[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H395-H398]
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 yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, for the
purposes of telling us the schedule for next week.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session.
On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m.
for legislative business. The House will recess no later than 5:30 p.m.
to allow for a security sweep of the House Chamber prior to the
President's State of the Union address. The House will meet again at
approximately 8:35 p.m. in a joint session with the Senate for the
purpose of receiving an address from the President of the United
States. Members are advised that no votes are expected on Tuesday
evening in order to accommodate the State of the Union address.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for
morning-hour and noon for legislative business.
On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
The last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the
rules on Tuesday and Wednesday, a complete list of which will be
announced by the close of business on Friday.
Additionally, I expect the House to consider H.R. 273, legislation
that prevents Members of Congress, the President's Cabinet, the Vice
President, and other nonmilitary Federal employees from receiving an
automatic pay raise under the President's recent executive order. This
legislation introduced by freshman Representative Ron DeSantis of
Florida would extend the current Federal pay freeze that has been in
place since 2011.
Hardworking taxpayers and families live within a budget, and it's
time that we in Washington do the same.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
I might ask a preliminary question. When the gentleman refers to the
bill that is to be considered next week, I presume he is referring to
the cost of living adjustment increase?
With that, I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. I'd respond to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that it is the
pay increase that is within the President's executive order.
Mr. HOYER. Which deals with a cost of living increase. Am I correct?
And I yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would just say it is a pay increase within
the President's executive order.
{time} 1210
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I disagree with his conclusion because, clearly, what we're dealing
with is a cost-of-living increase similar to that which is given to
Social Security recipients and others to make sure that the pay is not
degraded that average working people in this country, in this Federal
Government, receive, including a large number of people in Virginia and
in my State, but that's only 15 percent of the Federal workforce which
is around the country. I think it's unfortunate that now, for 2\1/2\
years, the only working people in America who have received a freeze or
a decrease or who have contributed to solving the debt crisis which
confronts us, on which the gentleman and I agree, are Federal workers.
I'm not talking about Members of Congress, and I'm not talking about
the President or the Vice President. The President doesn't get a COLA
adjustment, obviously, but it's a cost-of-living adjustment.
I will say to my friend--and I have worked over the last 20 years
with his counterparts, either in the majority or in the minority, to
ensure that we made the distinction so that people understood and
didn't demagogue that issue--that I regret that we are doing so here
again. While it may well be appropriate to, from time to time, freeze
even the cost-of-living adjustment, it is also appropriate to refer to
it for what it is and not as a pay raise. In fact, the courts have
indicated, as the gentleman knows, that it is a cost-of-living
adjustment, but we don't need to debate that further unless the
gentleman wants to say something.
Mr. CANTOR. I would just say, as to the statement that, perhaps,
Federal employees are the only ones who have had to shoulder the
burden, I don't necessarily agree with that, because there are millions
of people in the private sector who not only have gone without a pay
increase, but many of whom don't have jobs anymore. You also have the
instance, Mr. Speaker, that many millions of Americans have just
received a significant tax increase due to what happened here on the
fiscal cliff bill.
There are a lot of implications and consequences for the downturn in
the economy. I dare say that there are a lot of people who are
struggling out there in the private sector, so I'd just state a little
bit of difference from the gentleman in saying that no one else is
sacrificing right now, because there are a lot of people who have no
pay increase and a lot of people who have no jobs.
Mr. HOYER. In reclaiming my time, the gentleman, respectfully,
misstates what I said. There are a lot of people sacrificing and a lot
of people who don't have jobs. I want to talk a little bit about that
as we deal--or don't deal--with the sequester.
What I said was that the only people we had, as a policy, reduced--
and the gentleman is correct. We did raise taxes on those over
$400,000. There is nobody in the Federal service, of course, who makes
over $400,000. The
[[Page H396]]
President makes $400,000. He is at the top, as he should be, and he
doesn't get a COLA adjustment, but there is nobody in the Federal
service who makes over $400,000. They are the only people we've raised
contributions on. Others have, in fact, indeed, sacrificed because
they've lost their jobs; they've had their pay frozen because of the
bad economic times. This sequester is going to make it worse, and we'll
discuss that.
What I am simply saying is that the gentleman is not serving the
long-term interests of this institution, in my opinion, in not
accurately describing what we're doing. That's what I said and that's
what I mean.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
I would say to the gentleman again that there are millions of people
who have been impacted by the payroll tax going back into effect, and
that affects not just the people making $400,000 and over--and he knows
that as well as I do--but there are also millions of Americans now who
are impacted by the ObamaCare tax that has gone into effect. So there
are a lot of things that are going on. People in the private sector,
the gentleman agrees, are suffering as well.
