[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 922-926]
[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, for the purpose of inquiring about the 
schedule for the week to come, I am pleased to yield to my friend from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, 
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. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House 
will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes for the week 
are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Thursday.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of 
the rules, which will be announced by the close of business today.
  Building upon our legislative agenda this week, the House will 
consider two more bills next week aimed at reforming the Federal budget 
process, including H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto 
and Rescissions Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Budget Committee 
Chairman Paul Ryan and cosponsored by Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen, 
as well as H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, 
sponsored by Congressman Scott Garrett.
  In addition, the House will act on legislation passed in the Senate 
yesterday, commonly referred to as the STOCK Act.
  Finally, the House may consider H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property 
Realignment Act, sponsored by Congressman Jeff Denham.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information and would ask 
him on the timing.
  The conference committee has met twice on the payroll tax cut, the 
unemployment insurance, and the so-called ``doc fix,'' or to ensure the 
fact that doctors are compensated and will be available for Medicare 
patients. The conference committee, Mr. Leader, has met twice since 
December 23. We adopted a motion to instruct, overwhelmingly, through 
the House to make sure that they reported back by February 17.

                              {time}  1150

  I think you may have read my comments in the press that if we do not 
do it by the 17th, then we're off for a week and we will be back the 
27th, 28th, and 29th, come back the night of the 27th,

[[Page 923]]

