[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16005-16007]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1150
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend, the 
former majority leader--I guess he still is the majority leader--the 
newly elected majority leader for the next Congress and congratulate 
him on his election.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the former 
Democratic whip and now the new Democratic whip, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business. No votes are expected on Monday 
evening in order to accommodate the annual White House Holiday 
Congressional Ball. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House 
will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week 
are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Wednesday. Members are advised 
that this is a change from the original House calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under 
suspension of the rules next week, a complete list of which will be 
announced by the close of business tomorrow. As Members are aware, the 
House has numerous outstanding legislative items that we are actively 
working to resolve. First and foremost is a resolution to the so-called 
``fiscal cliff.'' We're also awaiting action from the Senate on items 
like the annual Defense and Intelligence authorization bills, an 
extension of FISA, and others. Negotiations on these and many other 
issues will continue regardless of the daily legislative business of 
the House, and Members are advised that we will not adjourn the 112th 
Congress until a credible solution has been found that meets these 
challenges.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the 2013 House calendar is now publicly 
available at majorityleader.gov. The House will convene the 113th 
Congress at noon on January 3, and we will be in session for a total of 
126 days.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I appreciate his 
observation with reference to a number of pieces of legislation that 
are pending, and as he mentions in his comments, the fiscal cliff, of 
course, is a concern, not only to us, but to the entire country. The 
negotiations, as the majority leader points out, are ongoing and 
hopefully will bear fruit--and hopefully will bear fruit in the short 
term.
  Mr. Leader, there are, however, some steps that we could take, I 
think, that would alleviate some of the concerns and apprehensions that 
do exist in the country. As you know, we've discussed before, the 
middle class tax cut, that is, the under $250,000 that has been the 
object of discussion in the election and continues to be the object of 
discussion here. I'm wondering whether or not, given some of the 
comments that have been made, I know, by Mr. Tom Cole, your former 
chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee, and others, as well as 
the President's comments, that I don't see scheduled but would urge 
consideration, Mr. Leader, of the Senate-passed bill which will assure 
98 percent of Americans that they will not receive a tax increase on 
January 1. I don't see that on your list, and I'm wondering if the 
majority leader could comment on whether it is possible for us to take 
up that Senate bill to give assurance to the 98 percent of the people 
who will be affected by that bill.
  Mr. CANTOR. In direct response to the gentleman's questions, it is 
not the intention of this majority leader to bring forward to the floor 
that bill, for several reasons.
  First of all, Madam Speaker, the notion of increasing tax rates in an 
economy that still is struggling, where we have entirely too many 
Americans out of work, is something anathema to a job-creating future. 
And secondly, Madam Speaker, raising tax rates, asking Americans, small 
businesses, to pay more of their money into Washington when Washington 
cannot seem to get a handle on its spending problem will just make 
matters worse.
  We've got to stop the spending madness. As the gentleman knows, that 
is very much what this majority has been about. We want to finally 
provide the fix to some of the entitlement problems, the unfunded 
obligations that we continue to incur daily in this country.
  Madam Speaker, it is not the intention for us to vote to increase tax 
rates on anybody in this failing economy, but we do look forward to 
continuing in our discussions with the administration, with the White 
House. The Speaker and I met with Secretary Geithner yesterday in hopes 
of trying to find some common ground so we can avoid the fiscal cliff, 
so we can get back onto a road of confidence and job creation in this 
economy.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, Madam Speaker.
  I would just observe that the Senate bill that I was referring to 
doesn't raise taxes on anybody. In fact, what it does is ensures that 
no taxes will be raised on 98 percent of Americans. It doesn't refer to 
the other 2 percent, as I understand the bill. It simply precludes 
taxes from being increased pursuant to the Republican-passed bills 
which sunsetted the tax rates that currently exist for those 98 percent 
of the people. From that standpoint, I think the bill that I have been 
referring to, Madam Speaker, and I think the majority leader probably 
knows this, does not refer to those over $250,000, which is what I 
presume he's referring to.
  I might also observe, as it relates to his response, Madam Speaker, a 
quote of Bill Kristol's, who I think the majority leader probably knows 
pretty well and who obviously is a very strong proponent of policies 
put forward by the majority leader's party, said:
  ``It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on 
millionaires,'' he said on Fox News Sunday. ``It really won't, I don't 
think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's 
offer.''
  Now, we know the President of the United States, I want to tell my 
friend, the majority leader, has said he is not going to sign a bill. 
He disagrees with your conclusion, I disagree with your conclusion, and 
that's what democracy is about.

