[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16260-16263]
[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 would be glad to yield to my friend, the 
majority leader, for his favorite 10 or 15 or 20 minutes of the week to 
inquire of the schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On 
Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and at 2 p.m. for 
legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On 
Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and at noon 
for legislative business. On Thursday, 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 Thursday. 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, a complete list of which will be announced by 
the close of business Friday. Additionally, the House will appoint 
conferees for the National Defense Authorization Act now that the 
Senate has completed its work.
  As was announced last week, the House has a number of outstanding 
legislative items that we must resolve, and first amongst them is the 
so-called ``fiscal cliff.'' Though the House's target adjournment set 
in October of last year was December 14, that is no longer the case. 
Instead, Members are advised that the House will now be in session the 
week of December 17. Exact days will be announced next week. Members 
are further reminded that the House will not adjourn the 112th Congress 
until a credible solution to the fiscal cliff has been found.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank him for 
the early notice on next Friday.
  First, Mr. Leader, if I could, we have the ending as next Thursday. I 
want to clarify for Members so that they know: we will not be in 
session next Friday. Is that accurate?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that is 
correct.
  Mr. HOYER. Thank you for that information.
  I also want to congratulate the gentleman for providing for the week 
of the 17th. I know none of us want to do that, but I appreciate the 
majority's focus on the business that has not been done. I also 
appreciate the gentleman's focus on the fiscal cliff and for indicating 
that we need to resolve that prior to leaving the 112th Congress. I 
think those are both positive announcements. I applaud him for that.
  On the fiscal cliff--we discuss this all the time--but I want to 
inform the majority leader that there are now 175 signatures--we hope 
to have more, and we would obviously welcome people on your side of the 
aisle--on the discharge petition for the Walz bill, which mirrors the 
Senate bill, as the majority leader, I'm sure, knows, to ensure that no 
individual who makes $200,000 or less on net taxable income or that a 
family who makes $250,000 or less will see a tax increase on January 1. 
Hopefully, we will resolve the fiscal cliff and get an agreement.
  I again ask my friend: the Walz bill will be compliant with the rules 
and will not have a blue slip problem, obviously, and hopefully we 
could move that bill. Again, for the purposes of giving confidence to 
the 98 percent of our taxpayers who are making less than the sums put 
forward in the bill--$200,000 and $250,000--I understand and anticipate 
the gentleman's response that we are all concerned with growing the 
economy and creating jobs and that we don't want to dampen that dam; 
and we understand the gentleman's concern about small businesses, 
particularly those 3 percent of small businesses that make more than 
this and report it on a personal income basis.
  I would hope that we could give serious consideration to trying to 
act sooner than the end of the year and as soon as possible, frankly, 
on--as we call it--the middle class tax cut, the $250,000 and under.
  I yield to my friend to see whether or not, perhaps, the actions that 
have been taken this week have any bearing on his thoughts on whether 
we could schedule that bill.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I don't 
think it is a good thing right now to bring that bill to the floor 
because we hope that we can have successful negotiations with the White 
House.
  I think, as the gentleman said earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, that 
our side actually put on the table, in our letter to the President, 
some specific proposals that actually deserve a response from the White 
House. That's what we're looking for: Are we going to get a response to 
our proposal about putting revenues of $800 billion on the table, of 
putting out there a framework for spending reduction?
  I know, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has agreed with me that we've got 
to do something to address the spending problem because you can't keep 
taxing and borrowing without doing the other side, which is to take 
care of the problem of spending. I think that the letter and the 
proposal that we sent to the President deserve a response, Mr. Speaker; 
and if we don't get a response, then perhaps the President will be 
willing to meet with us--one or the other--because it doesn't seem to 
me to be upholding the obligation to the American people that we're 
going to resolve this issue if we just stand still.

