H6042 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

Under PRIA 1, the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs was required to process applications within timeframes specified for each of 

the 50 categories of registration actions. That 

number has since increased, and would be set 

at 189 under the proposed reauthorization. 

PRIA retained and increased the product 

maintenance fees that support re-registration 

and tolerance reassessment authorized under 

the Food Quality Protection Act. Pesticide registrants paid $110 million in maintenance fees 

during the authorization of PRIA and registrants are scheduled to pay $139 million in 

maintenance fees for the five year period to 

be covered by the proposed ‘‘PRIA 3.’’ 

PRIA established a prohibition against the 

collection of other registration fees, as distinct 

from registration service fees, authorized 

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act, FIFRA. PRIA also suspended 

the Agency’s authority to collect tolerance fees 

which had been authorized by the Federal 

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA. 

In the absence of this reauthorization, substantially higher fees whose authority is suspended by this legislation would be collected 

with the revenue going directly to the U.S. 

Treasury where it would be unavailable to 

EPA’s Pesticide Program. This would necessitate the discretionary appropriation of new 

funds to carry out pesticide review activities 

and eliminate the transparency and accountability measures enacted in PRIA which have 

placed effective checks on the EPA. 

The legislation before us today: extends the 

authority of EPA to collect maintenance fees 

until 2017; extends the prohibition on collection of other registration and tolerance fees to 

2019 and 2017, respectively; establishes a 

small business cap; allocates funds for EPA to 

use for the enhancement and improvement of 

‘‘IT’’ systems for the registration of pesticides 

and tracking of key information; amends the 

percentage of maintenance fees devoted to 

review of inert ingredients; increases registration service fees during the life of PRIA 3 by 

2.5 percent; provides that the Administrator 

shall identify reforms in processing that would 

allow it to improve decision times beyond 

those provided for in the Act; and cites new 

schedule of decision review times. 

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

The bill was ordered to be read a 

third time, was read the third time, 

and passed, and a motion to reconsider 

was laid on the table. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the 

bill just considered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma? 

There was no objection. 

f 

b 1230 

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given 

permission to address the House for 1 

minute.) 

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to 

my friend from Virginia, the majority 

leader, for the purpose of inquiring 

about the schedule for the week to 

come. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

the gentleman from Maryland, the 

Democratic whip, for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday, no votes are expected in the 

House. On Wednesday, the House will 

meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 

p.m. for legislative business. Votes will 

be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 

morning-hour and noon for legislative 

business. On Friday, the House will 

meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. 

Last votes of the week are expected no 

later than 3 p.m. 

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider 

a number of bills under suspension of 

the rules next week, including a 

prioritization of visas for foreign graduates of American universities in the 

STEM fields, an issue being championed by Chairman LAMAR SMITH, the 

gentleman from Texas, as well as BOB

GOODLATTE from Virginia and RAU ́ L

LABRADOR from Idaho. A complete list 

of suspensions will be announced by 

the close of business today. 

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House 

will consider H.J. Res. 118, sponsored 

by Chairman DAVE CAMP, which provides for congressional disapproval of 

the rules submitted by the Department 

of Health and Human Services relating 

to waivers of work requirements with 

respect to the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families program. 

The House will also consider H.R. 

3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act, 

sponsored by BILL JOHNSON of Ohio, 

which is a package of bills to expand 

domestic energy production and help 

create American jobs. 

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that with the Senate’s expected 

passage of the continuing resolution, 

we no longer anticipate votes in the 

House during the week of October 1. 

This is a change from the original 

House calendar. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 

for his information with respect to 

what we’re going to consider next 

week, and also I was going to ask him, 

but he has already indicated, that he 

does not expect the scheduled week of 

meeting in October to occur. I thank 

him for that information. That would 

indicate essentially then, therefore, 

that we have approximately a little 

over a day and a half or a day and 

three-quarters remaining before the 

election. 

I want to ask the gentleman, first of 

all, there’s been a lot of talk about the 

work that has not been done: 

We have not done the jobs bill that 

I’ve been urging us to consider. 

We have not addressed the middle 

class tax cut in a way that we’ll deal 

with that and on which I think both 

sides agree. We have disagreement on 

tax cuts for those who are not in the 

middle class. 

The farm bill, I want to discuss that 

in a second. The farm bill. 

The Violence Against Women Act 

and the middle class tax cut have both 

passed the United States Senate. 

Postal reform, there is also an agreement on that in the United States Senate. 

Obviously sequestration. 

And I want to talk a little bit about 

the fiscal cliff, Mr. Leader. 

But in the farm bill, as you know we 

have a discharge petition that is pending, which is somewhat unusual in that 

our party has initiated a discharge petition to ask you to bring to the floor 

a bill that your committee reported 

out of committee. That’s somewhat unusual in these discharge petitions. A 

number of Republicans have signed on 

to that as you know. 

As a matter of fact, we understand 

your suggestion to some that they do 

sign—not you, personally, excuse me. 

But that there’s been some suggestion 

they sign on to that as an indication of 

their support for the farm bill. 

The Senate passed a farm bill, 64–35, 

Mr. Leader. We are hoping that that 

bill can be brought to the floor next 

week. It’s not on the calendar. But in 

light of the fact that 16 Republicans 

voted in favor of it in the Senate, it’s 

clear that it does have broad bipartisan 

support. 