I just want to say I understand the gentleman. I think, long term, he
and I both are interested in trying to get us on a plan to balance this
budget so we can see growth return to the economy again and so everyone
can see a day of higher wages and a future of better compensation.
That's the goal, I think, all of us are driving towards.
Mr. HOYER. Of course, that's what we all agree on, but, frankly, that
rhetoric does not substitute for action. Automatic budget cuts, known
as the sequester, as you know, would cut U.S. growth in half in 2013 if
allowed to go into effect. The CBO said that what we've already done
has harmed the economy.
It is time for us to get on and deal with real solutions, not message
bills as we did this week and as we did 2 weeks ago. That's all we've
done. We met 6 or 7 days this month and last month in this Congress.
We're dealing with message bills. The bill that we considered this
week--the only bill of substance that we considered this week other
than suspensions--will not have any positive effect on the sequester.
The sequester is going to hurt our people; it's going to hurt jobs;
it's going to hurt economic growth; it's going to do exactly the
opposite of what the gentleman says--and I agree with him--that we
agree ought to be our objectives.
As you know, the fiscal cliff deal postponed the sequester until
March 1. Now, an overwhelming number of your folks did not vote for
that, of course. The gentleman did, and I joined him in that effort.
We've postponed that until March 1, the sequester. We're 20 days away
from the sequester. We didn't do anything about it 2 weeks ago; we
didn't do anything about it this week; and we're apparently not going
to do anything about it next week either. There is no legislation which
has been proposed by the majority party to make sure that the sequester
does not go into effect.
The President of the United States spoke about that yesterday. Mr.
Van Hollen had a proposal to specifically deal with the sequester, to
specifically preclude the sequester from going into effect, from
specifically precluding the adverse effects that are going to occur to
our national security structure and to our non-defense discretionary
spending structure. We still now haven't seen anything from your party
that would help stop the problem of the sequester. I was deeply upset
that you did not make in order the Van Hollen alternative. Clearly,
that alternative would have made a very substantial difference on the
sequester. The President would have signed that, and the Senate, in my
view, would have passed it, but we didn't even get to consider it on
the floor.
Mr. Majority Leader, we are either going to consider alternatives--
and I read the majority leader's speech yesterday about reaching out
and doing things in a bipartisan way. One way we can do that is to
allow both sides to offer their alternatives and have an up-or-down
vote and to let the American people make a judgment on that. Very
frankly, I think that the American people would have said that the Van
Hollen alternative was the preferable alternative to the sequester.
Now, there are a lot of your Members who apparently think the sequester
is okay.
In your own quote, Mr. Majority Leader:
Under the sequester, unemployment would soar from its
current level up to 9 percent, setting back any progress the
economy has made. According to the same study, the jobs of
more than 200,000 Virginians, in my home State, are on the
line.
That's what you said on September 13, 2012. I think you were right. I
applaud you for that statement, but I regret that we had no legislation
put on this floor 2 weeks ago, this week, or in your announcement next
week to preclude the sequester from going into effect, which you say,
Mr. Majority Leader--and I agree with you--will have an adverse effect
on up to 200,000 Virginians.
Another quote from Representative Rooney, with which I agree:
We've tried to replace the sequester with other things, but
it seems now that the large portion of our Conference is
resigned to the fact that sequestration is okay.
Mr. Rooney correctly says it's not okay--that it's dangerous, a huge
mistake, a threat to our liberty. That's what Tom Rooney of Florida
said, and I applaud him for that statement, and I think he's accurate.
Bill Young, who has made his whole life's career in making sure that
we have a strong national security, said this:
``I'm reading what a lot of different Members are saying, and I
find,'' lamentably--that's my word, not his--``there is not as much
opposition to sequestration as I thought there might be.''
In other words, a lot of your folks are saying that sequestration is
the way to go. In fact, Representative John Shimkus said:
He, President Obama, can announce all he wants,
Sequestration is coming. It's coming. We've got to get
spending cuts--no new revenue. It's all about spending.
So he is welcoming the sequester.
Tom Coburn:
I think sequester is going to happen. I think people want
it to happen.
I don't want it to happen, Mr. Leader. I don't think it ought to
happen. I think it's going to be bad for the country if sequester
happens.
{time} 1220
The President doesn't want sequester, Harry Reid doesn't want
sequester, and I don't want sequester. I would hope, based upon your
comment that I just quoted, that you don't want sequester, but we're
not going to get away from the sequester unless there's legislation
that you bring to this floor--and you have the authority to do that--
which will obviate going to sequester and will put in place an
alternative which will do what you and I both want to do, and that is
address the deficit and debt, both short term and long term.