                              {time}  1200

  The President of the United States has been reelected. The President 
of the United States has made it very clear he will not sign a bill 
that reduces the tax obligations of those over $250,000 in the coming 
year. He's not going to sign that bill so that we can hold hostage the 
98 percent. He believes, like you, that 98 percent of Americans ought 
not to receive a tax increase because it would, from his perspective, 
dampen economic growth in this country.
  Now, we have disagreement on the $250,000 and above, which is a 
legitimate disagreement. We can debate it on the floor, we can vote on 
it on the floor, and every American can see where everybody stands. We 
believe that 60 percent of Americans or more agree with the President 
and with our proposition. But to say that we're not going to do 
something for the 98 percent because we don't want something to happen 
to the 2 percent--which, by the way, is not in that bill. But the 
gentleman's correct, nor are they included in that bill, the 2 percent.
  But I would urge my friend, we're having trouble getting to an 
agreement. I think that's unfortunate. I

[[Page 16006]]

think the gentleman, the majority leader, and I both want to get to an 
agreement. We don't want to go over that fiscal cliff; that will be bad 
for the economy. We both, I think, believe--I hope--that we need to 
have a balanced agreement so that we will not go over that cliff. That 
would be bad for the country, bad for the American people, bad for the 
growth of our economy. We don't want to do that. The gentleman, in my 
view, does not want to do that.
  One way we can give some confidence, which is very important to the 
growth of the economy, is to assure, as Tom Cole, your former chairman 
of the Republican Campaign Committee, said just the other day in, I 
believe, your whip meeting, that he believes that this ought to be 
done; we ought to give those 98 percent assurances.
  So I tell my friend that we can debate the other part of it, we can 
vote on the other part of it and the prevailing side will obviously 
win, but I don't think there's disagreement on the 98 percent. I think 
we agree on that. As I said before the election and I say after the 
election, we ought to move forward on that because that is something on 
which I think you and I can agree, on which Republicans and Democrats 
in this House can agree, something which the Senate has already agreed 
to. And while there was not a bipartisan vote on passage, there was a 
bipartisan vote to let that bill come to the floor. It's the only way 
it moved ahead, on a bipartisan vote. I would hope that we can at least 
do that so that we can give at least that on which we agree the 
opportunity to move forward.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, where we don't agree is asking anyone to pay more out 
of their paycheck to Washington when Washington seems to be incapable 
of getting hold of its spending problem, which is why, Madam Speaker, 
we continue to ask this President in these negotiations to be specific 
with us.
  We want to address the problem. We realize that we are digging the 
hole deeper every day and that taxpayers are on the hook. That's why we 
say it is now not the time to ask anyone to pay money into Washington 
when we keep increasing the debt the way we are. So there is not 
agreement that we ought to raise taxes. There is not agreement at all 
until we get the problem fixed. That's all.
  We can see eye to eye on this, but let's all start where we know 
we've got to go, which is addressing the spending problem. Then, 
finally, we can perhaps fulfill the promise of rebuilding the 
confidence that people need to have in this Federal Government.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I don't know that I'm making myself clear: 
The Senate bill raises taxes on nobody. Nobody. The Senate bill simply 
says, for those making less than $200,000 individually, or $250,000 as 
a couple, they will not receive a tax increase. My friend, the majority 
leader, keeps responding that we're not in agreement on the over 
$250,000.
  Mr. CANTOR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I'll be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Look, Madam Speaker, just imagine that those individuals 
the gentleman likes to say are perfectly willing and capable to pay 
more taxes, the small business man or woman who may make over $200,000 
individually, $200,000, that individual will see a tax increase come 
January if that bill is passed or if nothing is done.
  So, Madam Speaker, I know that the gentleman can be technical in his 
argument and say there's no tax increase, but the end effect of passing 
that bill, as if it resolves the matter, would mean an increased tax 
bill for a small business man or woman, a working man or woman at that 
income level. So let's be honest about what the impact is of saying 
that that bill is the final resolution here. I mean, the gentleman 
knows that is correct.
  So, again, we've been through this. All I would say, Madam Speaker, 
to the gentleman is we are earnest in our desire to want to resolve 
things, and we are earnest in our statements that we don't want to go 
over the fiscal cliff. We've got to come together and solve this 
problem. Allowing taxes to go up on a certain portion of the population 
doesn't just fix the problem. The problem is in the spending. The 
gentleman knows that, he's been a real committed deficit hawk. He 
continues to say we've got to pay for what we buy. Well, we've bought 
these incredible entitlement programs, and they've got to be sustained 
for the people who are relying on them, which is why we want to save 
them. That's solving the problem. That's where we need to go on this.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, again, the gentleman says that I'm technically 
correct. I presume that means I'm correct.
  The bill that I'm asking to be brought to this floor to pass will not 
raise anybody's taxes. What the gentleman is saying is that, unless we 
deal with the 2 percent, the 98 percent are going to be held hostage 
until such time as we deal with the 2 percent. Now, the problem with 
that, in a democracy, we have a disagreement on that. As a matter of 
fact, it was pretty clear to the American public that there was a very 
significant and unclouded, not confusing, difference between the two 
candidates for President on the very issue to which the gentleman 
speaks, and the American public voted. And the President of the United 
States, who said, ``No, I don't agree with that,'' won the election. He 
won the election. And he is saying, I'm not going to sign the bill on 
the $250,000 or above.
  Now, my problem, Mr. Leader, is I understand your conclusion is that 
if you pass the 98 percent, that you won't have a bargaining chip with 
which to press your point on the over $250,000, or over $200,000 
individually as you correctly observe. I understand that. But, frankly, 
the bargaining chip is somewhat illusory in that the President said 
absolutely he will not sign that. Why? Because he wants to bring down 
the deficit. He wants to and has agreed to--and we've agreed to--over 
$1.7 trillion in spending cuts already for 2011, 2012, and 2013, and 
for the next decade--or at least until 2022. We've already agreed to 
that. You pressed that, you were successful. We agreed on many of 
those. Some we didn't agree on, but you had the votes we needed to 
reach an agreement and we reached an agreement. So we cut almost $2 
trillion of spending already.
  You're correct: we need to assure the fact that we pay for what we 
buy, and if we don't want to pay for it, my view is we shouldn't buy 
it. Frankly, that principle applies, in my opinion, to tax expenditures 
as well as to buying stuff because it all reduces your ability to pay 
for what you're buying.
  So I tell my friend, it's not that I'm technically correct; I'm 
correct. The bill that I'm asking you to pass will simply give to the 
98 percent of American taxpayers the assurance that their taxes will 
not go up on January 1.