The Ag Committee here in this House 

reported out a bill 35–11. That bill has, 

of course, not been brought to the 

floor. 

We don’t have much time left, as 

you’ve just announced. Even if we 

count Thursday as a full day and even 

if we count Friday as a full day of next 

week, we have essentially 2 days and 

then suspension votes on Wednesday 

night. 

Many farmers are facing the worst 

droughts they’ve seen in many years. 

We passed a drought bill here that is 

not agreed to by the Senate. In fact, 

the farm community, as I think the 

gentleman probably knows, perhaps 

not unanimously, but in large number, 

opposes the drought bill that we 

passed, and the reason they oppose it is 

because—and I think you were absolutely right, Mr. Majority Leader, 

when you talked over the past years 

about certainty. The farmers are opposed to the drought bill that we 

passed in the House because it doesn’t 

give them any certainty. They think a 

5-year bill is preferable. They’ve seen 

two-thirds of the Senate, almost, pass 

a bill, and they hope we would pass 

that. 

I would ask the gentleman, therefore, 

if there is any, I was going to ask for 

assurance, but if there is any possibility that we’re going to consider a 

farm bill, either the House bill as reported out overwhelmingly from the 

Republican-chaired committee or the 

Senate bill that was passed in a bipartisan fashion, is there any possibility 

that before we leave here, in consideration of the crisis that confronts many 

in the farm community, that we will 

consider that bill? 

I yield to my friend. 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. 

Before I get to the farm bill, I would 

just like to respond to the initial statements about the House’s work in terms 

of jobs and taxes. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6043 

The gentleman well knows that we 

have sent to the Senate well over 30 

measures that are job-creating bills 

that will help improve the environment 

for small business men and women to 

actually begin to invest and create jobs 

again. 

We’ve also, as the gentleman knows, 

passed H.R. 8, the Job Protection and 

Recession Prevention Act. We did that 

on August 1. It was a bipartisan vote, 

including 19 House Democrats. This followed up on over 20 hearings on tax reform in this Congress. What we did in 

that bill, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman recalls, is we made sure that 

taxes are not going to go up on anybody right now because of the economic situation that exists throughout 

this country. We don’t believe that it is 

a desirable outcome to see taxes go up 

on anyone and to take more of their 

money right now while they’re having 

a difficult time getting through the 

month. 

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we continue to stand on the side of the hardworking taxpayers, and we ask the gentleman to please, when he cites the 

fact that we didn’t pass his job bill, we 

passed a jobs bill. We passed numerous 

jobs bills—in fact, over 30 jobs bills— 

sitting in the Senate. The inaction has 

been on the Senate. 

So, Mr. Speaker, with the gentleman’s question about the farm bill, I, 

in fact, just came out of a meeting 

with one of his members to talk about 

the farm bill. We’re trying to look for 

ways forward. Yes, there can be a possibility that we act again on the issue 

of the disaster of the drought. As the 

gentleman rightly said, we passed a 

drought relief bill on the livestock 

issue. It’s sitting over in the Senate. 

Again, inaction. 

The gentleman indicates the reason 

for opposition to that bill. There is 

nothing in the bill that is controversial. It’s a fact that some who insist on 

having something else in the bill didn’t 

have it. Well, one thing we know in 

common is we’re all for allowing the 

relief on the livestock issue for the 

farmers. 

Why can’t we get that done? Why 

can’t we just finally decide to say, You 

know what? There are some areas of 

disagreement, and we realize that, reasonable people do, and certainly in 

election season it sort of emphasizes 

that, unfortunately. But we also know 

there are things in common. Addressing the livestock drought issue is 

something we do have in common. We 

passed that out of the House. 

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman any indication that he could 

give that perhaps there would be some 

movement on that would be, I think, a 

positive thing for the farmers. We continue to work on how to go forward, 

and, yes, there could be a possibility 

there is some action next week on the 

issue of the farm bill, looking to find 

ways that we can work together on 

issues that we all support, not issues 

that divide us. 

b 1240 

Mr. HOYER. I think the comments of 

the gentleman are interesting and I appreciate his comments. 

We do have agreement in the Senate 

on a farm bill; they voted for it with 64 

votes—almost two-thirds of the Senate. 

We may not have agreement, but we 

had a bill that came out of the Republican-led committee, your committee, 

with over a two-thirds vote, and neither one of those have been brought to 

the floor? So we’re arguing on something that we had pretty significant 

disagreement on—yes, there were some 

Democrats that voted for the drought 

relief, particularly from farm country. 

I can understand their view. But the 

farm community is opposed to the 

drought relief bill—not unanimously, 

but in significant part. 

So the gentleman points out that we 

ought to pass that on which we have 

agreement. Let me suggest to him that 

98 percent of Americans and 97 percent 

of small business people agree on not 

having a tax increase. The gentleman 

is worried about those people who are 

making about $20,000 a month. Some of 

them don’t feel well off, I understand 

that; but I’m worried about the people 

who are making $2,000 a month, very 

frankly. I’m worried about the people 

who are getting by and who are having 

trouble. We need to give them assurance. 