and we'll be jammed at the end on Wednesday, the 29th. We only have 6 
full days left before the February break. Now, that does not include 
our 6:30 start times.
  House Democrats, Mr. Leader, stand ready to, frankly, I think, work 
through the weekend if that were necessary. But I'm very concerned that 
something that we all want to get done--and I've made the suggestion to 
my Democratic conferees, and they were equally amused as you are. I 
understand that.
  I will tell you that I have great concerns that we're going to get to 
the 27th, 28th, and 29th and be in the same kind of confrontation and 
debacle that we found ourselves in in December. That's not good for 
your party. In my opinion, it's not good for our party. It's not good 
for the House and Senate; but it is certainly not good for the 160 
million people who are going to be concerned about whether or not, in 
fact, their tax cut is going to continue, or the Medicare people who 
are going to be concerned about whether their doc is going to be 
available, or the unemployed who are going to be concerned.
  Now, of course, for the unemployed, we had some very good news. You 
didn't mention it in your opening comments, but I'm sure you were as 
excited as I was about the 257,000 new private sector jobs that were 
created last month; showed real progress.
  But I will tell you that I'm very concerned about the timing and 
would be delighted to hear the gentleman's thoughts on the success and 
the progress of the conference committee.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would say is the Republicans on the House side, 
led by Chairman Camp, have been and are ready to make sure we resolve 
the issue of the payroll tax holiday extension right now. The issue has 
been the reluctance on the gentleman's side of the aisle on the other 
side of the Capitol. So if I thought that working 7 days a week, 
through weekends and all hours of the day and night would make a 
difference, I would be all for that as well.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this House continues to act. 
This House passed a yearlong extension that also did not have the 
effect of raiding the Social Security trust fund, something that the 
gentleman and I both want to make sure happens, that we restore the 
integrity of that fund for the people who are counting on it.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I would say the House also, this week, acted on 
several measures that, frankly, are very relevant to the work of the 
conference committee, but yet no action by the Senate. One of those 
things, as the gentleman knows, was passed out of the House this week. 
It was a measure calling for a pay freeze at the Federal level for 
Federal employees, including Members of the House and Senate. This was 
a bipartisan vote; 309 Members voted for that. It allowed for about $26 
billion in savings that could be easily included in the conference 
committee deliberations, something that our side continues to want to 
include, but yet no answer from the Senate majority leader and his 
conferees.
  So, again, I would tell the gentleman, please, we are as anxious as 
you are to try and resolve these issues.
  We had another vote this week, Mr. Speaker, which garnered 400 votes 
in the House--a bipartisan bill--which called for some necessary 
reforms to the TANF program. These were reforms which preclude the use 
of the monies that beneficiaries receive for purchases of services at 
casinos and other types of establishments, that perhaps those monies 
could be better spent not in those places; but again, no response from 
the Senate.
  And I would ask the gentleman if he could please direct his urgency 
towards the majority leader in the Senate to see if we can get this off 
the dime and resolve the issue of the payroll tax so we can, as the 
gentleman suggests, send a very certain signal to the people who are 
struggling out there, working day in and day out, that their taxes will 
not go up.
  As for the gentleman's suggestion about the job numbers, I don't know 
if he saw my public statement this morning, but I said that was welcome 
news, that when you have job creation like that, welcome news, but I 
also think we can do a lot better.
  I was pleased to see that the President came out this week and said 
he now, too, wants to be a champion of small business; and we say we 
are happy to work with this White House so that we can provide the help 
to small businesses. We will be bringing to the floor, before tax day, 
a small business tax cut bill that goes right at the issue of helping 
small business people, allowing them more incentive to invest their 
capital so they can create jobs and we can see this economy really take 
off.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Of course we have long been a supporter of small business. We believe 
small business is the engine of our economy. We believe we need to grow 
entrepreneurs. We need to expand, frankly, small business and the 
middle class.
  It was interesting what the gentleman referred to in response to my 
question. Yes, we understand that cutting the pay of average working 
Americans--who happen to be Federal employees, but they're average 
working Americans--is the way you want to pay for what we do. We, of 
course, want to pay for it with some of the wealthiest people in our 
country just contributing a little bit more as opposed to average 
working people who are struggling by. And, by the way, the sponsor of 
that piece of legislation to which you referred indicated he was having 
a tough time getting by supporting his family on the salary that he 
makes here in Congress.
  Now, frankly, we offered, as you know, to have a vote on freezing 
Members of Congress' salary straight up--not hidden in another bill, 
but straight up--which I would have supported and my side would have 
supported overwhelmingly, I presume your side would have supported 
overwhelmingly. We, of course, didn't get that opportunity because, 
frankly, our priorities do, in fact, differ.
  Average working people as opposed to the best off in America, that's 
the choice in this conference committee, apparently; because you want 
to pay for it with average working people taking a hit, and we want to 
pay for it by just asking just a little more from the wealthiest in 
America to help us through this tough patch that we're in.
  Things are getting better. The gentleman--I haven't seen his release, 
but I will certainly look at his release. He says we ought to do 
better. I will tell the gentleman we're doing a lot better.
  The gentleman knows that during the last 5 months of the Bush 
administration, we lost 3,192,000 jobs. The gentleman smiles because, 
oh, that's history. Well, it is history, and we ought to learn from it 
because we were following the economic policies the gentleman still 
continues to press upon the American people. We lost 3,192,000 jobs in 
5 months. In the last 5 months, however, we have gained now over 1 
million jobs. That's progress. In fact, over the last 22 months, we've 
gained over 3 million jobs so that we are making significant progress. 
Not enough. We dug a very, very deep hole and we're trying to get out 
of it, but the fact of the matter is losing 3 million jobs in 5 months 
and gaining 1 million jobs in 5 months is about a 4 million job 
difference.
  So I tell my friend both in terms of who ought to pay for the 
investments that we have agreed we need to make. We don't want to raise 
taxes on these folks as the economy is still coming back, obviously 
showing great progress, but we don't want to pay for it with average 
working people having to pay the price.

                              {time}  1200

  I will tell my friend, I was disappointed that we didn't have a 
separate vote so that Members of Congress could vote straight up on 
their being frozen. And I will tell my friend that I will work with 
him, perhaps towards that end.
  Now having said that, I am sure the gentleman has been in 
conversations with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp). Is the 
gentleman expecting

[[Page 924]]

