[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.

                          ____________________