Senator Mike Johanns said:
I just have a feeling sequester's going to happen. I just
think there's so much concern about the debt and spending
that it overrides most issues these days.
Now, those ``most issues'' are those 200,000 people that you talked
about in your statement.
Senator Ayotte said:
Looks like where we're headed, sequestration.
John Cornyn:
The sequester is the only cuts we've got right now.
So that the consequences of the sequester, apparently, are not
something he wants to avoid.
Gridlock is leading to spending reductions. If the
government does nothing, spending goes down. We have to claim
victory.
Congressman Mulvaney from South Carolina said that.
Now, in terms of the sequester, I want to point out to you that
there's been some comments on your side that this is the President's
initiative. That is absolutely 100 percent inaccurate. In fact, the
alternative in your Cut, Cap and Balance bill--and I know the majority
leader knows it--is sequester; that's the fallback. We put sequester in
place thinking it was so irrational and would have such a negative
effect that clearly we would address the matter in the last 14 months.
We didn't. We ought not to quit trying to do it, though--getting an
alternative. Mr. Van Hollen had an alternative.
As a matter of fact, in terms of the agreement that we reached,
Speaker Boehner said, back on August 1, 2011:
[[Page H397]]
When you look at this final agreement that we came to with
the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm
pretty happy.
That's John Boehner's quote.
So it's not as if this was our deal. The Speaker says he got 98
percent of what he wanted. Now he says sequester is happening because
the President didn't lead. Respectfully, I think that is totally,
absolutely inaccurate. The President was prepared to be supportive of
Mr. Van Hollen's alternative yesterday. You can say you want a plan.
That was his plan. We offered it. That was Mr. Van Hollen's plan we
offered. That was our Democratic alternative, and it would have avoided
sequester.
So I say to the gentleman, I'm disappointed that the schedule does
not reflect substantive, meaningful legislation to avoid the sequester
which we certainly don't want. I don't know about your side based upon
the quotes that I've just given you, but I would hope that the majority
leader would, with the Speaker and with others in his caucus, seriously
think about next week making in order a substantive alternative to the
sequester.
Mr. Price says we did something in the last Congress. The last
Congress is gone. You passed something in the last Congress. If you
want to bring that to the floor and pass it again, you know the Senate
won't pass it and the President won't sign it. The fact of the matter
is we've got to get to compromise, Mr. Leader; and if we don't get to
compromise, we're not going to get a solution to sequester or to
bringing our debt and deficit down.
I'm glad to yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I would just say simply, Mr. Speaker, once again what we hear from
the gentleman and his caucus is let's raise taxes; that'll fix the
problem. And we all know the problem is spending.
The gentleman correctly refers to two bills that we had on the floor
last year, one earlier in the year and one in the fall, both of which
were designed to address the real problems as he suggests we need to do
about the spending and the growth in the entitlement areas, which he
knows as well as I are the main drivers of the deficit. We passed that
bill without any help from the gentleman's side of the aisle and
without any reciprocation from the Senate--nothing. The Senate did not
move, and the White House did not move.
So if the gentleman suggests there's no compromising going on, I'd
ask him how is it that the White House or the Senate is compromising at
all if all we hear again and again is just take more money from the
American people; that'll fix the problem.
No, Mr. Speaker, that's just kicking the can, and that's why we don't
want to take up the other gentleman from Maryland's bill that the
Democratic whip suggests, because it's just raising more taxes, not to
mention the fact that it was not germane today. And the gentleman, as a
protector of this institution knows, you can't bring up an alternative
or an amendment that's not germane. You can, but it's not protecting
this institution.
So I say to the gentleman, please, let's sit down together and
address the real problem, not raise more taxes and kick the can. That's
the uncompromising position that seems to dominate the majority party
in this town, which is that controlled by the Senate and the White
House, Mr. Speaker. The Democrats are constantly saying, Let's just
raise more taxes. Take more money from the American people so we can
fix the problem and keep spending their money. That's not the direction
that we want to go in.
And I'll say to the gentleman, we want to do real fixes. We have
consistently, as the gentleman knows, we have put out there and said
here's our prescription to balance the budget; right? And we've said,
Please, Senate, move. Let's hear your plan. Mr. President, please,
you've missed the deadline again. Let's see your plan. Let's show it to
the American people and have the discussion about the proper way to
manage down this debt and deficit.
But nothing; nothing yet.
I will say to the gentleman what he calls a message bill is now law.