                              {time}  1210

  If we don't pass it, they won't have that assurance. Their confidence 
level will not be good. The stock market will be concerned. And, yes, 
we'll have to deal with the other 2 percent. That is clearly going to 
be a part of the discussion, and hopefully there will be an agreement.
  But my presumption is the reason the gentleman from Oklahoma, Tom 
Cole, made that comment just a few days ago--and it's not like he's a 
backbencher. He is the former chairman of your Republican Campaign 
Committee--he said, We ought to do this. We ought to get it off the 
agenda so we give those people confidence. He called it a Christmas 
present to the 98 percent. I think it's a judgment that our economy 
will be better off if we do it.
  I would be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I don't want to belabor the point. But I 
just want to tell the gentleman that I did not say he was technically 
correct. I said he was being technical in his argument.
  I then went and made the case that the real impact of what the 
gentleman is advocating will be that taxes will go up on many people, 
those job creators and others. That was all.
  Mr. HOYER. Let me move on, if I can, because there are a couple of 
other issues.

[[Page 16007]]

  I know the gentleman indicated that you didn't include one. I think 
you did include the farm bill. Could you tell me what you think of the 
status of the farm bill? Again, we have an issue where the farm bill 
passed 64-35 in the Senate; 16 Republicans voted for it. And very 
frankly, the farm bill in this House passed out of your committee 35-11 
on a bipartisan vote. That's not been brought to the floor.
  Could the gentleman tell me what he thinks is going to happen to the 
farm bill?
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that both the 
Speaker and I have both said that we will deal with the issue of the 
farm bill or the issue in and around the farm bill before leaving this 
year.
  I would tell the gentleman it is our sense that the farm bill, in 
being brought to the floor in regular order, does not have the votes to 
pass this House. And we understand the importance of the issues 
surrounding the farm bill and working with Chairman Lucas and others.
  But on both sides of the Capitol, we look forward to hopefully 
reaching some type of resolution on issues surrounding the farm bill 
prior to leaving this year.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response; and I am hopeful 
that we can, in fact, proceed on that for the farmers of America.
  Obviously if we don't pass something by December 31, on January 1 
prices for the Federal Government will go up very dramatically, as the 
gentleman knows; and it will have an impact on spending. And I know the 
gentleman and I are both concerned about that.
  The next to last issue--just two more issues, if I can, Mr. Leader.
  As you know, we've talked about the Violence Against Women Act. We've 
passed a bill through this House that was passed essentially on a 
partisan basis. They passed a bipartisan bill in the Senate, Violence 
Against Women. And domestic violence is an epidemic, in some respects, 
in this country.
  I am hopeful that we might consider taking up the Senate bill again 
because it got passed on such an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis in the 
Senate. I would suggest to the gentleman that it may well pass on a 
bipartisan basis here as well.
  The problem, as you know, from my perspective and from our side, with 
the House bill is that you exclude a number of people. The problem with 
excluding people--for instance, undocumented immigrants from being able 
to come forward and having a sense of safety and security in doing so--
is that the abuser of the undocumented immigrant, left unaccountable, 
may well be the abuser of a citizen or a child in this country, either 
as a citizen or here illegally; and, therefore, we think there ought to 
be broader coverage. Apparently, the Senate shares that view. As you 
know, every Republican woman and Democratic woman voted for that bill 
in the Senate.
  Does the gentleman have any idea whether we could either go to 
conference on that bill or whether or not we might bring the Senate 
