[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11294-11298]
[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. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the 
majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for 
the week to come.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, 
the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative 
business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and 
Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for 
legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for 
legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 
3 p.m.
  Madam 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 tomorrow.
  In addition, the House will consider H.R. 5872, the Sequestration 
Transparency Act, sponsored by Congressman Jeb Hensarling. This is a 
bill that will bring needed transparency to the administration's 
process for implementing devastating cuts to our national defense and 
many social programs on January 2. Chairman Paul Ryan and the Budget 
Committee passed this bill in a bipartisan fashion, so I expect it to 
be brought up under suspension of the rules.
  Finally, and in keeping with funding our national security, the House 
will consider H.R. 5856, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
sponsored by Congressman Bill Young. This will be the House's seventh 
appropriations bill of the year.
  I expect the defense funding bill to be on the floor for the balance 
of the week. Members should be aware that late evening votes are 
possible on Wednesday, July 18, and Thursday, July 19.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that scheduling information.
  As the gentleman knows, we have, as I calculate, 12 legislative days 
left to go in July and the beginning of August, of which 3 of those 
days we will be coming in at 6:30. As a result, we don't have much time 
left, and I would ask the gentleman if there is any expectation of 
having bills other than the regulatory--I understand one of those weeks 
will be the regulatory week. Other than the regulatory bills, will we 
have any jobs legislation on the floor?
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for the question.
  Madam Speaker, we've been, as the gentleman knows, very transparent 
about scheduling the floor, sending out a memo making Members aware of 
where we're headed for the remainder of the July period. I would say to 
the gentleman that, after next week, we will be focusing on cutting red 
tape, reducing the regulatory burden on our job creators. As we know, 
the regulatory atmosphere in this country is making it more difficult 
and more expensive for small businesses and large to create jobs. We'll 
be focusing on that.
  The following week, Madam Speaker, will be the week in which we will 
bring forward a piece of legislation to stop the tax hikes to ensure 
that all Americans know we are not going to see taxes go up for them at 
the end of this year.
  In addition to that, we'll bring forward a bill that will be focused 
on how we get to a pro-growth tax system in this country, laying out 
the principles for tax reform and suggesting an expedited procedure so 
that we can actually achieve results for the American people so that 
our job creators and working families can get back to work.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentleman's answer, and I think we have 
consensus on this floor about cutting red tape and facilitating 
decisions by the Federal Government or by the State government or by 
local government. We have all heard that complaint throughout our 
careers. I think that's a legitimate concern for us to have. However, 
when I ask about a jobs bill, the gentleman responds on a couple of 
levels.
  I think I may have mentioned this before, but what concerns me is 
that Bruce Bartlett, whom I think the gentleman probably knows, a 
former President Reagan and President H. W. Bush administration 
official, says that no hard evidence is offered for the claim that 
regulatory issues have increased. But he says that Republicans have 
embraced ``the idea that government regulation is the principal factor 
holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a 
tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among 
businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.''

                              {time}  1300

  As I said, he says no hard evidence is offered for this claim. He 
then says:

       In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented 
     by Republicans that allows them to use current economic 
     problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business 
     community year in and year out. In other words, it's a simple 
     case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal 
     with high unemployment.

  Now, that's his opinion, I understand that. But my concern is, if you 
ask an economist whether or not many of the pieces of legislation we've 
passed that we've called jobs bills--the gentleman's pointed that out--
economists say in the short term--which is really what we need to deal, 
we need to deal in the short term and the long term--is not going to 
create jobs. This week, we haven't done anything to create jobs.
  By the way, might I ask the gentleman, because I didn't see it next 
week, do we expect a 32nd or a 33rd vote on repealing the Affordable 
Care Act either next week, the week after, or the week after that? As 
the gentleman knows, CBS opines that we've spent some 80 hours on that 
issue, with whatever cost is attendant to that. You can answer both 
questions, I suppose, but certainly I would be interested and the 
Members would be interested to

