[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8128-8131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
                          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 minority whip for yielding.
  On Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday the House will meet at 
10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. legislative business. On 
Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative 
business. On Friday no votes are expected.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A 
complete list of suspensions, as is the tradition, will be announced by 
the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider

[[Page 8129]]

Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act 
of 2009 and H.R. 1404, the Federal Land Assistance, Management and 
Enhancement Act.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I would like to ask the gentleman that, in reference to his mention 
of the public lands omnibus bill, and that will be coming back to the 
floor, I would like to ask the gentleman, will our side, the 
Republicans, be given a motion to recommit or an opportunity to amend 
this bill?
  Mr. HOYER. The bill comes back, of course, it is a House bill being 
returned with amendments as the gentleman, I'm sure, knows, and under 
those circumstances, of course, we consider that there is not a motion 
to recommit on that kind of a procedure. So the answer there would be 
it would not be a motion to recommit. As the gentleman also knows, this 
bill came two votes short of a two-thirds majority with very 
significant Republican and Democratic support of the bill. This bill 
has been hanging around for a long period of time. It is composed 
largely, although not exclusively, of bills that have passed the House 
largely on suspension.
  So the answer to the gentleman's question is we believe there has 
been demonstrated overwhelming support for the substance of this bill. 
It has been hanging around a long time. We want to see it get passed. 
And the answer is probably not.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  As the gentleman knows, certainly there are procedures in place to 
waive the rules so that we can, on the minority side, have a voice in 
the passage of this legislation consistent with what President Obama 
has continued to say, which is that we should change the way this town 
works and continue to allow all sides to have a voice in what Congress 
does. I think, as we saw over the last week, evidence or results of 
rushing things through the House and disallowing our side to have a say 
in legislation may very well end up with wrong results. So I am 
saddened to hear that we will not be having an opportunity to offer an 
amendment to that bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that point?
  Mr. CANTOR. Yes.
  Mr. HOYER. As the gentleman, I'm sure, knows, many, many of the 
provisions, I don't know that I have the specific count, are 
Republican-sponsored bills in this, what the Senate packaged, as you 
know, so that a large percentage, I don't know exactly what the 
percentage is, whether it is 30 percent or 35 percent, are Republican-
sponsored pieces of legislation.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I think that the percentage would probably be reflected in the fact 
that there may be 17 or so Republican provisions in the bill out of 140 
or so. So I wouldn't necessarily say, Mr. Speaker, that that would 
reflect what our side would amend or hope to amend the bill with. But I 
would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that last week he was on 
the floor and he mentioned that a stem-cell bill will be coming to the 
floor prior to recess. And since the gentleman has not noticed the bill 
for next week, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman tell us if 
he expects it on the floor the following week?
  Mr. HOYER. It is possible. I wouldn't send out an expectation. It is 
being worked on. There is a strong feeling by the sponsors of the 
legislation, as you know, that passed in the last Congress through this 
House, handily, that I think in agreement with the administration that, 
in addition to the administration's Executive Order, legislation is 
necessary to give certainty to what can and cannot be done by 
researchers. And we obviously want to make sure that researchers 
