Legislative Program

Floor Speech

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I want to thank the gentleman for informing us of the schedule for the week to come.

I want to thank, at the outset, not only the gentleman but the Speaker as well for the respect and consideration they have given during this current tragic situation that confronted us in Tucson and the critical injuries sustained by our colleague, Gabby Giffords. I want to thank Mr. Cantor in particular for his very strong statement, as well as the Speaker's very strong statement, that an attack on any individual who serves is an attack on all of us irrespective of party or philosophy. I think we all have raised prayers for the victims who lost their lives, their families, prayers for those who are either in the process of recovering or are now out of danger, and of course for our beloved colleague, Congresswoman Giffords, as well.

So I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and the Speaker's leadership in joining with our leader and myself in leading the House in what I thought was a very appropriate and united response to that tragedy.

We are heartened by the progress that Congresswoman Giffords is making, and we look forward to her quick return.

Now, Mr. Cantor, if I can, next week we are scheduled to leave on Wednesday. I know there has been an articulation of an intent to try to get out by noon on the days that we leave. Would you expect that to be the case this next week?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. First of all, I thank the gentleman for his kind statements regarding the expressions of grief and support that I think all Members of this body have expressed to Gabby Giffords, her family, and her staff. Our thoughts and prayers remain with all of them, and certainly to the victims and their families. And certainly they all know that we are thinking of them.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the schedule is concerned, if you will recall, the commitment on our schedule was the finishing time would be 3 p.m. on the last day we are here. We specifically had indicated that January is going to be a little different and an exception due to the organizing processes, State of the Union, et cetera. The expectation is to begin that in February, as was originally expressed; although, we do intend to try to be as expeditious as possible on Wednesday. The exact timing of our departure and finishing up depends on the actual rule coming from the Rules Committee, including the amendment debate and the structure for the Presidential election fund bill. We expect an announcement by the Rules Committee chairman later today on that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.

Given that response, can I ask the gentleman: Would he expect there to be an open rule with reference to that bill?

Mr. CANTOR. The gentleman understands, as the Rules Committee chairman presides over the Rules Committee and entertains the submission of amendments. As to exactly, I can't answer that right now, and that will be determined by the Rules Committee.

Mr. HOYER. Not only do I recall that as being a fact, I also recall it as an answer that I used to give the gentleman on a regular basis.

But I am certainly hopeful, as he was hopeful, given the representations of transparency and openness, that there would be opportunities to amend. I know that Mr. Van Hollen spoke to that in the Rules Committee, and I would hope that we could see that policy which has been expressed by your side pursued in this instance as well as future instances. I thank the gentleman for his response.

Let me ask the gentleman: There was some criticism raised when we passed a budget enforcement resolution that we hadn't passed a full budget. In that budget enforcement resolution, as you recall, A, we articulated a specific number; and, B, that number was voted on by the entire House.

It is my understanding that the proposition that will be put before the House next week will provide and give unilateral authority to the chairman of the Budget Committee to set a number and that that number will not be voted upon by the House pursuant to the authority granted in that resolution.

Is that an accurate reading of that resolution?

Mr. CANTOR. To be clear, once the House adopts the resolution next week, the resolution will then instruct Chairman Ryan to cap non-security discretionary spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 at fiscal year 2008 levels. That is the purpose of our adopting the resolution, acting as the House as a whole, instructing Chairman Ryan to cap non-security discretionary spending at 2008 levels for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, I know he shares with me the realization that people across this country--families, businesses--are having to face some tough choices. We started this Congress, I think, together, committed to demonstrating that we are willing to make those tough choices--thus, the resolution for next week.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response.

I do not want to be argumentative, but I have just received your amended copy of the resolution, and as I read on your second page, it says ``the remainder of fiscal year 2011 that assumes non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less.''

The implication in that, it seems to me, is that Mr. Ryan unilaterally can set a number which has not been agreed to by the House, but under the power granted in this resolution would bind the House to a number to which it had never agreed.

Is that an accurate reading of that? Could, in fact, under this resolution Mr. Ryan set a number that is less than, as your resolution says, 2008 numbers?

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that the resolution provides for the capping of spending levels at '08 levels.

The gentleman also knows that the Speaker has been very consistent in his statements, saying that we are going to have an open rule process when it comes to spending bills. In fact, that is what we said during the last campaign season in the Pledge to America.

So, in working with that commitment as well as the language of this resolution, the budget chairman, Mr. Ryan, will be instructed to enter into the Record a cap of spending levels for the remainder of the fiscal year to be placed at 2008 levels.

Mr. HOYER. So would it be therefore accurate that the ``or less'' is superfluous and is not intended to give Mr. Ryan the authority to set a figure at less than 2008 levels?

Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman I disagree with that characterization of the language ``or less,'' and would just say that, again, the Speaker is committed to an open process on spending bills. I assume that we will see coming to the floor every attempt and effort to try and maintain some sense that this Congress is going to be a cut-and-grow Congress and that we are about trying to find savings everywhere we can so that we can get this country back onto a trajectory of fiscal sustainability.

So I say to the gentleman, no, this is not something that we intend to be meaningless, that we are serious. The cap is consistent with our commitment to the people of this country that the levels of spending for the remainder of the fiscal year will not exceed 2008. It is our hope that we can continue to find additional savings so that, yes, we could even find ourselves below '08 levels; but the cap is 2008 levels.

Mr. HOYER. The point that I am trying to make, and perhaps not as clearly as I need to make it, is that what we are in that resolution giving is to one person--one person--in this Congress the authority, without consideration by this House, to set the number, without hearings, on what we will, as you articulate, cap spending levels at for fiscal year 2011.

As I understand it, there have been no hearings by the Budget Committee, no hearings by the Appropriations Committee, no hearings by the Ways and Means Committee, or by any other committee involved in fiscal matters as to what the ramifications of that cap will be to individual programs or individual Americans.

I share the gentleman's view and have voted consistently, as I voted for the balanced budget amendment, as the gentleman knows, last we considered it, to bring our fiscal house into order. I think neither party can necessarily take sole responsibility for doing so or not doing so when it comes to fiscal balance.

But I do tell my friend that, with respect to transparency and openness and to the inclusion of all the Members of the body, it is, I think, not consistent with that objective to give to one person, however brilliant that person is--and I happen to have great respect, as the gentleman knows and as I have said so publicly in the press, for Mr. Ryan, who I think is a very positive, effective, important Member of this body; but I am not for giving any one person in this body the authority to unilaterally set the number at which we will fund America's government for the next 7 months.

I yield to my friend to see if he might have a response to that because, in his responses to me--and I understand the cap--but at any number below that, at 2007, 2006, 2005 levels, it seems to me this resolution authorizes Mr. Ryan to set such figures as he unilaterally determines is an appropriate figure. In his mind, that may be an appropriate figure; but it is not necessarily the same figure that this body voting in a transparent, open way might select.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will just respond to the gentleman by saying we are in the position we are in because the majority that he participated in in the last Congress failed to live up to its obligation in passing a budget and in even passing any appropriations bills short of a continuing resolution. That's why we are here today, because there is a mess that has been created from the last majority, and we are trying to clean that up.

We have committed to a transparent and open process; and I have said to the gentleman that, when the CR comes to the floor, we will see Members on both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to amend the continuing resolution according to the way they think that we ought to be saving taxpayer dollars.

So, again, I disagree with the gentleman's assertion that somehow there is a lack of transparency here. We have said all along the cap on our spending will be at 2008 levels for the remainder of the fiscal year. If this House works its will and if Members on either side are able to gain the majority of votes in this House to achieve even more spending below the 2008 levels, then that will be the will of this House.

Again, the gentleman understands well why we are where we are, and we look forward to working together to go and produce a spending resolution here that begins to address the mess that was left before.

Mr. HOYER. Let me ask the gentleman: Is the gentleman representing to me that this resolution will, in fact, result in 2008 levels of expenditure so that Members, who are being asked to vote on this, will have a certitude of the number on which they are voting--that's my only question--so that they will know on what authorization they are giving, what budget direction they are giving, to the members of the Appropriations Committee?

Mr. CANTOR. The budget directive is 2008 levels or less. As the gentleman well knows, the intention is to allow the Appropriations Committee to do its work, to report a resolution to the floor. The body will work its will according to the insistence of the majority and the Speaker that we have an open process on spending bills.

It is our hope that we can work to achieve even greater savings for the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. HOYER. I understand that, and I thank the gentleman. I know that he has indicated that we are going to be considering what I believe to be a $52 million cut--that's important money--to reach your $100 billion. However, if you do it at that level per week, of course, you will take approximately 50 years to get to $100 billion if we consider one every week that we are in session.

My presumption is that you will be informing us of those opportunities to cut as well, giving us opportunities on our side. There may well be Members on our side who want to join in making sure that we spend our money as effectively and efficiently as possible. But we also know and the commissions that have reported know that while these types of expenditures are important to review, I don't know that there have been any hearings on this YouCut. I know that this has been in response to the Web page question that you have propounded to people--I don't know how many responses you have received to that. But are you intending to have hearings in relevant committees on future propositions to cut?

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, first of all, as far as the $520 million--not $52 million--is concerned, as he knows that is mandatory spending, that is not discretionary spending, and would be different and apart from the commitment that we just spoke about at '08 levels.

