[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 155 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6659-H6662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to my friend, the
majority leader, for his favorite 10 or 15 or 20 minutes of the week to
inquire of the schedule for the week to come.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip,
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On
Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and at 2 p.m. for
legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On
Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and at noon
for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m.
for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later
than 3 p.m. on Thursday. Members are advised that this is a change from
the original House calendar.
Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under
suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by
the close of business Friday. Additionally, the House will appoint
conferees for the National Defense Authorization Act now that the
Senate has completed its work.
As was announced last week, the House has a number of outstanding
legislative items that we must resolve, and first amongst them is the
so-called ``fiscal cliff.'' Though the House's target adjournment set
in October of last year was December 14, that is no longer the case.
Instead, Members are advised that the House will now be in session the
week of December 17. Exact days will be announced next week. Members
are further reminded that the House will not adjourn the 112th Congress
until a credible solution to the fiscal cliff has been found.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank him for
the early notice on next Friday.
First, Mr. Leader, if I could, we have the ending as next Thursday. I
want to clarify for Members so that they know: we will not be in
session next Friday. Is that accurate?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that is
correct.
Mr. HOYER. Thank you for that information.
I also want to congratulate the gentleman for providing for the week
of the 17th. I know none of us want to do that, but I appreciate the
majority's focus on the business that has not been done. I also
appreciate the gentleman's focus on the fiscal cliff and for indicating
that we need to resolve that prior to leaving the 112th Congress. I
think those are both positive announcements. I applaud him for that.
On the fiscal cliff--we discuss this all the time--but I want to
inform the majority leader that there are now 175 signatures--we hope
to have more, and we would obviously welcome people on your side of the
aisle--on the discharge petition for the Walz bill, which mirrors the
Senate bill, as the majority leader, I'm sure, knows, to ensure that no
individual who makes $200,000 or less on net taxable income or that a
family who makes $250,000 or less will see a tax increase on January 1.
Hopefully, we will resolve the fiscal cliff and get an agreement.
I again ask my friend: the Walz bill will be compliant with the rules
and will not have a blue slip problem, obviously, and hopefully we
could move that bill. Again, for the purposes of giving confidence to
the 98 percent of our taxpayers who are making less than the sums put
forward in the bill--$200,000 and $250,000--I understand and anticipate
the gentleman's response that we are all concerned with growing the
economy and creating jobs and that we don't want to dampen that dam;
and we understand the gentleman's concern about small businesses,
particularly those 3 percent of small businesses that make more than
this and report it on a personal income basis.
I would hope that we could give serious consideration to trying to
act sooner than the end of the year and as soon as possible, frankly,
on--as we call it--the middle class tax cut, the $250,000 and under.
I yield to my friend to see whether or not, perhaps, the actions that
have been taken this week have any bearing on his thoughts on whether
we could schedule that bill.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I don't
think it is a good thing right now to bring that bill to the floor
because we hope that we can have successful negotiations with the White
House.
I think, as the gentleman said earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, that
our side actually put on the table, in our letter to the President,
some specific proposals that actually deserve a response from the White
House. That's what we're looking for: Are we going to get a response to
our proposal about putting revenues of $800 billion on the table, of
putting out there a framework for spending reduction?
I know, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has agreed with me that we've got
to do something to address the spending problem because you can't keep
taxing and borrowing without doing the other side, which is to take
care of the problem of spending. I think that the letter and the
proposal that we sent to the President deserve a response, Mr. Speaker;
and if we don't get a response, then perhaps the President will be
willing to meet with us--one or the other--because it doesn't seem to
me to be upholding the obligation to the American people that we're
going to resolve this issue if we just stand still.
{time} 1210
We put these specifics out on the table. The President has not
responded. We ask the President to respond, Mr. Speaker. And I'd say to
the gentleman that I hope that that's what can happen, either a
response from the President--not just a summary rejection but a
specific, serious response in the nature of our proposal--or if the
President would agree to sit down and talk
[[Page H6660]]
about it. That's what we've got to do to fulfill our obligation. I
don't think bringing that bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, is going to
further that likelihood.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation.
He and I do share the view that we need to address both the revenue
side and spending side of our budget. My view is, and I've said this on
a regular basis, what we really have is not necessarily a taxing
problem or a spending problem; we have a paying for problem. The
actions we take, we ought to pay for them. We haven't done that through
the years. Frankly, we haven't done it on both sides of the aisle. I
don't want to get into that specific argument, but the fact is, if we
pay for things, you don't create debt. And if you cut revenues and you
cut spending, you don't create debt. If you cut revenues and don't cut
spending, you create debt just as surely as if you spend money and buy
things and don't pay for them. In either instance, you create debt, and
we need to get this country on a fiscally sustainable path.
So I congratulate the gentleman--not the gentleman specifically, but
I was pleased, and the gentleman and I would disagree on the
specificity of the offer that was included or the suggestion that was
included in your letter. For instance, the President has put forward,
as you know, in his budget and in his further proposals, an extensive
list of reductions in spending that he proposed. In addition, he has
put forward very specific proposals vis-a-vis revenues. His most
specific proposal, of course, has been widely debated and discussed,
and there was a difference of opinion on whether or not we ought to cap
the taxes on $250,000 and under families and $200,000 and under
individuals. There was a very robust debate on that during the
campaign. The voters voted, and that's a very specific proposal.
In the $800 billion that you suggest in the letter that you jointly
signed with the Speaker and others, there is a suggestion of $800
billion in revenues, which I believe is insufficient to get us to where
we need to be. But having said that, it is certainly a good start, but
it is not a good start if all it is is conceptual.
The President, as I said, has made very specific proposals. He wants
taxes on those making over $250,000 to go up. That produces a certain
amount of revenue, somewhere in the neighborhood of the $800 billion of
which you speak. The fact is, though, in your proposal, we don't have
the specifics other than to know that you're focused on preferences or
loopholes--describe them as you may--which would be a reduction.
The gentleman knows the three largest of those is the health care,
the mortgage interest, and the pension benefits that can be taken off
your taxes. I don't know whether the gentleman suggests reducing those
specifically, and I don't ask him to respond to that now, but I do tell
my friend that if we don't have those specifics, as you have very
specifically from the President, he also recommended capping deductions
at 28 percent, a very specific revenue-generating proposal. He has
also, as I said, agreed to very substantial spending cuts which he has
outlined in his budget. And, as the gentleman also knows, we've cut a
trillion dollars, give or take some billions of dollars, in
expenditures pursuant to the debt limit extension of 2011. So we have
addressed very substantial reductions in funding for 2011, for 2012,
for 2013, and for out-years after that.
So I would urge my friend, when he says he's given specifics, as far
as I know, the letter essentially has five lines in it. The letter is
longer than that, but five lines of spending and/or tax-cutting
proposals, but they are all generic, not specific. And that is, I
think, the problem we have in these negotiations, to the extent that
they exist. Unfortunately, we're not doing as much as I think we ought
to be doing. We don't have specifics, and, therefore, conceptually
everybody can say, well, we want to get $800 billion. The President
and, apparently, your letter agree on that. How you get there is the
key. And if you don't have specifics--the President has offered
specifics on how to get there. I would respectfully suggest you have
not offered specifics other than we're going to deal with preference
items. But they're very controversial: charitable deductions, very
controversial; other deductions, controversial. We have to really get
down to the nitty-gritty of, okay, how are you going to do it?
I would urge the gentleman, in furtherance of what he and his party
have already done, to perhaps be specific in how we get the $800
billion. The President has said how we get the $800 billion. I think
that would be very helpful, and I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
That's what, really, discussions are for; that's what meetings are
for. It's to try to get to the specifics. And although he and I differ,
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I differ about the specifics of our
proposal and the President's proposal because, frankly, I know and I
think both sides know where each other are on taxes right now.
Certainly the President was in a different place back in the summer of
2011 when he had indicated that--what was said was, Give us $1 trillion
in additional revenues which could be accomplished without hiking tax
rates is what the President said. Certainly the position he's taking
now, that absolutely we have to have rate increases, is different than
that. But that's what the President has said this time. So we know
where each other is there. It's the specifics on the spending.
The gentleman points out, Mr. Speaker, that the President has
submitted budgets in the past. There's been no discussions of specifics
whatsoever, even when the Speaker or I have suggested in meetings that
we've had as to where are your specifics. They have just not been
forthcoming. So if the President is serious to actually do something
about the problem, then I think we do need to come together and say to
the American people we're willing to cut the wasteful spending here
and, in the gentleman's own words, Mr. Speaker, to pay for what we
actually spend, not to just keep spending what we don't have. I think
it could really move the ball forward on these negotiations.
So I accept the spirit in which the gentleman suggests we should have
more discussions to get the ball moving forward; it's just the White
House doesn't seem willing to do so. And instead, we see the President
going on a television interview and saying that he summarily rejects
our position instead of trying to get down to the specifics of the
problem, which is reducing wasteful spending.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
I want to say two things. First of all, I want to clarify, and I
think I did clarify, that $800 billion clearly is in your proposal.
When I said the President agrees with that $800 billion, he agrees to
getting to at least $800 billion. He thinks we need more. I agree with
the President; we need more.
When the gentleman says the problem is wasteful spending, I disagree
with the gentleman very substantially on that. The problem is not
wasteful spending; the problem is spending. Whether it's not wasteful
or not, if it's good spending, we need to pay for it.
Now, where the gentleman and I have a very substantial disagreement,
I know, is that when the gentleman and his party voted to reduce
revenues by over $2 trillion, they didn't reduce spending by $2
trillion. As I said at the outset, inevitably, if you reduce revenues
by $2 trillion and you up spending, which is what happened, frankly, as
all of us know from 2001 to 2008, and particularly 2001 to 2006, if you
up spending and reduce revenues, inevitably you have debt, just as if
you buy stuff and don't pay for it, you have debt. So whether you
reduce revenues or don't pay for what you buy, the result is exactly
the same--debt. So that's why I say paying for is the problem.
The gentleman and I have a very substantive disagreement on whether
or not you ought to have to pay for tax cuts. You have to pay for it
one way or the other. You're either going to pay for it by having
additional debt on which you'll pay substantial interest, or you'll pay
for it by reducing programs. It's not wasteful spending. I'd like to
get rid of all wasteful spending.
{time} 1220
But I suggest to the gentleman, and he knows the figures as well as I
do because we've been through a lot of meetings together on this, the
issue is not wasteful spending. The issue is we've decided to buy
things, a lot of which I think we ought to be buying, including
[[Page H6661]]
Social Security, including Medicare, including investment in education,
including investment in infrastructure, including investment in
innovation to grow our economy, which, in turn, will help our deficit
situation as the economy grows, without raising any taxes.
But the fact of the matter is, I know the gentleman has historically
not felt that tax cuts ought to be paid for, either by cutting
spending, which didn't occur, or by offsetting revenues.
So I want to make it clear the President does not agree with the $800
billion level because he doesn't think the math works. I share the
President's view. The math doesn't work.
And ultimately, in my opinion, the most useful effort will be if we
all agree on the objective, whether it's $4 trillion, whether it's 70
percent debt to GDP ratio, which most economists, or a little less than
that, say is sustainable and will have us on a sustainable path.
If we all agreed on the objective and then, Mr. Majority Leader,
simply made the math work to get there in a way that we could agree on,
I think America would be advantaged, I think the economy would be
advantaged, and we would see a renaissance of job creation in this
country as we did in the 2000s.
I'll be glad to yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I accept the gentleman's good intentions, and I know that
he doesn't think that we ought to be imposing additional obligations on
the American people to pay more of their money into Washington if the
money is not going to be spent in a way that is something that they
would like.
So if it's wasteful spending, or if it's spending just to aggravate
the deficit situation, and that's from the perspective that we come,
fix the problem. If the obsession is to raise taxes, you know we don't
agree with that, but fix the problem.
So if you're asking for somebody to give more of their money to
Washington, then at least be able to tell them that we are going to
manage down the debt. That's what we're about here, which is why the
focus is on spending, and how we have to ratchet down the spending in
this town.
That's where we've heard no specifics or willingness on the part of
the President to engage in discussions about specifics on spending.
As far as the math is concerned, again, it was a very different
President in the summer of 2011 when he said $1.2 trillion in
additional revenues could be accomplished without hiking tax rates.
That's what he said. So, again, all of a sudden that math doesn't work,
but it worked for 1.2 before.
Regardless, we sort of understand now, at least this round, where
everyone is on taxes. Let's get to the problem, and maybe then we can
resolve the taxes question.
Mr. HOYER. Well, we have a fundamental disagreement because the
gentleman continues to want to focus on spending. I think that's right
that we focus on spending. But again, debt is not caused by spending;
it is caused by buying things that you don't pay for, or it's caused by
cutting revenues that you don't offset either by cuts in spending, by
cutting revenues. That's what causes debt. It's not buying things that
causes debt. It's not paying for things.
The discipline, I will tell my friend, in the system for the American
public is, if they want things, for us having the honesty to say, okay,
if you want a tax cut or you want a strong defense, it costs money,
both of them cost money. And if you're willing to pay for it, we will
do that. If you're not willing to pay for it, we ought not to do it.
That's not been our practice, unfortunately, and we dropped the PAYGO
requirement, as the gentleman knows, in 2001, actually 2003 legally. De
facto, we dropped it in 2001, because we had substantial tax cuts
without paying for them. We waived that requirement, and I think that,
frankly, got us into the problem we have on either side of the aisle,
whether it's spending or revenue reductions.
I don't think the President's changed his position. I think the
positions have changed. Mr. Bowles indicated that. Others have
indicated that. The situation has changed its dynamic in the sense that
it's not the situation we were confronting in 2011.
But this is an important discussion because it really requires us to
come to make a commonsense, math decision, not an ideological decision
driven by debate about spending or taxes, but on how we have a budget
that is a sustainable budget for our kids and for our grandkids and for
our country over the long term. And I think that's what this discussion
ought to be about. And if it is, I think we can get this challenge
resolved, and Americans and America will say finally, finally, those
representatives we've sent to Washington have sat down together with
one another and made sense.
Again, I want to say to the gentleman, I can't read it either, and
you certainly can't read it from there. But you can see that, perhaps,
the five lines here, and then the very long lines the President has
proposed in terms of cuts and revenues.
I think if you're expecting the President to come and say, well, we
can get your $800 billion this way, that way and the other way, he's
not going to do that because he's not going to negotiate with himself.
On the other hand, if you come to us and say specifically this is how
we're going to get the $800 billion, we're going to eliminate the
charitable deduction. This is how we're going to get the $800 billion,
we're going to eliminate the mortgage deduction, that's something we
can discuss. But if we don't have specifics on what you're going to do,
but just a conclusionary ``we're going to get 800 billion,'' then it's
hard to negotiate because we don't know what the negotiation parameters
are.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I'd just say, the gentleman is really saying there is a
need for discussions, and that's what I'm saying today, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HOYER. We agree.
Mr. CANTOR. We need to sit down and discuss. We do agree on that.
Obviously, the White House doesn't agree on that, and we're trying to
urge some real serious commitment to resolving this on the part of the
White House.
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman has indicated there is other business that
needs to be done. Let me briefly address those.
The farm bill, obviously, continues to be not resolved, not
addressed. The Senate passed a bill, as the gentleman so well knows,
64-35, two-thirds of the Senate voting for it. We would be hopeful that
that Senate bill could be put on the floor. I've talked to Chairwoman
Stabenow. She and her ranking member worked very hard on that. I know
our committee's reported out a bill 35-11, but that has not come to the
floor. That was passed out almost 6 months ago, 5 months ago.
So I would hope that the farm bill could be moved. I know I'm going
to be talking to some of my ag community today. They're very hopeful
that a--not a stopgap but a farm bill of a sufficient length--and I
think they would opt--I don't want to speak for them before I meet with
them--but for the Senate bill, we need to pass that. Milk prices, as
you know, will spike dramatically on January 1 if we don't pass the
farm bill.
Also, on the Violence Against Women Act, I know last week we had the
sponsor in the chair. I didn't know that. I thank the gentleman for
reminding me.
But the Violence Against Women Act has been passed by this House and
by the Senate. I would urge the majority to get us to conference on
that. Rather than go through why I think the Senate bill's a good bill
and you think the House bill's a good bill, the way to resolve that is
to go to conference. I would urge the gentleman to go to conference on
the Violence Against Women Act.
I believe the President is going to come down in very short order
with some preliminary numbers on the supplemental. I think I'm going to
New York tomorrow to spend time with some of our Members there and see
the devastation that has occurred. The gentleman, I know, is very aware
of that as well. We need to do a supplemental, so we need to have time
to do that.
And lastly, although we haven't discussed it very often--it's not a
very sexy issue, postal reform, again, is another issue that we're
talking about balancing. The postal department has not been able to
balance its budget, as we know. Part of it is dealing with the
retirement programs that they're funding.
[[Page H6662]]
But I'm wondering if the gentleman has any thoughts on any one of
those four bills.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'll try and be brief. On the farm bill, the
gentleman is correct. We're going to face some very dire consequences
if we don't act on the issue prior to leaving here. And part of what I
had indicated last week is that is something we are focused on and know
we've got to deal with the issue prior to the end of the year.
On the issue of VAWA, as the gentleman and I have discussed many
times on the floor, he knows that we can't go to conference with the
Senate bill. The Senate bill has a blue slip problem.
I am speaking with the Vice President and his office and trying to
resolve the issue of the differences surrounding the VAWA bill. This
week I've actually been encouraged to see that we could very well see
agreement on VAWA, and I'm very hopeful that that comes about. But I am
encouraged about the discussions that my office is having with the Vice
President's office right now, that bill being a high priority of Vice
President Biden.
{time} 1230
On the issue of the supplemental, I imagine, Mr. Speaker, the
gentleman has seen the press reports that I have that the White House
is anticipating sending up a $60 billion supplemental request for
damages related to Sandy, and I think tomorrow would be that day, at
least according to press reports. As the gentleman may know, the FEMA
Director testified to the House yesterday that the agency can meet its
needs associated with the disaster through the spring. Approximately $2
billion has been delivered, with about $5 billion remaining in the
disaster relief fund.
So, again, no one is here saying that we don't want to deliver the
necessary aid to the victims, because that is a priority. But we're
looking forward to receiving that request and taking a look at the
numbers and the need to make sure we can move forward on that as well.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, postal reform. The gentleman and I have, yes,
talked about this a lot and know that the issue has to do with the
obligations of the Postal Service and how we can address those to
create a more balanced prospect for the future to allow for its
continuance, so we're looking at that as well. And the gentleman knows
there's a lot of discussions, both bipartisan and bicameral, on that
issue as well.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
Obviously, we are coming here to meet and we're focused on the fiscal
cliff, but there are other things that we could be, hopefully,
resolving in the time that we have available to us between now and the
end of the year, and I would hope that we would do that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________