[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17041-17046]
[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.)

[[Page 17042]]


  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader the schedule for the week to come. At this point in 
time, I yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, the majority leader, for that 
purpose.
  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 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 
6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 
10:00 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On 
Friday, the House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business.
  Members are advised that, due to the ongoing negotiations regarding 
the fiscal cliff, a weekend session is possible and, therefore, last 
votes for the week are not yet known.
  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, we expect to consider a 
conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for the 
Fiscal Year 2013, and a number of other expiring provisions of law are 
also possible.
  As was announced last week and the week before, the House will not 
adjourn the 112th Congress until action has been taken to avert the 
fiscal cliff. Members are advised to retain flexibility in their travel 
schedules through the end of the year to the maximum extent possible.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  We had originally thought that we would not be meeting on Monday. I 
want to make it clear to Members that the majority leader has indicated 
that we will be meeting on Monday and coming in at 6:30, so they take 
note of that and their staffs take note of that as well.
  Mr. Leader, can I ask you if you know or have some pretty good sense 
of, on Tuesday, do you know what we might be considering on Tuesday?
  I say that because a number of Members who had scheduled things 
Tuesday during the day have asked me that question, and I'm wondering 
whether or not you have any thoughts on that. My presumption is the 
Defense bill conference probably won't be done by that time. I don't 
know whether that's your sense or not.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman he is correct in 
assuming that the Defense bill will not be ready. We don't know for 
sure, but probably likely by Wednesday or after, so, without complete 
surety, I will say to the gentleman, likely a suspension debate on the 
floor on Tuesday.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. The Members 
will find that helpful.
  The majority leader mentioned last week and reiterated this week that 
we will not adjourn the 112th Congress until we've averted the fiscal 
cliff. I think the American people would share that view and would hope 
that was the case. I hope that's the case as well.
  On the fiscal cliff, one of the things, of course, in the fiscal 
cliff, one of the items of concern--we had a debate on the floor today, 
and the majority leader and I have discussed it again last week and the 
week before that. Part of the negotiations are with respect to the 98 
percent of Americans who fall in the category that we seem to have 
agreement on should not receive a tax increase.
  There have been an increasing number of Republicans and Democrats who 
have urged us to take that issue on which we agree in the near term, 
and I again ask my colleague, the majority leader, whether or not there 
is any possibility that next week we might consider at least that 
segment.
  And let me make perhaps a wrinkle of a suggestion to the majority 
leader, if I might. Obviously, we have a disagreement on that over 250. 
We could, Mr. Majority Leader, perhaps consider two bills--one for 
those under 250 or 200, the Senate bill, essentially, and another bill 
that you might bring to the floor which would involve extending the tax 
cuts on those over those limits--so that Members, even though there's a 
disagreement, could express themselves on both of those propositions.

