[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14947-14950]
[From the U.S. 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 the gentleman from Virginia, the 
majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring as to the schedule for 
the week to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session in observation of 
the Columbus Day holiday. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for 
morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes 
postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will 
meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate 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. 
on Friday.
  On Tuesday, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of 
the rules. A complete list will be announced by the close of business 
tomorrow. Also on Tuesday, the House will complete action on H.R. 2250, 
the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, and take up the rule for the three free 
trade agreements and the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill; therefore, 
Members are advised that the 6:30 p.m. vote series will be longer than 
usual.
  On Wednesday, the House will consider H.R. 3078, the United States-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; H.R. 3079, the 
United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; H.R. 
3080, the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; 
and H.R. 2832, extending the Generalized System of Preferences, as 
amended by the Senate.
  On Thursday, the House will consider H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, 
sponsored by Representative Joe Pitts. Then finally, on Friday, the 
House will consider H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management 
Act, sponsored by Representative Dave McKinley of West Virginia.
  The Boiler MACT bill, the three free trade agreements and Mr. 
McKinley's regulatory relief bill are all part of the House Republican 
plan for America's job creators.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.
  Before I talk about the American Jobs Act, does the majority leader 
have an estimate from either CBO or any economist on how many jobs over 
the next 24 months might be created as a result of the passage of those 
bills, the bills to which you refer as the House Republican plan for 
America's job creators?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that I am very 
entertained by the nature of his question since, I guess, it starts 
from the fact that some might believe that Congress creates jobs. But I 
would say in general, Mr. Speaker, that what we need to be doing here 
is to create an environment where entrepreneurs and small businesses 
and investors can actually feel confident again to put capital at risk 
to create jobs.
  I would say to the gentleman further that the administration, itself, 
has accepted the notion that the passage of the three free trade 
agreements will have the potential--there's no guarantee--but the 
potential of the creation of a quarter of a million jobs.
  Again, there have been a lot of promises made in this town, Mr. 
Speaker, about how we're going to control the level of unemployment and 
make sure it doesn't go beyond certain points connected with the 
stimulus bill, but I think the American people have had just about 
enough of broken promises. So we are proceeding with a focus, a focus 
like a laser, on creating an environment for entrepreneurs and small 
businesses to create jobs without making promises, Mr. Speaker, that 
will then let people down. We're trying to regain the confidence of the 
people and put some sensible regulatory policy in place with a lower 
tax environment so we can see growth return to a badly needed 
macroeconomic environment.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer.
  What I took from that answer is there is no estimate of jobs that 
might be created in the next 24 months. That's what I took from your 
answer.
  In terms of not creating jobs but creating an environment, I agree 
with the gentleman that we need to create an environment for jobs, but 
I don't believe that I've seen any estimates that your agenda will 
create jobs. As a matter of fact, I've seen the opposite.
  Mr. Bruce Bartlett, the former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and 
George H.W. Bush, was quoted just a few days ago. I know the gentleman 
is smiling because he knows this quote:
  ``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about 
unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them,'' Mr. 
Bartlett said, not me. ``The GOP opposes additional government spending 
for jobs

[[Page 14948]]

programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending that,'' Mr. Bartlett 
said, ``would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels of 
government.''
  He goes on to say:
  ``Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but 
these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush 
administration''--of course, we lost 8 million jobs, as the gentleman 
will recall, during that period of time--``and there is no reason to 
believe that more of them will have any today.''

                              {time}  1500

  He goes on to say: ``And the Republicans' oft-stated concern for the 
deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell. On August 29, the House majority 
leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, sent a memorandum to members of the 
House Republican Conference telling them to make the repeal of job-
destroying regulations.''
  This is Mr. Bartlett, former Reagan aide and former aide to George 
H.W. Bush, both Republican Presidents. Mr. Bartlett goes on to say: 
``Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor's contention that deregulation would 
increase employment is very weak. As one can see, the number of layoffs 
nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no 
evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration.''
  Mr. Reagan was quoted, we have a nice quote, I am sure you have seen 
it, that indicates that people ought to pay their fair share of taxes 
as well.
  The President has offered the American Jobs Act. He has offered the 
American Jobs Act and economist after economist after economist says 
that it will create jobs. It will create jobs by creating an 
environment, by giving more money to small businesses, giving more 
money to consumers in their pocket.
  I know your side has talked a lot about that and that as a result of 
both businesses having more money in their pocket and consumers having 
more money in their pocket, that that environment of which you speak 
will be created, and a number of people think that they will create 
significant numbers of jobs as a result.
  As a matter of fact, the macroeconomic advisers projected the plan 
would add roughly 1.25 percentage points to GDP, to gross domestic 
product, and create 1.3 million jobs.
  JPMorgan Chase estimated the plan would increase growth by almost 2 
points and add 1.5 million jobs. Moody's Analytics forecast the package 
would add almost 2 million jobs, 1.9 million jobs, cutting the 
unemployment rate by a point and increase growth by 2 percentage growth 
points. Now, I know my friend may disagree with those figures, and may 
disagree with Mr. Bartlett's comment, I am sure you do.
  My point is this, we don't have any bill on the floor that we have 
had over the last 9 months or that is projected, that is projected to 
increase jobs in the short term. The gentleman knows he and I agree on 
the trade bills. I think long term that's correct; but the American 
people, as President Obama observed, can't wait 14 months for the next 
election. They are struggling, in pain, and at risk today.
  And the gentleman last week, or 2 weeks ago, in our colloquy said 
that there are a number of things, items in the jobs bill on which the 
gentleman agrees or his party agrees: bonus depreciation, incentives 
for veterans jobs training programs, infrastructure, small business tax 
cuts, unemployment insurance reform. The gentleman referenced those on 
the floor. Clearly there ought to be some areas where we can get 
agreement.
  Yesterday, as the gentleman may have noted on the floor, in the 
debate I stated that we were debating a regulatory bill that would have 
no immediate effect on jobs. Your contention is it would depress jobs 
in the future if that rule were adopted, but I don't think there was 
any contention during the time of the debate that that would create 
jobs.
  Having said that, I am wondering whether the gentleman has any 
intention of bringing either the President's jobs bill or a jobs bill 
that your side would offer, or a jobs bill that the President has 
offered, to the American people and to this Congress which would be 
open for amendment and change by your side and by our side in an effort 
to respond to the American people's great concern that we are not 
taking actions which are effectively growing jobs in this country.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for all that information.
  Mr. HOYER. I knew you would be happy to receive it.
  Mr. CANTOR. I just say to the gentleman, in quoting Moody's 
Analytics, perhaps what he portrays as our way forward, Moody's chief 
economist was also the one that made the prediction of an unemployment 
rate that would not exceed 8 percent as a result of passage of the 
stimulus bill.
  And it makes my point, Mr. Speaker, that the people in this country 
are tired of Washington making promises it doesn't keep. We're trying 
to abide by the trust that the people put in us to try and deliver 
results.
  And right now, as the gentleman correctly points out, the economy is 
in bad shape. We are trying to do all we can to not only put money in 
people's pockets, because if there were unlimited money, that would be 
fine. But what we are trying to do is to encourage investment. We're 
trying to encourage economic activity so we can see growth happen and 
occur and jobs created.
  That's the way it's done in America, is that we need the private 
sector to take hold of a signal from Washington that we do believe in 
free enterprise, that we're not about this government dictating where 
activity must occur, where and who is deserving of government support.
  I mean, this is the essence, I think, of our difference, Mr. Speaker. 
We're trying to set aside the divide, because clearly we don't agree 
with the President's approach thus far. We didn't agree with the 
stimulus approach, and I think the facts have borne out that we were 
right, that stimulus spending out of this government did not produce 
the results that the administration promised.
  We believed then and we believe now the key to economic growth going 
forward is to increase the competence, is to bolster the 
entrepreneurial private sector in this country. It's about innovation. 
From innovation comes jobs, comes manufacturing; but we need to get 
Washington out of the way and out of the business of creating harm.
  The gentleman, Mr. Speaker, quotes all kinds of people; but I can 
quote my constituents, as I am sure many of his go to him and say can 
you stop making it so difficult for us to create or run a business? We 
need to be a startup country again, Mr. Speaker, and we need to see 
that type of economic activity. That's what will bring on growth.
  So what we have said is, no, the President's all-or-nothing approach 
is unacceptable. It has been rejected by the American people. They 
don't want the my-way-or-highway kind of conduct.
  And what we see out there, Mr. Speaker, is some conduct on the part 
of the administration that is just not becoming and of a helpful mode. 
How is it helpful out there to aim at particular sectors of industry, 
to aim at business in general when we're wanting the businesses to 
create the jobs?
  So what we have said is, no, we are not for voting on tax increases 
in this House, which is what the President's proposal is about. We're 
not for accepting his desire to make it more difficult for charities to 
be successful. That's what's in the President's plan. I'm sure the 
gentleman would not agree that we ought to limit deductions to 
charities, and that's what the President's bill does, something that's 
not very helpful in today's economy when people are so in need of help 
by charities.
  So we said, fine, set aside those differences and let's look at where 
we can agree. So we said we'll bring the trade agreements to the floor. 
We've been asking for that, as has the gentleman. And I will say, Mr. 
Speaker, he has been a stalwart of trying to help get those bills 
through, and I appreciate that, as do many of the Members on both sides 
who support free and fair trade.

[[Page 14949]]

  But I would say we also note the President's remarks in his speech to 
the joint session where he said he would support our efforts in 
regulatory relief so that we can make it easier. We can make it easier 
for people going into business in a sensible way. We continue to bring 
bills forward on that note every week. We brought two forward this week 
and, as I indicated earlier, will again next week.
  We will also be bringing forward the 3 percent withholding bill at 
the end of October that the gentleman well knows is a big concern to 
not only, to not only the private sector, but also to institutions like 
public universities that have already come and approached me and said, 
you know what, if you don't do something to remove that requirement, 
we're going to end up having to pay more for our contracts to our 
vendors.

                              {time}  1510

  So we're bringing that bill to the floor. We also are having bills 
that will come out of the Financial Services Committee that echo what 
the President said in his speech to us, that echo the President's 
stated desire to want to help small businesses access financing. We've 
got to make sure that we're doing everything there so it's not so 
difficult. We also intend to bring forward measures towards helping 
small businesses take advantage of their expenses so they can expense 
the costs that they incur to grow their businesses and take advantage 
of that to see if we can grow.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicates we need to have hearings 
and we need to do things on the President's jobs bill. I think we've 
indicated, and again, the Ways and Means Committee had hearings related 
to unemployment insurance reform, something that the President 
indicated that he wanted to do.
  So, Mr. Speaker, no, we're not going to bring up the President's bill 
in whole because we don't believe in raising taxes and in more stimulus 
spending, but we are going to take the parts that we can agree on. And 
we've taken that posture again and again. It's a reasoned approach when 
you have two sides that have disagreement to say we're going to focus 
on commonality and transcend those differences.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  First of all, let me say that the gentleman knows full well that the 
President's jobs bill does not include revenues. The President 
suggested in the short term--and we ought not to raise revenues, as a 
matter of fact. In the short term, what we need to do is put more money 
back into people's pockets.
  The jobs bill, he did suggest ways to pay for that. And he suggested, 
as did Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin-Domenici, that that be paid for in the 
coming years so we do not dampen down the economy at the same time we 
are trying to stimulate the economy.
  The gentleman says that the bill, the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, didn't work, and his comment was that the economy is 
in bad shape. Yes, the economy is in bad shape. It started being in bad 
shape in 2007, as the gentleman knows, when we went into the deepest 
recession he and I have experienced in our lifetime. And it remained in 
place, and the year that this President took office, we lost 786,000 
jobs that month. After we passed the Recovery Act, as the gentleman 
knows, I'm sure, we created 2 million jobs over the last 24 months. The 
fact of the matter is it worked. Unfortunately, almost no economist 
understood the depth to which the recession had taken us.
  The gentleman didn't support the Recovery Act--I understand that--nor 
did his party. Perhaps those 2 million jobs would not have been 
created. In fact, there was another bill, of course--the gentleman 
hates history, I know--that was passed that created 22 million jobs 
that no Republican supported. So I tell you, my friend, that when we 
compare economic performance of policies, one has created a lot of jobs 
and one lost a lot of jobs in the last decade.
  And I will tell my friend when he says that the American people don't 
support the jobs bill, in fact, I want to tell my friend The Washington 
Post-ABC news poll says 52 percent of Americans support the American 
Jobs Act, and 58 percent of Americans believe the American Jobs Act 
will improve the jobs situation, including in that number 52 percent of 
Independents. In a Gallup poll, Americans support Obama's plan to pay 
for the American Jobs Act, 70 percent of Americans support increasing 
taxes on some corporations by eliminating certain deductions. I think 
some of your Republicans have said the same thing. Sixty-six percent 
support increasing revenues on individuals earning at least $200,000. 
Now, again, the President did not suggest doing that now, as the 
gentleman knows, just as the commissions did not suggest doing that 
now.
  But what I have said to the gentleman and what I believe to be the 
case, and he says the Ways and Means Committee had a hearing today, 
that hearing was not on a comprehensive jobs package. It was on an 
important issue, no doubt about that, but there has been no 
comprehensive effort to put together in the short term a bill which 
will bring jobs to Americans that they need now.
  The President's bill, we believe, will do that. We understand that 
there may be opposition. We also understand that there may be change. 
But there has been no vehicle brought to this floor since the President 
spoke over 2 weeks ago to allow this House to work its will. You may 
have the majority of votes on it, but let the American people see who 
wants to create jobs. The gentleman says we don't create jobs. He is 
exactly right in a certain sense; but in another sense, as he says, we 
create an environment in which jobs are created, in which the economy 
grows, and in which people feel comfortable.
  One of the things I want to say to my friend that I hope he would be 
for, my own belief is that one of the things that will most raise 
confidence will be to have the select committee of 12 come to an 
agreement on cutting $4 trillion over the next 10 years so that we can 
get the fiscal house in America in order and to do so by a balanced 
approach with everything, all of our expenses and revenues, on the 
table. I would hope my friend would join me in urging the select 
committee to do that, because I frankly think that is the one thing we 
could do that will raise the most confidence--not only here at home 
among Americans, but around the world--in America's ability to address 
tough questions.
  So I would urge my friend to, one, try to come to an agreement with 
his committee chairs to have a comprehensive jobs bill brought to the 
floor, whatever you think that jobs bill may be, and then allow us to 
offer amendments, have the House of Representatives work its will on 
that; and then, secondly, to join in urging the select committee to 
work on getting us back to where we were in 2001 with a projected 
surplus in this country.
  Mr. CANTOR. If I could just respond, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I 
need to correct the record about the gentleman's statement about my not 
appreciating history. Of course I appreciate history. It is just one's 
sometimes biased interpretation of that history that I take exception 
with.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, is there anything I said that you 
believe is factually inaccurate?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, without getting into specifics, I think the 
gentleman and I do have a different view perhaps of history at times, 
not always.
  Mr. HOYER. I'll take that as a ``no.''
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say this, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman well knows 
that the President's jobs bill, as submitted by Mr. Larson, has been 
referred to many, many committees. There isn't one committee that's 
going to have a comprehensive hearing on the bill. So as I said before, 
we intend to take the areas that we can agree on to work together 
towards forging a solution so we could actually, as some would say, put 
a win on the board for the American people.
  I would say also, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that there 
are no cosponsors on the bill that's been submitted as the President's 
jobs bill.

[[Page 14950]]

There are no cosponsors. So if there is such support on the other side, 
I would guess we'll see a lot of people, a lot of Members signing up 
for that bill.
  I would say, though, to the gentleman that the reason we don't 
believe that bill is helpful right now is because we don't believe that 
raising taxes is something you need to do to grow the economy. In fact, 
it's harmful to growing the economy.
  And as far as the gentleman's admonition or statement about the joint 
select committee, again, if he says ``balanced approach,'' that's a 
nice way of saying we want to raise taxes. We don't want to raise 
taxes. As the gentleman knows, he and I have been at the process of 
trying to forge a solution. Both he and I do want to see outcome and 
success, because I don't feel that it is in any way helpful to anyone 
to see the joint select committee fail.
  The committee is charged with coming up with commensurate savings in 
order to increase the Nation's credit limit, so that means we've got to 
get the cuts. But when the gentleman talks about ``big deal,'' I'm all 
for trying to fix the entitlements because we know that's the problem 
facing this country, that the disproportionate driver of the deficits 
is the entitlements.

                              {time}  1520

  We know how to fix them. In fact, our side is the only one that has 
proffered a wholesale formula to address reform that would last a 
generation. That's the kind of certainty that I think will help in 
terms of increasing investment and the appetite for risk in this 
country to help entrepreneurs grow. The gentleman, his party and the 
President have rejected our approach and have failed to offer a single 
formula that will fix the entitlement problem and instead want this so 
called ``balanced approach'' that will simply take money out of the 
private sector, out of the people who have earned it, the small 
business owners, to continue to fund Washington to let Washington spend 
money.
  And we say if you are not willing and courageous enough to fix the 
problem, why should we go and make prospects for economic growth that 
much dimmer by raising taxes?
  So, yes, I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I'm all for as 
much savings as we can actually accomplish and reform that we can 
complete, but, clearly, we have demonstrated there are a lot of 
differences.
  So, instead, I would look to the joint select committee to do its 
work. And I have the full confidence in the appointees by our Speaker 
that we can see it do its work without a lot of hyperbole and fanfare 
so we can continue to focus on how we're going to get Americans back to 
work.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen, I think, in that last discussion a very 
significant discussion between our two parties. Indeed, the Republicans 
did offer a budget bill which privatized Social Security. They call it 
a premium support program. It eliminated the guarantee that people 
would have access to affordable health insurance coverage.
  We don't agree with that. The gentleman is absolutely correct. We've 
rejected that. I would suggest the voters have rejected it. But I will 
tell the gentleman that we also reject the notion that you can spend 
great sums of money, as we did in the last decade when your party was 
in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and not pay 
the bill. That's why we went from $5.6 trillion of projected surplus to 
a $10 trillion debt when this President took over.
  I will tell the gentleman that paying for what we buy is the right 
thing to do for our children and grandchildren. And the way you pay for 
that is called taxes. And we're not for raising taxes. However, we are 
for paying our bills. And if we want to buy stuff, if we want to 
confront terrorists in Iraq--which I supported--and if we want to 
confront terrorists in Afghanistan--which I supported--and if we want 
to make sure that seniors have prescription drugs, we ought to pay for 
those, not pass those along to my grandchildren. And you don't have 
grandchildren yet, but at some point in time you may well have them. 
And I hope you do have grandchildren. It's a wonderful joy. But we're 
simply passing the expenses along to them.
  As the gentleman knows, we're now collecting somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 15 percent of revenues, 3 percent below average for the 
last 40 years. But we continue to buy things. And we bought things at a 
greater rate in the decade that has just passed than we did in the 
1990s. We increased spending at a greater rate. The gentleman knows 
that. That's not history; those are facts, maybe historical facts, but 
they're facts.
  What I'm telling the gentleman is, with respect to a balanced 
approach--he then says, well, all that means is you want to raise 
taxes. No. What it means is I want to make sure that we put everything 
on the table that is giving us the challenge that we're seeing all over 
the world of balancing our budget, getting our expenditures in line 
with our revenues, and that we do so in a way that does not undermine 
America's national security, its economic well-being, and the welfare 
of our people. That's what we believe in, that's what we hope this 
select committee will do, and, yes, we believe that everything needs to 
be on the table.
  If that is not consistent with what your view is, it is consistent 
with the views of every bipartisan group, the Big Three, if you will--
Pete Domenici, former Republican chairman of the Budget Committee in 
the United States Senate; Alice Rivlin, former CBO director; Erskine 
Bowles, former chief of staff for the White House; Alan Simpson, former 
U.S. Republican Senator from Wyoming; and the Gang of Six that now has 
over 18 or 19 Republicans and 18 or 19 Democrats saying we need to do.
  I hope we can join together to do that. I personally believe that is 
the most important effort that we could make in bringing confidence 
back to America and to the perception of America around the world.
  Mr. CANTOR. Just one final note, Mr. Speaker, we should just stop 
buying so much. That's my point.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________