And so with that bill, we'll see what the Senate says about managing
down this debt and deficit. And hopefully, if the PLAN Act were to ever
be taken up by the Senate, we'd have the President say, Here's how I'm
going to balance the budget, here's how long it'll take, and here's how
I'm going to do it.
That's the rational way to approach when you have two sides taking
different approaches to the same problem.
Mr. Speaker, we just had a one-way effort here asking the gentleman,
Please join us. Please join us in fixing the long-term problems;
otherwise, we're going to keep mounting the debt that is facing us, our
children and theirs, and we're going to be looking at the end of the
situation that's just not what the American people want.
So I know the gentleman said, you know, let's just keep spending now,
keep taxing. That doesn't help. That doesn't help long term. And we're
trying to do long-term planning to get this country back on track.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
It's good spin, but it's not substance. It was a silly bill. The
Senate passed it and the President signed it because it was the only
way we could make sure that we did not put the creditworthiness of the
United States at risk because we're playing this game of chicken
because there are some people in this Congress who believe that putting
America's creditworthiness at risk is a worthwhile objective. We reject
that out of hand.
And I continue to believe that it was a silly bill that we passed.
Yes, it was a bill that the President signed because he wanted to make
sure that we didn't default on our debts, and we tried to give some
confidence, as the gentleman talked about for years, to the economy.
So, yes, he signed the bill, but it had nothing to do with obviating
the sequester.
The bill that we passed today affects no substantive progress--none,
zero, zip. And the gentleman talks about your plan. The Ryan plan, as
the gentleman well knows, does not balance the budget until well into
the thirties, late into the thirties, 2030s; and, therefore, heaven
knows what's going happen in the next 25 years.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I hear the gentleman's objections to our
plan and our prior budget. We're going to come forward with another
budget that will balance in 10 years.
Mr. HOYER. I'm looking forward to that.
Mr. CANTOR. Where is the gentleman's plan? Where is the President's
plan? Where is the other body's plan to balance this budget? That's all
we're saying. If we can just get down to an equal level of discussion
and say let's do the adult thing and try and resolve the mounting
unfunded liabilities of this Federal Government, we can actually make
some progress and get on about the business of helping people in this
country, making their life better and making their future better, and
that's the goal, instead of trying to go in and just intermittently
kick the can because there's never any attempt to resolve long-term
problems. That's where we're coming from.
{time} 1230
Mr. HOYER. Well, as the gentleman knows, I've been one of the
leaders, certainly on this side, and in this House, to get to a
balanced plan. A balanced plan, yes, does include revenues. You want to
say get more money from the American people.
We buy things. As a people, we buy things. People send us here, 435
districts, and we vote on buying things. One of the things we bought,
of course, was defending ourselves from terrorists, both in Iraq and in
Afghanistan. It cost us $1.3-, $1.4 trillion when you were fully in
charge. We paid zero for it. That's the largest expenditure, other than
the two tax cuts which we did in 2001 and 2003, which we did not pay
for by cutting spending, which you say is the problem.
You didn't cut spending when you were fully in charge of the House,
the Senate, and the Presidency. That's one of the reasons the Tea Party
was so angry at some of your people, because they felt you all were in
charge and you didn't cut spending. Maybe some of the people in this
Chamber share that view.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield again?
Mr. HOYER. Let me finish my thought, if I can, Mr. Leader.
[[Page H398]]
So I say to you, right now, you're talking about a plan. Paul Ryan
said yesterday the Founding Fathers would be upset with the President
for not coming up with a plan. The Constitution contemplates the
President having very little, if any role, other than execution of the
budget in the budget process. That didn't come until the last century.
The fact of the matter is it is our responsibility. Not a nickel can
be spent in America unless the Congress authorizes it to be spent. The
President can't spend money on his own. Not a nickel can be raised in
this country, of revenue, without the Congress acting on it. The
President can't do that.
It is the Congress of the United States, under article I, that has
this responsibility. We're not taking that responsibility. We're trying
to shove it off on somebody else, in this case, the President of the
United States.
The President has a plan. He's offered it a number of times. I just
read a book that discussed our discussions for some period of time with
the President on his plan. He's sent budgets down here. Your side
doesn't like his plan because it involves revenues.
There is not a bipartisan commission that I know of that has not
suggested, in order to solve our debt and deficit problem, that we
don't have to have a balanced plan, which will involve revenues and
will involve cuts in spending, cuts in spending to entitlements, cuts
in spending to discretionary spending. I agree with that.
I'll now yield to my friend.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, we just
raised taxes. We just put more revenue in the mix, $650 billion over 10
years, and got no cuts. No cuts.
And the gentleman talked about the 2001, 2003 tax cuts without paying
for them. You know, we just extended most of those tax measures and
relief to people under $400,000 with no cuts. Nothing. So, again, I
don't think it's right to be saying that we need more revenues now. We
already did revenues, right? We already have $650 billion.
Why does the gentleman continue to think, Mr. Speaker, that that's
what we have to keep doing? It's not the answer.
Let's get to the problem that is causing the mounting deficits. It's
a lack of growth, and it's the spending that's out of control.
Mr. HOYER. We're not going to resolve this argument, Mr. Speaker.
It's the same litany on both sides. The difference is, the gentleman
cannot name a bipartisan commission that doesn't say that we need both
sides of the equation addressed if we're going to get from where we are
to where we need to be.
On my side, we have to deal across the board with spending. You're
correct on that. On your side, you're going to have deal with revenues.
A lot of your people understand that, like Mr. Coburn and others. I
won't mention anybody on this side of the aisle because I don't want to
get them in hot water, but they all understand that.
And what you're saying is, the Senate needs to compromise, the
President needs to compromise by doing it your way. That won't work.
Your way or the highway is not the way we're going to have compromise.
Mr. CANTOR. What about the revenues we already have now done? These
are $650 billion, Mr. Speaker, already raised, no cuts.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time if I can, the gentleman voted for the
Budget Control Act. How much in cuts were in the Budget Control Act?
$1.2 trillion, as I recall, or $1 trillion, excuse me, $1 trillion,
which is why we had the Supercommittee to get the additional 1.2 that
the Speaker said he wanted.
So your side assumed that we'd already done a trillion of the $2.2
trillion that the Speaker said was necessary. So the Speaker and your
side, I presume, already adopted the premise that we'd cut $1 trillion
in the Budget Control Act.
Now, do we need more? I think the answer to that is yes.
Mr. Van Hollen, in his proposal, made some cuts. I'm not saying you
should have supported it. I'm saying you should have allowed the
American people to have that alternative on the floor to consider.
You say it wasn't germane. You and I both know--you know the Rules
Committee process as well as I do--we could have waived that because
the issue in front of us immediately--we're talking about the long
term--immediately, is in 22 days, or 23 days, we're going to have a
sequester. Almost everybody agrees that the sequester will have an
adverse impact on the economy, and on our national security, and on
discretionary programs because it would be irrationally done, across
the board, without recognition of priority status.
So that I tell my friend, I regret that we're not dealing with the
sequester. I would hope the gentleman would put legislation on the
floor next week to deal with the sequester, deal with an alternative to
the sequester, not talk about what we did last Congress. We didn't
agree with that. You're right. We voted against it. But put something
on the floor that deals with the sequester.
And I will tell my friend, I liked his speech. And he said again
today he wants to work in a bipartisan fashion.
The fact of the matter is, we had an election, and in the election
the American people said they thought the President's view had merit,
which was a balanced approach. Yes, revenue, but also cuts in spending.
And the Senate expanded its numbers, notwithstanding the fact that they
agreed with the President's position and not with yours. And, in fact,
more people voted for Democrats in the House of Representatives than
voted for Republicans, but the redistricting resulted in your
continuing to have the majority.
So we have a joint responsibility to get there. And I would urge the
gentleman to please consider putting something on the floor, not these
message bills, but putting something on the floor that will
substantively deal with avoiding the sequester.
Now let me go on to another issue that I know that the gentleman's
been working on, and that's the Violence Against Women Act. I know he's
been working, he said, with Vice President Biden, who was very involved
in this. Can the gentleman tell me the status of that piece of
legislation?
Mr. CANTOR. The gentleman knows that my office and his have been in
discussions about this bill. I have had daily meetings to try and get
to a point where we can bring this forward. You know, I, as the
gentleman does, care very deeply about women and the abuse situation,
that we need to get them the relief that this bill offers. That's what
we want to do. That's our priority.
We must move and act on this bill, and I've, as well, been in touch
with the Vice President and his office about trying to assist in
bringing the parties together because, as the gentleman knows, there's
been the introduction of some issues that are not directly related to
the situation of domestic abuse on tribal lands because that's what
we're trying to get at. We want to protect the women who are subject to
abuse on tribal lands.
And unfortunately, there are issues that don't directly bear on that
that have come up that have complicated it, as the gentleman knows. But
in working with his office, as well as the Vice President's, I hope to
be able to deal with this, bring it up in an expeditious manner.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank him for
his work on this as well. This is a critically important issue, and I
am hopeful that we can come to an agreement which will provide for the
passage of that piece of legislation and send it to the President. I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________