Legislative Program
Floor Speech
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the majority leader to inquire about the schedule for the week to come, let me say I join with the gentleman from Virginia, and I know certainly Mr. Cantor, who also represents Virginia, but the entire country as well. We don't know the facts yet. We don't know exactly what's happened. But the information I have is that two people may well have lost their lives at this point in time. We certainly want to send our deepest sympathies to Virginia Tech and to the families that are affected by this incident and hope sincerely that there is no further loss of life.
On that issue, let me yield to the majority leader, who I know will want to say something as well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments and his leadership on the Hackathon event that occurred yesterday.
He and I both had the opportunity to address a large number of--over 250, I think--individuals who were there who will, in fact, bring their expertise, their technical knowledge to bear on what the gentleman referenced as making our institution more accessible and transparent to our citizens. We all believe, I think, that doing that will make the products that we produce better and make citizens better able to make judgments on the work that we do.
So I want to thank the gentleman and his staff for their leadership on this effort. We were glad to join in that.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the unemployment insurance, the payroll tax issue, which will continue to give the middle class tax cuts to those who need it most, the unemployment, which will keep millions of people from losing their unemployment, as well as the physician adjustment are scheduled next week. It's my understanding that that bill has not been filed yet.
Can the gentleman tell me when he believes that bill will be filed?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman by saying that we are still in discussion about that bill and in drafting; and we do intend to abide by our necessary 3-day notice period so that all sides and all Members, as well as the public, can enjoy their right to know what will be in that legislation. But the gentleman is correct, we do expect that bill on the floor next week.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment.
I have had discussions with the gentleman, and with Mr. McCarthy in particular--and also briefly with the Speaker--that we are certainly prepared to participate in discussions leading towards a successful passage of those three pieces of legislation, particularly the unemployment insurance and the payroll tax extension, which we believe are critical before we end this year. So we're pleased to see that legislation moving forward. But I will tell my friend that I would be pleased to participate in discussions with him so that we can assure that that bill will in fact pass and, hopefully, pass in a bipartisan fashion.
I want to tell the gentleman that I'm a little bit concerned, and I want to ask him whether this principle will be followed. I think I used this quote last week, but it bears repeating. Speaker Boehner said:
We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.
That was in the Republican Pledge as well, and the Speaker has reiterated that at the beginning of this session.
Now, I am concerned because Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio is quoted in The Washington Post as saying the following:
``The fact the President doesn't like it''--the ``it'' referring to the Keystone pipeline provision, which we understand is under discussion. I'm glad to hear those discussions have not concluded. But he again quoted, ``The fact that the President doesn't like it makes me like it even more ..... said of the GOP leadership proposal as he left Thursday morning's closed-door meeting.''
I will say to my friend that we are at the end of the session. We are hopeful, as I have said--and as we have demonstrated on the two CRs and the debt extension and on the minibus appropriation bill that we passed--that we are prepared to respond in a bipartisan fashion to assist in passing must-pass legislation and would hope very much that we don't put controversial items in that. The President has clearly annunciated that he will veto a bill that has the Keystone pipeline.
I will say, as my friend clearly knows, there is bipartisan concern--as a matter of fact, the Governor of Nebraska, a Republican, and the Republican legislature, which although nominally nonpartisan, as the gentleman knows, is two-thirds Republican, one-third Democrat, have all voted to delay this project because of their concern about the aquifer and the impact that the Keystone pipeline, as currently platted, will have in reference to the aquifer, so that there is a bipartisan concern.
As the gentleman knows, as a result of Nebraska's passing legislation which said they wanted to do a study on the aquifer and alternative siting of the Keystone pipeline course, that that study would take them 5 to 6 to 7 months, as a result, the President indicated they would give time to the Nebraska Governor and the Nebraska Legislature--again, Republican organs--to look at that, has given them additional time and said he won't act until the beginning of 2013.