                              {time}  1210

  We put these specifics out on the table. The President has not 
responded. We ask the President to respond, Mr. Speaker. And I'd say to 
the gentleman that I hope that that's what can happen, either a 
response from the President--not just a summary rejection but a 
specific, serious response in the nature of our proposal--or if the 
President would agree to sit down and talk about it. That's what we've 
got to do to fulfill our obligation. I don't think bringing that bill 
to the floor, Mr. Speaker, is going to further that likelihood.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation.
  He and I do share the view that we need to address both the revenue 
side and spending side of our budget. My view is, and I've said this on 
a regular basis, what we really have is not necessarily a taxing 
problem or a spending problem; we have a paying for problem. The 
actions we take, we ought to pay for them. We haven't done that through 
the years. Frankly, we haven't done it on both sides of the aisle. I 
don't want to get into that specific argument, but the fact is, if we 
pay for things, you don't create debt. And if you cut revenues and you 
cut spending, you don't create debt. If you cut revenues and don't cut 
spending, you create debt just as surely as if you spend

[[Page 16261]]

money and buy things and don't pay for them. In either instance, you 
create debt, and we need to get this country on a fiscally sustainable 
path.
  So I congratulate the gentleman--not the gentleman specifically, but 
I was pleased, and the gentleman and I would disagree on the 
specificity of the offer that was included or the suggestion that was 
included in your letter. For instance, the President has put forward, 
as you know, in his budget and in his further proposals, an extensive 
list of reductions in spending that he proposed. In addition, he has 
put forward very specific proposals vis-a-vis revenues. His most 
specific proposal, of course, has been widely debated and discussed, 
and there was a difference of opinion on whether or not we ought to cap 
the taxes on $250,000 and under families and $200,000 and under 
individuals. There was a very robust debate on that during the 
campaign. The voters voted, and that's a very specific proposal.
  In the $800 billion that you suggest in the letter that you jointly 
signed with the Speaker and others, there is a suggestion of $800 
billion in revenues, which I believe is insufficient to get us to where 
we need to be. But having said that, it is certainly a good start, but 
it is not a good start if all it is is conceptual.
  The President, as I said, has made very specific proposals. He wants 
taxes on those making over $250,000 to go up. That produces a certain 
amount of revenue, somewhere in the neighborhood of the $800 billion of 
which you speak. The fact is, though, in your proposal, we don't have 
the specifics other than to know that you're focused on preferences or 
loopholes--describe them as you may--which would be a reduction.
  The gentleman knows the three largest of those is the health care, 
the mortgage interest, and the pension benefits that can be taken off 
your taxes. I don't know whether the gentleman suggests reducing those 
specifically, and I don't ask him to respond to that now, but I do tell 
my friend that if we don't have those specifics, as you have very 
specifically from the President, he also recommended capping deductions 
at 28 percent, a very specific revenue-generating proposal. He has 
also, as I said, agreed to very substantial spending cuts which he has 
outlined in his budget. And, as the gentleman also knows, we've cut a 
trillion dollars, give or take some billions of dollars, in 
expenditures pursuant to the debt limit extension of 2011. So we have 
addressed very substantial reductions in funding for 2011, for 2012, 
for 2013, and for out-years after that.
  So I would urge my friend, when he says he's given specifics, as far 
as I know, the letter essentially has five lines in it. The letter is 
longer than that, but five lines of spending and/or tax-cutting 
proposals, but they are all generic, not specific. And that is, I 
think, the problem we have in these negotiations, to the extent that 
they exist. Unfortunately, we're not doing as much as I think we ought 
to be doing. We don't have specifics, and, therefore, conceptually 
everybody can say, well, we want to get $800 billion. The President 
and, apparently, your letter agree on that. How you get there is the 
key. And if you don't have specifics--the President has offered 
specifics on how to get there. I would respectfully suggest you have 
not offered specifics other than we're going to deal with preference 
items. But they're very controversial: charitable deductions, very 
controversial; other deductions, controversial. We have to really get 
down to the nitty-gritty of, okay, how are you going to do it?
  I would urge the gentleman, in furtherance of what he and his party 
have already done, to perhaps be specific in how we get the $800 
billion. The President has said how we get the $800 billion. I think 
that would be very helpful, and I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  That's what, really, discussions are for; that's what meetings are 
for. It's to try to get to the specifics. And although he and I differ, 
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I differ about the specifics of our 
proposal and the President's proposal because, frankly, I know and I 
think both sides know where each other are on taxes right now. 
Certainly the President was in a different place back in the summer of 
2011 when he had indicated that--what was said was, Give us $1 trillion 
in additional revenues which could be accomplished without hiking tax 
rates is what the President said. Certainly the position he's taking 
now, that absolutely we have to have rate increases, is different than 
that. But that's what the President has said this time. So we know 
where each other is there. It's the specifics on the spending.
  The gentleman points out, Mr. Speaker, that the President has 
submitted budgets in the past. There's been no discussions of specifics 
whatsoever, even when the Speaker or I have suggested in meetings that 
we've had as to where are your specifics. They have just not been 
forthcoming. So if the President is serious to actually do something 
about the problem, then I think we do need to come together and say to 
the American people we're willing to cut the wasteful spending here 
and, in the gentleman's own words, Mr. Speaker, to pay for what we 
actually spend, not to just keep spending what we don't have. I think 
it could really move the ball forward on these negotiations.
  So I accept the spirit in which the gentleman suggests we should have 
more discussions to get the ball moving forward; it's just the White 
House doesn't seem willing to do so. And instead, we see the President 
going on a television interview and saying that he summarily rejects 
our position instead of trying to get down to the specifics of the 
problem, which is reducing wasteful spending.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  I want to say two things. First of all, I want to clarify, and I 
think I did clarify, that $800 billion clearly is in your proposal. 
When I said the President agrees with that $800 billion, he agrees to 
getting to at least $800 billion. He thinks we need more. I agree with 
the President; we need more.
  When the gentleman says the problem is wasteful spending, I disagree 
with the gentleman very substantially on that. The problem is not 
wasteful spending; the problem is spending. Whether it's not wasteful 
or not, if it's good spending, we need to pay for it.
  Now, where the gentleman and I have a very substantial disagreement, 
I know, is that when the gentleman and his party voted to reduce 
revenues by over $2 trillion, they didn't reduce spending by $2 
trillion. As I said at the outset, inevitably, if you reduce revenues 
by $2 trillion and you up spending, which is what happened, frankly, as 
all of us know from 2001 to 2008, and particularly 2001 to 2006, if you 
up spending and reduce revenues, inevitably you have debt, just as if 
you buy stuff and don't pay for it, you have debt. So whether you 
reduce revenues or don't pay for what you buy, the result is exactly 
the same--debt. So that's why I say paying for is the problem.
  The gentleman and I have a very substantive disagreement on whether 
or not you ought to have to pay for tax cuts. You have to pay for it 
one way or the other. You're either going to pay for it by having 
additional debt on which you'll pay substantial interest, or you'll pay 
for it by reducing programs. It's not wasteful spending. I'd like to 
get rid of all wasteful spending.

