[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23341-23343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1430
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the 
majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  On Monday the House will not be in session. On Tuesday the House will 
meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative 
business, with votes postponed until 6:30. On Wednesday and Thursday 
the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday 
there are no votes expected.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of suspension bills, as is the custom, will be announced 
by the close of business tomorrow. In addition to the suspension bills, 
we will consider H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling 
Program Expansion Act of 2009, the conference report on H.R. 2997, the 
Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010, and the conference report 
on H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 
2010.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman if we could turn to the discussion 
of health care, and as the gentleman knows, he and I have had 
discussions this week, perhaps, I think, a discussion that could yield 
the ability for us to work together on the things that we agree on in 
health care. Obviously, the divide is great when talking about any type 
of move towards a government takeover of health care. But he and I have 
spoken about maybe there are some areas of agreement. And he and I have 
also talked about the fact that we could meet together and discuss 
that, and I look forward to hearing from him or his office to schedule 
that. And along those lines, I'd like to ask the gentleman what he 
expects the schedule to be towards bringing a health care bill to the 
floor of this House.
  Mr. HOYER. First of all, let me say that, as far as I know, we have 
no premise that we want to pursue of a government takeover of health 
care, so notwithstanding the characterization, we don't believe that 
what's being proposed does that, any more than Medicare, from our 
perspective, was a takeover of the health care system. Having said 
that, we are working, as you know, as the press is reporting, on seeing 
what alternatives are available. There are three committee bills that 
have been reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, had full 
markups, Ways and Means Committee, and the Education and Labor 
Committee. As you know, they differ in part, and so there are now 
discussions as to how you meld those bills together with the theory and 
intention of offering a bill from those three bills.
  We would expect the Rules Committee, at some point in time, to effect 
that objective, as has been done in the past. Our expectation is that 
we will do that within the time frame that we're able to do it; that is 
to say, there's not yet a resolution of how that is accomplished, so we 
don't have a time frame. And we haven't set a time frame, but we will 
do it when it's possible to put forward.
  Lastly, I would say to the gentleman, he and I talked earlier this 
week, as he pointed out, and I look forward to sitting down with him 
next week to see if there are areas where we can agree. If there are, 
we'd like to do that. And I think the gentleman has expressed his 
desire to do so as well. On the other hand, as we know, there are areas 
of substantial disagreement. It's certainly not our view that we can 
start over again. It is our view that this matter has had over 90 
hearings over the last couple of years; that we've had over 2,000 town 
meetings on this, and we've been really at this for about over a year 
now, with very substantial discussions during the Presidential campaign 
from all candidates on both sides of the aisle, as to the fact that 
health care reform was necessary, and we believe the overwhelming 
majority of the American people believe that. Obviously, the details 
are the critical issue, and I look forward to pursuing discussions next 
week with the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the 
gentleman further as to the timing of a bill. I understand that he's 
indicated that there is no resolution as to exactly when a bill would 
come to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I do not expect a bill to be on the floor within the next 
2 weeks, if that's what the gentleman's asking. I think we'll have time 
to have discussions.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman because I was going to ask about 
the Speaker's commitment prior. So I thank the gentleman for that.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, because I think probably--to 
complete the answer--the Speaker and I are both committed to giving 
substantial notice, not only of the bill, when a bill is put together, 
but also of any manager's amendment which may effect the resolution 
between the three committee documents. It is our expectation that there 
would be at least 72 hours for either the bill and the manager's 
amendment or, if they are separate, 72 hours for each.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, as to the scheduling of a bill dealing with sanctions on 
Iran, we've had discussions together on the floor and elsewhere 
regarding the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. And Mr. Speaker, 
I'd say to the gentleman, now, in particular, I think time is of the 
essence that we act because, as we have seen over the last 10 days, 
Iran revealing its secret enrichment program, indicating, yet again, 
that the regime in that country refuses to comply with international 
law or the will of the world community.
  So it is my sense that we should, and we can work together on this 
issue. The gentleman had indicated last time we were engaged in a 
colloquy that he was going to meet with Chairman Berman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee about moving that bill and bringing it to the floor. 
So I would ask the gentleman if he could tell us when we could expect 
that bill to come to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. Since I made that representation, I have, in fact, met 
with both not only Mr. Berman, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, but also Mr. Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee. As the gentleman knows, there are two sanctions bills. One 
is Chairman Frank's bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly last 
year, and provides authority to State and local governments to divest 
their assets from any company that invests $20 million or more in 
Iran's energy sector. That is not as consequential, obviously, as Mr. 
Berman's bill. Mr. Berman's bill, as you know, requires any foreign 
entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise assist such 
sales to be banned from doing business in the United States. Obviously, 
that has real teeth to it.
  As the gentleman also knows, October 1, discussions are underway with 
Iran for the first time in a long time. Furthermore, significantly, the 
administration is working with our allies,

