Legislative Program
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM -- (House of Representatives - July 10, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m.
We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions bills, as is the custom, will be announced at the close of business today.
In addition to the suspension bills, we will also consider the 2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act and the 2010 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Well, I expect to complete the appropriations bills and also the large item that will be on the agenda is the health care legislation that we hope to pass before we leave on the August break. Prior to that, I intend to have on the floor a provision dealing with statutory PAYGO.
We have not yet determined exactly whether that bill will be free standing or whether it will be on another bill that would be reported to the House. In addition, the food safety bill is possible. The committees are still working on other matters, and we hope to have the food safety issue resolved. That came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, but there are a number of other committees, including the Ag Committee and your own committee, Ways and Means, that have expressed interest in that.
Those are essentially the items that we intend to deal with between now and the August break.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation with respect to trying to work together to reach an agreement under which we would have confidence that we could consider the appropriation bills within the time frame available to us. We are on a good schedule now. As you know, we have passed seven of the 12 bills from the House. We have five more left to go. My expectation is that we will complete those.
Let me say that he and I have now been talking, I think, for somewhere in the neighborhood of about 3 1/2 months about this issue. Early on I made a proposal that, from my perspective, did two things: one, it provided for time frames in which we would consider legislation; and two, it provided to the minority party, which does not control the Rules Committee--we were both in that situation for a period of time--but nevertheless, provided your party with the opportunity to offer such amendments as it deemed desirable, that it wanted to offer.
With respect to the two bills that you asked me about, I have not had an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Obey or with the subcommittee Chairs of those two committees the specific rule that they are looking for and whether or not they've been able to reach any agreements with their counterparts, the ranking members on those two subcommittees. So I can't answer your question at this point in time; but as we have had discussions, I want those discussions to continue. I will say to my friend that I had a discussion with one of your Members who is on the Appropriations Committee today who came over to this side of the aisle. We were talking about it, again, with a continuing effort to see if there is some way we can provide for the objectives of, I think, both of us.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, the gentleman puts a lot of thoughts and words into my mouth that aren't necessarily there. Let me say to the gentleman that as he knows, some 3 1/2 months ago I did, in fact, come to the gentleman, I subsequently came to the leader and indicated that I thought that we could reach agreement if, in fact, we could reach an agreement on time limits; and I was prepared under those agreements to have the minority choose such amendments as they wanted to offer, rather than have the Rules Committee do that. That offer was rejected, as the gentleman knows. It was rejected relatively emphatically by Mr. Boehner in a meeting in my office, attended by Mr. Lewis, Mr. Obey, Mr. Boehner and myself.
Now you quote Mr. Obey. In November of '06 the American public decided that they wanted to change the leadership in the House and Senate. They did so. Mr. Obey took over as chairman of the committee, as he had been chairman in years past. Of the 12 bills, Mr. Obey brought 10 bills to the floor under open rules. We did so under the understanding that you would give to us exactly what we gave to you under time agreements. Notwithstanding that, we debated those bills for 50 hours longer than the time constraints that we had agreed in '06 with you, the year before, when you were in charge of the House of Representatives.
So Mr. Obey concluded--and I did as well--that those time agreements would not be honored and were not honored. Now I know there is a disagreement between your side and our side as to why they weren't honored. But there is no disagreement that they took 50 hours longer to consider those bills than was the case in '06.
Now having said that, we then went to Rules. I offered an agreement some 3 1/2 months ago that was rejected. We then went to the bills, and we had gone to markups. Now we had a markup just the other day in committee on the Financial Services bill and the Energy and Water bill. I'm not sure exactly the number of amendments that were offered but most of which were not germane to the bills. That markup took until after 1 a.m. in the morning on nongermane amendments.