[[Page 11295]]

know whether or not we're going to have another vote on repealing the 
Affordable Care Act.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would say to the gentleman about this week's vote--in fact, today--
today we voted on a bill that helps us ``Mine it in America.'' The 
gentleman likes to speak about ``making it in America.'' Why shouldn't 
we also be mining it in America? So it's very much a bill to facilitate 
that business and industry in this country in an environmentally 
sensitive way. In fact, 22 of the gentleman's caucus Members joined us 
in that vote--``Mine it in America,'' Madam Speaker.
  As to the gentleman's question about the suggestion that perhaps the 
regulatory environment does not affect the potential growth or real 
growth in this country, that is something that I don't believe the 
gentleman agrees totally with that statement, because I know he and I 
both have worked on trying to streamline regulations here. We don't 
want overly burdensome regulations on small or large businesses or 
working families.
  So again, I would take issue with the suggestion that economists 
would say that regulatory atmosphere and framework don't have anything 
to do with job creation. Of course it does. It has to do with the 
environment for one to take a risk, for investors to put capital to 
work, for entrepreneurs to go out and sign their name on the dotted 
line with the bank. Of course regulation has something to do with job 
creation and growth. That is exactly our point. And I hope the 
gentleman will join us in the week that we bring these red tape 
reduction bills to the floor to help us accomplish something so that we 
can roll back the unduly burdensome framework and make sure we have a 
smart framework of regulation so that we can see America grow.
  As to the gentleman's final question about scheduling another repeal 
vote of ObamaCare, if the gentleman would like to do so, I'm happy to 
meet with him. Right now, as the gentleman knows, we have done that 
this week. And I would say to the gentleman, the reason why perhaps we 
spent so much time on that issue, it is the most personal issue to many 
millions of Americans. It's their health care; it's their family's 
health care. At the end of the day, this election season will 
underscore the importance of people engaging in this discussion and 
participating in our democracy because the kind of health care that we 
will have in this country will be determined by the outcome of the 
election.
  The real question is, Madam Speaker, are we going to have Washington-
based health care or patient-based health care? That's what it comes 
down to. Who's in the driver seat, patients and their doctors, or 
Washington-based bureaucrats deciding what kind of coverage we can 
have? We all know what's happened with that approach under ObamaCare: 
costs have gone up, employers are beginning to shed the plans, and 
people will not be able to have the health care they have. That's why 
we've spent the time we have on this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, the gentleman knows full well I think you have 
wasted a lot of time on this House floor, wasted a lot of effort on 
this House floor knowing full well that that had no chance of passage 
and that you were simply appealing to the base that you were just 
appealing to. In fact, this gentleman believes that what you would do 
if your bill is passed, you would take away benefits from millions and 
millions and millions of people. I think that's incontestable. It's 
incontestable that seniors, who are now getting more help with the 
doughnut hole for their prescription drugs which enhance their quality 
and length of life, would lose it if we repealed the Affordable Care 
Act.
  It is incontrovertible, I will tell my friend, that millions of young 
people who can't find a job unfortunately in this economy--and we 
haven't gotten any immediate jobs legislation that was offered by the 
President on this floor to even consider, pass or fail--millions of 
young people would lose their insurance.