                              {time}  1200

  I know the gentleman has made the point repeatedly that there are 
small businesses that would be hurt if we did not extend over the 
$250,000 level. That would give Members an opportunity to express 
themselves on that point of view as well as expressing themselves on 
the under $250,000 and under $200,000 for individuals. My presumption 
is both of those bills would pass. And that would give the Senate two 
bills to consider and to send to the President to at least, to the 
extent we can reach agreement, have some certainty brought to some 
segment of the population.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  He is correct. We've had this discussion before at the end of each 
week, and I would say to the gentleman that suggestion that he has, has 
certainly been brought to me on several occasions this week.
  I would say to the gentleman I know that he joins me in the desire to 
try and address all the aspects facing this country in terms of the 
fiscal cliff, namely, to try and actually put us on a path to managing 
down the deficit and the debt; and, as the gentleman knows, we are 
trying, in terms of negotiating with the White House. And the Speaker 
has been very earnest in his desire to want to address the spending 
problem, not just the revenue problem, and the gentleman's suggestion 
would not go to that.
  And I would say to the gentleman his proposal would leave the issue 
of increased taxes on small businesses making over $200,000 a year. And 
if the concern is to try and focus on generating more jobs and helping 
heal the economy, I'd ask the gentleman, in return, what is his 
suggestion about helping those businesses because, as we know, the 
preponderance of the jobs created come from those small businesses 
making $200,000 and up.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Of course, we have this discussion on a regular basis. I'm sure 
everybody in America looks forward to this discussion.
  Obviously, when the gentleman talks about small businesses, he is 
essentially talking about 3 percent of the small businesses in America, 
because 97 percent of the small businesses, those job creators of which 
the gentleman speaks, 97 percent of them make less and would be 
positively affected by the bill that affects those under $200,000 
individually and $250,000 collectively. Of course, 100 percent of the 
small businesses would be assured--let's say they make $350,000--would 
be assured that the first $250,000 would not get a tax increase.
  So I tell the gentleman I am concerned about those small businesses, 
and small businesses will be included in the under $250,000 and under 
$200,000 as well. One hundred percent of America, no matter how much 
they make, would have the assurance that the first $250,000, or 
$200,000 if they are individuals and not families, that they would not 
get any tax increase.
  The gentleman, particularly in the election cycle of 2010, talked a 
lot about--and I agreed with him--about bringing confidence, certainty 
of what the tax structure and what the rules would be. I suggest to the 
gentleman small businesses, whether they be in the 97 percent or the 3 
percent--the 97 percent being affected by the bill that I would like to 
see passed, that the Senate has passed, but the other 3 percent, as I 
say, would be positively affected, knowing full well that the first 
$250,000 of income would not see any increase in their taxes. I think 
that would be a positive step for those small businesses and the small 
businesses above and below those figures.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again.
  I think, as the gentleman has heard me say before, the majority of 
business income comes from those small businesses with incomes over 
$200,000; and the higher the percentage of income

[[Page 17043]]

derived from a small business, the more jobs are created by that 
individual. And that is the point.
  We also know, and the gentleman has heard me recite these figures 
before, there was a third-party outside study conducted which would 
indicate that if the gentleman's proposal is passed, that we are going 
to see the reduction of 700,000 jobs going forward. Again, if the focus 
is on jobs, as it should be, it raises certain concerns.
  I would also remind the gentleman, he and I both feel very strongly 
about trying to do something about the fiscal health of the Federal 
Government in attempts to try and heal the economy, and the fiscal 
health of the government has much more to do about getting control of 
the spending rather than bringing more revenue in. More revenue in can 
come if we grow the economy, but just by statically increasing tax 
rates without doing anything to try and address the spending problem 
will actually make the problem worse and will leave that mountain of 
debt untouched.
  As the gentleman knows, our Speaker has tried and tried to get the 
White House engaged in actually discussing specifics the way those 
specifics were discussed a year-and-a-half ago. These kind of things 
that we all know need to be done on the entitlement programs, the White 
House needs to come forward and say that they'll join us in trying to 
fix the problem, and that is what we have not seen.
  We have seen, Mr. Speaker, Speaker Boehner go forward and put 
revenues on the table, and we asked the White House to join us in 
trying to fix the problem on spending. And that's where things have 
stopped, and hopefully we can resolve that. As the gentleman knows--and 
I'm committed--and as we have announced in the schedule, we will stay 
here until we can resolve the problem.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I agree with 
him, as he knows, to staying here until we get this problem solved. 
America expects it. America, more importantly, needs it.
  The economy needs the confidence of a resolution of this stalemate, 
so I agree 100 percent with the gentleman. But let me say in terms of, 
again, one of the disquieting factors is we can't even act on that on 
which we agree.
  Now, the gentleman and I disagree on a proposition, and that is the 
gentleman believes and cites a study, which we think is of questionable 
validity, that says we're going to lose jobs if we raise taxes on those 
above $250,000. We don't share that view, and most economists that I 
talk to don't share that view. But there is a study that the gentleman 
refers to that says that. I understand that. And what I'm saying is we 
can vote on that and some of us will agree and some of us will 
disagree.
  But if we can't vote on it--let me call the attention to somebody 
who's certainly not a Democratic spinmeister, but I think the 
perception will be that what we are doing is holding the better off, if 
we can't help them, we can't help those who are not making as much 
money. I'm sure you're aware of David Brooks' column in The New York 
Times. He's not a liberal Democrat--or not a Democrat. I don't think 
he's a Democrat or Republican, but a more conservative columnist. He 
says this, and I quote from The New York Times just a few days ago:

