[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19266-19268]
[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, before yielding to the majority leader to 
inquire about the schedule for the week to come, let me say I join with 
the gentleman from Virginia, and I know certainly Mr. Cantor, who also 
represents Virginia, but the entire country as well. We don't know the 
facts yet. We don't know exactly what's happened. But the information I 
have is that two people may well have lost their lives at this point in 
time. We certainly want to send our deepest sympathies to Virginia Tech 
and to the families that are affected by this incident and hope 
sincerely that there is no further loss of life.
  On that issue, let me yield to the majority leader, who I know will 
want to say something as well.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the 
Democratic whip, for yielding.
  I too want to join the gentleman in expressing our sorrow and 
extending our thoughts and prayers to those in the Hokie Nation in 
Blacksburg who, unfortunately, have endured more pain today, 
reminiscent of the pain that so many have felt in that fine university 
in the past. Hopefully, things can look up. I know that there are 
reports that law enforcement was involved. We also want to extend our 
thanks to law enforcement in that community as well as everywhere else 
in this country--certainly in this Capitol--for what individuals of the 
Capitol Police and other police forces across the country do for us 
every single day.
  Again, we express our sorrow to those who are mourning the loss of 
life and extend our thoughts to President Steger at Virginia Tech and 
to that community.
  I do thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 
p.m.
  At this point, the House is scheduled to be in session for the 
remainder of the week, with a weekend session possible. Per our usual 
weekly schedule, I would expect morning hour on most days to begin at 
10 a.m. and legislative business to start by noon. However, because 
this will likely be our last week in session prior to the end of the 
year, the daily convening times may fluctuate to accommodate our year-
end business.
  I can assure Members, however, that we do not expect votes on 
Tuesday, December 13, prior to 1 p.m. That is as far as Tuesday, 
December 13 is concerned.
  Mr. Speaker, our legislative business next week will include a number 
of suspensions, a complete list of which will be announced by the close 
of business tomorrow. In addition, we expect to consider a conference 
report on the remaining appropriations bills for FY12 as well as a 
conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act. I want to 
thank both Chairman Hal Rogers and Chairman Buck McKeon for their 
incredibly hard work throughout the year.
  Finally, we anticipate a vote on a year-end package of expiring laws 
that will include extensions of the payroll tax holiday, unemployment 
benefits, and the physician reimbursement issue.
  If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I want to take 
a minute to highlight a bipartisan event that took place here in the 
Capitol this week.

                              {time}  1450

  Yesterday the Democratic whip and I hosted the first-ever Facebook 
Hackathon, allowing private sector programmers and software developers 
to get together with us to work on ways to utilize social media in 
making Congress more accessible to the public. I'm happy to report that 
over 200 developers from all over the country participated in this 
bipartisan event and shared their ideas.
  I thank the gentleman for joining me and for his help in facilitating 
this noteworthy cause, and I look forward to working with him to 
continue to make Congress a more transparent and accessible institution 
for the people who have sent us here.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments and his leadership 
on the Hackathon event that occurred yesterday.
  He and I both had the opportunity to address a large number of--over 
250, I think--individuals who were there who will, in fact, bring their 
expertise, their technical knowledge to bear on what the gentleman 
referenced as making our institution more accessible and transparent to 
our citizens. We all believe, I think, that doing that will make the 
products that we produce better and make citizens better able to

[[Page 19267]]