a relatively early report back from the conference committee, hopefully 
prior to the 18th of February when we might be voting on this?
  Mr. CANTOR. Let me respond, if you will yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield, certainly.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, first of all, 
I do hope that we can act in an expeditious manner to accomplish the 
same goal that he's stated. That I agree with. We need to let the 
people of this country out there who are working so hard know that they 
are not going to have their taxes go up on them and that we should 
allow that certainty for a full year, the position this House has taken 
from the very beginning.
  I would say to the gentleman about his assertions of our policies and 
those under the last President and perhaps their effect on job creation 
or job loss, the issue is right now--and my question to the gentleman 
is, as far as that's concerned: Doesn't he agree that we could be doing 
better?
  And that's my point, Mr. Speaker: we can do better. We can do better 
by focusing on the private sector small businessmen and -women so that 
we can empower them to begin to invest and create jobs again. We can do 
better. That is what we intend to do straight up through policies that 
affect reduction of red tape in this town to make it easier for small 
businessmen and -women to operate; as I indicated before, a bill to be 
brought forward to provide for a 20 percent tax cut for small 
businesses.
  And I hope if the gentleman says he's for small businesses that he'll 
join us in a bipartisan way to support a bill that provides for a 20 
percent tax cut for small businesses.
  Now, I would ask the gentleman as well, he continues to advocate 
higher taxes for people, higher taxes. That's what we hear: higher 
taxes on people who make a lot of money. Well, the fact is, the result 
of that is putting more money into this town, putting more money into 
the hands of Washington so that Washington can decide where people's 
money is spent.
  We all know we've got a spending problem, and we all know that 
raising taxes does not dig us out of the hole. So I would just ask the 
gentleman, Does he think that's going to fix the problem? It's not as 
if we're saying we don't want to help the people who are out there 
struggling. That's what we're trying to do. So I'm looking forward to 
working with him in a bipartisan way to see if we can get resolution on 
these issues.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And we all look forward to working 
together in a bipartisan way. We sure have found great difficulty doing 
it, however, because we have trouble having a meeting of the minds.
  I will tell my friend that what I advocate over and over and over 
again is paying for what we buy. That's what I advocate. And if you 
don't want it, don't buy it.
  You controlled this town for 8 years from an economic-policy 
standpoint. I know we were in charge of the Congress for the last 2 
years. We couldn't pass anything over George Bush's veto. You and I 
both know that. So for 8 years, we didn't pay for what we bought; and 
we went from surplus to deficit. We went from a debt of $5.6 trillion 
to a debt of almost $11 trillion.
  Have we added to the debt? Yes, we did. Why? Because we went into the 
deepest depression, starting in '07, that this country has been in in 
your lifetime and my lifetime; and I'm a lot older than you. So that's 
what I advocate: paying for what we buy and having the courage to make 
decisions on doing exactly that. And very frankly, on your side of the 
aisle, when you go and say, look, we need to pay for elections, who do 
you go to? You go to your Members, and you go to people who have some 
resources that they can contribute to an effort you think is very 
important.
  I think America's efforts are very important. And I think those of us 
who have done better ought to pay a little more than those who are 
struggling, as the gentleman refers to. Yes, that's the difference. I 
believe it's the difference, and I will continue to advocate paying for 
what we buy. That's why I was for statutory PAYGO, which George Bush 
abandoned and which essentially is not being followed today, as I think 
all of us should do.
  So I will tell my friend that I think we ought to do better. I agree 
with him. And we did do better. We did do better under policies that I 
supported. We grew 22 million jobs in the nineties. We lost jobs in the 
2000s. We went backwards. And the stock market went up 216 percent in 
the nineties. Under George Bush, it went down 26 percent. Yes, I think 
we can do better, and we ought to do better. And we ought to do better 
by investing.
  Let me talk a little bit about the bill that the Speaker's talked 
about, you've talked about, it's been in the news: infrastructure and 
jobs. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee marked up a 
controversial highway bill--the gentleman says we want to work 
together. I agree with that. He and I try to do that. We don't always 
succeed, but we try to do it. They marked up the bill yesterday for 17 
hours and finished around 3 a.m.
  I don't know whether the gentleman knows this, but at the start of 
that debate, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking 
member, asked all the members of the Transportation Committee, when the 
bill was put on, to raise their hand if they had read the bill. You 
know how many people raised their hand--that's a rhetorical question 
because I think the gentleman probably hasn't inquired of this--none. 
On an 800-page bill, not one person raised their hand that they had 
read the bill. There was a lot of discussion about reading the bill.
  There was, of course, as you know, a bipartisan ``no''vote. One of 
the senior members voted against it. This is in stark contrast to the 
unanimous vote that occurred in the United States Senate on the bill.
  The Committee on Natural Resources also completed a controversial 
markup on opening ANWR to drilling--as I understand it, you are going 
to put that in the infrastructure bill--with the clear knowledge that 
that is a very controversial item that will not pass the United States 
Senate. You may have the votes here. That is similar to what happened 
on the payroll tax cut just last December.
  If you are going to work on a bipartisan basis, we ought to 
understand that we are going to have to not try to push on one party or 
the other things that are unacceptable and won't pass and don't have 
the votes.
  The reason that George Bush signed so many bills that we passed in 
the Congress in '07 and '08 was because we worked with the 
administration, and we worked with the Senate. The Senate and the House 
were controlled by Democrats; President Bush was in office. He signed 
more than twice as many bills that we passed. Why? Because we worked 
with him. We would urge you to do the same.
  Is the gentleman planning to bring up the infrastructure bill to the 
floor soon? And can he tell the Members if it will be considered under 
an open process? Furthermore, is the majority leader expecting there to 
be bipartisan cooperation on the infrastructure package so that we do 
not have to go up against another deadline? As the gentleman knows, on 
March 31 the highway authorization bill ends. We temporarily included 
it.
  And let me end with this before you answer your question, because Ray 
LaHood was a leader in this Congress. Ray LaHood was a leader on your 
side of the aisle. Ray LaHood and I served together for a long time. I 
don't know whether you've seen his quote, but I think it bears 
consideration by your side of the aisle of a Republican from middle 
America--Peoria, Illinois--who your minority leader, Bob Michel, had as 
his chief of staff.
  Here is what he said about the infrastructure bill that was marked 
up: ``This is the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever 
seen, and it is also the most anti-safety bill I have ever seen.'' This 
is a direct quote from Ray LaHood, Republican, former Member of this 
House for many years, and former chief of staff to the minority leader 
Bob Michel. ``It hollows out our number one priority, which is safety; 
and frankly, it hollows out the guts of