The gentleman just said that we 

ought to be able to act on that on 

which we agree. Maybe I’m incorrect, 

but I would tell the gentleman on this 

side of the aisle, we will produce the 

overwhelming majority of votes on our 

side of the aisle for a bill that ensures 

that there will be no tax increase on 

those who are making, either individually under $200,000 a year, or as a husband and wife $250,000 a year. I assure 

the gentleman that I will produce and 

we will produce on this side well over 

180 votes for that proposition. So I tell 

my friend all he has to do is produce 40 

votes, but I think he will produce many 

more than that. Because unless he says 

I’m wrong, I think when you say nobody ought to get a tax increase, we 

have agreement—and that’s just what 

the gentleman is talking about, where 

we have an agreement—we have an 

agreement that nobody under $250,000, 

couple, $200,000, individual, should get 

a tax increase on January 1 of this 

year. 

We could pass that bill, in my opinion, next week. We could pass it under 

the suspension calendar, in my opinion. 

We could send it to the Senate. They’ve 

already passed a bill. They’ve already 

passed a bill through the Senate which 

adopted that proposition. So we have 

the majority votes in the Senate, and I 

would hope we would have almost unanimity in the Senate on that proposition. But I think what I hear the gentleman saying is, unless we have agreement on 100 percent, the fact that we 

agree on 98 percent and 97 percent, 

we’re not going to move the bill. 

Now, I agree with the gentleman, if 

we have agreement, that’s something 

central that we have agreement on, I 

would hope we could move it. 

I yield to my friend. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

the gentleman for yielding. 

I would say that there is not agreement right now that we ought to raise 

taxes in this economy. The reason is, 

Mr. Speaker, that we are concerned 

about those individuals that the gentleman speaks about that perhaps may 

be out of work, or underemployed, or 

trying to make it and having a real difficult time. We’re concerned about 

those people, and the best thing we can 

do is create a job and see them go back 

to work. 

We saw that this summer Ernst & 

Young put out a study demonstrating 

that his tax policy—the gentleman’s 

tax policy, the President’s plan to raise 

taxes—is going to destroy 710,000 jobs, 

slash $200 billion from the economy, 

and lower wages for all working Americans by 1.8 percent. That’s what that 

study said. 

So, no, there’s not agreement that we 

should raise taxes like that because if 

you raise taxes, there are going to be 

less jobs, there is going to be less 

growth. We’re trying to focus on those 

people who need to get back to work, 

who want to get back to work. That’s 

where the agreement is—that we all 

want to help people. We just don’t believe that you help people right now by 

laying down a tax increase, putting 

more money into the government that 

can’t seem to figure out a way to fix 

the problem once and for all. That’s 

what we want to do, fix that problem, 

help those people. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 

for his response—I don’t think it answered my question. 

We understand that you want to see 

no tax increases, no additional contributions from people making $1 million net taxable income or more, or $10 

million taxable income. We understand 

you don’t want to do it. We don’t agree 

on that. You’re correct. But we do 

agree on the fact that 98 percent of 

Americans who make less than $200,000 

individually, less than $250,000 as a couple, those 98 percent of Americans and 

97 percent of small businesses ought 

not to get a tax increase on January 1. 

Very frankly, you didn’t respond to 

me; I presume you agree with that. 

What you don’t agree with is that, if 

we don’t do it all on something we disagree with—that’s what’s causing gridlock in Congress. That’s what’s causing 

this Congress to be the least productive 

Congress in which I have served in 32 

years. That’s what’s causing us to not 

listen to one another, talk by one another, and not agree. That’s why the 

farm bill hasn’t been passed; that’s 

why the Violence Against Women bill 

has not been passed; that’s why the 

postal reform has not been passed; 

that’s why middle class tax cuts have 

not been passed; because if you don’t 

get it all, you don’t want to do any of 

it. 

I say respectfully to the majority 

leader, we agree that 98 percent of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6044 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

Americans ought not to get a tax increase. We do disagree on whether or 

not those who are better off can make 

a contribution to bringing this deficit 

down and dealing with our debt. What 

the gentleman responded was, unless 

we’re for 100 percent, we’re not going 

to be for any. That’s what I hear you 

saying. 

I yield to my friend. 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding. 

Again, no, that’s not why these bills 

haven’t passed. First of all, the Violence Against Women Act passed out of 

this House. It’s sitting over in the Senate because the Senate’s got its own 

bill that has a blue slip problem. Let 

the legislative process work over there, 

send us a bill, and we’ll get something 

done. The gentleman did not, on his 

side, overwhelmingly join us in the 

VAWA bill. Okay. So the fact that the 

minority didn’t get their way, they 

wouldn’t join us on the bill. We went 

and did our work. 

And I’ll say more to the gentleman, 

Mr. Speaker. The postal reform bill, 

the fact of the matter is his side, Mr. 

Speaker, the minority will not agree to 

reforms. Everyone knows the post office needs reforms. Everyone knows the 

debt that that organization continues 

to incur and lays on the U.S. taxpayers. We’re trying to fix that problem. But because the gentleman and 

his colleagues refuse to go along with 

reforms like a 5-day delivery—this is 

something that the President supports. 

But because his side refuses to go along 

with trying to reform that organization, we can’t move. Again, it’s this insistence: We can’t do that. We all know 

that’s common sense. Common sense is 

reforming the postal service—something everyone knows needs reform. 