make judgments on the work that we do.
  So I want to thank the gentleman and his staff for their leadership 
on this effort. We were glad to join in that.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the unemployment insurance, the 
payroll tax issue, which will continue to give the middle class tax 
cuts to those who need it most, the unemployment, which will keep 
millions of people from losing their unemployment, as well as the 
physician adjustment are scheduled next week. It's my understanding 
that that bill has not been filed yet.
  Can the gentleman tell me when he believes that bill will be filed?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman by saying 
that we are still in discussion about that bill and in drafting; and we 
do intend to abide by our necessary 3-day notice period so that all 
sides and all Members, as well as the public, can enjoy their right to 
know what will be in that legislation. But the gentleman is correct, we 
do expect that bill on the floor next week.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment.
  I have had discussions with the gentleman, and with Mr. McCarthy in 
particular--and also briefly with the Speaker--that we are certainly 
prepared to participate in discussions leading towards a successful 
passage of those three pieces of legislation, particularly the 
unemployment insurance and the payroll tax extension, which we believe 
are critical before we end this year. So we're pleased to see that 
legislation moving forward. But I will tell my friend that I would be 
pleased to participate in discussions with him so that we can assure 
that that bill will in fact pass and, hopefully, pass in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  I want to tell the gentleman that I'm a little bit concerned, and I 
want to ask him whether this principle will be followed. I think I used 
this quote last week, but it bears repeating. Speaker Boehner said:
  We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass 
legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we 
will advance major legislation one issue at a time.
  That was in the Republican Pledge as well, and the Speaker has 
reiterated that at the beginning of this session.
  Now, I am concerned because Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim 
Jordan of Ohio is quoted in The Washington Post as saying the 
following:
  ``The fact the President doesn't like it''--the ``it'' referring to 
the Keystone pipeline provision, which we understand is under 
discussion. I'm glad to hear those discussions have not concluded. But 
he again quoted, ``The fact that the President doesn't like it makes me 
like it even more . . . said of the GOP leadership proposal as he left 
Thursday morning's closed-door meeting.''
  I will say to my friend that we are at the end of the session. We are 
hopeful, as I have said--and as we have demonstrated on the two CRs and 
the debt extension and on the minibus appropriation bill that we 
passed--that we are prepared to respond in a bipartisan fashion to 
assist in passing must-pass legislation and would hope very much that 
we don't put controversial items in that. The President has clearly 
annunciated that he will veto a bill that has the Keystone pipeline.
  I will say, as my friend clearly knows, there is bipartisan concern--
as a matter of fact, the Governor of Nebraska, a Republican, and the 
Republican legislature, which although nominally nonpartisan, as the 
gentleman knows, is two-thirds Republican, one-third Democrat, have all 
voted to delay this project because of their concern about the aquifer 
and the impact that the Keystone pipeline, as currently platted, will 
have in reference to the aquifer, so that there is a bipartisan 
concern.
  As the gentleman knows, as a result of Nebraska's passing legislation 
which said they wanted to do a study on the aquifer and alternative 
siting of the Keystone pipeline course, that that study would take them 
5 to 6 to 7 months, as a result, the President indicated they would 
give time to the Nebraska Governor and the Nebraska Legislature--again, 
Republican organs--to look at that, has given them additional time and 
said he won't act until the beginning of 2013.
  I ask the gentleman, does he believe that provision--I understand 
what Mr. Jordan says. It may be a nice political gesture, but I would 
hope that that would not be the kind of provision that would be 
included in the legislation, whether it's individual bills or a 
comprehensive bill, including those three items that hopefully we can 
pass in a bipartisan fashion.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I understand the point he is trying to make.
  Mr. HOYER. If I may, I thought I did make the point.
  Mr. CANTOR. Well, you may have made the point.
  Maybe, Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to say is that I disagree with 
the gentleman, that if the provisions dealing with the Keystone 
pipeline are in the measure that makes it to the floor that we 
shouldn't join together and do what was done in the past, and that is 
demonstrate a strong bipartisan vote in support of that project. 
Because, as the gentleman knows, organized labor in this country is 
very supportive of that bill, of that provision. It means immediate 
jobs. The President continues to say he is for creating jobs, doing all 
we can to get America back to work. This is a provision that allows for 
that.
  We also have seen, Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman's 
concerns about Nebraska and the issues raised by its Governor as well 
as its State legislature, I believe and am told that there have been 
many discussions in which an alternative route has been determined, and 
there is agreement on that to allow for the proceeding of the 
construction of the pipeline.
  Again, knowing that there is strong bipartisan support for the 
project, knowing that labor is in support of it, knowing that it puts 
people back to work immediately, it would seem to me that this is a 
consistent provision to go along with making sure that we deal with the 
unemployment situation in this country through an extension of the UI 
provisions--with, hopefully, some reforms--as well as the extension of 
the payroll tax holiday.
  As the gentleman knows, our side is concerned. We don't want taxes to 
go up on anybody, especially in an economy like this. But again, I hope 
the gentleman can consider joining us in terms of helping promote an 
environment for job creation.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
  I will say this, though, it seems inconsistent, when the President of 
the United States yesterday said he would veto such a provision, that 
we would include it in legislation that is must pass.
  By the way, the unemployment insurance, economists tell us, will 
provide for 100 times as many jobs; so, therefore, we're for that. Some 
500,000 jobs may be affected by extending the unemployment insurance.
  In addition to that, I tell my friend, the President has offered a 
jobs bill. I know that you're concerned about jobs. The pipeline bill, 
in and of itself, is about 5,000 to 6,000 jobs over the lifetime of the 
pipeline. The jobs bill, economists tell us, is 1 million jobs, or 200 
times as many jobs. Notwithstanding that, very frankly, that has been 
languishing since September and not brought to this floor.
  So it seems to me that, if we are really interested--and I think you 
are--in extending unemployment insurance and providing for a continued 
tax cut for middle-income Americans and for providing for the payment 
of doctors who are serving Medicare patients, that we not include in 
that bill an item that apparently is popular on your side just because 
the President doesn't like it, according to Mr. Jordan.

                              {time}  1500

  I think that's not the way we ought to be operating. The last 7 days 
of the session, or 5 days, 6 days, 7, assuming we went through Sunday, 
we shouldn't be doing that, I suggest respectfully to

[[Page 19268]]

my friend, the majority leader, because it will simply put us back into 
the situation the American public doesn't want us in, and that's 
confronting one another, playing chicken with one another, bringing us 
to the precipice of defeat and lack of success.
  The public doesn't want us there. We shouldn't want us there. And I 
would urge the gentleman not to include items, as I have urged you with 
respect to the appropriation bills that also must be passed. That's not 
in this list, but you did mention it, of course, in the announcement, 
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks have been working hard, and others have been 
working hard to get our appropriations bills done.
  We have urged that we not put controversial items in that, and we 
showed our good faith on that representation when we passed the 
minibus, and 165 Democrats joined 135 Republicans to pass that 
legislation.
  So, again, I would urge the gentleman to, if he feels strongly about 
that, and I know that he feels--he said labor is for that bill. Labor 
is for that bill. I think I'm for that bill, I want the gentleman to 
know. So this does not come from my particular opposition to this bill.
  I am concerned about the alignment and the aquifer. I think that's a 
legitimate concern. But I think that that oil is going to be drilled no 
matter what we do. It seems to me that it's better for us to have it 
than for others to have it and have that availability.
  But having said that, gratuitously putting it into a bill that the 
President has already said I don't agree with that is simply playing 
chicken on legislation that's very important.
  If the gentleman wants to comment on that, I would be glad to yield 
to him.
  Mr. CANTOR. I'd just say to the gentleman I've already responded to 
the notion of issues arising in Nebraska that I am told have been 
resolved, so the issue that he is concerned about has apparently been 
resolved.
  I would say to the gentleman there are 47 Members on his side of the 
aisle, including five ranking members of committees, that have 
supported the measure allowing for the construction proceeding on the 
Keystone pipeline.
  There's no gratuitous move here. It's an attempt to try and bring the 
two sides together on the most important issue, which is creating jobs. 
This is a provision that I believe has been demonstrated has support on 
both sides of the aisle.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the gentleman could refrain from 
trying to say and impute motives here. We're trying to work in a 
fashion--open, transparent, together so that we don't come to any kind 
of end that doesn't produce a result for the people. That's it.
  Again, I appreciate the gentleman's sentiments.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I was quoting, not imputing. Mr. 
Jordan's comments seem to be pretty clear.
  Before we conclude, the STOCK Act, Tim Walz had a bill that was ready 
for markup in the committee. We understand that was pulled.
  As you know, that bill has 220 cosponsors and is a bipartisan 
sponsorship. It simply says that Members should not use insider 
information to trade with, information the general public may not have 
about legislation that may or may not be reported or passed to the 
floor. And I understand that was pulled. I think that was unfortunate.
  Can the gentleman tell me what the status of that piece of 
legislation is?
  Mr. CANTOR. Sure. Absolutely.
  First of all, the issue of insider trading is something that we abhor 
as well, do not tolerate, and believe that all Members of Congress 
should fall under the same laws that apply to anyone, and want to make 
sure that is the case, if it is not.
  And transparency is the key because the public needs to know what 
their Members are doing. We intend to take this issue, make sure that 
concerns that have been raised by Members on both sides of the aisle 
are being vetted. This is an issue of extreme import for the confidence 
of the public towards this institution. We intend to do so in a 
deliberate manner.
  There were issues raised again by Members on both sides of the aisle 
about this bill not being brought up in a vetted way. There are many 
other chairmen who have jurisdiction in this matter who need to be 
involved in this with a full vetting, and we intend to do that. And I 
do hope the gentleman will work with us in doing so.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  As he knows, Congressman Walz has been working hard on this, and I 
know that he will be very inclined to work with you and with the 
committees of jurisdiction; and I will certainly be able to work with 
you as well on this issue because, as I say, Congressman Walz has 
worked very hard on this.
  I think all of us agree, as you just indicated, that no Member of 
Congress ought to be using insider information to trade in the stock 
market to disadvantage, obviously, others who are trading in the stock 
market. So I thank the gentleman for his comments, look forward to 
working with him and, again, in closing, hope that we can reach 
bipartisan agreement on so many major pieces of legislation that we 
need to pass prior to leaving this.
  I will tell the gentleman I hope his side agrees, my side will not 
want to adjourn, nor will it support adjournment, until such time as we 
act on the unemployment insurance and the middle class tax cuts.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________