[[Page 925]]

the transportation efforts that we've been about for the last 3 years. 
It's the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years in 
public service,'' Ray LaHood, Politico, February 3. That's today. He 
said it today, in realtime. This is real breaking news from the 
Transportation Secretary: the worst transportation bill he has seen in 
35 years.

                              {time}  1210

  That does not, I tell my friend, bode well for bipartisan cooperation 
on a piece of legislation that nobody in the committee had read. So I'd 
ask my friend, do we expect to bring that bill up under those 
conditions in the near term?
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, we expect to vote on the bill the week of 
the 13th. I think there will be adequate time for Members to review the 
bill and the text, to the gentleman's concern about Mr. Rahall's 
inquiry last night in the committee. That is exactly why we are 
allowing for the time, so that Members can review such a big bill, a 
bill that means so many jobs to so many Americans.
  I hope that the gentleman will be true to his nature, which is 
bipartisan, and to work with us, because this American Energy and 
Infrastructure Jobs Act is just that; it's a jobs bill. It is a bill 
that can provide some certainty to our contractors, some certainty to 
our communities so that we can start to grow again and see jobs 
proliferate.
  But I find it ironic that the gentleman complains about paying for 
it, because he talks about our wanting to open up our resources, our 
resources offshore, our resources in ANWR as, number one, an attempt to 
allow America to develop finally a national energy policy, but to also 
promote jobs.
  The gentleman knows, as I do, the energy sector provides an awful lot 
of jobs in plenty parts of this country, and can do a lot more, and is 
willing. Private capital, willing to deploy to create jobs.
  But I find it also ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman complains 
that there's no bipartisanship because somehow we're not working with 
the administration. Well, the administration's been absent on all of 
this. They're not interested in working with us to create a product 
where we can see jobs created.
  As you can see, the Secretary sits in his office and opines and 
attacks the bill, saying it is all the negative things that he said. 
Now, that's not a way to collaborate and work together. And the 
gentleman knows that as well. The gentleman knows that that is 
certainly not how things have worked in this town if you want to 
produce a result.
  So the gentleman can claim the mantle of wanting to work together and 
that the administration is being trampled by some action here. He knows 
good and well, Mr. Speaker, that this administration has been absent in 
so many of the discussions on so many important issues. And the fact 
that we differ on policy, yes. But I think the gentleman also knows 
that reasonable people can disagree, but that doesn't mean that we 
can't work together to find some things that we agree on.
  Certainly, we agree on jobs. The gentleman says we agree on small 
business. I'm looking for his support of that small business tax credit 
bill. And we agree on infrastructure spending being an important part 
of our economy. So I'm looking forward to the next week or so, as the 
bill works its way to the floor, to hopefully garner his support.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Wonderful, wonderful logic. A Republican leader in this House is 
appointed to include bipartisan--and the Secretary of Transportation, 
who was a leader in this House, and the chief of staff of the minority 
leader of this House, says that the bill you have drafted, that your 
Members didn't read before they passed it out of committee--and the 
public, I'm sure, is glad that at least we're going to read it before 
we pass it. I hope that's the case. I've heard a lot of talk about 
reading the bills. Nobody read it before they passed it out of 
committee. And the Republican Secretary of Transportation, former chief 