That’s why that bill didn’t pass, Mr. 

Speaker. 

We’ve got another issue on the farm 

bill. There are issues of policy differences. And the gentleman knows 

throughout last year we went through 

a lot of these policy differences in the 

SNAP program and the rest. We have 

GAO recommendations year in and 

year out about that program, but unwillingness on the part of the minority 

to ever engage in a discussion of real 

reform in those programs. 

Again, let’s remember what we’re 

talking about in a farm bill. Most of it 

by far are not farm programs, they’re 

food programs. Again, raising the question of how it is we’re going to go forward, we need to understand the specifics and know there are real policy 

differences. Yes, we’re all willing to 

work together—or at least we are on 

this side. So I really take exception 

with the gentleman’s assertions that 

somehow we’re sitting here demanding 

everything. No. We want to work together and set aside differences and 

agree on things we can find in common. 

That’s how anybody in everyday life 

tries to run their business or run their 

family. It’s not all or nothing. It’s not 

black or white. 

Mr. HOYER. I said we agreed on 98 

percent. The gentleman has not said we 

don’t agree on 98 percent. 

He brought up a lot of stuff on the 

farm bill and other pieces of legislation. The farm bill, you’re not bringing 

your own bill to the floor. Forget about 

what we think on this side. You reported out a farm bill. You reported 

out a farm bill some 4 or 5 months 

ago—I’m not sure exactly when, but 

it’s been months ago—and you haven’t 

brought it to the floor. It’s not a question of whether we agree or not; your 

own bill you haven’t brought to the 

floor. 

Now, in terms of the Violence 

Against Women Act, you knew that the 

Senate wouldn’t do that and the President said he was going to veto it. You 

didn’t sit down with the President to 

do it because you wanted to exclude 

some people. You wanted to exclude 

some people who were subject to domestic violence in this country when 

all the experts say if you exclude people, we don’t get reports, we can’t get 

domestic abusers out of circulation, if 

you will. So I think the gentleman’s 

characterization is not accurate, I 

would say with all due respect. 

Mr. CANTOR. Would the gentleman 

yield for that fact? Because that’s not 

true, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. HOYER. Which is not true? I said 

a number of things. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will please address their remarks 

to the Chair. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would 

say to the gentleman, it’s not true. We 

don’t want to exclude anybody from 

the benefits under VAWA, and he 

knows that. It was simply a matter of 

new language inserted by the Senate 

that, really, we don’t want to deny 

those benefits to anyone. We want everyone to have the benefits and not exclude some by specifically identifying 

others, and the gentleman knows that. 

It’s unfair to characterize anything 

we’re trying to do to exclude people 

from benefits when they are subject to 

domestic abuse. All of us care about 

those victims. 

b 1250 

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

the gentleman for his observations. We 

have a difference of opinion on whether 

or not they want to exclude people, because the Senate bill was inclusive, and 

every woman Member, Republican, of 

the United States Senate voted for it. 

Every one. That was the difference between the two bills, those who were included, and a more specific group that 

are now included, which we think they 

ought to be. But we also think there 

aren’t people who were included who 

need to be, and that was the difference 

between the two bills. 

So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, 

I think my characterization was absolutely accurate. But it’s interesting, 

Mr. Speaker, that we still haven’t answered the question. We tend to want 

to talk about other things. 

Ninety-eight percent of Americans 

should not get a tax increase on January 1 who are making less than $200,000 

individually, or $250,000 as a family. I 

think we agree on that, Mr. Speaker. 

Now, I haven’t heard that we don’t 

agree on that. But we agree on that, 

which means that there are 2 percent 

on which we do not agree, and that bill 

has not been brought to the floor, that 

passed the United States Senate, dealing with that 98 percent or 97 percent 

of small businesses. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me if 

we have agreement on 98 percent, and 

the President of the United States will 

sign that bill, the majority leader 

knows that, I know it and the American people know it. He will sign that 

bill. 

That bill has not moved, not because 

of the 98 percent, but because of the 2 

percent. That’s my contention, Mr. 

Speaker. I believe that is accurate because the Senate has passed a bill that 

deals with the 98 percent. 

We ought to pass that bill. We ought 

to pass it before we leave here next 

week, which will be the last few days of 

this session before the election. And 

the American people at least ought to 

have that on the floor. 

And, yes, if you want to assert that 

we want to raise additional revenues to 

meet our debt so that our children are 

not put deeply into debt; and, yes, 

those of us who are doing better can 

pay a little more to make sure that our 

children aren’t in debt when they get 

to be adults; yes, we can have that debate. 

Bring the bill to the floor, and let us 

pass the Senate bill. And I would hope 

our Republican colleagues would join 

us and say, at least we’re going to take 

care of the 98 percent, and then we’ll 

argue about the 2 percent. We’ll argue 

about whether or not that’s good policy or bad policy, whether it hurts the 

economy or grows the economy. 

Very frankly, I tell my friend, the 

majority leader, I was here in 1993, and 

the gentleman was not, I believe. But I 

was here in 1993 when we raised revenues on the upper 11⁄2 percent, 13⁄4 percent of the American taxpayers. Your 

side said, as that study which we think 

is a flawed study said, that it would 

hurt the economy, it would increase 

the deficit, and it would increase unemployment. And as the gentleman 

well knows, it did exactly the opposite, 

in conjunction with an extraordinary 

growth in the private sector, which 

your party said would be hurt by the 

action in 1993, which your party unanimously opposed. 