  Millions of children who have a preexisting condition, who now, under 
the Affordable Care Act, cannot be precluded by the insurance 
companies--which is really who you want to put in--not you personally, 
but who the defeat of the Affordable Care Act would put insurance 
companies back in charge, not government bureaucrats, but insurance 
companies.
  So many of your Republican Governors don't want to set up the 
exchanges. All the exchanges are is setting up a free market of private 
sector insurers where people can make a judgment: Do they like policy 
A, B or C? It's very tough for consumers to determine right now whether 
they're getting a good bargain for the price they're paying for their 
health insurance, which is very expensive. And I will tell the 
gentleman that the Affordable Care Act will also create--CBO says, 
economists say--millions of jobs in the health care area. So, contrary 
to the gentleman's assertion that we are taking away care, in fact we 
are adding 30 million people access to affordable quality health care.
  As Mr. Romney said, we are requiring responsibility. So everybody 
takes personal responsibility to make sure that, if they can, they will 
insure themselves. So, what? So that the rest of us won't have to pay 
when they go to the hospital or get sick. They will be responsible for 
themselves. And if they need help, as Mr. Romney said in Massachusetts 
when RomneyCare was adopted--a model just like we've adopted for the 
Nation--it's important to make sure that they get some help. That's 
what that bill does.
  In addition to that, we've made sure that people didn't have a 
serious illness and have the insurance companies--not government 
bureaucrats, not the government, but insurance companies--say you're 
too sick, we're not going to cover you anymore.
  So I will tell my friend, he and I have a radically different view on 
what the consequences are of the 31 votes that we've had, that the 
gentleman knew were not going to pass the Senate, knew the President 
wasn't going to sign, and knew you didn't have the votes to override. 
You're making a political point, I understand that. There are people 
who disagree with the Affordable Care Act; I understand that as well. 
But I frankly think that, had we dealt with jobs legislation during 
that period of 80 hours and considered the President's jobs bill, we 
would have millions of more people employed today in America right now.
  Now, let me just, so that there's no misunderstanding, so I don't 
neglect to respond to the gentleman's assertion, he's right. He and I 
agree: we need to cut government red tape; we need to speed approvals; 
we need to make sure that we do not impede, by regulation, the growth 
of our economy and the growth of jobs. I couldn't agree with him more. 
I think we ought to deal with that on a bipartisan basis, and hopefully 
we will continue--or perhaps start to do that, I might say, or continue 
to do that in some instances. But the gentleman is correct.
  Now, let me ask you something, however, about the tax vote, because 
you also mentioned bringing taxes down. Let me ask you something: Do 
you expect that vote to come the last week that we are in session 
before the August break? I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. I'd say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman, can you repeat 
the question?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes. Do you expect the vote on taxes, which you have 
referred to, to occur the last week--which I believe is the 29th of 
July, the week of 29 July--to be on that week?
  Mr. CANTOR. I would respond to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that, 
yes, we have scheduled for that week a vote on the bill to extend 
existing rates. That extension will be for a year.
  We will also be bringing up a bill that will outline the principles 
for tax reform that I know the gentleman also has said we need to 
reform our Tax Code so that we can help make it fairer, more simple, 
and so that we can see the economy grow again. Those vehicles will be 
brought up that week, yes, Madam Speaker.