       Sometimes you have to walk through the desert to get to the 
     Promised Land. A budget stalemate on these terms will confirm 
     every bad Republican stereotype. Republicans will be raising 
     middle class taxes in order to serve the rich--shafting Sam's 
     Club to benefit the country club. If Republicans do this, 
     they might as well get Mitt Romney's ``47 percent'' comments 
     printed on T-shirts and wear them for the rest of their 
     lives.

  I use that quote not to criticize but to say that the perception, I 
think, is, if we do not act on something on which we agree, we are not 
doing so because we want to make sure that the best off, if they're not 
helped, nobody will be helped, and I think that's not good for the 
country. I think, frankly, it's not good for the Congress, not 
necessarily Republicans or Democrats. I think we're all perceived as 
either having the ability to act or not act. If we're going to get this 
fiscal cliff resolved, it will be because we agree on that which we can 
agree. Here, we do.
  We have 167 CEOs who have written to us saying that the Business 
Roundtable agrees that we ought to move in this direction. Senator 
Corker said that just the other day. Others have said that as well. And 
I really don't think it's either a political ``gotcha'' or political 
advantage. I just think it will do what the gentleman talked about. It 
will give confidence to 98 percent of the American people who pay taxes 
that they don't have to worry on January 1 about their taxes going up. 
It seems to me that's a positive for our economy because it will give 
them confidence that they're going to have resources to do some of the 
things that will help our economy grow.
  I understand the gentleman's position is that there will be 2 percent 
who won't have that confidence and 3 percent of small businesses who, 
as the gentleman points out, those 3 percent are relatively large 
businesses in the sense that that 3 percent gets 53 percent of the 
business income. He's correct. Those are large small businesses or, in 
many cases, individuals who just make a lot of money, and that's fine, 
but they're not the majority. I think job creators, in terms of the 
numbers of small businesses, are those who add one or two or three 
people to their rolls.

                              {time}  1210

  We can get off this, but I certainly will yield to the gentleman and 
hope that we can do that.
  The reason you've gotten the suggestion of the two-bill strategy, or 
two-bill scenario, is because that gives everybody in the House of 
Representatives--and you talked about this particularly in 2010, but 
you've talked about it since then of giving the House of 
Representatives the opportunity to work its will. Two bills, if you 
move them forward, one which the President says he will sign, one which 
the President says he will veto--and after all, he's going to be our 
President for the next 50 months--we can get something done. At the 
same time, all 435 Members--or 433, I think we have presently--can 
express their views on those issues on which we have agreement and 
those issues on which we have a disagreement.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman, on issues that we have 
agreement on, I think the gentleman and I both have agreement on many 
of the spending issues. I think the gentleman has been outspoken in his 
commitment to say, hey, we've got to modernize, if you will, the age 
eligibility of some of our entitlement programs. I think the gentleman, 
if I'm correct, has said that he is in support of adjusting the age 
eligibility for Medicare.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, what I have said is 
everything needs to be on the table, not that I agreed with everything 
that would be on the table. I have some very substantial reservations 
about age increase. Particularly--it was in the Ryan bill--it doesn't 
get you any money in the next 10 years so it will not help us get to 
that fiscal crisis.
  What I have said, and I'll repeat, is you have the right to put 
everything on the table; we have a right to put everything on the 
table. If you're going to have an honest negotiation, we ought to 
consider everybody's point of view. That's what I've said.
  Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman this is exactly the kind of 
conversation that we should be having about fixing the problem rather 
than just kicking the can.
  Again, the gentleman has been very upfront about, I think, his 
commitment to do some of those more difficult political things that I 
agree with him on. But, unfortunately, we're not having those 
conversations. We're not having those conversations because I believe 
there are others in his party in the House and elsewhere--certainly in 
the White House--that refuse to engage in the specifics about how we 
address the mountain of debt and the continuing spiraling upwards of 
spending. That is what we've got to do.
  I think the gentleman would say, with running the risk of putting 
words