of staff of the minority leader, says, my friend, it's the most 
partisan bill he has ever seen in 35 years.
  And then you say, well, I know we passed the most partisan bill in 35 
years, but, gee, the administration won't work with us. You don't 
accept that premise. I understand that. But it's ironic that you say 
the administration won't work with you.
  You and I both know Ray LaHood happens to be one of the more 
bipartisan people with whom you and I have served. I've worked 
frequently with Congressman LaHood when he represented Peoria, as a 
Republican in the House of Representatives. He and I worked together on 
a lot of issues. Why? Because he wanted to get things done. He wasn't 
just simply interested in making political points.
  Now, you bring up ANWR in terms of pay-for. I'm for paying this. You 
didn't hear me say anything about offshore drilling, this and that. I 
did about ANWR because you and I both know, in a bipartisan way, many 
of your Members have voted against opening up ANWR, and we have, as the 
gentleman knows, millions of acres, millions of acres currently 
available for drilling in Alaska right now as we speak.
  So we want to have a bipartisan--but putting an 800-page bill on the 
table, no chance to read it, passing it in a 17-hour marathon session, 
and then having clearly no--having not worked at all with Ray LaHood, 
and if you're telling me that Ray LaHood won't work with Republicans, I 
simply do not accept that premise. I think that's a disservice to Ray 
LaHood if that's what you are saying. He is the Secretary of 
Transportation. And there is no doubt in my mind, none, zero, that if 
Mr. Mica wants to work with Ray LaHood on a bipartisan bill, Ray LaHood 
will be here as many hours, days, and weeks as Mr. Mica needs him here, 
and I think you would, hopefully, agree with that proposition.
  Ray LaHood is a Republican, but he is a bipartisan American who wants 
to get things done for our country and create those jobs of which you 
speak, which all of us want to do.
  We have a jobs bill, by the way, that you have not brought to the 
floor. What's one of the aspects of that jobs bill? Infrastructure, 
investing in infrastructure. That bill has languished for 5 months now, 
not brought to the floor by the majority leader, who has the authority 
to bring it to the floor, and I've, of course, been urging him to do 
so.
  Now, if he'd like to comment--I have another point, but if he wants 
to comment on what I have said, I yield.
  Mr. CANTOR. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I join the gentleman in thinking 
Secretary LaHood is a fine gentleman, but all I can say is actions 
speak louder than words.
  What I would say to the gentleman about his request for the 
President's jobs bill and whether we're bringing the whole bill up for 
a vote, I'd ask the gentleman, How many Members on his side of the 
aisle have actually sponsored that bill?
  I think that there are certainly many elements of that bill that we 
can all agree on, and, in fact, we have voted on four separate 
elements, big elements, of the President's small business agenda that 
he announced this week that were part of that bill: crowd funding, many 
offerings to help small business access financing; a bill to provide 
for 100 percent depreciation; the provisions that will allow for more 
ability for small business to see money go to the bottom line so they 
can grow; and a bill that we passed out of this House to eliminate 
country caps for immigration for highly skilled workers. All these are 
part of the President's proposals. All these the House has passed, and 
they sit, and they sit on the other side of the Capitol.
  So I would say to the gentleman, he knows, as well as I do, that more 
stimulus spending as a part of that, the President's proposal, is 
something we don't accept, but there's plenty in there that we can 
agree on.
  Back to the notion of bipartisanship. Let's set aside differences and 
find where we can agree. These are areas that we can agree on. So I 
would say to

[[Page 926]]

the gentleman, please work with us. Please point the ire to the 
majority leader on the other side of the Capitol and say, bring these 
bills up. These are jobs bills. The President said so this week.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman knows that a number of those proposals had 
bipartisan support in this House, I think have bipartisan support over 
in the Senate. But they need to be paid for, and that's where the 
contention comes, as the gentleman knows.
  Let me ask you, on another subject, if I might, the STOCK Act.
  Yet, before I do that, I appreciate the gentleman's observation with 
respect to those bills that the President has suggested we do that we 
have done.
  Mr. CANTOR. If the gentleman could yield just for a correction. 
There's no need for pay-fors on these bills. These bills are something 
that were cleared out of the House in a revenue neutral way.
  Mr. HOYER. The individual bills. You're right.
  Mr. CANTOR. Right. So, again, the gentleman is correct in saying 
there is bipartisan support for these bills. The President supports 
them. Where's the problem? It's across the hallway here, and if we 
could actually get the majority there to help move these bills, we 
could make some progress.
  Mr. HOYER. We could make some progress if, frankly, the majority 
leader could get 60 votes to enact the legislation and transact 
business on the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, as the gentleman 
very well knows, the majority leader, Harry Reid, has had very great 
difficulty getting 60 votes to proceed with business on the floor of 
the House of the United States Senate. I think that's unfortunate.
  But let me move on because the gentleman went from an infrastructure 
bill, which, as Secretary LaHood said, was the most partisan bill he's 
seen in 35 years, and shifted to the jobs, on which we agree. The fact 
of the matter is that I want to talk about another piece of legislation 
that the Senate has worked on. We have a bill here. We've asked that it 
be taken from the floor, from the desk and put on the floor, and that's 
the STOCK Act. The gentleman has expressed support for the STOCK Act. 
I'm hopeful that we can pass a House bill and then go to conference 
with the Senate on a bill in the near future.
  Would the gentleman comment on that.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. CANTOR. It has always been my intention to try and act with 
dispatch on this very important issue and to get the President a bill 
that he can sign as quickly as possible.
  Again, the underlying notion is, as the gentleman believes, we need 
to make sure that the people that send us here know that we are acting 
and abiding by the trust that they place in us. That's what the STOCK 
Act is about. So what we're going to do next week, Mr. Speaker, as I 
indicated earlier, is we are going to act with dispatch. We are going 
to take up the Senate bill. We are currently reviewing the actions the 
Senate took on that bill, and we intend to strengthen that bill, again, 
to do so in a way that can get a bill to the President's desk as 
quickly as possible so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of 
the people that sent us here that they can have trust in this 
institution and the Members, and there is no perception whatsoever that 
anyone here misuses information that they gain in the performance of 
their duties for their own personal benefit.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response, and he says the 
earliest day possible. I tell my friend that Tim Walz of Minnesota has 
had a bill, as the gentleman probably knows, of the STOCK Act--also, 
Louise Slaughter, ranking member of the Rules Committee, has worked on 
for literally a decade or more--so we have legislation which is 
available to take, frankly, from the desk, pass that, and go 
immediately to conference with the Senate.
  The gentleman indicates he wants to change the Senate bill. I think 
that that may be appropriate; but if he does, we're going to have to go 
to conference in any event. So my suggestion is you take Tim Walz's 
bill, act on that, a House bill, and we go to conference on that bill. 
That seems to me that's the most expeditious way to accomplish what the 
gentleman says he wants to accomplish in a very quick fashion.
  I think Tim Walz of Minnesota would be happy to hear that and 
available to work towards that end, along with Louise Slaughter.
  Mr. CANTOR. I say to the gentleman, first of all, I know the 
gentleman likes to talk about past Congresses. When he was House 
majority leader, he did not bring this STOCK Act to the floor, and it 
was a submitted bill. So let's set the record straight. This majority 
leader is going to bring a STOCK Act bill to the floor next week.
  I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Walz's bill actually would 
weaken the Senate bill; and it is our intention to pass and get to the 
President a workable, strong bill that makes sure that we're delivering 
on the promise that we made to the people that sent us here. I hope the 
gentleman--I know he wants to join me in the effort to reinstill the 
confidence of the public that we are abiding by that trust.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us, hopefully, agree with 
what the leader has just said. We clearly want to make sure the 
American public has confidence and trust in the actions we take in that 
they are not driven by personal interests but by public interests, by a 
concern for the welfare of the people we represent in our country.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________