understand what the law is, what the opportunities are, and what the 
prohibitions are so that legislation is possible. But I want to tell my 
friend that I did not announce it for next week. I don't expect 
legislation next week. I think it is possible for the week following, 
but I don't want to go beyond that. We will certainly let the gentleman 
know as soon as I know.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask further questions of the gentleman, 
as we have been told that the budget will be marked up next week, and I 
am wondering from the gentleman, number one, if he expects the budget 
on the floor the following week? In addition to that, I am curious, as 
are the Members on our side of the aisle, about the subject of your 
discussions with Chairman Spratt as to the direction of the budget. 
There has been a lot of discussion publicly as well as in these halls, 
about the proposed cap-and-tax proposal, where some economists, those 
from MIT and others, predict that if we are to provide for the cap-and-
tax proposal, that it will cost American families at least $3,100 every 
year. That, to me, is a great cause for alarm, especially given the 
economic times and the struggle that the working families of this 
country are encountering.
  It was also revealed this week that the number provided for in the 
proposed budget has underestimated the real cost of cap-and-tax. And if 
that is the case, that is even more alarming given the fact that if we 
are looking at an over $3,000 per family tax, what is it that we are 
doing if we are putting that cost on anybody who pays an electric bill, 
anyone who pays a gas bill, anyone who buys anything manufactured in 
this country? So I ask the gentleman if he is contemplating that the 
budget proposal that will come to the floor will have that in it.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My presumption is that you have now come up with a new phrase on your 
side of the aisle. I do know about cap-and-trade. It is talked about 
regularly. But maybe that is not as politically salient as ``cap-and-
tax.'' It seems innovative. But if the gentleman, as I presume he is, 
is referring to what is commonly known by everybody else as ``cap-and-
trade,'' let me say this: The Budget Committee obviously will mark up 
on the 25th, that is next Wednesday, we expect to bring the budget bill 
to the floor the following week, the last week before the Easter break. 
My expectation is there will be provisions in there for energy and 
global warming consideration. But my further expectation is it will not 
adopt a premise of one alternative over another, that that will be 
subject to the legislative process, and that one will not be chosen in 
the budget itself, so that voting on the budget would not be giving 
precedent to one alternative over another.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask whether the gentleman can tell us as to the 
prospect for reconciliation instructions to be included in the budget. 
We have heard this week that the White House has told leaders on your 
side of the aisle to pursue health reform through reconciliation as 
well. And to us, this seems like a straight-up partisan approach, 
something I don't think that the American people are looking for right 
now, especially when it comes to items such as taxes and items like 
health care that everyone is concerned with. There is no distinction 
made between hardship on health care between Republican and Democrat.
  So I would like to ask the gentleman, will the budget be coming 
through with reconciliation instructions?
  And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, the gentleman indicated that ``we have been told by the 
White House.'' I had some comments on how the Republican majority 
responded, from my perspective, without fail to the Bush 
administration. We have discussions with our White House. We don't tell 
them. They don't tell us. We have discussions, positive discussions, on 
how we, together, can move this country forward.
  Those discussions clearly have had reconciliation as a subject of 
discussions. But I will tell the gentleman that those decisions by the 
Budget Committee have not been made, nor have they been made by the 
chairman of the Budget Committee. But they clearly are part of the 
discussion. Reconciliation, as the gentleman knows, has been in our 
rules for a very long period of time. When the Republicans