I ask the gentleman, does he believe that provision--I understand what Mr. Jordan says. It may be a nice political gesture, but I would hope that that would not be the kind of provision that would be included in the legislation, whether it's individual bills or a comprehensive bill, including those three items that hopefully we can pass in a bipartisan fashion.
I yield to my friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
I will say this, though, it seems inconsistent, when the President of the United States yesterday said he would veto such a provision, that we would include it in legislation that is must pass.
By the way, the unemployment insurance, economists tell us, will provide for 100 times as many jobs; so, therefore, we're for that. Some 500,000 jobs may be affected by extending the unemployment insurance.
In addition to that, I tell my friend, the President has offered a jobs bill. I know that you're concerned about jobs. The pipeline bill, in and of itself, is about 5,000 to 6,000 jobs over the lifetime of the pipeline. The jobs bill, economists tell us, is 1 million jobs, or 200 times as many jobs. Notwithstanding that, very frankly, that has been languishing since September and not brought to this floor.
So it seems to me that, if we are really interested--and I think you are--in extending unemployment insurance and providing for a continued tax cut for middle-income Americans and for providing for the payment of doctors who are serving Medicare patients, that we not include in that bill an item that apparently is popular on your side just because the President doesn't like it, according to Mr. Jordan.
I think that's not the way we ought to be operating. The last 7 days of the session, or 5 days, 6 days, 7, assuming we went through Sunday, we shouldn't be doing that, I suggest respectfully to my friend, the majority leader, because it will simply put us back into the situation the American public doesn't want us in, and that's confronting one another, playing chicken with one another, bringing us to the precipice of defeat and lack of success.
The public doesn't want us there. We shouldn't want us there. And I would urge the gentleman not to include items, as I have urged you with respect to the appropriation bills that also must be passed. That's not in this list, but you did mention it, of course, in the announcement, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks have been working hard, and others have been working hard to get our appropriations bills done.
We have urged that we not put controversial items in that, and we showed our good faith on that representation when we passed the minibus, and 165 Democrats joined 135 Republicans to pass that legislation.
So, again, I would urge the gentleman to, if he feels strongly about that, and I know that he feels--he said labor is for that bill. Labor is for that bill. I think I'm for that bill, I want the gentleman to know. So this does not come from my particular opposition to this bill.
I am concerned about the alignment and the aquifer. I think that's a legitimate concern. But I think that that oil is going to be drilled no matter what we do. It seems to me that it's better for us to have it than for others to have it and have that availability.
But having said that, gratuitously putting it into a bill that the President has already said I don't agree with that is simply playing chicken on legislation that's very important.
If the gentleman wants to comment on that, I would be glad to yield to him.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I was quoting, not imputing. Mr. Jordan's comments seem to be pretty clear.
Before we conclude, the STOCK Act, Tim Walz had a bill that was ready for markup in the committee. We understand that was pulled.
As you know, that bill has 220 cosponsors and is a bipartisan sponsorship. It simply says that Members should not use insider information to trade with, information the general public may not have about legislation that may or may not be reported or passed to the floor. And I understand that was pulled. I think that was unfortunate.
Can the gentleman tell me what the status of that piece of legislation is?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
As he knows, Congressman Walz has been working hard on this, and I know that he will be very inclined to work with you and with the committees of jurisdiction; and I will certainly be able to work with you as well on this issue because, as I say, Congressman Walz has worked very hard on this.
I think all of us agree, as you just indicated, that no Member of Congress ought to be using insider information to trade in the stock market to disadvantage, obviously, others who are trading in the stock market. So I thank the gentleman for his comments, look forward to working with him and, again, in closing, hope that we can reach bipartisan agreement on so many major pieces of legislation that we need to pass prior to leaving this.
I will tell the gentleman I hope his side agrees, my side will not want to adjourn, nor will it support adjournment, until such time as we act on the unemployment insurance and the middle class tax cuts.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Source