[[Page 11296]]


  Mr. HOYER. I'll look forward to seeing the latter bill because the 
gentleman is correct, I think we do need to reform our tax system. We 
need to make it simpler. I would like to see us reduce preference items 
and bring rates down, as the Bowles-Simpson/ Domenici-Rivlin--Gang of 
Six, whoever you want to refer to--has suggested. I think that's moving 
in the proper direction.

                              {time}  1310

  I also think we have to, however, frankly, make sure that we bring 
down the deficit and debt confronting this Nation. And I think, as 
Bowles-Simpson pointed out, you've got to do that in a balanced way.
  Let me ask you something on these packages that you said are coming 
that last week. There have not yet been hearings on the ramifications 
of either of those bills, as I understand it, in the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Does the gentleman expect there to be hearings on those? And does the 
gentleman expect there to be a markup of either one of those bills in 
the Ways and Means Committee?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, I think I 
disagree with the gentleman, there haven't been hearings.
  I think, for the last year and a half, Chairman Camp and his 
committee have been fast about looking at the Tax Code, talking about 
tax reform, divulging what it would mean for us to have an increased 
tax environment for this economy. We've been all about the economy and 
growth.
  I'd say to the gentleman, he likes to say, why can't we do jobs 
bills? We have been doing jobs bills. He complains about the 30-some 
bills we've been doing relating to ObamaCare. I would say we've done 
even more than that relating to jobs.
  I would ask the gentleman to just remember where those bills sit 
right now. They're on the doorstep of the Senate, and the leader over 
there refuses to bring them up.
  And so, again, I'd say to the gentleman, we stand ready to work 
together so that we can produce results for the people that sent us 
here, and that is the purpose of bringing forward the bills that have 
been talked about, have been dissected, in terms of existing tax rates, 
where they may or may not go, how they affect growth in this economy. 
That's what we're doing.
  We've had multiple votes, multiple hearings on tax reform, on what 
the tax rates mean, and this vote will be very clear. If you want to 
stop the tax hike for all Americans, at all income levels, you'll vote 
for the bill. If you want to engage in tax reform, if you feel the Tax 
Code is too complicated, it needs to be simplified, rates brought down, 
loopholes closed, you'll vote for the bill. It's that simple.
  Mr. HOYER. When you say, I presume, as the gentleman said, we're 
talking about two different bills, are we not?
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, that is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
  Let me say to the gentleman that when the gentleman says there have 
been hearings on tax reform, I think that's probably accurate. What 
there has not been, in my view and in Mr. Levin's, who's the ranking 
member of the committee, there's been no hearing on the ramifications 
of the bill, which, apparently, is going to be brought to the floor, 
which simply extends all the Bush-era tax cuts, ramifications to the 
deficit, ramifications to the debt and, indeed, ramifications to the 
economy.
  I would say, with all due respect to my friend, the majority leader, 
I don't believe there have been hearings on that issue. There have been 
hearings on, should we reform the Tax Code. The gentleman and I agree. 
We should simplify it. We should reform the Tax Code. We should make it 
more compatible with economic growth, and very frankly, for average 
individual Americans who want to pay their taxes, would like to pay as 
little as possible, all of us would like to do that, but want to 
support their country as well.
  So I don't really share the gentleman's view that there have been 
hearings on the ramifications of the bill that the gentleman says he's 
going to bring to the floor, and that's what I asked.
  Now, let me ask you the other question, which was the second part of 
it. Is there going to be a markup of the bill which you're going to 
bring to the floor in terms of taxes? To clarify, so that Members on 
both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to offer amendments in 
committee, make observations in committee as to the ramifications of 
that action, and that Members will have an opportunity to reflect on 
that bill.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, this is a 
very simple and clear choice here. Given this economy, if one wants to 
raise taxes on all Americans, you vote against the bill. If you want to 
go and help folks through a more simple Tax Code, and you want to look 
towards tax reform, you vote for the next bill. Straight up or down.
  There has been enough discussion, enough hearings, in the Ways and 
Means Committee, as well as the Budget Committee. These issues were 
central to our budgets. Your Members on the Budget Committee, as well 
as ours, I had a full open hearing on that budget document and a 
markup.
  We believe now's not the time to raise taxes on working people, small 
businesses and large. The economy is anemic. We don't have enough job 
growth. Why do we want to take more of people's hard-earned money? 
That's why we're bringing this bill forward.
  This bill is straight up or down. Stop the tax hike or not.
  Mr. HOYER. I take it the answer is no, there will not be a markup on 
a bill that will have extraordinary consequences to all Americans, and 
possibly extraordinary consequences to the deficit and debt and to our 
economy. Am I correct in interpreting your answer as no, there will not 
be a markup of this very important bill? You will bring it straight to 
the floor without committee consideration? Is that an accurate 
interpretation of what you said?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman has heard my 
response.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I did hear the response, and apparently I accurately 
characterized it. I think that's a shame, Mr. Majority Leader.
  Mr. Boehner said that we were going to be an open House, that we were 
going to consider matters, and that everybody would have their 
opportunity to have their input.
  Usually, tax bills are brought to the floor, not subject to 
amendment. You have just said, as I understand what you said, this 
bill, our way or the highway. If you don't like the bill the way we 
brought it to the floor, you're out of luck. You don't have an option. 
You can't put any of your ideas into this bill.
  If that's the way you intend to consider this bill, Mr. Leader, I 
think that's unfortunate.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, the gentleman knows that his side of the 
aisle will have an opportunity to posit their position on taxes through 
the regular process of a motion to recommit. And as I had said publicly 
yesterday, when asked, are the Democrats in the House going to be able 
to offer the President's tax proposal, I said, absolutely they will.
  So we'll see. We'll see, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman decides to 
put forward the President's tax proposal calling for a tax hike on 
American small businesses. We'll see if that happens, Madam Speaker. 
But we will see, and that will be the week it will happen.
  You're either for stopping tax hikes or you're not.
  Mr. HOYER. My way or the highway. That's what you just said, Mr. 
Leader. I understand that concept.
  Very frankly, in my view, we have agreement. We have agreement on 
something that you won't bring to the floor, and it is that all middle 
class, working Americans will not get a tax hike, all of them. And 
everybody, up to $250,000 of income, will have no tax increase.