                              {time}  1220

  But I suggest to the gentleman, and he knows the figures as well as I 
do because we've been through a lot of meetings together on this, the 
issue is not wasteful spending. The issue is we've decided to buy 
things, a lot of which I think we ought to be buying, including Social 
Security, including Medicare, including investment in education, 
including investment in infrastructure, including investment in 
innovation to grow our economy, which, in turn, will help our deficit 
situation as the economy grows, without raising any taxes.
  But the fact of the matter is, I know the gentleman has historically 
not felt that tax cuts ought to be paid for, either by cutting 
spending, which didn't occur, or by offsetting revenues.
  So I want to make it clear the President does not agree with the $800 
billion level because he doesn't think the math works. I share the 
President's view. The math doesn't work.

[[Page 16262]]

  And ultimately, in my opinion, the most useful effort will be if we 
all agree on the objective, whether it's $4 trillion, whether it's 70 
percent debt to GDP ratio, which most economists, or a little less than 
that, say is sustainable and will have us on a sustainable path.
  If we all agreed on the objective and then, Mr. Majority Leader, 
simply made the math work to get there in a way that we could agree on, 
I think America would be advantaged, I think the economy would be 
advantaged, and we would see a renaissance of job creation in this 
country as we did in the 2000s.
  I'll be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I accept the gentleman's good intentions, and I know that 
he doesn't think that we ought to be imposing additional obligations on 
the American people to pay more of their money into Washington if the 
money is not going to be spent in a way that is something that they 
would like.
  So if it's wasteful spending, or if it's spending just to aggravate 
the deficit situation, and that's from the perspective that we come, 
fix the problem. If the obsession is to raise taxes, you know we don't 
agree with that, but fix the problem.
  So if you're asking for somebody to give more of their money to 
Washington, then at least be able to tell them that we are going to 
manage down the debt. That's what we're about here, which is why the 
focus is on spending, and how we have to ratchet down the spending in 
this town.
  That's where we've heard no specifics or willingness on the part of 
the President to engage in discussions about specifics on spending.
  As far as the math is concerned, again, it was a very different 
President in the summer of 2011 when he said $1.2 trillion in 
additional revenues could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. 
That's what he said. So, again, all of a sudden that math doesn't work, 
but it worked for 1.2 before.
  Regardless, we sort of understand now, at least this round, where 
everyone is on taxes. Let's get to the problem, and maybe then we can 
resolve the taxes question.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, we have a fundamental disagreement because the 
gentleman continues to want to focus on spending. I think that's right 
that we focus on spending. But again, debt is not caused by spending; 
it is caused by buying things that you don't pay for, or it's caused by 
cutting revenues that you don't offset either by cuts in spending, by 
cutting revenues. That's what causes debt. It's not buying things that 
causes debt. It's not paying for things.
  The discipline, I will tell my friend, in the system for the American 
public is, if they want things, for us having the honesty to say, okay, 
if you want a tax cut or you want a strong defense, it costs money, 
both of them cost money. And if you're willing to pay for it, we will 
do that. If you're not willing to pay for it, we ought not to do it.
  That's not been our practice, unfortunately, and we dropped the PAYGO 
requirement, as the gentleman knows, in 2001, actually 2003 legally. De 
facto, we dropped it in 2001, because we had substantial tax cuts 
without paying for them. We waived that requirement, and I think that, 
frankly, got us into the problem we have on either side of the aisle, 
whether it's spending or revenue reductions.
  I don't think the President's changed his position. I think the 
positions have changed. Mr. Bowles indicated that. Others have 
indicated that. The situation has changed its dynamic in the sense that 
it's not the situation we were confronting in 2011.