You’re taking the same contention 

now, and that study took the same 

proposition. It was wrong then; it is 

wrong now. 

I would hope, very sincerely, that we 

could agree on that on which we agree, 

because we agree on 98 percent, and let 

that move and not hold it hostage to 

the 2 percent on which we do not agree. 

I yield to my friend. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

the gentleman for yielding again. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6045 

First of all I’d ask, was there over 8 

percent unemployment then? That’s 

the first thing, Mr. Speaker. 

We are about trying to do something 

to get people back to work. And if 

you’re worried about the 98 percent, 

which we all are, the best thing we can 

do is to make sure there are more jobs. 

And so our objection to the gentleman’s proposal to raise taxes is the 

fact that that tax hike that he’s advocating is going to affect 53 percent of 

all small business income. The Joint 

Committee on Tax says that. 

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, 

just so we’re accurate, but not 53 percent of small businesses, and the gentleman knows that. It’s a misleading 

figure, because 53 percent of the income comes from a very small percentage of so-called small businesses that 

are not, in our opinion, small businesses at all. 

The gentleman can correct me if he 

believes that 53 percent of small businesses, because it is our contention 

that 97 percent of small businesses, 

really small businesses, people who are 

working hard making it from day to 

day and trying to grow businesses and 

create jobs, 97 percent of small businesses will not be affected by our proposal. 

If the gentleman thinks I’m incorrect, I’ll be glad to hear that. 

I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Speaker, the point is about jobs. 

Okay? 

And the jobs come from the small 

businesses who are generating income. 

If you want to help people who are creating jobs, don’t raise their taxes, especially when unemployment is over 8 

percent. 

It’s about jobs. I mean, that’s the 

thing, Mr. Speaker. We always hear 

somehow that we’re favoring some big 

bad business. No, we’re about the businesses who create jobs. Small businesses, according to the Small Business 

Administration definition, create jobs. 

So, Mr. Speaker, just because, in the 

gentleman’s mind, somehow somebody 

he doesn’t like because they’re so successful gets a benefit, the overwhelming majority of the people who 

will not get a tax hike under our plan 

will go out and create a job. 

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, 

Mr. Speaker, it is an absurd assertion 

that people I don’t like. I would hope 

the gentleman would retract that. It 

has nothing to do with people we like 

or don’t like. 

Mr. CANTOR. I absolutely retract 

that, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely retract 

that. But the gentleman continues to 

malign people who he feels don’t deserve the same treatment on taxes. 

And what we’re saying, if they’re successful, that means they’re creating 

jobs. That’s the prescription we need 

right now is more jobs. 

Our policy is about helping those 

small businessmen and women who are 

creating jobs so we can finally do 

something to bring this unemployment 

down and get people back to work. 

That’s all. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest 

challenges to growing our economy is 

our debt and deficit and the uncertainty of the tax policy. That is one. 

Every economist will tell you that; and 

certainly every businessperson will tell 

you that, large, medium or small. 

And none of us on this side of the 

aisle have used pejorative—I have not 

used pejorative terms with respect to 

large, medium or small businesses. 

That’s not an issue at all. 

It is an issue as to whether or not 

we’re going to continue to explode this 

deficit and debt, Mr. Speaker, or 

whether we’re going to ask some of us 

to contribute, some of us, i.e., perhaps 

Members of this floor, to pay a little 

more so our children don’t confront 

large deficits and debt. 

We heard a lot about personal responsibility in the Republican convention; 

we ought to take personal responsibility. 

And the gentleman continues to talk 

about job creation. We want job creation. We have a Make It in America 

agenda that, unfortunately, hasn’t 

moved. We have a jobs bill that was offered by this President that economists 

say would have created a million more 

jobs. It lays, still, on a desk somewhere, untended to, unconsidered and 

unpassed by this House—notwithstanding the fact that the leader and I 

have discussed that, moving that bill 

to the floor on numerous occasions. 

I lament the fact when we talk about 

this again, he has not said once that we 

don’t agree on the 98 percent, that we 

don’t agree on the 97 percent. I think 

the reason he hasn’t said we don’t 

agree on it is because we do agree on it. 

He said he doesn’t want anybody to get 

a tax increase. 

And by the way, that tax increase, as 

the gentleman well knows, will result 

as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills 

passed by the Republicans in this 

House and in the Senate and signed by 

George Bush. That’s why those taxes 

are going up on January 1, because you 

sunsetted that tax increase. You didn’t 

make it permanent. 

Why did you do that? 

For scoring purposes, because you 

knew that it would score great deficits. 

I want to tell the gentleman, additionally, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment was 7 percent. The reason Bill 

Clinton won the election was because 

the economy was going downhill. 

That’s the same reason Barack Obama 

won the election. 

And he talks about jobs. A policy 

that was unanimously opposed, Mr. 

Speaker, by the Republican side of the 

aisle in the House and in the Senate 

created 22 million private sector jobs. 

We know something about creating private sector jobs. 