[[Page 11297]]

  But we have a big deficit and a big debt, and we need to pay our 
bills. We have a debt limit vote coming up at the end of this year. 
Very frankly, we took the country to the brink of default and very 
adversely affected our economy by undermining confidence.
  You talked a lot about confidence in the last campaign, Mr. Leader. I 
agreed with you. I think we need to instill confidence, not undermine 
confidence.
  But I will tell my friend that if you wanted to work together, as 
you've said on a number of occasions now, as for instance we did with 
the Export/Import bank, the bills that you sent over there, we didn't 
work together on. They were passed on a partisan vote, for the most 
part. Not all of them. And some votes were overwhelmingly bipartisan. 
And guess what happened? They became law. The President signed them. 
Export/Import bank, the jobs bill that you promoted and which I voted 
for.
  You said you want to work together. Now, it's interesting when you 
say ``work together,'' because what you say you're going to give us is 
a motion to recommit. And what you will instruct, and what your whip 
will instruct, is for all of your Members, vote ``no,'' and your side 
will inaccurately say it is a purely procedural vote. And as you have 
for the last 18 months, your Members will vote ``no'' on motions to 
recommit, notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the 
substance.
  And the fact of the matter is, Mr. Leader, we can have a vote that 
ought to pass with 435 votes, 435 votes. Everybody in this Congress 
says that we ought to not have a tax increase on working Americans, on 
working Americans making less than $250,000 in taxable income. As you 
know, that's more income.