I would also say to the gentleman that we will be glad to have hearings once committees are organized. As the gentleman knows, it's been a little bit slow in upstart just given the transition of leadership, et cetera. We are waiting for your side in some instances. But we hear from committee chairmen things are working well, so we hope that committees will be up and organized to have hearings.

But in order for us to deliver on our commitment that we are going to bring up a spending cut bill every week, this body will be considering a bill providing for cutting the Presidential election fund that has been in existence for some time. As the gentleman well knows, this tends to be of some controversy in some quarters. There are those who believe that this is an attempt to drive this country towards a public finance system for campaigns. Obviously there are those in this country who believe that's what should happen. But knowing full well the controversy, I'm sure we will have a robust debate. And I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to as many cuts to this fund as the gentleman's side may offer and look forward to a robust debate on the issue.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

And let me ask again, does the gentleman intend, once the committees are up and running--I understand in a transition it takes some time--that the cuts that you are going to propose on a weekly basis will have been subjected to committee oversight and hearings, with the public having an opportunity to testify on the consequences of those cuts?

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman again, yes, it is our intention to have a full and open debate on all of these issues. As the gentleman recalls, this process began last June, or in the spring or so, that we said we were going to redirect the focus to make sure that we are in line with the will of the people, and that is trying to do everything we can to remind all of us of the import of cutting spending, and therefore this process begins. But yes, to the gentleman's question about hearings, we welcome that and would expect that.

Mr. HOYER. Good. I appreciate that response.

Lastly, I ask my friend, one of the significant issues that will be confronting us in the coming months will be the extension of the debt limit to ensure that America continues to pay the bills that it has incurred and therefore maintain fiscal stability not only in this country but throughout the world. The Speaker and you have both made, I think, very positive comments on the fact that, as unwanted as such a vote may be, it is, nevertheless, as the Speaker pointed out, an adult vote--that I took to mean a responsible vote--to ensure the fiscal stability of our country.

Does the gentleman anticipate a clean up-or-down vote on that issue when it becomes timely to vote on that issue sometime in March of April?

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would begin by saying to the gentleman, as he knows, it's unclear when the Federal Government will actually hit the debt ceiling, and we will be closely monitoring that date. But before we reach that date, it is very, very important that we prove that this Congress is willing to cut spending. And the House, as the discussion today indicates, will be taking those necessary steps each week that we are here, leading up to an eventual vote. In fact, I would call on the leader on the other side of the Capitol, Mr. Reid, to follow suit.

The continuing resolution vote gives us the first real opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to cutting spending. The debt limit will be another opportunity for this Congress to cut spending. And as I think the gentleman knows, I have said repeatedly that we will not accept an increase in the debt limit without serious spending cuts and reforms, and I look forward to joining with the gentleman debate on this House floor. Hopefully we can have the Senate join us, as well as the President, towards that end.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

It's my understanding, from the gentleman's response, that if in the eyes of you or Mr. Boehner or your side of the aisle serious spending cuts have not been effected, that you would oppose the extension of the debt limit.

Is that what I hear you saying?

Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman this: We have been charged with an obligation by the people of this country to get our fiscal house in order. We intend to be very deliberate and focused on cutting spending while making sure we are doing all we can to grow the economy and the private-sector jobs. It is our intent to prove that this House and this Congress--hopefully Leader Reid will follow suit--will deliver on that commitment.

The public, as the gentleman knows all too well, is tired of business as usual. They don't want to see this country continue to incur debt as it has in the past without some indication that things are changing, without some indication that serious spending cuts have been implemented and reforms effected, and that will be our intent.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response. And I hate to keep pressing him, but if his hopes are not realized--and I don't know the answer as to whether they will be, but at some point in time we will be confronted with an alternative of whatever the facts may be with respect to what we are able to pass through this House, the Senate, and get signed by the President, we will be confronted with the consequences of our past behavior, and I underline ``our,'' o-u-r, spending that we have incurred. And I don't want to go through the entire debate that you and I always go through, so I won't do it, but we will be confronted with, as the Speaker says, an adult moment as to whether or not we will, in light of the consequences of past behavior, take actions necessary to preclude America from defaulting on its debts. And I simply ask the gentleman, will we have the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on that issue under the circumstances where we have reached, as the gentleman points out--we don't know the exact date--the extent of present authority?

Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that the vote on the debt limit comes within the context of our demonstrating a commitment to cut spending, to effect reforms. And the President as well as the gentleman's side here in this House have said both that they would like to see and join us in cutting spending. This debt-limit vote comes in the context of all that we are going to be able to do over the next several months. And we've got to be demonstrating that or frankly the public will not want us to accept any notion that we're going to continue business as usual unless we've demonstrated that things are changing. That's why I continue to say to the gentleman that we will not accept an increase in the debt limit without serious spending cuts and reforms.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

Source