Notwithstanding the fact your contention on your side of the aisle, not 

yours personally, Mr. Leader, was that 

if we adopted that program, you took 

the same argument you’re taking right 

now, right now, that raising additional 

revenues to bring our deficit and debt 

down would undermine the creation of 

jobs. 

b 1300 

In 1993, you were demonstrably 

wrong. I don’t mean you personally. 

Mr. Speaker, I’m simply referring to 

the Republican Party’s position on 

that. They were demonstrably wrong— 

22 million new jobs. In ’01 and ’03, you 

argued that if we bring taxes down on 

the people you’re talking about and everybody else that we would explode the 

creation of jobs. 

You lost jobs in the private sector 

over those 8 years, Mr. Leader—I’m 

sure you know that—about 600,000 net. 

You lost 4 million jobs in 2008, in the 

last year of the Bush administration. 

You lost 818,000 jobs in the last month; 

818,000 jobs were lost in the last month 

of the Bush administration and under 

these policies, which we apparently 

have to pass again, or we won’t take 

care of the 98 percent of Americans 

who are hoping that they will be assured that they will not get a tax increase as of January 1 and the 97 percent of small businesses that will be assured that they will not get a tax increase, which will stabilize our consumers, stabilize our small businesses, 

and help our economy. 

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we, perhaps, have exhausted this conversation—I understand that—but it is lamentable that this is another instance 

when we continue to talk about bills 

for message purposes that we know the 

President won’t sign—that he said he 

won’t sign—and that we know the Senate won’t pass; and we allow those 98 

percent of Americans to twist in the 

wind because we will not deal with the 

other 2 percent. We are prepared to debate that, of course, and discuss it and 

vote on it; but I am very sorry that we, 

apparently, will not see in the next 21⁄2

days remaining before the election that 

we address the middle class tax cuts. 

I yield to the gentleman if he wants 

to say anything further. I have one 

more subject I want to cover. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I think 

the differences are very plain. The gentleman has a way of simplifying things. 

According to what I took from what 

the gentleman just said, if we’d just 

raised taxes, all those jobs wouldn’t 

have been lost, and everything would 

have been fine. Again, our proposition 

is completely the opposite. 

We believe that we’ve got a real 

spending problem here, Mr. Speaker. 

We’ve got a problem with an unwillingness to reform some programs. The 

gentleman talks about Members having 

to pay more when, in fact, it was our 

side that put forward the proposal that 

we should actually allow and require 

Members as well as Federal employees 

to pay more towards their retirements. 

The gentleman wasn’t supportive of 

that. We’ve got some serious unfunded 

obligations at the Federal level. The 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6046 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

American people know that. We are 

trying to solve problems. The problems 

are not solved by raising taxes. 

Now, if the gentleman is so intent on 

raising taxes—again, because there is a 

2 percent that he just wants to pay 

more—I ask the gentleman to join us 

in actually fixing the problem that all 

experts say you can’t tax your way out 

of and you can’t grow your way out of. 

You’ve got to reform the programs. 

Mr. Speaker, we’ve been the only ones 

to put forward a plan that even begins 

to solve the problem—the President 

has not; the Senate has not; and the 

gentleman has not. 

It’s about solving problems, producing results for the hardworking taxpayers of this country who so desperately want to see us go forward, reclaim America in its true aspirational 

sense and be that place of opportunity. 

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I hear the 

gentleman. I presume he refers to the 

Ryan budget as the plan to do that. Of 

course, the Ryan budget does not balance the budget in a quarter of a century. The gentleman knows that. The 

Ryan budget, of course, undermines the 

security of Medicare for people. 

The majority leader mentions Federal employees. The fact of the matter 

is—and this is my position, Mr. Speaker, and is the subject I wanted to talk 

about—we need to get America on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. That 

is the single most important objective 

that this Congress ought to be addressing. Very frankly, it was addressed in a 

plan called the Simpson-Bowles plan. 

Perfectly? No. Would we all agree on 

every aspect? No, but it was a plan that 

said we have to have a balanced approach to doing this. We had to deal 

with entitlements; we had to deal with 

revenues, and we are now collecting 

14.8 percent of revenues. That’s lower 

than at any point in time in the last 70 

years. 

We have underpriced our product; 

and if we were a business, we would 

have been bankrupt a long time ago. 

We have deep pockets, and we can keep 

borrowing so that we can keep spending without putting in a PAYGO discipline that we had in the nineties that 

helped balance the budget 4 years in a 

row—the only administration in the 

lifetime of anybody hearing, seeing, or 

knowing that we are here, but that has 

been done. It was done because we paid 

for what we bought. 

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an 

opportunity—not in the next 2 days of 

this session before the election—but we 

are going to have a lame duck. We are 

going to have to come back here, and 

we are going to have to do some serious 

things. We need to as Americans—not 

as Democrats, not as Republicans— 

have a conviction that we need to come 

back here and not walk away from our 

responsibilities. 

Very frankly, with the Bowles-Simpson, every Republican member of that 

group from the House walked away 

from it—voted ‘‘no’’ and said, No, we 

will not agree. So it didn’t get the 14 

votes that it needed to be brought to 

this floor. I think that’s a sad fact. 

That should have had a robust debate 

and perhaps a modification, but it was 

a plan that said to all Americans that 

we’re all going to have to be in this together—a balanced plan, Mr. Speaker, 

to get a handle on the debt and deficit 

that confronts this country that is 

hurting our economy, hurting our people, hurting our credibility. 