[[Page 17044]]

in his mouth, that many folks out there who are wealthy would say, 
sure, I'll pay more taxes. But I would say back to those individuals: I 
believe that you say that because you would trust that your money is 
being spent to pay down the debt and the deficit. That's what we're 
trying to get to.
  None of us on this side of the aisle believe raising taxes is good in 
this economy or it's something that we should do by feeding more money 
into the Federal Government, and certainly if the Federal Government is 
not fixing the problem. That's what we're trying to do, Mr. Speaker. I 
know the gentleman understands my point of view on this, and we've had 
this discussion continuously.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  It is a discussion the country is having. It's a discussion we need 
to have, and we need to have it honestly with one another.
  The gentleman knows my position: it's not taxes or spending; it's if 
you buy something, pay for it. We haven't done that. That's what 
creates debt. Taxing doesn't create debt; spending doesn't create debt 
if you pay for it. Spending creates debt only if you don't pay for it. 
The revenues--taxes--are what you pay for things that you buy. We are 
buying things and we're not paying for them, and your children and mine 
are being put in debt as a result.
  So this debate is really about: What are we going to pay for? How 
much do we want to do? And if we want to do it, we need to pay for it.
  The gentleman knows my side very much believes that we had two tax 
cuts in '01 and '03; we didn't pay for it. We had two wars, both of 
which I supported, as the gentleman knows; we didn't pay for it. We 
passed a prescription drug bill; we didn't pay for it. We are hopefully 
going to pass a disaster relief bill that hopefully we're not going to 
pay for in the short term, but that we will pay for and have a scenario 
to pay for in the longer term because we know owe that to our children 
and to our grandchildren.
  I'll just make a point. The gentleman always talks about tax and 
spending is the problem. The problem is we vote to buy things--whatever 
those things are--and we haven't voted to pay for them. The discipline 
in any system--in the family's budget, in the country's budget--should 
be, if you want to buy it, have the discipline to pay for it, or at 
least to amortize it to pay for it over a series of years that you've 
planned for. We haven't done that. We're in a debate about this fiscal 
cliff of how to do that.
  We planned this fiscal cliff. This is not a happenstance. We planned. 
I didn't vote for the tax bills, but they sunsetted. They sunsetted 
this December 31. That was planned. It was planned because of a scoring 
issue--not because I think your side really believes they ought to 
sunset, but because of a scoring issue.
  The fact of the matter is the sequester was put in place as a fail-
safe to make the supercommittee work. It didn't work, so on January 2 
the sequester takes place. I don't think any of us believe a sequester 
ought to take place in the way that it's planned to do so.
  So what I'm saying to the gentleman is everything that's going to 
happen on December 31 we've planned, we've put in place, we've 
sunsetted. It is our responsibility to meet that. And, yes, taxes is 
the way we pay for things that we buy because if we pay for them, we 
don't create debt.
  I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, along those lines, the gentleman talked 
about the '01, '03 tax cuts. He is talking about mostly the 98 percent 
that he refers to that continue to need that tax cut. I'd ask the 
gentleman, Is he now saying we need to pay for that tax cut?
  Mr. HOYER. I absolutely believe that we need to pay for that tax cut 
over the 10-year plan that we try to come up with to get us to a place 
that we can agree on being the objective in 2022 or 2023 as to where we 
want to be as a country in terms of fiscal sustainability, a credible 
plan that will get us from here to there, including taking cognizance 
of the cost of that tax cut. Yes, I am saying that over the longer term 
we ought to pay for it. Right now the economy is struggling. The reason 
I think none of us want to raise taxes on the average working men and 
women in this country is because the economy is still struggling.
  We're going to have that issue in terms of the payroll tax. We did 
the payroll tax deduction, which is controversial and there hasn't been 
a lot of the discussion, in order to get some additional revenues, 2 
percent cut in the FICA tax--actually, a third of the cut, a third of 
the FICA tax so that we can get additional moneys into the pockets of 
the consumers so they can continue to buy. The economy has been better 
than it certainly was. We have grown, but not to the extent that we 
need to. That is why our view is that for those working Americans we 
ought to continue that level, but not because we think that we ought to 
just put that on the credit card and forget about it. It's got to be 
part of these fiscal cliff negotiations. And your point is making sure 
we pay for things.
  Mr. CANTOR. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman I know the 
gentleman understands that my view is you don't have to pay for giving 
people back the money that they earned, but the gentleman takes that 
view; but that's exactly the point of these discussions. Where is the 
discussion about the specifics on where we are paying for things in 
terms of reducing spending? That's exactly the point.
  If the gentleman would be so kind as to go to the White House and 
engage the President to say, hey, give us some specifics, because the 
President so desperately wants to raise those taxes and to grant the 98 
percent the tax relief. If the gentleman's contention is the 
President's, where are the specifics on the other side of the ledger? 
That's exactly what we're saying, Mr. Speaker. We need to solve this 
problem.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, we had that discussion in terms of 
specifics. I pointed out to the gentleman last week, and I'll point out 
to him again today, the President has in his budget 23 pages of cuts, 
including, very frankly, with respect to Medicare, in which he cuts 
more--specifically identified--than Paul Ryan's budget that passed this 
House reduced Medicare expenditures.

                              {time}  1220

  So I will say to my friend, I have given him this little list--he 
can't see it. You have five items on your proposal in the letter that 
you sent, five items. They're over here on the right, five line items, 
all conclusionary, no specifics. For instance, the gentleman refers to 
800 billion--not the gentleman, but in the Republican offer--refers to 
$800 billion in revenues. Now, the President has been very specific as 
to what he thinks we ought to do in revenues. We ought to go to the 
Clinton rates on those over 200,000 individually and over 250,000 
family--very specific. And he has made other specific proposals that 
get him to his revenue number.
  Frankly, your revenue number is posited on the fact that we're going 
to reduce, as I understand it, preference items to attain an additional 
800 billion in revenue without increasing rates. I understand that 
general proposition.
  Would the gentleman tell me which preference items he would reduce to 
get to 800? Now, that's a little rhetorical because I don't want to put 
you on the spot on that, but it is to the extent I don't think you have 
been specific in terms of your offer at all while I do believe the 
President has put forward, both on the tax side and the spending side, 
some very specific proposals of how to get to his numbers.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.
  I will say this, again, the gentleman has been very good, not in the 
negotiations with the Speaker and the President, but somehow knowing 
the state of affairs. Because this is the problem: if the gentleman 
says that we ought to look to the President's budget proposals as our 
guide as to what he would accept and propose on the specifics, just 
yesterday, I think, the news came that the administration has now 
decided not to uphold its commitment on the Medicaid reduction in 
spending.