[[Page 8130]]

were in power, reconciliation was something that they used. They are in 
the process to facilitate the adoption of the budget and policies 
consistent with the budget; i.e., to reconcile the budget with the 
authorization and the policy with the budget that has been adopted. So 
I say to the gentleman that that is certainly under consideration, but 
no decision on that has been made.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman would also share the 
attitude of discussing with us the direction, just as you indicate that 
the White House discusses but doesn't tell you what to do. So I like 
that spirit of cooperation.
  I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, further, about any insight 
you can give us as to TARP 2 budgeting. As we all know, if we do not 
get the banking system fixed, we won't have the credit system fixed for 
the small businesses of this country, and we won't see the economy get 
back on the path to growth. So I would ask the gentleman, is he 
contemplating a number in the budget? Does your conversation with 
Chairman Spratt indicate what we could expect there?
  And I will yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I don't want to anticipate what the Budget Committee will 
do. The gentleman is referring to the placeholder that the 
administration suggested in the budget. They did so because they wanted 
to present a budget that did, in fact, anticipate possible costs. To 
that extent, it was probably one of the most honest budgets that we 
received, honest in the sense that it included the prospective costs. 
As you know, we have been somewhat critical in the past of costs that 
we knew were coming down the pike but which were not included. So the 
administration did that.
  Now whether or not the Budget Committee itself decides to include 
those costs, I don't know. But I do know this, that there has been no 
decision on an additional TARP appropriation or authorization. Clearly, 
we are hopeful that we will stabilize the economy. We have moved 
forward in many respects on a bipartisan basis on this, certainly not 
in every respect.
  We have done some tough things because we thought the crisis that 
confronted our country demanded action. We have all been very 
disappointed with some of the manifestations of that. And I think we 
are going to continue to look at this very carefully. The Financial 
Services Committee is marking up a bill this coming week, which I 
expect to have on the floor the following week, dealing with 
constraints on those who receive funds from the Federal Government, 
from the taxpayer, to shore up our economy, not to shore up those 
businesses, but to shore up the businesses as they relate to the impact 
their failure would have on the economy.
  I think that the gentleman and I share a view that we certainly need 
to have knowledge, and we will have knowledge if the administration 
believes that it needs additional resources and that Congress will have 
that to consider. I would say that the environment for such a piece of 
legislation right now is not particularly good.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman further on that note about a 
markup in the Financial Services Committee. I take it to mean that the 
Financial Services Committee will be working on a piece of legislation, 
not necessarily aimed at a bank fix and making sure we can get the 
impaired assets out of the market, but instead, from what I hear the 
gentleman say, that it is a bill aimed at providing a structure for 
those businesses, those institutions receiving TARP funds.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I think that is accurate.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And one additional question along 
those lines, Mr. Speaker, could we expect then the following week for 
that bill to be coming to the floor?
  Mr. HOYER. That is my expectation, yes.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, we heard an 
announcement from the President of a plan to support small businesses. 
And as the gentleman knows, the Republican plan for stimulus was 
focused like a laser on the job creators, which are the small 
businesses of this economy. We know that 70 percent of the jobs come 
from small businesses, entrepreneurs and the self-employed. So we were 
very delighted to see the announcement--and I know the gentleman 
himself had some public comments to make, as well--lauding the move 
towards finally saying, if we are going to create jobs, we had better 
focus on small business. But my concern is, Mr. Speaker, that when 
you're talking about small business and the SBA, truly nine out of 10 
small businesses in this country have not had any encounter with the 
SBA, nor do they intend to or want to.
  I will tell the gentleman, in my district, I had a small business 
forum last week. I spoke to 25 small business people. What they are 
asking for is access to credit. They are looking for the banking system 
to work. They want their own community banks, not necessarily 
government strings attached to loans.

                              {time}  1515

  They also are looking for relief from the tax code. As we have noted 
on the floor several times, Mr. Speaker, the budget that was proposed 
by the White House actually impacts small businesses more than anyone 
else. In fact, 50 percent of those receiving a tax hike in accordance 
with the President's budget are small businesses.
  So with that in mind, and given that the gentleman has applauded the 
move on the part of the White House to help provide relief to small 
businesses, I would ask the gentleman if there are any plans to include 
tax relief for small businesses in the majority's budget as it works 
its way through committee and then to the floor next week?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. As you point out, 
on this side of the aisle we certainly have great concern for small 
businesses.
  Although I don't want to be argumentative, the situation we find 
ourselves in was inherited. It was inherited from a previous 
administration that believed in a number of things, particularly the 
policies that you have offered to once again pursue, which we didn't 
think would work and, we think, frankly, have in some respects been a 
cause of the crisis that confronts this country.
  Furthermore, we think that the administration's focus on deregulation 
and taking the regulators out of circulation was a significant cause. 
We also think that the failure of the Federal Reserve to enforce the 
1994 law that was passed by the Congress and which was enforced by 
Chairman Bernanke in 2007 when he took office, which allowed the 
Federal Reserve the authority to oversee the subprime market, and the 
theory that Mr. Greenspan had that the market would regulate itself. In 
point of fact, we see from AIG that the market did not regulate itself. 
It went on a binge of irresponsibility and greed.
  So I want to make it clear that while we are very concerned about 
small businesses, it is huge businesses that have put them in the trick 
bag. It was huge businesses that weren't overseen properly by the 
previous administration and need to be properly overseen by this 
administration.
  Furthermore, let me say to my friend that the budget that the 
President has proposed eliminates the capital gains tax for individuals 
on the sale of certain small business stocks. It makes the research and 
experimentation tax credit permanent. Ninety-seven percent of small 
businesses will receive no tax increase in 2010. There is $28 billion 
in loan guarantees to expand credit availability for small businesses, 
and support for $1.1 billion in direct disaster loans for businesses, 
homeowners and renters.
  Furthermore, the administration has, which you just saw them take 
action on, a small business lending initiative, not to the big banks, 
not to the huge organizations, but to small businesses. It is focused 
on unlocking credit for small businesses. You and I have absolute 
agreement on that. We need to do that. You talk to your small 
businesses; all of us do.

[[Page 8131]]

  I had a meeting with my Chamber of Commerce, and we probably had a 
hundred small businesses in the auditorium at that point in time. You 
are absolutely right, they are having real trouble getting credit. I 
talked to a county commissioner who has a small business in Calvert 
County. Normally he could go into his bank and get a loan on a 
handshake for $30,000 or $40,000 to expand his business. This time he 
was looking for $40,000. He has dealt with this bank for 35 years, and 
they said, I don't know whether they said Mr. Clark or Mr. 
Commissioner, but they said, yes, but fill out the form. And it took 
him 30 days. Now he got it, but he has done business with that small 
bank for that period of time. So we share that view.
  By the end of the month, the Treasury Department will start making 
direct purchases of up to $15 billion in securities backed by SBA loans 
to get the credit market for small businesses moving again.
  In addition, in the Recovery Act, we eliminated, as I am sure the 
gentleman knows, all SBA-backed fees on SBA-backed loans, again to try 
to facilitate small businesses getting credit.
  And it raises from 85 to 90 percent the proportion of loans that the 
Small Business Administration will guarantee.
  Lastly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed these steps to 
unlock the credit markets for small businesses.
  So we are very pleased at the definitive action that we have taken to 
further the interest you and I share of making sure that small 
businesses can make it in this extraordinarily bad time which we 
believe previous policies have caused and which we have inherited.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, how I would respond 
to that is let's take a step back and look at sort of the events that 
transpired that led up to the need for today's vote on the AIG bonus 
payments, okay. I think that the events if we follow them teach us a 
lesson.
  The stimulus bill that included a provision prohibiting the 
government from disallowing the bonus payments was in that 1,100-page 
bill. I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, no one in this House read 
the bill in its entirety. Nor did the public have its right to know 
realized. I think that ought to give us the sense that we need to be 
much more deliberative and open about this process.
  These ideas, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman is proposing to help 
small business, most of which we probably do agree on, but, frankly, 
the better way to ensure success and a positive result is to have an 
open process where we all have the ability to offer our ideas, that the 
ideas and the policies are not just handed down from the majority 
leader or the Speaker's office and imposed upon the will of the people 
of this country.
  So I would just reiterate to the gentleman that if we can see our way 
forward to allow the minority the ability to offer up real, positive 
alternatives if we disagree, it would all behoove us to work in that 
fashion. We can end up avoiding the type of result that came from the 
rushed way that so-called stimulus bill passed this house.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman yields back, I just want 
to make an observation.
  I understand what the gentleman said, but the gentleman will recall, 
of course, that your party had a substitute that it offered that lost 
on a bipartisan vote, as you recall. So the gentleman did have the 
opportunity, his party had the opportunity, to offer a substitute which 
a significant number in his party did not agree with and certainly an 
overwhelming majority of our party did not agree with, in part because 
we perceived it as creating far fewer jobs. There is a difference of 
opinion on that, I understand that, but our perception was that it 
created about a third of the jobs or saved about a third of the jobs 
that our bill did.
  But that aside, putting aside that disagreement on the figures, the 
fact is there is no disagreement that you had a substitute. You offered 
it, and it was defeated.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. How I would just respond before I 
yield back my time is that there was a stronger bipartisan vote in 
favor of our substitute than there was in support of the actual bill 
that passed. I think that we can take that as a signal that this House 
ought to be open, ventilated, and available for debate.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, and I 
thank the gentleman.

                          ____________________