The S&P downgraded us not because 

we didn’t have the resources to solve 

our problems. Standard & Poor’s downgraded the United States of America 

for the first time in the lifetime of 

anybody I know—and perhaps in history—because they didn’t know whether we had the political will and courage 

to address this debt and deficit that 

confronts and puts our country in danger. 

Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked what 

was the biggest security problem confronting America, didn’t respond, Iraq, 

Iran. He didn’t respond, terrorists. He 

didn’t respond, other enemies around 

the world. He said the biggest security 

concern that he had—the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff—was the fiscal 

challenge that was not being addressed 

in America. Mr. Speaker, we need to 

address it. 

My friend the majority leader, he and 

I have worked together on a number of 

things. We’ve worked on a number of 

things this session that we’ve passed in 

a bipartisan fashion. I would hope that 

he and I would both commit ourselves 

to, during the lame duck session, doing 

our responsibility to America and to 

our constituents in reaching a BowlesSimpson, Domenici-Rivlin, Gang of 

Six. Almost every economist who has 

spoken to this issue has said you need 

a balanced plan. If we simply have sold 

our souls to Grover Norquist on asking 

people to help bring this debt and deficit down, we will not succeed; but if 

we summon the courage and the will to 

solve this problem, we can do it. 

I am hopeful that my friend the majority leader and I will work together 

over the next number of weeks, between now and November 6, to establish the preface for acting in the lame 

duck session in a responsible, cooperative, consensus-seeking fashion to get 

this country on a fiscally sustainable, 

credible path. If we do that, we could 

redeem this Congress’ performance, 

and I hope we will do that. 

I don’t know whether the majority 

leader wants to make a comment on 

that. 

b 1310 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

the gentleman. 

I’m going to try and make sure that 

I don’t bring on even more because I 

know our colleagues are waiting to 

speak. 

I would say to the gentleman there is 

not unanimity on his side, as he knows, 

on Bowles-Simpson. In fact, the minority leader rejected Bowles-Simpson and 

the President has not endorsed BowlesSimpson, which is part of the issue 

that the gentleman seeks some clarification on, which is: Where is the plan 

to get us out of this? The President was 

unwilling to even adopt that. 

The gentleman I think knows the 

reason why our side rejects BowlesSimpson. We believe there are some 

good things in Bowles-Simpson, and I 

do look forward to working with the 

gentleman to see if we can work together in a cooperative fashion to get 

some results and resolve this cloud 

hanging over the economy. I’m looking 

forward to that. 

But Bowles-Simpson, number one, is 

not this so-called balanced approach, 

unless you say $1.22 in new taxes with 

$1 in cuts is balanced. We don’t believe 

so, because we believe it has a detrimental impact on the growth of the 

economy. 

We also believe that the BowlesSimpson revenue target of 21 percent of 

GDP is the highest target and something that exceeds that which we’ve 

been at pretty much over the last 70- 

something years, save for 3 years. We 

believe that that is too much of a revenue flow into Washington for Washington to make the decisions. 

We’ve got an issue there about the 

amount of taxes and the size of government. Yes, it’s a totally legitimate discussion point, but it’s an issue. It’s not 

just rejection out of hand like the minority leader and the President have 

said. They reject that. We say this is 

why, and then we also say the disproportionate driver of the deficit is 

health care entitlements. The gentleman and I both agree upon that. 

How are we going to deal with it? 

Bowles-Simpson leaves in place the 

structural nature of those programs 

now and doesn’t address this fundamental problem of growing unfunded 

liabilities. We want to solve that so 

that the safety net programs are there 

for the future and save them. That’s 

our position. 

So I do look forward to working with 

the gentleman. There are some great 

things about tax reform in BowlesSimpson. I want to work with the gentleman on that, and, if we can, have a 

conversation about resolving the deficit and the spending. 

Again, I’m trying not to invoke any 

more time, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. HOYER. I look forward to working with him as well, Mr. Speaker, because there is a no more important 

issue that confronts us as a Congress or 

us as a people, and no act that we could 

do would give more confidence, not 

only to our own people, but to people 

around the world, that America has got 

its financial house in order. We need to 

do that. We can argue the specifics one 

way or the other, but, Mr. Speaker, we 

do have a difference. 

We had that difference in 1993, and we 

argued about it. We won that argument 

on the vote, and we won it, in my opinion, on performance. We argued again 

on it in 2001 and 2003, and we believe we 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6047 

lost on that argument, which is why we 

were in the deepest recession at the 

end of the last administration that this 

country has been in my lifetime, and 

I’m not one of the younger Members of 

this body. 

I am, with the majority leader, hopeful that we can work together and 

come to agreement on that on which 

we agree and move forward. The American people, I think, hope that as well, 

Mr. Speaker. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

f 

ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY, 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that when the 

House adjourns today, it adjourn to 

meet at noon on Tuesday, September 

18, 2012; and when the House adjourns 

on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon 

on Wednesday, September 19, 2012, for 

morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia? 

There was no objection. 

f 

IT IS TIME TO PUT GOVERNING 

OVER POLITICS 

(Mr. WITTMAN asked and was given 

permission to address the House for 1 

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today with disappointment. I’m disappointed that this Nation’s leaders 

have once again kicked the can down 

the road instead of making tough and 

important decisions on our Nation’s 

spending. 