[[Page 23342]]

certainly with, as the gentleman knows, with Britain and France, but 
also engaged with Germany as well, and with Russia and with China, 
members of the P-5 plus 1, essentially, members of the Security Council 
plus Germany, on how we might respond to what the world has viewed as a 
violation of the U.N. resolutions and what Iran has been doing. The 
gentleman and I share a view that Iran's process is unacceptable, that 
Iran's pursuing of nuclear armed capability, weapons capability is 
unacceptable and dangerous to the region and to the international 
community.
  The administration shares that view, and therefore, with respect to 
Mr. Berman's resolution, we are in contact with the administration, and 
Mr. Berman is prepared to bring that forward at a time when, based upon 
whatever may occur in the next week--I don't want to put a time frame 
on it--a week or two, that might indicate that we could get a broader 
international toughening of sanctions that now exist, with the 
agreement, particularly of Russia. As you know, President Medvedev has 
made some pretty strong statements about Qom and the findings there, 
and what he believes to be Iran's failure to keep the world informed 
and concern about what Iran is doing, which was a positive sign.
  But with those considerations in mind, I know that Mr. Berman is very 
focused on this and ready to bring a resolution to the floor at a time 
he believes is consistent with the administration's trying to attain, 
with the international community, the strongest possible sanctions 
internationally, as well as our own sanctions.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And I would only add that I 
believe I'm speaking for our conference here in indicating that it's 
not necessarily what we would do in terms of trying to wait for China 
and Russia to move the bill. I'm not saying the gentleman said that, 
but it sounded as if we've got to wait until there is some collective 
agreement on the world stage in order for Congress to act. As the 
gentleman and I have agreed for a long time now, we, in this country, 
believe very strongly of standing up against the regime in Iran. It has 
an impact on our allies across that region in the world and 
particularly for us here at home. So I would encourage the gentleman by 
telling him that our side stands ready to want to help with moving that 
bill.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate that, and I am 
confident that, as the gentleman points out, that we will move ahead in 
a bipartisan and overwhelming fashion on this bill. But I want to make 
it very clear: We don't have to wait for anybody. Having said that, the 
judgment of the chairman, in concert with the administration, is that 
we do want to see what developments occur in the very near term. And I 
think that's what I meant. Hopefully that's what I said. The 
gentleman's accurate; we don't have to wait, certainly for Russia or 
China or for anybody else, to take the action we deem to be 
appropriate.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, there is a very important debate 
occurring in our country right now regarding our position towards the 
commitment we've made in Afghanistan. And it's clear that the 
Republicans believe, as I'm sure the gentleman does, that this Congress 
must be devoting attention to this important issue as it relates to the 
national security of the United States and our interests in that arena, 
as well as abroad. And I'd like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, 
whether he, in his leadership, will call on General McChrystal to 
testify before Congress as soon as possible. And I'd note, as the 
gentleman well knows, that Chairman Skelton has been reported to have 
made such requests of his leadership.
  Mr. HOYER. As the gentleman probably knows, I have also indicated I 
thought General McChrystal ought to come to the Congress and testify, 
not only before the committees, but perhaps brief a bipartisan session. 
I don't mean an address to it, but a bipartisan briefing, either in the 
Armed Services Committee or on the floor here or in the auditorium. I 
think that's appropriate. As the gentleman knows, the President has 
been involved in very extensive consultation with the Cabinet members 
that deal with the national security issues, including Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen; General Jones, the National Security 
Advisor; Secretary Clinton; the Vice President and others who are 
dealing with this issue.
  As you know, there has been no specific request directed to the 
Congress at this point in time, either by General McChrystal, Secretary 
Gates, or the President, so that it may well be an issue of timing as 
to when they're ready to come to the Congress to lay out the specific 
plans that they believe we ought to pursue. But I think that everyone 
shares the conviction that this is a critical issue with which the 
Congress is going to deal, and that General McChrystal, who is the 
commander on the ground in Afghanistan, needs to come before the 
Congress and give us his best judgment as to how we can be successful.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And I know it's just been reported 
that in the Senate there was an amendment offered by Senator McCain on 
this very point, requiring there to be some testimony by General 
McChrystal before Congress by a date certain. And I'm told that that 
amendment went down on a party-line vote. So I would just tell the 
gentleman, again, that our side believes it's very important, as I know 
he does, in terms of our national security and Congress' role that 
General McChrystal be before us so that we can be informed and conduct 
our constitutional duty as such.

