[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1228-1232]
[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 of the schedule for the 
week to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, the Democratic whip, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 1 p.m. in pro forma 
session. No votes are expected. On Tuesday, 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. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will 
meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On 
Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last 
votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of 
the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of 
business tomorrow. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 7, the 
American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012. The House may also 
consider legislation relating to H.R. 3630, the Temporary Payroll Tax 
Cut Continuation Act.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information with respect to 
the two pieces of legislation and the suspension bills.
  If I might inquire, Mr. Leader, of the timing. The conference 
committee has met, as all of us know, a few times since being appointed 
on December 23. They were supposed to have a meeting today, but 
apparently that meeting was cancelled. We adopted a motion to instruct 
conferees on January 18, with only 16 Republicans opposing and just a 
few Republicans opposing this time on a similar motion to instruct, 
urging the conferees to report back by February 17.
  You know as well as anybody, we will be off for the President's week 
work period, and we will not be back until the night of the 27th, which 
only gives us the 2 days and that evening to pass this bill if we do 
not pass it before the 17th.
  In December, we almost, as you well know, did not extend the payroll 
tax holiday or the unemployment or the SGR package. That would have 
resulted, as the gentleman knows, in 160 million Americans having a tax 
increase, benefits lost for many unemployed Americans--almost 2.3 over 
the next 3 months--and we only have 3 full days left before the 
February break. Of course, the gentleman, Mr. Camp, the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee, chairs that conference.
  Can the gentleman tell us whether or not there is a reasonable 
expectation that we will be able to act on this bill and have the 
conference committee report on the House floor?

[[Page 1229]]


  Mr. CANTOR. I will say to the gentleman, as I said before and as 
reflected by the vote that just occurred on the motion to instruct 
conferees, we, too, desire a resolution of this issue next week. I 
think the gentleman knows that we've been on this floor before in the 
same discussion where it is imperative for us to send a signal to the 
hardworking taxpayers of this country that they're not going to have 
their taxes go up. So it is my hope that we're going to see some 
productivity out of the conference committee.
  I think the gentleman knows my position as to why there has been no 
productivity. Frankly, last week, I urged the gentleman to point his 
ire to the other side of the Capitol because it is that side of the 
Capitol and Leader Reid who have been unwilling to come forward with a 
resolution to this issue.

                              {time}  1050

  As the gentleman knows, the House has taken its position. We believe 
we ought to extend the payroll tax holiday for a year and do so in a 
responsible manner so as not to raid the Social Security trust fund. 
But there's been no willingness on the part of Leader Reid and his 
conferees to even offer a suggestion as to how to resolve this impasse.
  So, again, I say to the gentleman, we are committed to making sure 
taxes don't go up on hardworking people in these economic times.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am pleased to 
hear that.
  As the gentleman knows, Mark Zandi just a few days ago said that 
failure to extend the payroll tax and the unemployment insurance 
benefits ``would deliver a significant blow'' to our fragile economic 
recovery and could cost our economy 500,000 jobs and raise the 
unemployment rate by at least three-tenths of a point and lower 
economic growth by seven-tenths of a point.
  Now I'm pleased to hear what the majority leader has said, but of 
course we still have some concern. Representative Paul Broun, one of 
your Members from Georgia said, This payroll tax holiday is just a 
gimmick to try to get Obama reelected. This is bad policy. 
Representative Chaffetz from Utah, one of your colleagues, said, Tax 
holidays just are bad policy. A year is pretty short. The chairman of 
your campaign committee, Pete Sessions, was quoted in the L.A. Times. 
Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, who heads the House Republican 
campaign committee, called Obama's plan--that is, the extension of the 
payroll tax--``a horrible idea.'' He said GOP candidates would have no 
difficulty explaining to voters why they want to let the tax break 
expire. And then, of course, the chairman of the conference committee, 
my good friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, apparently 
does not agree with what the majority leader just said in wanting to 
extend this tax cut, because he said, I'm not in favor of that. I don't 
think that's a good idea.
  Now that was, admittedly, back in August, so it was some months ago 
when he said that. But it gives us some concern that the leadership of 
the conference committee, Mr. Camp and others, are in the position 
where they don't really think, as seemed to be reflected in the last 
year, that this tax cut ought to be extended. They do, however, 
believe--very strongly, as I understand it--that the tax cut for the 
wealthiest in America, the Bush tax cuts, ought to be extended, and 
they ought to be extended without paying for it. And, in fact, you 
provided in your rule that you adopted in this Congress that they could 
be extended without paying for them.
  I don't think that's your position, as I understand it, with respect 
to tax cuts for middle class Americans. Would the gentleman like to 
comment on those observations?
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say, really it's not productive to engage 
in politics and division. We ought to be about multiplication here. We 
ought to be about growing the economy. We ought not be talking in the 
way that the gentleman suggests, that somehow we Republicans prefer one 
group of people over another. That's not true. We're here fighting for 
the hardworking taxpayers.
  I just said, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman, that we, as Republicans 
in this House, do not support taxes going up on anybody. We believe 
that Washington spends too much money. We don't believe you ought to 
tax anybody, especially the job creators, the small businessmen and 
women who we're relying on to create jobs and get this economy back to 
where it needs to be, in a growth mode.
  So the gentleman knows very well my position, and it is the position 
of our conference. We do not want to see taxes going up on hardworking 
taxpayers. I said it before, and I will say it again: We hope that the 
conferees can produce something for us to vote on, but we are not in 
any way, shape, or form advocating for taxes to go up on hardworking 
people. No. We are for making sure that doesn't happen. So, Mr. 
Speaker, I don't know how many times I can say that to underscore our 
commitment.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his recommitment to that 
proposition.
  Let me ask the gentleman, therefore, given the fact, am I correct 
that you do not believe the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts 
needs to be paid for? Is that still your position?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, again, the question has to do with the 
gentleman and his side's and the President's insistence that somehow 
the math requires us to raise taxes on small businessmen and women. We 
don't believe that. We don't believe that we ought to let tax rates go 
up and create a tax hike on the small business people of this country 
because, number one, that exacerbates the challenge that we're already 
dealing with in trying to get this economy growing. And number two, it 
will put more money into the hands of Washington to begin spending that 
money without paying down the debt.
  The gentleman knows very well our commitment to making sure we get 
the fiscal house in order. He knows very well that we believe you've 
got to fix the problem and not go in and ask the small businessmen and 
women to pay more taxes to dig a hole deeper. We believe you ought to 
fix the problem, stop taking small business money away from the men and 
women who make it, and let them continue to put it back into their 
enterprises and create jobs. That's what we're trying to do. And I look 
forward to working with the gentleman to make sure we accomplish that 
end.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's answer. It doesn't surprise 
me, but he didn't answer my question.
  My question was: you amended your rules in this House so that the 
extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts did not have to be paid for. 
I'm asking, is that the gentleman's position now? It's a very simple 
question. Yes or no? It is, or it is not.
  Mr. CANTOR. If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does 
he think that the payroll tax holiday extension for the year needs to 
be paid for?
  Mr. HOYER. I don't necessarily think it needs to be paid for for 
exactly the reason you pointed out. What you pointed out was, you don't 
want to depress--either by increasing the taxes on small business, as 
you point out--we're not for increasing taxes on small business. We are 
for asking those who have made the best in our society over the last 10 
years, make the most, make $1 million or more, we do believe, yes, a 
greater contribution is in order because our country has a challenged 
situation that we need to respond to.
  Having said that, I believe that it ought to be consistent, in terms 
of your application of not paying for tax cuts, for it to be also 
applicable to middle income, hardworking Americans who find themselves 
in a real pinch in this present economy, that we would take a similar 
position.
  All I'm asking the gentleman, is your position on the middle class 
tax cut, which we are talking about, and it is in conference, the same 
as it is on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003? That's all I'm asking.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

[[Page 1230]]

  I would ask in response to that, does he not agree that there is a 
difference between the nature of the tax relief in the payroll tax and 
the nature of existing tax rates on the marginal level as well as 
capital gains? And along those lines, would he not, then, be advocating 
a position that would say, it's okay to raid the Social Security trust 
fund if you're not going to pay for the extension of the payroll tax 
holiday?
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman goes off in about seven directions on that 
question, in my view. What I believe is that it ought to be a 
consistent policy, as it relates to keeping taxes down on hardworking 
Americans, that we apply to the wealthiest in America. Now whether 
they're temporary or permanent, it makes an economic difference to the 
people in question. And hardworking Americans--160 million of them--are 
hoping that their taxes will not go up on March 1. The only way they're 
going to not go up on March 1 is if we pass--as we had a great struggle 
doing in December--if we pass a conference report that will be reported 
out of the conference committee headed up by Mr. Camp which in fact 
makes sure that those taxes don't increase.
  You say you don't want them to increase. I say we don't want them to 
increase. We seem to have an agreement on that rhetorically, although I 
have quoted a number of your leaders who say they think it's a bad 
idea.
  But having said that, my question to you is: is your position 
consistent with both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and these tax cuts? 
That's all I'm asking.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman, I was not in 
seven different directions. It's very simple. I asked the gentleman: 
Are you okay with raiding the Social Security trust fund? Because your 
response to my question indicated to me that it's fine for you and your 
side to say: Let's just raid the Social Security trust fund, extend the 
payroll tax holiday without any pay-fors; is that okay?
  Mr. HOYER. Your President, who you supported very strongly, of 
course, as I recall, when he wanted to raid the Social Security trust 
fund said there was no trust fund. Now, I believe there is a trust 
fund, and I think we have a moral responsibility to make sure that that 
trust fund is kept whole. And, in fact, as you well know, we will keep 
it whole. We will sign the proper IOUs so that that trust fund is 
intact. There will be no reduction in the Social Security tax, and the 
gentleman knows it. The gentleman knows that that trust fund will be as 
secure tomorrow as it is today, and I presume that both of us have a 
commitment to that end. Yes, we will have to make whole the trust fund 
money that does not come in on the tax cut, just as we had to make 
money for the war, for the prescription drug bill, and the Bush tax 
cuts whole by borrowing from somebody, usually China and other nations 
around the world.
  We went from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $10-plus trillion deficit. 
Why? Because we did things and didn't pay for them. So if the gentleman 
is asking me do I believe the Social Security trust fund ought to be 
kept whole, the answer is an emphatic, absolute yes.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I'd say to the 
gentleman, he has answered the same question in two different ways. And 
he's also gone off not in seven different directions but nine or ten 
when he starts talking about the former President George Bush. George 
Bush has nothing to do with this debate, has nothing to do with the 
issue before it.
  What I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, is, number one: Does he not agree that 
if we pay for the extension of the Federal tax holiday, we are making 
sure that we attempt to address the raid on the Social Security trust 
fund? And is that not different than talking about marginal rates on 
small businessmen and women? Is that not different than talking about 
keeping the capital gain rates the same on investors and entrepreneurs 
in America? We need to put investment capital back into the economy, 
the private economy. And so my point was not seven different 
directions, my point is just that.
  Again, I would say to the gentleman that it bothers me to hear that 
the gentleman just wants to rely on an IOU. The public is tired of 
saying, yes, we'll owe it. We'll owe it. We'll pay it later. What we're 
saying is let's make sure that we don't dig the hole any deeper. Let's 
make sure we don't raid the Social Security trust fund. That's why we 
are saying let's pay for it.
  But again, to the gentleman's point about trying to expedite things 
so we can have a result out of the conference committee, there has been 
no activity, no activity on the part of the Senate. They're not 
serious. They're not serious on wanting to address the issue--at least, 
they've not been thus far--and we're running out of time.
  So again, I guess the gentleman's solution is go ahead and raid the 
Social Security trust fund and let's extend the payroll tax holiday. 
And if that's the gentleman's position, then we know the position I 
would imagine of the minority on this position.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, the gentleman has talked a lot but hasn't answered 
my question. And the question was a simple one: Do you believe the same 
principle applies to the '01-'03 tax cuts as applied to the middle 
income working people's tax cut that we're talking about?
  And I'll tell you this, my friend, if we were talking about the taxes 
that you're talking about, they would go through like greased lightning 
and there would be no question but, oh, of course, we've got to 
continue those tax cuts. But when it comes to average working 
Americans, and the only way we can get them a tax cut--this is the 
first time we've really talked about real tax cuts for middle-income 
working Americans. It has got a logjam that has hit. It hit in 
December, and we came that close to not having that tax cut, and we're 
about to come that close again. I'm just telling the gentleman that if 
he applies the same principle, we could get this done.
  Now I'm for paying for, frankly, the middle-income tax cut. I'm for 
paying for it, as the gentleman well knows, by a surtax on those who 
have done the best, not because I want to penalize them, but because 
all of us in this room, maybe not all of us, but most of us in this 
room, have done pretty well. There are some people in this country who 
haven't done pretty well. And as Clint Eastwood walked down that road 
that we saw during the Super Bowl, he said at half time, ``We can do 
better.'' And I'll tell you what they said in the locker room:Every one 
of us, according to our ability to get it done, needs to get it done. 
That's what I'm saying to my friend.
  I think the position you would be taking would be radically different 
and that that conference committee would have had a report out on this 
floor if we were talking about tax cuts for millionaires that would 
have passed like that. Absolutely, that's my position. I believe it. 
And, very frankly, I think the American people believe it.
  I yield to my friend if he would like to comment on that, and then we 
will go to the infrastructure bill, which I know you'd like to talk 
about as well.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'll just wrap it up by saying I don't think 
there was anybody, any working American that did not benefit from the 
'01-'03 tax relief. So again, the gentleman's attempt to divide this 
country, saying that some benefit from this and others benefited from 
that, it's not the way that I think most Americans look at it. We're 
all in this together, okay.
  So again, we're trying to make sure that taxes don't go up on 
anybody. We're trying to do it responsibly. And the gentleman does, and 
acknowledges, that the payroll tax holiday involves a tax that is 
dedicated to the viability of the Social Security trust fund. And the 
gentleman knows that if we pass that bill because of his insistence and 
the insistence of the leader on the Democratic side of the aisle in the 
Senate, the majority leader in the Senate, that if we have to go ahead 
and just do it unpaid for, then we have created more of a problem and 
raided the Social Security trust fund.
  So again, if that's the choice, if the gentleman is saying that his 
side is not going to support an extension of the Federal tax holiday 
unless it's unpaid

[[Page 1231]]

for, then I guess we know where we stand, and the American people know 
where we stand, because they'll force a raid on the Social Security 
trust fund.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
  The gentleman has a habit that, frankly, disturbs me, I'll tell my 
friend. I didn't say that at all. As a matter of fact, my last comment 
was I think it ought to be paid for. Now, let me explain what that 
means.
  I think it ought to be paid for. I have been consistent on that 
position. Frankly, I was consistent on that position on all of the 
bills that we passed through this House, including your two tax bills 
of '01 and '03. I thought they ought to be paid. You thought they ought 
not be paid for. And the gentleman talks about looking at the past; 
they didn't work out so well. They were supposed to grow our economy. 
They were supposed to explode jobs. We lost jobs in the private sector. 
The only reason we had a plus 1 million over 8 years was because we 
grew in the public sector. We lost jobs in the private sector on that 
economic program. It didn't work, in my opinion. Paid for or not paid 
for, it did not work. But it did blow a hole in the deficit.
  What I'm saying and will say again, yes, I think it ought to be paid 
for. What I think it ought not be paid for with is by taking it out of 
the hide of average working people in this country, which is part of 
the way you want to pay for it. I don't think that is good policy 
because I think that will further depress the economy and take dollars 
out of the hands of hardworking people.
  Yes, I think it ought to be paid for, and paying for things is tough. 
And we didn't pay for things in the last decade, and that's why we dug 
this deep, deep hole we're in.
  Now, if we want to go on to the infrastructure bill, I'd like to do 
that unless the gentleman wants to make an additional comment.
  On the infrastructure bill, you indicate that it may come to the 
floor. Can you tell me under what kind of a rule that will come to the 
floor? Will it be an open rule, as has been projected?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman, the Rules Committee has 
announced that there is an amendment deadline for Members to get their 
amendments in by Monday morning, and it will then proceed in the normal 
process to vote on a rule to govern the debate on the American Energy 
Infrastructure Jobs Act.
  Mr. HOYER. It's my understanding, Mr. Leader, this bill is over 1,000 
pages long. It was marked up just shortly after it was introduced and 
finalized. Is the gentleman concerned by the length of that bill and 
the short time that Members have to review it? And the very short time 
that the public, which will essentially have almost no opportunity to 
review it, is the gentleman concerned about that?

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman is confusing this 
majority with the one he was the leader in, because we have now seen 
all the committees, Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural 
Resources, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and 
Commerce, mark up and consider amendments from both sides. H.R. 7, in 
its entirety, was posted at approximately noon yesterday, February 8. 
At noon yesterday, it was on line for everyone to see. The vote is 
scheduled for next Friday, February 17.
  Given the process of all the committees and all of the markups and 
the willingness to entertain amendments from both sides and now posting 
yesterday, Wednesday, when the vote is next Friday, I think that we are 
providing and living up to the commitment we've made, that we're going 
to have a much more open process, that the public is going to be able 
to enjoy its right to know what we're doing, and Members and their 
staffs, as well, can do what they need to do to prepare for their 
amendments and their votes on this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. What I was confusing was your rhetoric now and your 
rhetoric as it related to a bill that was longer in pages but had 10 
times a greater period of time for debate and discussion, considered by 
an extraordinarily large number of committees in both the Senate and 
the House, town meetings all over this country about that bill. What 
I'm confusing is your rhetoric as it related to the Affordable Care Act 
and your rhetoric related to the transportation bill, which has had 
probably one-twentieth or one-thirtieth of the time to be considered by 
the public. I don't know that anybody has had a town meeting or had the 
opportunity for the public to have input on this bill as it is now 
written. Very frankly, I may be confusing it with the bill that we just 
adopted on suspension of the calendar without any opportunity to amend 
it, which was filed less than 24 hours ago.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows where I'm going on that 
last comment, because I will just point out the fact that, when he was 
the majority leader, that bill, the STOCK Act, had sat dormant, and he 
refused as the majority leader to pick up the bill and bring it to the 
floor of the House.
  Given the vote that we just saw, I think that there was probably 
legitimate work to improve and strengthen the bill, which indicated and 
was reflected in the vote that we just had on the STOCK Act. As for the 
gentleman's suggestion that somehow I'm confusing this bill with others 
and his reference to the Affordable Care Act, the public doesn't like 
that bill; right? It doesn't. I'm thinking that perhaps the gentleman 
is confusing this bill with one that came up during his term as 
majority leader when the cap-and-trade bill was filed at 2 a.m. and 
then we were asked to vote on it at 10 o'clock the next morning.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that we have provided for over a 
week's time and then some for Members to take a look at the full 
version and to give Members time to prepare their amendments until next 
Monday so that we can have a full and robust debate on this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman says full time, but very frankly there wasn't 
participation by everybody in this full discussion. In fact, as I said 
last week and I will reiterate this week, because he hasn't changed his 
position, Ray LaHood, Republican, former chief of staff to the 
Republican leader in this House, former chairman of an appropriations 
subcommittee on the Republican side of the aisle, says:

       This is the most partisan transportation bill I've ever 
     seen, and it is almost the most antisafety bill I've ever 
     seen. It hollows out our number one priority, which is 
     safety; and, frankly, it hollows out the guts of the 
     transportation efforts that we have been about for the last 3 
     years. It is the worst transportation bill I've ever seen 
     during 35 years of public service.

  Ray LaHood, Republican, Secretary of Transportation.
  Whatever time the gentleman has spent that he thinks exposing this 
bill, he didn't expose it on our side and he apparently didn't expose 
it in a way that reached bipartisan agreement from the Secretary of 
Transportation.
  I will tell you, I lament the fact, Mr. Leader, when I was the 
majority leader--the gentleman likes to refer to that--the 
transportation bill passed with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. 
Every transportation bill that I've seen in the 30 years I've been in 
the Congress of the United States has passed on an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan vote, and it came out of committee almost unanimously. This 
bill, as the gentleman knows, came out on a purely partisan vote. 
Actually, it was a bipartisan opposition because Mr. Petri, long-time 
member of the Transportation Committee, and, of course, Mr. LaTourette 
are not too happy with the bill either, as the gentleman knows, whois a 
senior Member on your side, one of your leaders on your side of the 
aisle. So I will tell my friend that unfortunately we have a situation 
where you're going to bring a bill up next week which clearly is a 
partisan bill, which does not enjoy bipartisan support, contrary to 
every transportation bill that I think we've passed in this House in 
the 30 years I've been here.
  I yield to my friend.

[[Page 1232]]


  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am just marveling at the fact that I don't 
understand what the gentleman is seeing here. The Washington Post has 
just done extensive coverage and a story on that transportation bill 
and the 5,000-plus earmarks that were involved in the bill that he is 
bragging about.
  We're in a new day here. We're shining the light of day. We're saying 
no more earmarks. We're not doing things the way we used to do them, 
and that is exactly what the people want. They want a reformed Congress 
that belongs to them, that works for them, and not the other way 
around.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I look forward to his 
amendments that he submits for Monday to be considered by the Rules 
Committee so that we can proceed, as we have on so many bills, in an 
open debate on the floor of this House, unlike we ever experienced in 
majorities past. I would say to the gentleman, let's really try and 
agree. We have to reform this system. We are standing up for reform, 
whether it be no more earmarks, whether it be continued positing of 
positions online so that Members have enough time to review, with an 
open announcement of how long the amendment deadline is, with a 
continued pattern of allowing for debate on amendments on both sides of 
the floor. We're trying to change this institution so it can actually 
live up to what the people are expecting and for us to be able to abide 
by their trust.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment.
  I think the American people apparently don't think we're 
accomplishing that objective that you want to accomplish by virtue of 
their response to the polls about what they think of the job that we've 
done over the last year.
  Let me say in addition to that, the bills I was referring to, my 
friend--yes, while I was the majority leader, we had the House and the 
Senate. I said 30 years. Of the 12 years that your party had the 
chairmanship of the Transportation Committee, we passed bills on a 
bipartisan basis, and we respected transparency.
  As the gentleman knows on earmarks, you quadrupled the number of 
earmarks under your leadership--not your personal leadership, but under 
Republican control of the House of Representatives. When we came in, 
what we did was said they all had to be online. Members had to put them 
on their Web site, and committees had to identify where those came 
from. Now, personally, we made them very transparent. You've eliminated 
them temporarily. We'll see whether that holds.
  But we will move on to the question of whether or not, when you say 
we're going to have open amendments, whether or not the amendments that 
are germane will be made in order so that, in fact, we can impact on 
the bill.
  The gentleman says he is interested in seeing my amendments. I think 
most of the amendments will come from our committee members. They are 
the ones that are struggling to find out exactly what this bill does. 
And we don't believe it is paid for, by the way, as I think the 
gentleman probably has seen in the CBO report.
  Let me ask you this: do you believe this bill is a jobs bill?
  Mr. CANTOR. I believe that what is needed, Mr. Speaker, is some 
certainty so that the agencies at the State level can operate with 
their plans going forward for infrastructure needs. I believe that the 
private sector that is heavily involved with the infrastructure 
industry can know how to plan so they can make investments necessary so 
that we can see the maintenance, repair, and expansion of our 
infrastructure system in this country.
  We're about trying to say let's grow. Let's grow. Let's try and work 
together so we can grow this economy. The economy is dependent upon an 
infrastructure future that is certain.

                              {time}  1120

  The gentleman also knows that we have in the bill a pay-for that is 
derived from the expansion of the ability to explore in the deep ocean 
off our coasts because it's an energy resource that we should be 
utilizing. That, as well, holds a potential for thousands of new jobs.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we are all about job creation. And I hope that the 
gentleman can join us in what is titled the American Energy 
Infrastructure Jobs Act.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
  Am I to take it, therefore, he disagrees with Speaker Boehner when 
Speaker Boehner said, just a few days ago, We're not making the claim 
that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects creates jobs. 
We don't make that claim.
  So, this would not be a jobs bill from that standpoint; am I correct?
  Mr. CANTOR. Again, the gentleman, if he wants to play gotcha----
  Mr. HOYER. I'm not playing gotcha. I want to figure out whether this 
is a jobs bill. We haven't had a jobs bill in over 400 days.
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just heard what I said: we can 
create jobs if we open up the ability for more energy exploration. We 
can create jobs if we provide some certainty to the industries and the 
State agencies--as well as the Federal agencies--that are involved in 
planning and charting the course for infrastructure maintenance, repair 
and expansion in this country.
  Growth requires infrastructure that is at top notch, and we know 
we're a far cry from that in this country. So the gentleman understands 
my point: growth comes from better infrastructure; growth comes from 
expanding the ability to explore our natural resources off our coast, 
something that, unfortunately, most Members on his side of the aisle 
have not been supportive of in terms of charting a more certain and 
responsible energy future.
  Does the gentleman have any more scheduling questions?
  Mr. HOYER. These are all scheduling questions. These are scheduling 
questions as to whether or not we're going to have legislation on the 
floor that can get us from where we are to where we want to be.
  The gentleman knows that the Senate has passed a bipartisan bill out 
of committee with Senator Inhofe, a Republican, and Senator Boxer--not 
exactly ideological soul mates--coming together and agreeing on 
infrastructure. Why? Because they believe it creates jobs.
  What I'm trying to figure out from you, you go from other aspects of 
the bill that create jobs, and you say infrastructure is necessary for 
growth. My reading of that is, as the President's pointed out, 
investing in infrastructure does, in fact, grow jobs.
  To the extent that we can pass a bill, scheduling a bill that has 
bipartisan support here and bipartisan support there, and the support 
of the President of the United States, is what we ought to be doing. 
Doing it in a partisan fashion undercuts our scheduling of moving that 
forward. That's my point. I think the gentleman understands that point.
  But I would hope that, as we work on this bill, we could do what the 
Senate's done, which they don't do very often, and come together in a 
bipartisan way, as we have historically done in this House on 
Transportation and Infrastructure bills, so important for the growth of 
our country and the creation of jobs and the moving forward--as you 
say, and I believe as well, we ought to come together and accomplish.
  Unless the gentleman has anything further, I yield back the balance 
of my time, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________