Yesterday, the House passed a continuing resolution without my vote to 

simply continue to fund government 

into the 2013 fiscal year at current levels as catastrophic cuts loom on the 

horizon set to hit in January of 2013. 

Sequestration, as these cuts are 

known, threaten our national security. 

An estimated 200,000 jobs in Virginia 

will be lost, jobs that support our 

warfighters and their mission around 

the world. 

Mr. Speaker, we have 16 days to the 

beginning of a new fiscal year, yet Congress has delayed tough decisions 

again. These delays are unconscionable. These delays are unacceptable. 

Congress should stay in Washington 

and stop ignoring the reality of these 

looming cuts. 

It is time to put governing over politics. 

f 

HONORING NEIL ARMSTRONG 

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked 

and was given permission to address 

the House for 1 minute and to revise 

and extend her remarks.) 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. 

Speaker, it is a great privilege for me 

to rise on the floor of the House today 

to pay tribute to astronaut Neil Armstrong, an American hero. 

Yesterday, at the National Cathedral, we paid tribute to him as a national hero and recognize that his 

name will forever be a testament to 

our Nation’s will to prevail in the challenge for successful space exploration 

and push the boundaries, going where 

no man has gone before. 

As a 12-year member of the House 

Science Committee and a member of 

the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I can tell you that I am 

deeply indebted, but also embedded 

with the idea of human space exploration. How can I not be, representing 

and coming from the community where 

NASA Johnson Space Center is. 

Today I rise in tribute to all of them 

and recognize the greater leadership 

that Neil Armstrong gave as a humble 

American. He, along with fellow astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collin, 

shared a most significant time in our 

history—one small step for man, but a 

great and gigantic step for humanity. 

Right now in Houston, we are celebrating 50 years of human space exploration at the Hyatt Regency, commemorating NASA Johnson. I want to 

thank Dr. Mae Jemison and all those 

who came after this great hero for continuing the dream. They can count on 

me as a Member of the United States 

Congress to fight again for human 

space exploration. 

Thank you, Neil Armstrong, an 

American hero. May you rest in peace. 

f 

WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO 

CREATE JOBS 

(Mr. DOLD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, this is not 

what economic recovery looks like. 

Last Friday’s painful jobs report 

showed for every one American job 

that was created, four people simply 

exited the labor force. In fact, the percentage of Americans participating in 

the labor force today is lower than it 

has been at any time since September 

1981. 

Mr. Speaker, this is a national crisis. 

Over 23 million Americans remain unemployed, underemployed, or have simply given up looking for work. Our Nation’s GDP growth was lower in this 

year’s second quarter than the first. 

The average monthly jobs created is 

less this year than last. 

Washington has tried a trillion dollar 

stimulus, 4 straight years of trillion 

dollar deficits, yet unemployment has 

remained above 8 percent for over 43 

consecutive months. The American 

people are honestly asking themselves: 

Am I better off today than I was $6 trillion ago? 

Mr. Speaker, we need to work together to empower businesses to create 

jobs and grow our economy, which is 

why I’ve introduced a bipartisan, bicameral jobs bill, the Global Investment in America Jobs Act. This isn’t 

about politics. It’s about the millions 

of Americans who are unemployed and 

seeking opportunities for a better future. 

f 

b 1320 

GRANT TRADE WITH RUSSIA 

(Mr. REICHERT asked and was given 

permission to address the House for 1 

minute.) 

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I am 

speaking in favor today of granting 

Russia permanent normal trade relations. I would like to emphasize this 

will hold only benefits for the United 

States. There is no downside for us unless we fail to act. 

While we wait to consider this legislation, our global competitors are racing ahead, taking advantage of their 

new access to Russian markets. U.S. 

exports to Russia could double in the 

next 5 years. Currently exports to Russia support over 1,400 jobs in my State. 

Passing this bill will increase America’s export goods and services substantially, and this growth and trade will 

serve as a no-cost job creator. 

If we fail to act, U.S. companies, 

farmers, and workers will not receive 

the benefits of Russia’s membership, 

nor will the U.S. Government have authority to hold Russia accountable 

under WTO rules. 

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope 

that we can come together and pass 

this legislation. Grant Russia permanent normal trade relations. 

f 

112TH CONGRESS IN REVIEW 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MORAN) is recognized for 60 

minutes as the designee of the minority leader. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, next week, 

following Senate action on a 6-month 

continuing resolution to keep the Federal government funded until March 27 

of 2013, Congress is likely to adjourn 

until after the fall elections. 

Really? Seriously. In other words, 

over the next 53 days before the election, this House will be in session 

about 13⁄4 days. It’s a sad state of affairs, and the best that this House can 

do is to punt all spending decisions on 

this year’s budget to the next Congress. 

But that’s what we just did this 

week. Before we adjourn, there will be 

no resolution on the budget, there will 

be no resolution on the sequester, $1.2 

trillion, that is causing disruption 

throughout the country and particularly among the entire Federal Government, especially the defense industry, 

which will have to absorb half of that 

sequester. It could affect directly about 

a million jobs, about 2 million jobs indirectly, but we’re not going to do anything about it. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE