Legislative Program

Floor Speech

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM -- (House of Representatives - January 22, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First let me say I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Clearly we have come into this Congress with an economy in crisis. That economy, very frankly, was not affected by anything the Democrats did over the last 2 years because, on economic policy, of course, we couldn't pass anything either through the Senate or over the President's veto. So the economic crisis that confronts us we believe is the result of 8 years of, in some respects fiscal irresponsibility and economic irresponsibility, and taking the referees off the field and with no regulation I tell my friend.

Having said that, I continue to believe the gentleman's point is a good point, a point with which I agree. It is my hope that the committee markups will be completed tonight, maybe early this morning. As you know, the Appropriations Committee yesterday had a full markup, adopted six Republican amendments and a number of Democratic amendments. I don't know what the amendment status is in Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means, but I expect all those markups to be completed late tonight. It is my hope that once those markups are complete, that by tomorrow night we will post the results on the Web and that they will be available not 48 hours, but either Friday night or Saturday so that we will have 4 days to review those items.

But I want to reiterate my hope and my expectation, to state it even more strongly, that you and the minority Members, the country, and the majority Members will have 48 hours to review the product that is reported out of the committee after their markups.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

As the gentleman knows, a very large portion of this bill will be tax cuts. Almost half of this bill is going to be tax cuts for working Americans and for business. As the gentleman knows as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, rarely, if ever, I'm not sure that I can remember a Ways and Means tax bill that came to the floor as an open rule, which is what the gentleman suggests. So you would be shocked if I said, yes, that's the way the bill is going to come to the floor because your bills never come to the floor that way, whether they're Democratic Chairs or Republican Chairs.

So my expectation is it will not come as an open rule, but I do not want to prescribe right now exactly--I have not talked to the Chair of the Rules Committee nor have the markups been complete, so I don't want to prejudge what the rule will be. But I certainly understand the gentleman's proposition that you would like alternatives considered, perhaps not to the tax provision. I don't know your particular position. I do know the position of the Republican leadership of the Ways and Means Committee historically and the Democratic leadership of the Ways and Means Committee historically. There has been bipartisan agreement that once a tax bill is forged, amending it on the floor becomes very complicated and very risky.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'm not sure that President Obama has requested specifically what you suggest he requested. He did say that he wanted a very significant portion of this bill to be tax cuts for working Americans. He promised that in his campaign. He promised that he was going to give 95 percent of taxpayers in America a tax cut. This bill will do that. And I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but I think probably between 30 and 40 percent. You're correct in that approximate range.

I think, as I have said before and maybe being redundant, as you know, and you're a member of the Ways and Means Committee, we appropriators sometimes felt constrained by this rule that your committee had, but, nevertheless, your committee has generally felt that tax provisions are very complicated and need to be worked on carefully and, once proposed, should be voted either up or down.

I don't think that your representation that President Obama's saying that it ought to be amended on the floor is necessarily accurate, I tell my friend. But he does want and we will have and you will have the opportunity and every Member of this House will have an opportunity to vote for a tax cut for 95 percent of the taxpaying public. Not only in terms of individuals but also significant tax cuts for those in business to try to make sure that they can be more successful, that they can have an increased investment tax credit, and that they can have a look-back provision for applying to profits they made in the past, significant losses that are occurring now. The reason for that, obviously, is to try to keep them in business, keep those jobs able to remain with those businesses. So I can tell the gentleman that he's going to have a very significant tax cut for the American taxpaying public to vote for or against.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Essentially, if I might clarify for our Members and their constituents, obviously the vote today was symbolic and everybody knew it was symbolic. Symbolic to the extent that the Senate voted last week, as the gentleman pointed out, to defeat a resolution of disapproval. Under the statute that was passed by this House and Senate and signed by President Bush, the process is that those funds are now available for expenditure because the House and Senate did not pass resolutions of disapproval. Very frankly, President Bush had indicated, if we had done this earlier, he would have probably vetoed such a resolution.

I want to say to my friend that, in a bipartisan way, President Bush sent this request to the Congress. He indicated he sent it to the Congress at the request of President Obama. They both agreed that this request was necessary. So our two leaders, elected in 2000, 2004, and 2008, have said that given the crisis that confronts us, they believe that this money is absolutely essential if they are to have the ability to stabilize the economy. Secretary Paulson believed that was necessary, who was the Secretary of the Treasury under President Bush. Secretary Geithner, who was just confirmed by the Senate, has said he believes that is necessary.

So I say to my friend that the legislation passed, signed by President Bush, provided for a process which said that if either House voted against a motion for disapproval, the money would go forward. And as the gentleman has pointed out, in light of the Senate action, the money will, in fact, be available to President Obama and Secretary Geithner to try to continue to stabilize this economy, which is in such crisis.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I would hope they would. I voted for it. I believe that they were a response to what we have seen is a lack of transparency, a lack of as much accountability as the taxpayer has the right to expect, and also the failure of the TARP funds already approved to help average people around this country who are faced with losing their homes, having their mortgages foreclosed on. The legislation that we passed yesterday, in a bipartisan vote, as you know, was legislation which said we ought to have greater accountability, greater transparency so the American public knows how their money is being spent and also that we need to have a greater focus on Main Street, not exclusively on Wall Street. I think the American public are for that legislation. I would hope the Senate would pass it.

Very frankly, I will tell my friend one of the problems that it has in the Senate is that there is a large number of Members in your party, I believe, who are not for money being diverted to mortgage relief. I disagree with that as a policy, but the issue is whether they can get 60 votes to take it up. I tell the gentleman I'm hopeful that they will.

In addition, as I said on this floor in response to Congresswoman Foxx, it is my understanding that Chairman Frank and President Obama have had discussions and that President Obama believes that conditions and transparency and focus on helping people whose mortgages are at risk is something that his administration is going to follow whether or not that legislation is passed into law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source