  But this is an important discussion because it really requires us to 
come to make a commonsense, math decision, not an ideological decision 
driven by debate about spending or taxes, but on how we have a budget 
that is a sustainable budget for our kids and for our grandkids and for 
our country over the long term. And I think that's what this discussion 
ought to be about. And if it is, I think we can get this challenge 
resolved, and Americans and America will say finally, finally, those 
representatives we've sent to Washington have sat down together with 
one another and made sense.
  Again, I want to say to the gentleman, I can't read it either, and 
you certainly can't read it from there. But you can see that, perhaps, 
the five lines here, and then the very long lines the President has 
proposed in terms of cuts and revenues.
  I think if you're expecting the President to come and say, well, we 
can get your $800 billion this way, that way and the other way, he's 
not going to do that because he's not going to negotiate with himself.
  On the other hand, if you come to us and say specifically this is how 
we're going to get the $800 billion, we're going to eliminate the 
charitable deduction. This is how we're going to get the $800 billion, 
we're going to eliminate the mortgage deduction, that's something we 
can discuss. But if we don't have specifics on what you're going to do, 
but just a conclusionary ``we're going to get 800 billion,'' then it's 
hard to negotiate because we don't know what the negotiation parameters 
are.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I'd just say, the gentleman is really saying there is a 
need for discussions, and that's what I'm saying today, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. We agree.
  Mr. CANTOR. We need to sit down and discuss. We do agree on that. 
Obviously, the White House doesn't agree on that, and we're trying to 
urge some real serious commitment to resolving this on the part of the 
White House.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman has indicated there is other business that 
needs to be done. Let me briefly address those.
  The farm bill, obviously, continues to be not resolved, not 
addressed. The Senate passed a bill, as the gentleman so well knows, 
64-35, two-thirds of the Senate voting for it. We would be hopeful that 
that Senate bill could be put on the floor. I've talked to Chairwoman 
Stabenow. She and her ranking member worked very hard on that. I know 
our committee's reported out a bill 35-11, but that has not come to the 
floor. That was passed out almost 6 months ago, 5 months ago.
  So I would hope that the farm bill could be moved. I know I'm going 
to be talking to some of my ag community today. They're very hopeful 
that a--not a stopgap but a farm bill of a sufficient length--and I 
think they would opt--I don't want to speak for them before I meet with 
them--but for the Senate bill, we need to pass that. Milk prices, as 
you know, will spike dramatically on January 1 if we don't pass the 
farm bill.
  Also, on the Violence Against Women Act, I know last week we had the 
sponsor in the chair. I didn't know that. I thank the gentleman for 
reminding me.
  But the Violence Against Women Act has been passed by this House and 
by the Senate. I would urge the majority to get us to conference on 
that. Rather than go through why I think the Senate bill's a good bill 
and you think the House bill's a good bill, the way to resolve that is 
to go to conference. I would urge the gentleman to go to conference on 
the Violence Against Women Act.
  I believe the President is going to come down in very short order 
with some preliminary numbers on the supplemental. I think I'm going to 
New York tomorrow to spend time with some of our Members there and see 
the devastation that has occurred. The gentleman, I know, is very aware 
of that as well. We need to do a supplemental, so we need to have time 
to do that.
  And lastly, although we haven't discussed it very often--it's not a 
very sexy issue, postal reform, again, is another issue that we're 
talking about balancing. The postal department has not been able to 
balance its budget, as we know. Part of it is dealing with the 
retirement programs that they're funding.
  But I'm wondering if the gentleman has any thoughts on any one of 
those four bills.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'll try and be brief. On the farm bill, the 
gentleman is correct. We're going to face some very dire consequences 
if we