[[Page 17045]]

  So what are we to believe as far as the President's proposals in his 
budget from months and months ago and how that applies to the 
discussions and negotiations around the fiscal cliff? Which is exactly 
why we need the specifics now. I understand and take the gentleman's 
point as far as the 800 billion, but we have not dealt at all with the 
spending side of the ledger. And the commitment should be balanced. As 
the President always says, we need a balanced approach. Yet we don't 
have any discussion on the spending side of the ledger other than to 
reference a prior proposal by the administration which has now said, 
no, we are not sticking to that on the Medicaid piece.
  So what are we to believe? Which is exactly the point. We need real 
specificity in terms of the spending. And I take the gentleman's point 
on the 800 billion. Yes, but it takes two sides, and this White House 
and President have refused on the spending side.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, of course, again, we have a disagreement. And this 
list--I can't read it either, so you couldn't read it from there.
  Mr. CANTOR. If the gentleman would yield, we have just seen the 
administration backtrack on its commitment on that list.
  Mr. HOYER. I don't think he backtracked. What he said was, and what 
we have said continually is, on the revenue side, if you're going to 
have a balanced package on the revenue side--this is his specific 
proposal: he's made a number of proposals on the spending-cut side 
already, as I said in Medicare more than the Ryan budget had in his 
budget. The fact is, I will tell the gentleman, you have no specificity 
on balance. Nor do you have any specificity, frankly, on cuts. There is 
no specificity on your spending cuts here. They're conclusions. So I'm 
not sure how you think one side ought to be specific, i.e., the 
President, which I think he has been specific, and the other side comes 
with five lines of dollars that add up to $2.2 trillion, none of which 
have any specificity. As you see, there are no individual items below 
those five lines saying where you want to cut or raise revenues.
  Therefore, we need to get to an agreement, and this argument is not 
very helpful, I think. We need to get to an agreement; both sides need 
to get to agreement. But the reason we get into this conversation is we 
have agreement on a part of that, which will help give confidence to 
our people, and that is on the middle class taxes not going up.
  I would again urge, and then perhaps we can get off this subject 
because I don't think we're really enlightening our public very much 
other than the fact there are obviously disagreements; but they expect 
us to, and we need to bridge these disagreements. I think the President 
has shown--you and I participated in discussions with the President of 
the United States. I've been here 31 years. No President in the 31 
years that I've been here has spent as much time sitting in the Oval 
Office discussing with you and me and others, Mr. Boehner, Ms. Pelosi, 
Mr. Reid, Mr. McConnell, and others, sitting in the office trying to 
get to specific agreements.
  This President is willing to do that, and he has done it. He has 
shown that he's willing to do it in 2011, and you and I were in the 
room watching it happen. Now, did it result in what we wanted and that 
was an agreement? It did not. That's unfortunate. But this President is 
willing to do it. Hopefully, both sides are willing to do both sides of 
the ledger, which the gentleman points out are revenues and spending, a 
balanced package getting us to where we need to be.
  Now I will move on to another subject unless the gentleman wants to 
make another point.
  Debt ceiling. I'm very worried about the debt ceiling, Mr. Leader. I 
think the debt ceiling is something that you and I have expressed 
publicly and privately ought not to be something that really we put at 
risk. I frankly think all the leaders I've talked to on the Republican 
side and on the Democratic side think that when you incur debts as the 
United States of America, the most creditworthy Nation on the face of 
the Earth, that you have every intention of paying those debts.
  The debt ceiling theoretically says that you can't pay over a certain 
number, you can't go into debt anymore. You and I both know that 
sometime in February, maybe later, that debt ceiling will be reached.
  Very frankly, both parties have played a game on the debt ceiling. 
When you were in charge, we played the fact that the debt was your 
problem because you had cut taxes and didn't pay for that. On your 
side, you said we spent too much money and we didn't pay for that. And 
so you voted against the debt ceiling when we were in charge. Neither 
one of us has, I think, covered ourselves with a great deal of glory on 
that issue.
  The debt ceiling has to be raised because America will pay its bills. 
America will be creditworthy. And we saw the last time we had this 
political, I call it a charade or dance, the last time, for the first 
time in history, first time since you and I have served here--history 
is a lot longer than that--the credit of the United States of America 
was downgraded by one of the rating agencies, Standard & Poor's.
  I would hope that the debt ceiling would not be a subject of 
disagreement. The President has proposed Senator McConnell's proposal 
so that the party in charge can take responsibility for it. The 
McConnell proposal said that the President of the United States would 
say, look, in order to pay our bills, we have to raise our debt 
ceiling. Most countries don't have a debt ceiling, of course, and most 
families don't have a debt ceiling. They incur debt and they expect to 
pay it. I would hope that this would not be a subject of political 
leveraging or political disagreement.
  We know as an economic fact of life that we're going to have to 
increase the debt limit, and I would ask the gentleman if he has any 
thoughts on that and when we might act on that. I yield to my friend. I 
don't think I finished what, for the public, for anybody who happens to 
be watching us who is not bored stiff by this point in time, the 
McConnell proposal, as the gentleman knows, was that the President 
would propose a level, and then if that were not rejected by two-thirds 
of each House, that it then would go into effect, which would mean that 
the President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, would take 
the responsibility for making that judgment on behalf of managing the 
finances of our country.
  I'll yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
believe that, in all fairness, looking at the credit-rating agencies 
and their view towards debt ceiling increase discussions, some of that 
certainly has to do with the continuing increasing of debt and its 
burden on this country, our citizens, and its economy. And if the 
gentleman recalls a year and a half ago when we were engaged in the 
discussions around the increase in the debt ceiling, we established a 
proposition which said that if we're going to increase the debt 
ceiling, we ought to be decreasing the spending in a commensurate 
amount.

                              {time}  1230

  That's very simply put. The difficulty was we could not get the 
gentleman's party and/or the White House to go along with us in terms 
of agreement of those spending reductions. It's an echo of the original 
discussion the gentleman and I just had as far as the fiscal cliff is 
concerned.
  Our commitment is to try to reduce the mountain of debt that is 
strangling this country and try to stop the spending that continues to 
spiral out of control. So any discussion of the increase of debt for us 
has to be accompanied with a real commitment to the reduction in 
spending, otherwise those credit rating agencies are going to continue 
to do what they did.
  In order to engender confidence in those agencies and the markets and 
throughout the American economy and the public, we have got to gain 
some credibility on the spending issue and stop the spending. That is 
our position. The gentleman knows that. Yes, we all agree, America is a 
country that pays its bills. We need to stop racking up so

[[Page 17046]]

many of them because we've gotten to a situation where we are 
generating a trillion dollars of additional annual debt. We can't do 
that. That is why we take the position we do, to try and arrest that, 
to get our economy back on an even keel so we can heal that economy.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  I don't think he answered my question about the debt limit, 
therefore, my presumption is unfortunately it will continue to be an 
item used as leverage, holding hostage the creditworthiness of the 
United States to this debate.
  Mr. CANTOR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. That is a mischaracterization of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. 
All I said was we feel this White House has a tin ear in terms of the 
spending problem. What we're saying is we need some balance. Just as 
the rhetoric comes from the White House that we need a balanced 
approach, we need a balanced approach on both sides, spending and 
revenue. That's what the whole discussion is about on the debt ceiling 
issue because it is accessing additional funds for the Federal 
Government, but instead of through taxation, borrowing. Equally, if we 
are going to increase that, we better be decreasing the other side of 
the ledger so we don't continue to increase and mount that debt.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I hear the gentleman, and the gentleman says 
spending is the problem.
  If spending is the problem and spending obviously is one of the 
challenges we confront, as is revenues, if that is the case, then let 
me remind the gentleman that during the time that his party was totally 
in charge of spending, spending increased very substantially, otherwise 
known as an 86 percent increase from 2001 to 2008 in the national debt, 
an 86 percent increase. Under Ronald Reagan, it increased 189 percent. 
Under this President, it has increased 41 percent, and he confronted 
the deepest recession as a result of the economic policies in part 
pursued in the last administration, which I did not support and which 
my party did not support.
  I hear this about spending all the time. We had a pay-as-you-go 
bipartisan process put in place by the first George Bush and Democrats 
in 1990. In 1993, that pay-as-you-go was continued. In 1997, a deal 
between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Clinton continued that pay-as-you-go 
process. And for the last 4 years in a row of the Clinton 
administration, we didn't borrow a single additional nickel to raise 
the debt limit. We didn't have to. Why? Because we were paying for what 
we bought.
  Republicans were in charge of the House and the Senate for part of 
that time, so they deserve some of the responsibility for that. The 
President was in charge of signing bills and making sure that we made 
investments. He made sure we did that, and the economy exploded. Those 
three factors obviously resulted in the only President in the lifetime 
of either the majority leader and myself who ended up with a net 
surplus in his term. We don't need to be lectured about spending. As I 
said, spending does not cause debt. What causes debt is not paying for 
the spending you make, and that's exactly what happened.
  I tell my friend his party was in charge from 2001 to 2006, totally 
and essentially until 2008, because we didn't change any economic 
policies and President Bush had to sign any bill that was passed here. 
So this circuitous discussion we have about, simply, spending is the 
problem--yes, you're right. But the problem is ultimately if we want to 
buy things--and what we do now, as the gentleman knows, is we are 
producing a product that costs $23 to produce, and we're asking people 
to pay $15 for it. Talk about small businesses; any small business that 
does that goes out of business pretty quickly. That's what we are 
doing, and we have to stop it.
  The debt ceiling, however, as the gentleman knows, is about that 
which we've already done and whether we are going to pay those bills. 
All I'm saying is we ought not to make that a part of the leveraging 
between our two parties.
  Let me go quickly to the farm bill, the Violence Against Women Act, 
and the Sandy supplemental. Can the gentleman tell me which of those 
three, if any, might we see next week?
  With that, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. As the gentleman knows, on the farm bill we are committed 
to trying to address the issue of the farm bill prior to leaving for 
the year.
  As far as the Violence Against Women Act, as the gentleman knows, I'm 
in discussions with the Vice President. I know it is of particular 
interest to him. There are many Members on our side whom I've met with 
today, as well as Members of the other body, who are interested too. We 
have met, and we are trying to work out the differences. I'm committed 
to do all I can, as the gentleman knows, to bring this to a conclusion 
so we can see its passage.
  As far as the supplemental bill, I know that the White House--and the 
gentleman has heard me say this before--has submitted its request. Our 
Appropriations Committee is doing its review of the request to see that 
that supplemental aid gets to the victims that need it, to the 
localities and the States that need it, and is money that will be spent 
directly as a result of the very catastrophic storm of Sandy, and we 
hope to be able to resolve that as well.
  We are operating in an environment of the post-Budget Control Act 
where we have put in place budget mechanisms for disasters. As the 
gentleman knows, FEMA has indicated it has the money it needs to 
operate for at least a little while, but we're committed to making sure 
that adequate funding does get to the victims of that very catastrophic 
storm.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his intent there.
  I would simply observe that the gentleman observed and he was 
correct, obviously, that FEMA indicated it has some resources to go 
through the beginning of the year. There are, as the gentleman well 
knows, a myriad of agencies that will be involved in helping the 
victims of Sandy that do not have those resources and need them. I 
appreciate, therefore, the gentleman's focusing on this and trying to 
bring this forth as quickly as possible.
  Last, the miscellaneous tariff bill. That expires, as you know, on 
December 31, as well. Can the gentleman give me a view as to where that 
stands?
  And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. I think the gentleman is aware, Mr. Speaker, that the 
chairman of the committee, Chairman Camp, is speaking with the ranking 
member to try and see what it is that we can do to go forward on that 
issue as well.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                          ____________________