Legislative Program
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information with respect to the two pieces of legislation and the suspension bills.
If I might inquire, Mr. Leader, of the timing. The conference committee has met, as all of us know, a few times since being appointed on December 23. They were supposed to have a meeting today, but apparently that meeting was cancelled. We adopted a motion to instruct conferees on January 18, with only 16 Republicans opposing and just a few Republicans opposing this time on a similar motion to instruct, urging the conferees to report back by February 17.
You know as well as anybody, we will be off for the President's week work period, and we will not be back until the night of the 27th, which only gives us the 2 days and that evening to pass this bill if we do not pass it before the 17th.
In December, we almost, as you well know, did not extend the payroll tax holiday or the unemployment or the SGR package. That would have resulted, as the gentleman knows, in 160 million Americans having a tax increase, benefits lost for many unemployed Americans--almost 2.3 over the next 3 months--and we only have 3 full days left before the February break. Of course, the gentleman, Mr. Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, chairs that conference.
Can the gentleman tell us whether or not there is a reasonable expectation that we will be able to act on this bill and have the conference committee report on the House floor?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am pleased to hear that.
As the gentleman knows, Mark Zandi just a few days ago said that failure to extend the payroll tax and the unemployment insurance benefits ``would deliver a significant blow'' to our fragile economic recovery and could cost our economy 500,000 jobs and raise the unemployment rate by at least three-tenths of a point and lower economic growth by seven-tenths of a point.
Now I'm pleased to hear what the majority leader has said, but of course we still have some concern. Representative Paul Broun, one of your Members from Georgia said, This payroll tax holiday is just a gimmick to try to get Obama reelected. This is bad policy. Representative Chaffetz from Utah, one of your colleagues, said, Tax holidays just are bad policy. A year is pretty short. The chairman of your campaign committee, Pete Sessions, was quoted in the L.A. Times. Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, who heads the House Republican campaign committee, called Obama's plan--that is, the extension of the payroll tax--``a horrible idea.'' He said GOP candidates would have no difficulty explaining to voters why they want to let the tax break expire. And then, of course, the chairman of the conference committee, my good friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, apparently does not agree with what the majority leader just said in wanting to extend this tax cut, because he said, I'm not in favor of that. I don't think that's a good idea.
Now that was, admittedly, back in August, so it was some months ago when he said that. But it gives us some concern that the leadership of the conference committee, Mr. Camp and others, are in the position where they don't really think, as seemed to be reflected in the last year, that this tax cut ought to be extended. They do, however, believe--very strongly, as I understand it--that the tax cut for the wealthiest in America, the Bush tax cuts, ought to be extended, and they ought to be extended without paying for it. And, in fact, you provided in your rule that you adopted in this Congress that they could be extended without paying for them.
I don't think that's your position, as I understand it, with respect to tax cuts for middle class Americans. Would the gentleman like to comment on those observations?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I don't necessarily think it needs to be paid for for exactly the reason you pointed out. What you pointed out was, you don't want to depress--either by increasing the taxes on small business, as you point out--we're not for increasing taxes on small business. We are for asking those who have made the best in our society over the last 10 years, make the most, make $1 million or more, we do believe, yes, a greater contribution is in order because our country has a challenged situation that we need to respond to.
Having said that, I believe that it ought to be consistent, in terms of your application of not paying for tax cuts, for it to be also applicable to middle income, hardworking Americans who find themselves in a real pinch in this present economy, that we would take a similar position.
All I'm asking the gentleman, is your position on the middle class tax cut, which we are talking about, and it is in conference, the same as it is on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003? That's all I'm asking.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman goes off in about seven directions on that question, in my view. What I believe is that it ought to be a consistent policy, as it relates to keeping taxes down on hardworking Americans, that we apply to the wealthiest in America. Now whether they're temporary or permanent, it makes an economic difference to the people in question. And hardworking Americans--160 million of them--are hoping that their taxes will not go up on March 1. The only way they're going to not go up on March 1 is if we pass--as we had a great struggle doing in December--if we pass a conference report that will be reported out of the conference committee headed up by Mr. Camp which in fact makes sure that those taxes don't increase.
You say you don't want them to increase. I say we don't want them to increase. We seem to have an agreement on that rhetorically, although I have quoted a number of your leaders who say they think it's a bad idea.