                              {time}  1445

  If I could, Mr. Speaker, turn to the question of jobs.
  We have a running debate, the gentleman and I and others, as to the 
effectiveness of the stimulus bill. And as we all know, back in January 
it was reported that that bill would arrest the rise of unemployment. 
In fact, the goal was set that unemployment would not overreach beyond 
8\1/2\ percent. We know in this country now we're just under 10 percent 
unemployment nationally.
  I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that we should be focusing on this 
economy while we're trying to deal with so many other issues. And it 
has been some time now where we have missed the opportunity on this 
floor to bring up bills that have to do with job creation.
  If we look at some of the evidence of the stimulus bill, it is the 
contention of our side that that bill has not fulfilled its mission. We 
could go through any list of expenditures that we have noted in the 
press and elsewhere, where you have got $2.8 million to fight forest 
fires in the District of Columbia; you have $3.4 million to help 
turtles cross the road in Florida. These are the kinds of items that, 
frankly, rob the public of their confidence in what we do.
  So I would ask the gentleman, is there any effort, is there any hope 
that we may perhaps have some constructive debate around the rest of 
the stimulus money and perhaps orient that towards job creation, 
sustainable job creation and growth in the economy? Because after all, 
I think that's what all of us are after.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And he's correct: we do have a different perspective on this. Of 
course, the gentleman supported economic policies in 2001 and 2003 that 
of course produced the worst job performance of any administration 
since Herbert Hoover. We lost 3.1 million jobs in the last 14 months of 
the Bush administration, lost an average of 680,000 jobs during the 
last 3 months of the administration that President Obama was faced 
with.
  We acted decisively and boldly, in my opinion, under the President's 
leadership. In point of fact, we reduced the average of some 680,000 in 
the last 3 months of the Bush administration to, over the last 3 
months, 350,000 and only 216,000 jobs lost. I say ``only.'' That 
relates to 741,000 jobs lost the last month of the Bush administration. 
That is a half a million fewer jobs. It's not where we want to be, but 
it is certainly a lot better.

[[Page 23343]]

  Many economists in our party and, frankly, in your party, Mr. Zandi 
we refer to, estimate that we have over a million jobs more than we 
would have had had we not passed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 
There has been a 1.3 percent rise in consumer spending in August. It 
was the biggest increase since the 2.8 surge in October of 2001. The 
Labor Department released a report last week showing that during the 
previous week, the number of newly laid-off workers seeking 
unemployment benefits fell for the third straight week, evidence that 
layoffs are continuing to ease at the earliest stages of the economic 
recovery.
  Without going into a lot more statistics, we do have a substantive 
difference as to whether or not our economy is getting better. The good 
news, from my perspective, is most economists agree with us that we've 
bottomed out and we're starting to come up. We're going to have 
unemployment figures tomorrow that will be announced. Hopefully, 
they're down even further.
  The stock market, I will tell my friend, in the Recovery and 
Reinvestment he thinks hasn't worked is up from about 7,200-7,300 up to 
about 9,700. I will tell you that every American that opens their 
401(k) or retirement plan thinks that progress has been made. I know I 
do when I open mine. I am very pleased to see that.
  So we do differ. We differ not only on the success of the economic 
plan that was pursued for 8 years that led to the deepest recession 
that we have had in 75 years.
  But the gentleman stands and asked me a question about adopting more 
of those policies, and with all due respect, my friend, we didn't think 
those policies were going to work, we don't think they did work, and, 
in fact, the policies that your party voted against to a person in 1993 
produced exactly the opposite results: high employment, low deficits; 
in fact, a net surplus at the end of the 8 years of the Clinton 
administration, and a reduction in spending which you doubled in terms 
of percentage, 3.5 under the Clinton years and 7 percent under 
President Bush's years. So, yes, we have a difference of opinion.
  We think we have pursued vigorously policies to create jobs, create 
economic stability, create growth in our economy, and we think it's 
working.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I would say in response, I, nor most of my conference, was not here 
in 1993 on that vote.
  I would simply say to the gentleman, as he knows, in the stimulus 
debate and on down through the rest--cap-and-trade, the health care, 
the budget debate--the proposals that we are offering, especially as he 
refers to in the economic arena, are not the same policies. We have 
proffered an agenda which speaks to small businesses.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I would say I don't think it is necessarily a 
constructive route to take for us to say who was worse because none of 
us, as the gentleman suggests, likes the fact that we've lost 2\1/2\ 
million jobs in the last 8 months. And if you ask the small business 
people in our districts if they think things are better, I think 
there's pretty much unanimity that small businesses are having 
difficulties still keeping the lights on, maintaining payroll.
  Something is amiss. We've got to be focusing on how we can expand the 
opportunity for those small businesses to grow again. It's very central 
to the idea of getting the capital markets straight, of getting our 
fiscal house in order. I am very troubled by the bills that are coming 
along in the Financial Services Committee, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Agency, yet more attempts by the majority to impose the will 
of Washington on the entrepreneurs across this country, restricting 
ultimately their ability to access credit.
  You know, we do have differences, Mr. Speaker. I am just hopeful that 
we can find a way to work together to promote jobs.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his time.

                          ____________________