You and I have been discussing, trying to come to grips with time constraints. But I will tell you that time constraints--and you've indicated, trust us on good faith. I tried to get some indication of what ``good faith'' means, what criteria could I judge good faith on. We haven't reached agreement on that. But I will tell you that during the CJS debate on the rule, Mr. Lewis was asked on the bill that came to the floor under an open rule--Mr. Lewis said this after being asked, ``Can we reach a time agreement?'' He said, Because of that--referring to the 127 amendments, et cetera, et cetera, that were preprinted in the bill, 104 of which were Republican amendments.
Now under an open rule, of course, as the gentleman well knows--which, by the way, he serves on a committee that hardly ever reports its bills under an open rule. Hardly ever does a bill come out of the Ways and Means Committee that has an open rule. It's closed. You guys decide what to do, you bring the bill to the floor, and say, Take it or leave it.
Now here's what Mr. Lewis said in response to that question: ``I think the time limitation you were discussing was like for 8 hours or something,'' which is essentially what the bill took in the year 2006 when you were in charge. ``I'm afraid my conference might very well have a revolution on its hands, and you might have a new ranking member,'' was in response to, could he agree to time constraints.
So I tell my friend that he is right. I have tried to reach an agreement on where we could have a time agreement, and you would offer such amendments as you deemed to be appropriate within the time frame agreed upon. Unfortunately we didn't reach such agreement. I talked to Mr. Obey about that, and I talked to the Speaker about that. I believe that had we reached agreement, we would have proceeded on that course.
Now that does not mean because we did not proceed on that course that I don't want to continue discussing it. I want to assure the gentleman of that, because I believe that the more open our debate is, the better we are. The gentleman is correct when he characterizes my feeling as that. But it has to be within the context of being able to get the American people's work done in a timely fashion. I know the gentleman has indicated he agrees with that. Unfortunately in 2007, the last time we really did appropriation bills--we didn't do them last year, again, because extraneous amendments were offered to a number of the bills in the Appropriations Committee, and we didn't move ahead on those, as you did not move ahead in some of your years. I think that was, from my standpoint, unfortunate.
But I tell the gentleman in closing that I am hopeful that as we move ahead, we can do so perhaps through agreement. Now in terms of Mr. Obey, Mr. Obey is the chairman of the committee. Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis have talked. They have not reached agreement, as Mr. Lewis indicated he could not. And frankly, the subcommittee chairmen have not reached agreement. I'm sure that the gentleman understands that, as majority leader, I'm very concerned about what the chairmen of both the committee and the subcommittee feel in terms of how their bills are handled on the floor, and we try to accommodate them.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First, before I go to the gentleman's specific issue, I want to make it very clear that, first of all, Mr. Obey, contrary to what was represented, did not make his decisions in a vacuum. This was discussed. I don't want any implication that Mr. Obey arbitrarily and capriciously acted on his own.
When the determination was made, as a result of the conversations that ensued between chair and ranking members, both of the full committee and of the subcommittees, that was a collective decision that was made. It was not Mr. Obey's alone. So any implication that that was the case is not accurate, I tell my friend.
Now, with respect to the stimulus package, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we believe the Recovery and Reinvestment Act is working. We believe there are an awful lot of policemen, firemen, teachers, who are still protecting the public safety, fire and police. And teaching our children, class sizes have not increased because of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, because of the investment we made in States to try to stabilize their fiscal condition, which is very, very bad, as the gentleman knows.
The gentleman was not here, of course, but in 2001 and 2003, Mr. Dreier
and I were here, some others on the floor were here. We adopted an economic program that the leader, your present leader said, and others said, Mr. DeLay said and other members of your leadership said, and the President of the United States said, would build an extraordinarily robust economy, would take our country to new heights of economic well-being.
The gentleman I am sure probably knows these figures, but during the last year of the Bush administration, after having passed, without the Democrats stopping it or changing it or modifying it, after adopting the economic program and pursuing it for 7 years, from 2001 to December of 2008, in the last year from January to December, we lost 3.189 million jobs. 3,189,000 jobs were lost, the worst economic performance of any administration over 8 years in the last 75 years. In other words, since Herbert Hoover. The worst performance.