But having said that, my question to you is: is your position consistent with both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and these tax cuts? That's all I'm asking.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman, I was not in seven different directions. It's very simple. I asked the gentleman: Are you okay with raiding the Social Security trust fund? Because your response to my question indicated to me that it's fine for you and your side to say: Let's just raid the Social Security trust fund, extend the payroll tax holiday without any pay-fors; is that okay?
Mr. HOYER. Your President, who you supported very strongly, of course, as I recall, when he wanted to raid the Social Security trust fund said there was no trust fund. Now, I believe there is a trust fund, and I think we have a moral responsibility to make sure that that trust fund is kept whole. And, in fact, as you well know, we will keep it whole. We will sign the proper IOUs so that that trust fund is intact. There will be no reduction in the Social Security tax, and the gentleman knows it. The gentleman knows that that trust fund will be as secure tomorrow as it is today, and I presume that both of us have a commitment to that end. Yes, we will have to make whole the trust fund money that does not come in on the tax cut, just as we had to make money for the war, for the prescription drug bill, and the Bush tax cuts whole by borrowing from somebody, usually China and other nations around the world.
We went from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $10-plus trillion deficit. Why? Because we did things and didn't pay for them. So if the gentleman is asking me do I believe the Social Security trust fund ought to be kept whole, the answer is an emphatic, absolute yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Well, the gentleman has talked a lot but hasn't answered my question. And the question was a simple one: Do you believe the same principle applies to the '01-'03 tax cuts as applied to the middle income working people's tax cut that we're talking about?
And I'll tell you this, my friend, if we were talking about the taxes that you're talking about, they would go through like greased lightning and there would be no question but, oh, of course, we've got to continue those tax cuts. But when it comes to average working Americans, and the only way we can get them a tax cut--this is the first time we've really talked about real tax cuts for middle-income working Americans. It has got a logjam that has hit. It hit in December, and we came that close to not having that tax cut, and we're about to come that close again. I'm just telling the gentleman that if he applies the same principle, we could get this done.
Now I'm for paying for, frankly, the middle-income tax cut. I'm for paying for it, as the gentleman well knows, by a surtax on those who have done the best, not because I want to penalize them, but because all of us in this room, maybe not all of us, but most of us in this room, have done pretty well. There are some people in this country who haven't done pretty well. And as Clint Eastwood walked down that road that we saw during the Super Bowl, he said at half time, ``We can do better.'' And I'll tell you what they said in the locker room:
Every one of us, according to our ability to get it done, needs to get it done. That's what I'm saying to my friend.
I think the position you would be taking would be radically different and that that conference committee would have had a report out on this floor if we were talking about tax cuts for millionaires that would have passed like that. Absolutely, that's my position. I believe it. And, very frankly, I think the American people believe it.
I yield to my friend if he would like to comment on that, and then we will go to the infrastructure bill, which I know you'd like to talk about as well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
The gentleman has a habit that, frankly, disturbs me, I'll tell my friend. I didn't say that at all. As a matter of fact, my last comment was I think it ought to be paid for. Now, let me explain what that means.
I think it ought to be paid for. I have been consistent on that position. Frankly, I was consistent on that position on all of the bills that we passed through this House, including your two tax bills of '01 and '03. I thought they ought to be paid. You thought they ought not be paid for. And the gentleman talks about looking at the past; they didn't work out so well. They were supposed to grow our economy. They were supposed to explode jobs. We lost jobs in the private sector. The only reason we had a plus 1 million over 8 years was because we grew in the public sector. We lost jobs in the private sector on that economic program. It didn't work, in my opinion. Paid for or not paid for, it did not work. But it did blow a hole in the deficit.
What I'm saying and will say again, yes, I think it ought to be paid for. What I think it ought not be paid for with is by taking it out of the hide of average working people in this country, which is part of the way you want to pay for it. I don't think that is good policy because I think that will further depress the economy and take dollars out of the hands of hardworking people.
Yes, I think it ought to be paid for, and paying for things is tough. And we didn't pay for things in the last decade, and that's why we dug this deep, deep hole we're in.
Now, if we want to go on to the infrastructure bill, I'd like to do that unless the gentleman wants to make an additional comment.
On the infrastructure bill, you indicate that it may come to the floor. Can you tell me under what kind of a rule that will come to the floor? Will it be an open rule, as has been projected?
I yield to my friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. What I was confusing was your rhetoric now and your rhetoric as it related to a bill that was longer in pages but had 10 times a greater period of time for debate and discussion, considered by an extraordinarily large number of committees in both the Senate and the House, town meetings all over this country about that bill. What I'm confusing is your rhetoric as it related to the Affordable Care Act and your rhetoric related to the transportation bill, which has had probably one-twentieth or one-thirtieth of the time to be considered by the public. I don't know that anybody has had a town meeting or had the opportunity for the public to have input on this bill as it is now written. Very frankly, I may be confusing it with the bill that we just adopted on suspension of the calendar without any opportunity to amend it, which was filed less than 24 hours ago.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman says full time, but very frankly there wasn't participation by everybody in this full discussion. In fact, as I said last week and I will reiterate this week, because he hasn't changed his position, Ray LaHood, Republican, former chief of staff to the Republican leader in this House, former chairman of an appropriations subcommittee on the Republican side of the aisle, says:
This is the most partisan transportation bill I've ever seen, and it is almost the most antisafety bill I've ever seen. It hollows out our number one priority, which is safety; and, frankly, it hollows out the guts of the transportation efforts that we have been about for the last 3 years. It is the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years of public service.
Ray LaHood, Republican, Secretary of Transportation.
Whatever time the gentleman has spent that he thinks exposing this bill, he didn't expose it on our side and he apparently didn't expose it in a way that reached bipartisan agreement from the Secretary of Transportation.
I will tell you, I lament the fact, Mr. Leader, when I was the majority leader--the gentleman likes to refer to that--the transportation bill passed with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. Every transportation bill that I've seen in the 30 years I've been in the Congress of the United States has passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and it came out of committee almost unanimously. This bill, as the gentleman knows, came out on a purely partisan vote. Actually, it was a bipartisan opposition because Mr. Petri, long-time member of the Transportation Committee, and, of course, Mr. LaTourette are not too happy with the bill either, as the gentleman knows, who is a senior Member on your side, one of your leaders on your side of the aisle. So I will tell my friend that unfortunately we have a situation where you're going to bring a bill up next week which clearly is a partisan bill, which does not enjoy bipartisan support, contrary to every transportation bill that I think we've passed in this House in the 30 years I've been here.
I yield to my friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment.
I think the American people apparently don't think we're accomplishing that objective that you want to accomplish by virtue of their response to the polls about what they think of the job that we've done over the last year.
Let me say in addition to that, the bills I was referring to, my friend--yes, while I was the majority leader, we had the House and the Senate. I said 30 years. Of the 12 years that your party had the chairmanship of the Transportation Committee, we passed bills on a bipartisan basis, and we respected transparency.
As the gentleman knows on earmarks, you quadrupled the number of earmarks under your leadership--not your personal leadership, but under Republican control of the House of Representatives. When we came in, what we did was said they all had to be online. Members had to put them on their Web site, and committees had to identify where those came from. Now, personally, we made them very transparent. You've eliminated them temporarily. We'll see whether that holds.
But we will move on to the question of whether or not, when you say we're going to have open amendments, whether or not the amendments that are germane will be made in order so that, in fact, we can impact on the bill.
The gentleman says he is interested in seeing my amendments. I think most of the amendments will come from our committee members. They are the ones that are struggling to find out exactly what this bill does. And we don't believe it is paid for, by the way, as I think the gentleman probably has seen in the CBO report.
Let me ask you this: do you believe this bill is a jobs bill?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. These are all scheduling questions. These are scheduling questions as to whether or not we're going to have legislation on the floor that can get us from where we are to where we want to be.
The gentleman knows that the Senate has passed a bipartisan bill out of committee with Senator Inhofe, a Republican, and Senator Boxer--not exactly ideological soul mates--coming together and agreeing on infrastructure. Why? Because they believe it creates jobs.
What I'm trying to figure out from you, you go from other aspects of the bill that create jobs, and you say infrastructure is necessary for growth. My reading of that is, as the President's pointed out, investing in infrastructure does, in fact, grow jobs.
To the extent that we can pass a bill, scheduling a bill that has bipartisan support here and bipartisan support there, and the support of the President of the United States, is what we ought to be doing. Doing it in a partisan fashion undercuts our scheduling of moving that forward. That's my point. I think the gentleman understands that point.
But I would hope that, as we work on this bill, we could do what the Senate's done, which they don't do very often, and come together in a bipartisan way, as we have historically done in this House on Transportation and Infrastructure bills, so important for the growth of our country and the creation of jobs and the moving forward--as you say, and I believe as well, we ought to come together and accomplish.
Unless the gentleman has anything further, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source