bill up for passage?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Well, I would tell the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that the 
Chair is actually the author of the House bill.
  The House bill was passed out of this House. It had broad support. It 
was a bill that did not intend to target any specific group. It tried 
to streamline the grant-making process so that the benefits designed to 
address the needs of abused women and others could reach the victims; 
and I am committed to seeing if we can get this bill done.
  The gentleman knows, Madam Speaker, that the Senate bill has a blue-
slip problem. The Senate bill is not over here. So we continue to 
negotiate and discuss ways for us to resolve this by the end of the 
year. The Vice President and I have even spoken, because it's an issue 
very near and dear to his heart, to try to see how we can resolve this.
  So I commit to the gentleman that I am looking to see this resolved 
and passed by the end of the year and to see where we can land in a way 
that preserves most of what that bill is about that we can have in 
common rather than emphasizing the areas of difference.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the Speaker for her 
leadership on this issue.
  But I thank the gentleman for his assurance that he's focused on this 
and is going to work on it. I look forward to working with him on this 
bill, which I think is a very important bill for us to get passed 
before we leave here.
  Lastly, obviously all of us know that Hurricane Sandy visited 
extraordinary damage on a large portion of the Northeast. I come from 
Maryland, and we were not very substantially damaged; but obviously New 
Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, in particular, were.
  Can the gentleman tell me--I know the administration has not come 
down with a number. That number, I presume, is going to be well north 
of $50 billion. In terms of the estimates that are being made, this is 
one of the five most damaging storms to hit the coast of the United 
States of America.
  I am wondering whether or not the gentleman might have in mind doing 
some interim figure in the next 3 weeks, before Christmas, 
substantially below what we know is going to be the ultimate figure. 
And then would the gentleman tell me whether or not, if we could do 
that, whether or not the gentleman would require that it be offset.
  And I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I will tell the gentleman I think he would 
agree that the best policy is to allow the administration of FEMA to 
come up with the estimate and the most accurate prediction of what the 
costs are before we move. So that would be in response to the first 
part of his question.
  Secondly, as the gentleman knows, when we passed the Budget Control 
Act last year, it had in it the mechanisms to actually budget for 
disaster relief and imposing a formula for a 10-year rolling average, 
allowing for the preservation, if you will, of those dollars dedicated 
to disasters was what we accomplished there. And it is that process 
that is much different than prior to the BCA, and I think it obviates 
the need for us to engage in this discussion that he wants to engage in 
regarding offsets.
  Mr. HOYER. Lastly, let me ask you: Mr. Nadler has a resolution. I'm 
not sure if Mr. Grimm and Mr. King are on the resolution, but I presume 
they're on the resolution as well. It's a bipartisan resolution 
expressing condolences to those who were devastated not only in terms 
of property but some, of course, lost family members and life, whether 
or not that resolution might be brought to the floor so that this House 
can express its regrets and condolences and sympathy with those who 
were so devastated.
  Mr. CANTOR. I will tell the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that we did, as 
he knows, observe a moment of silence in memory of those who lost their 
lives in that horrific storm to hit the east coast of the United 
States. Certainly all of us, our thoughts, our prayers, our sorrows go 
out to the loved ones who have lost family members, friends in that 
awful tragedy of a storm. I have not looked at Mr. Nadler's bill but 
will do so, I will tell the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________