American people know it.
He will sign that bill.
That bill has not moved, not because of the 98 percent, but because
of the 2 percent. That's my contention, Mr. Speaker. I believe that is
accurate because the Senate has passed a bill that deals with the 98
percent.
We ought to pass that bill. We ought to pass it before we leave here
next week, which will be the last few days of this session before the
election. And the American people at least ought to have that on the
floor.
And, yes, if you want to assert that we want to raise additional
revenues to meet our debt so that our children are not put deeply into
debt; and, yes, those of us who are doing better can pay a little more
to make sure that our children aren't in debt when they get to be
adults; yes, we can have that debate.
Bring the bill to the floor, and let us pass the Senate bill. And I
would hope our Republican colleagues would join us and say, at least
we're going to take care of the 98 percent, and then we'll argue about
the 2 percent. We'll argue about whether or not that's good policy or
bad policy, whether it hurts the economy or grows the economy.
Very frankly, I tell my friend, the majority leader, I was here in
1993, and the gentleman was not, I believe. But I was here in 1993 when
we raised revenues on the upper 1\1/2\ percent, 1\3/4\ percent of the
American taxpayers. Your side said, as that study which we think is a
flawed study said, that it would hurt the economy, it would increase
the deficit, and it would increase unemployment. And as the gentleman
well knows, it did exactly the opposite, in conjunction with an
extraordinary growth in the private sector, which your party said would
be hurt by the action in 1993, which your party unanimously opposed.
You're taking the same contention now, and that study took the same
proposition. It was wrong then; it is wrong now.
I would hope, very sincerely, that we could agree on that on which we
agree, because we agree on 98 percent, and let that move and not hold
it hostage to the 2 percent on which we do not agree.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding again.
[[Page H6045]]
First of all I'd ask, was there over 8 percent unemployment then?
That's the first thing, Mr. Speaker.
We are about trying to do something to get people back to work. And
if you're worried about the 98 percent, which we all are, the best
thing we can do is to make sure there are more jobs. And so our
objection to the gentleman's proposal to raise taxes is the fact that
that tax hike that he's advocating is going to affect 53 percent of all
small business income. The Joint Committee on Tax says that.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, just so we're accurate, but not 53
percent of small businesses, and the gentleman knows that. It's a
misleading figure, because 53 percent of the income comes from a very
small percentage of so-called small businesses that are not, in our
opinion, small businesses at all.
The gentleman can correct me if he believes that 53 percent of small
businesses, because it is our contention that 97 percent of small
businesses, really small businesses, people who are working hard making
it from day to day and trying to grow businesses and create jobs, 97
percent of small businesses will not be affected by our proposal.
If the gentleman thinks I'm incorrect, I'll be glad to hear that.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, the point is about jobs. Okay?
And the jobs come from the small businesses who are generating
income. If you want to help people who are creating jobs, don't raise
their taxes, especially when unemployment is over 8 percent.
It's about jobs. I mean, that's the thing, Mr. Speaker. We always
hear somehow that we're favoring some big bad business. No, we're about
the businesses who create jobs. Small businesses, according to the
Small Business Administration definition, create jobs.
So, Mr. Speaker, just because, in the gentleman's mind, somehow
somebody he doesn't like because they're so successful gets a benefit,
the overwhelming majority of the people who will not get a tax hike
under our plan will go out and create a job.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is an absurd assertion
that people I don't like. I would hope the gentleman would retract
that. It has nothing to do with people we like or don't like.
Mr. CANTOR. I absolutely retract that, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely
retract that. But the gentleman continues to malign people who he feels
don't deserve the same treatment on taxes. And what we're saying, if
they're successful, that means they're creating jobs. That's the
prescription we need right now is more jobs.
Our policy is about helping those small businessmen and women who are
creating jobs so we can finally do something to bring this unemployment
down and get people back to work. That's all.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest challenges to growing our economy is
our debt and deficit and the uncertainty of the tax policy. That is
one. Every economist will tell you that; and certainly every
businessperson will tell you that, large, medium or small.
And none of us on this side of the aisle have used pejorative--I have
not used pejorative terms with respect to large, medium or small
businesses. That's not an issue at all.
It is an issue as to whether or not we're going to continue to
explode this deficit and debt, Mr. Speaker, or whether we're going to
ask some of us to contribute, some of us, i.e., perhaps Members of this
floor, to pay a little more so our children don't confront large
deficits and debt.
We heard a lot about personal responsibility in the Republican
convention; we ought to take personal responsibility.
And the gentleman continues to talk about job creation. We want job
creation. We have a Make It in America agenda that, unfortunately,
hasn't moved. We have a jobs bill that was offered by this President
that economists say would have created a million more jobs. It lays,
still, on a desk somewhere, untended to, unconsidered and unpassed by
this House--notwithstanding the fact that the leader and I have
discussed that, moving that bill to the floor on numerous occasions.
I lament the fact when we talk about this again, he has not said once
that we don't agree on the 98 percent, that we don't agree on the 97
percent. I think the reason he hasn't said we don't agree on it is
because we do agree on it. He said he doesn't want anybody to get a tax
increase.