[[Page 16263]]

don't act on the issue prior to leaving here. And part of what I had 
indicated last week is that is something we are focused on and know 
we've got to deal with the issue prior to the end of the year.
  On the issue of VAWA, as the gentleman and I have discussed many 
times on the floor, he knows that we can't go to conference with the 
Senate bill. The Senate bill has a blue slip problem.
  I am speaking with the Vice President and his office and trying to 
resolve the issue of the differences surrounding the VAWA bill. This 
week I've actually been encouraged to see that we could very well see 
agreement on VAWA, and I'm very hopeful that that comes about. But I am 
encouraged about the discussions that my office is having with the Vice 
President's office right now, that bill being a high priority of Vice 
President Biden.

                              {time}  1230

  On the issue of the supplemental, I imagine, Mr. Speaker, the 
gentleman has seen the press reports that I have that the White House 
is anticipating sending up a $60 billion supplemental request for 
damages related to Sandy, and I think tomorrow would be that day, at 
least according to press reports. As the gentleman may know, the FEMA 
Director testified to the House yesterday that the agency can meet its 
needs associated with the disaster through the spring. Approximately $2 
billion has been delivered, with about $5 billion remaining in the 
disaster relief fund.
  So, again, no one is here saying that we don't want to deliver the 
necessary aid to the victims, because that is a priority. But we're 
looking forward to receiving that request and taking a look at the 
numbers and the need to make sure we can move forward on that as well.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, postal reform. The gentleman and I have, yes, 
talked about this a lot and know that the issue has to do with the 
obligations of the Postal Service and how we can address those to 
create a more balanced prospect for the future to allow for its 
continuance, so we're looking at that as well. And the gentleman knows 
there's a lot of discussions, both bipartisan and bicameral, on that 
issue as well.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Obviously, we are coming here to meet and we're focused on the fiscal 
cliff, but there are other things that we could be, hopefully, 
resolving in the time that we have available to us between now and the 
end of the year, and I would hope that we would do that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________