Now, in the last year of the Clinton administration, I tell my friend, we gained. In the last year, when, as you recall, there was a slight slowdown, we gained 1.9 million jobs. So the turnaround from the last year of the Clinton administration and the last year of the Bush administration was 5 million jobs. That was the economic status that was left, the legacy of the Bush administration and of the policies adopted by the Republican Congress from 2001 to 2006 which was not changed, as you recall, because President Bush had, of course, the veto.
The fact of the matter is that the Clinton administration created an average of 216,000 jobs per month on average over 96 months. The Bush administration, under the economic policy that you promoted then and are promoting now, I don't mean you personally, but your party is promoting. And let me say this again, under the Clinton administration, 96 months, an average of 216,000 jobs a month were created, plus. Under the Bush administration, the average job performance over 96 months was 4,240 jobs per month. You need 100,000-plus to stay even in America.
Now let me give you an additional figure. In the last 3 months of the Bush administration, you lost an average of 650,000 per month. Over the last three months, we have lost far too many, but an average of 450,000 per month. In other words, while we are not in the plus place, which is why I expressed on Fox News my disappointment, I can't imagine there is anybody in this Chamber, the President is disappointed, the Vice President is disappointed, the American people are disappointed that we are not creating those 216,000 jobs per month that we did under the Clinton administration, and we are still losing jobs because of the disastrous economy that was inherited.
I tell my friend that it was not just the facts that argue that, but Secretary Paulson, Ben Bernanke and President Bush said we had a disastrous economic crisis that confronted us at the end of the Bush administration's economic policy conclusion and asked us to respond very vigorously to that.
As you know, during the course of the Bush administration, we did that. Unfortunately, it has not been enough. We did that again with the Recovery and Reinvestment Act which we think is succeeding. But my friend would, I think, fairly observe that his 2001 tax cut after 130 days had not turned America around; in fact, in my view, never turned America around.
Now your leader talked about on that same show, well, we created 5 million jobs. There was a spike up, and a disastrous spike down, which is why, as I said, 3.18 million jobs were lost during the last year of the Bush administration.
We believe that the Recovery Act can work. We think it will work. We hope this economy comes back from where it was left us on January 20, 2009. America is experiencing pain. Too many of our people are experiencing pain. We regret that. It is disappointing. We need to take such efforts as we can to correct that.
I will tell my friend in addition to that, at this point in time there is no intent to have an additional bill on the floor. The administration is not talking about it. We are not talking about it. I was asked a question in the press and I said rightfully, we certainly wouldn't put that off the table. We will consider steps that need to be taken in order to address the economic crisis that confronts our Nation, but there is no plan at this point in time to offer an additional bill of that type.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, let me say that looking in the past is not fruitful unless you learn from the past.
The point of my recitation was that the policies proposed in 2001 and 2003 demonstrably did not work, and I read the results of those policies which were the policies of the Bush administration. What I pointed out is that it is the same formula that is being recommended once again from your side of the aisle. So it is instructive to learn from what didn't work in the past.
I reject your assertion that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act hasn't worked. I have pointed out to you that we have lost a third less jobs over the last 3 months than we lost during the last 3 months of the Bush administration.
Is losing one job one too many? It is. Is it a disappointment? It is. But after a quarter and a little more of effectiveness, 95 percent of Americans got a tax cut, got money in their pocket, as you know, as a result of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There is $65
billion of construction jobs being affected. Has it gone out fast enough? It hasn't. Is it starting to pick up? It is. Was the thought 10 to 15 percent would be spent within the time frame we are now talking about? Yes, that was the projection. Has that happened? Yes, it has. So that projection was correct. Is unemployment higher than we anticipated? Yes, it is, because the recession and almost depression, according to Bernanke, that we inherited from the last administration was so deep and so endemic that we are having real trouble getting out of it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source