And by the way, that tax increase, as the gentleman well knows, will
result as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills passed by the
Republicans in this House and in the Senate and signed by George Bush.
That's why those taxes are going up on January 1, because you sunsetted
that tax increase. You didn't make it permanent.
Why did you do that?
For scoring purposes, because you knew that it would score great
deficits.
I want to tell the gentleman, additionally, Mr. Speaker, that
unemployment was 7 percent. The reason Bill Clinton won the election
was because the economy was going downhill. That's the same reason
Barack Obama won the election.
And he talks about jobs. A policy that was unanimously opposed, Mr.
Speaker, by the Republican side of the aisle in the House and in the
Senate created 22 million private sector jobs. We know something about
creating private sector jobs.
Notwithstanding the fact your contention on your side of the aisle,
not yours personally, Mr. Leader, was that if we adopted that program,
you took the same argument you're taking right now, right now, that
raising additional revenues to bring our deficit and debt down would
undermine the creation of jobs.
{time} 1300
In 1993, you were demonstrably wrong. I don't mean you personally.
Mr. Speaker, I'm simply referring to the Republican Party's position on
that. They were demonstrably wrong--22 million new jobs. In '01 and
'03, you argued that if we bring taxes down on the people you're
talking about and everybody else that we would explode the creation of
jobs.
You lost jobs in the private sector over those 8 years, Mr. Leader--
I'm sure you know that--about 600,000 net. You lost 4 million jobs in
2008, in the last year of the Bush administration. You lost 818,000
jobs in the last month; 818,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the
Bush administration and under these policies, which we apparently have
to pass again, or we won't take care of the 98 percent of Americans who
are hoping that they will be assured that they will not get a tax
increase as of January 1 and the 97 percent of small businesses that
will be assured that they will not get a tax increase, which will
stabilize our consumers, stabilize our small businesses, and help our
economy.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we, perhaps, have exhausted this
conversation--I understand that--but it is lamentable that this is
another instance when we continue to talk about bills for message
purposes that we know the President won't sign--that he said he won't
sign--and that we know the Senate won't pass; and we allow those 98
percent of Americans to twist in the wind because we will not deal with
the other 2 percent. We are prepared to debate that, of course, and
discuss it and vote on it; but I am very sorry that we, apparently,
will not see in the next 2\1/2\ days remaining before the election that
we address the middle class tax cuts.
I yield to the gentleman if he wants to say anything further. I have
one more subject I want to cover.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I think the differences are very plain. The
gentleman has a way of simplifying things. According to what I took
from what the gentleman just said, if we'd just raised taxes, all those
jobs wouldn't have been lost, and everything would have been fine.
Again, our proposition is completely the opposite.
We believe that we've got a real spending problem here, Mr. Speaker.
We've got a problem with an unwillingness to reform some programs. The
gentleman talks about Members having to pay more when, in fact, it was
our side that put forward the proposal that we should actually allow
and require Members as well as Federal employees to pay more towards
their retirements. The gentleman wasn't supportive of that. We've got
some serious unfunded obligations at the Federal level. The
[[Page H6046]]
American people know that. We are trying to solve problems. The
problems are not solved by raising taxes.
Now, if the gentleman is so intent on raising taxes--again, because
there is a 2 percent that he just wants to pay more--I ask the
gentleman to join us in actually fixing the problem that all experts
say you can't tax your way out of and you can't grow your way out of.
You've got to reform the programs. Mr. Speaker, we've been the only
ones to put forward a plan that even begins to solve the problem--the
President has not; the Senate has not; and the gentleman has not.
It's about solving problems, producing results for the hardworking
taxpayers of this country who so desperately want to see us go forward,
reclaim America in its true aspirational sense and be that place of
opportunity.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I hear the gentleman. I presume he refers to
the Ryan budget as the plan to do that. Of course, the Ryan budget does
not balance the budget in a quarter of a century. The gentleman knows
that. The Ryan budget, of course, undermines the security of Medicare
for people.
The majority leader mentions Federal employees. The fact of the
matter is--and this is my position, Mr. Speaker, and is the subject I
wanted to talk about--we need to get America on a fiscally sustainable,
credible path. That is the single most important objective that this
Congress ought to be addressing. Very frankly, it was addressed in a
plan called the Simpson-Bowles plan. Perfectly? No. Would we all agree
on every aspect? No, but it was a plan that said we have to have a
balanced approach to doing this. We had to deal with entitlements; we
had to deal with revenues, and we are now collecting 14.8 percent of
revenues. That's lower than at any point in time in the last 70 years.
We have underpriced our product; and if we were a business, we would
have been bankrupt a long time ago. We have deep pockets, and we can
keep borrowing so that we can keep spending without putting in a PAYGO
discipline that we had in the nineties that helped balance the budget 4
years in a row--the only administration in the lifetime of anybody
hearing, seeing, or knowing that we are here, but that has been done.