                              {time}  1320

  But we won't get that vote except on an MTR, on which you have 
instructed your Members to vote ``no,'' incorrectly arguing that it's a 
procedural vote only and not a substantive vote. I would say to my 
friend, not only will you not allow us an amendment on the floor, it 
appears, but you won't allow an amendment to be offered in committee so 
that we can vote on that.
  Yes, we have disagreement; but you're prepared to hold hostage 
working Americans by saying, if the richest people in America might 
have a little bit of a tax increase, then everybody else is going to 
get a tax increase. You said it a different way, I understand; but the 
reality and the ramifications of the actions that you are proposing to 
follow will mean that we will not get a vote, which I think there is 
overwhelming support of, in making sure that working Americans and, 
yes, 97 percent of small businesses don't get any tax increase at all. 
We have agreement on that, Mr. Leader.
  Why don't we bring that to the floor and show the American public 
that, yes, we can come together, as you have suggested; that yes, we 
can agree; and that yes, we can make sure that they don't get a tax 
increase? Then, yes, we can have a debate on the balance. You will take 
one position, and I may take another position, and the American public 
will see that, and then they can make a judgment as to with whom they 
agree.
  Now, my view is an overwhelming majority of the public will agree 
with me, and you will think the overwhelming majority of the American 
public will agree with you. That's what democracy is about. Let us have 
this debate. Let us have this vote. Let us make sure that working 
Americans aren't held hostage to the wealthiest in our country.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, what I would say to the gentleman is 
holding hostage working families is denying them a job. It's about 
jobs. The gentleman can play with the statistics all he wants and claim 
that 97 percent of the small businesses will get a tax break this way 
and that let's leave the other for later; but the significant fact is, 
it's with the others where the significant job growth can be.
  Why would we want to go and tax job creators? We know that 50 percent 
of the people who will get a tax hike under the President's proposal 
get at least a quarter of their incomes from small business, and the 
more their incomes the more the percentage. That means the jobs
  So why would we want to stop job creators from hiring people? Because 
Washington takes more of their money. Why would we want tax rates to go 
up on anybody in this anemic economy? And why would we want to go and 
raise taxes when we haven't put an end to the out-of-control spending 
in Washington? Because what you're doing is digging the hole deeper.
  That's our position, Madam Speaker.
  So I would ask the gentleman straight up: Is the gentleman going to 
bring to the floor a motion to recommit for his proposal, the 
President's proposal? Is that going to be the motion to recommit? Will 
the gentleman actually put his words to work and have that be their 
motion to recommit?
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman is asking me am I for the President's 
proposal, the answer is absolutely yes. I don't want the gentleman 
confused in any way. If the motion to recommit is the only option we 
have available, we are certainly going to discuss that option, but 
we're not going to pretend, either to ourselves or to the American 
people, that your side will treat it as a real vote.
  Do you want to put it on the floor as an amendment? Do you want to 
have a real debate on it, not 5 minutes on one side and 5 minutes on 
the other side, which the motion to recommit is limited to?
  You're shutting us down--you're gagging us--and, yes, you're putting 
middle class taxpayers at risk because you know, I know, and the 
American people know the President of the United States has said he 
would veto your bill. He has said he will sign a bill that together we 
could pass making sure that 98 percent of Americans do not get a tax 
increase. What you are proposing to do, Mr. Leader, is to bring to the 
floor a bill which simply protects the 2 percent, that says that the 2 
percent should not pay more. The gentleman says, oh, they're great job 
creators. I understand what the gentleman is saying.
  By the way, the program you're going to offer, it was in place. It 
was in place from 2001, 2003 to 2009. You and I both know what 
happened, not solely because it was in place, of course--let us 
stipulate to that. The fact is we had the deepest recession in your 
lifetime and my lifetime and the lifetimes of anybody who is younger 
than 90 years of age under the program that you're proposing we 
continue with. I will tell you, Mr. Leader, I don't think that's a 
great way to proceed. At least we ought to have the opportunity to 
debate it. At least we ought to have more than 5 minutes on our side to 
tell the American people where we're coming from. At least we ought to 
have a vote where you don't instruct your Members it's a procedural 
vote and don't vote for it.
  I will tell the gentleman with all clarity that the consequences of 
your act--and you do it knowledgeably--will be that middle class 
taxpayers will be put at risk. Why? Whether you agree with it or not, 
the President will veto it. The Senate, I don't think will pass it. The 
fact of the matter is we can do for 98 percent of Americans that which 
we agree on. You don't want them to have a tax increase. I don't want 
them to have a tax increase. We agree on that. Americans can not 
understand, when we agree on that, why we can't at least pass something 
on which we agree which will help 98 percent of Americans in this 
struggling economy, which is as you clearly point out.
  Now, you point out--you didn't use the term--that we only added 
80,000 jobs last month. I was disappointed by that; that was 
unfortunate. But in the last month of the previous administration, we 
lost 818,000 jobs in 1 month with your program in place. That's an 
890,000, almost 900,000, turnaround. From 818,000 minus to 80,000 plus, 
we created 4.4 million jobs in the last 28 months. Not enough. Not 
enough by far.
  I want to work with the gentleman to create many more--work with him 
on

[[Page 11298]]

jobs legislation, economic growth legislation, Make It in America 
legislation. If we could get some of that legislation to the floor, we 
think it would be helpful.
  So I say to my friend that I feel very strongly, as you can tell, 
that if we are going to have this vote, which is an extraordinarily 
consequential vote, at least we ought to have a substitute--at least--
not just an MTR, which your side incorrectly argues is just a 
procedural vote, not just a 5-minute debate on our side and a 5-minute 
debate on your side. Don't you think Americans expect more of us in 
terms of a very substantive debate on the floor of this House, not in a 
political forum but in a legislative policy forum? I would urge the 
gentleman to consider that objective.
  If the gentleman has nothing further, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________