It was done because we paid for what we bought.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an opportunity--not in the next 2
days of this session before the election--but we are going to have a
lame duck. We are going to have to come back here, and we are going to
have to do some serious things. We need to as Americans--not as
Democrats, not as Republicans--have a conviction that we need to come
back here and not walk away from our responsibilities.
Very frankly, with the Bowles-Simpson, every Republican member of
that group from the House walked away from it--voted ``no'' and said,
No, we will not agree. So it didn't get the 14 votes that it needed to
be brought to this floor. I think that's a sad fact. That should have
had a robust debate and perhaps a modification, but it was a plan that
said to all Americans that we're all going to have to be in this
together--a balanced plan, Mr. Speaker, to get a handle on the debt and
deficit that confronts this country that is hurting our economy,
hurting our people, hurting our credibility.
The S&P downgraded us not because we didn't have the resources to
solve our problems. Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States of
America for the first time in the lifetime of anybody I know--and
perhaps in history--because they didn't know whether we had
the political will and courage to address this debt and deficit that
confronts and puts our country in danger.
Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked
what was the biggest security problem confronting America, didn't
respond, Iraq, Iran. He didn't respond, terrorists. He didn't respond,
other enemies around the world. He said the biggest security concern
that he had--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--was the fiscal
challenge that was not being addressed in America. Mr. Speaker, we need
to address it.
My friend the majority leader, he and I have worked together on a
number of things. We've worked on a number of things this session that
we've passed in a bipartisan fashion. I would hope that he and I would
both commit ourselves to, during the lame duck session, doing our
responsibility to America and to our constituents in reaching a Bowles-
Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin, Gang of Six. Almost every economist who has
spoken to this issue has said you need a balanced plan. If we simply
have sold our souls to Grover Norquist on asking people to help bring
this debt and deficit down, we will not succeed; but if we summon the
courage and the will to solve this problem, we can do it.
I am hopeful that my friend the majority leader and I will work
together over the next number of weeks, between now and November 6, to
establish the preface for acting in the lame duck session in a
responsible, cooperative, consensus-seeking fashion to get this country
on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. If we do that, we could
redeem this Congress' performance, and I hope we will do that.
I don't know whether the majority leader wants to make a comment on
that.
{time} 1310
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I'm going to try and make sure that I don't bring on even more
because I know our colleagues are waiting to speak.
I would say to the gentleman there is not unanimity on his side, as
he knows, on Bowles-Simpson. In fact, the minority leader rejected
Bowles-Simpson and the President has not endorsed Bowles-Simpson, which
is part of the issue that the gentleman seeks some clarification on,
which is: Where is the plan to get us out of this? The President was
unwilling to even adopt that.
The gentleman I think knows the reason why our side rejects Bowles-
Simpson. We believe there are some good things in Bowles-Simpson, and I
do look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we can work
together in a cooperative fashion to get some results and resolve this
cloud hanging over the economy. I'm looking forward to that.
But Bowles-Simpson, number one, is not this so-called balanced
approach, unless you say $1.22 in new taxes with $1 in cuts is
balanced. We don't believe so, because we believe it has a detrimental
impact on the growth of the economy.
We also believe that the Bowles-Simpson revenue target of 21 percent
of GDP is the highest target and something that exceeds that which
we've been at pretty much over the last 70-something years, save for 3
years. We believe that that is too much of a revenue flow into
Washington for Washington to make the decisions.
We've got an issue there about the amount of taxes and the size of
government. Yes, it's a totally legitimate discussion point, but it's
an issue. It's not just rejection out of hand like the minority leader
and the President have said. They reject that. We say this is why, and
then we also say the disproportionate driver of the deficit is health
care entitlements. The gentleman and I both agree upon that. How are we
going to deal with it?
Bowles-Simpson leaves in place the structural nature of those
programs now and doesn't address this fundamental problem of growing
unfunded liabilities. We want to solve that so that the safety net
programs are there for the future and save them. That's our position.
So I do look forward to working with the gentleman. There are some
great things about tax reform in Bowles-Simpson. I want to work with
the gentleman on that, and, if we can, have a conversation about
resolving the deficit and the spending.
Again, I'm trying not to invoke any more time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HOYER. I look forward to working with him as well, Mr. Speaker,
because there is a no more important issue that confronts us as a
Congress or us as a people, and no act that we could do would give more
confidence, not only to our own people, but to people around the world,
that America has got its financial house in order. We need to do that.
We can argue the specifics one way or the other, but, Mr. Speaker, we
do have a difference.
We had that difference in 1993, and we argued about it. We won that
argument on the vote, and we won it, in my opinion, on performance. We
argued again on it in 2001 and 2003, and we believe we
[[Page H6047]]
lost on that argument, which is why we were in the deepest recession at
the end of the last administration that this country has been in my
lifetime, and I'm not one of the younger Members of this body.
I am, with the majority leader, hopeful that we can work together and
come to agreement on that on which we agree and move forward. The
American people, I think, hope that as well, Mr. Speaker.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________