Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer. Lastly, Mr. Cantor is not on the floor, but both Mr. Cantor and I have made representations that we are going to work together, as we do from time to time, cooperatively and effectively, I might say. We are very concerned that the Iran sanctions legislation, which is in conference, be passed by this Congress prior to our leaving on August 2 or 3--I'm not sure which days we are going to be leaving, but one of those days. Does the gentleman have any information on the status of the Iran sanctions legislation which we passed overwhelmingly in this House and the Senate has passed? It's in conference, and I know Mr. Cantor and I both support getting this done before we leave. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I'm very pleased to hear that. I thank the gentleman for that information, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, as I do repeatedly when I rise to speak on issues related to our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, and the relationship between our two countries, I congratulate the chairwoman of the committee, the gentlelady from Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her leadership on this issue and focus on the importance of not only the relationship, but on the importance of making sure that Israel is strong and able to defend herself. I also congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). I don't know anybody who, for a longer period of time, has focused on the issue of keeping the relationship between Israel and the United States strong, vibrant, and open, and who has, on this floor, in committee, in our caucus, and around this country, educated people any more than he has to the necessity to keep this relationship strong and to keep Israel strong. So I rise to thank both of them for bringing this issue to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to cosponsor this legislation with my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor. That piece of legislation, which Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Berman brought to the floor some months ago, passed here with a vote of 411-2, showing the overwhelming bipartisan support this issue has. This is clearly an issue, unlike so many that we deal with, that enjoys not only bipartisan support between the two parties, but support of philosophical perspectives from all over this caucus and this country. We don't always see eye to eye on matters of policy, but we always find common ground when it comes to strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship. This is the case for two very important reasons. The first is because the United States and Israel are linked by history and by the common glue of shared values: democracy, free enterprise, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. Secondly, because a strong Israel is in America's national security interest. We make that point almost every time we speak because it's important for all of our constituents, our fellow Americans to understand that the investment that we make in Israel, the investment in terms of time, in terms of support, in terms of finances, and in terms of military assistance, are all in the interest of the United States of America and its citizens. Yes, it is to Israel's benefit as well, but primarily the United States acts because it sees as critical to its own interests the safety, security, and sovereignty of Israel. Military and security ties with Israel help the Pentagon and our intelligence agencies track threats to Americans at home and abroad, and they enable us to partner on the development of technologies that help keep our people safe. The number one regional threat of course, as all of us know, is the prospect of a nuclear Iran. That is of great concern to every nation in the world. The nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is a principal tenet of the nations of the world, adopted by the United Nations and adopted in treaties. Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, as it would dramatically destabilize the region, and Iran's leaders have already threatened American targets in that part of the world. Again, it is important to note that are some 250,000 Americans within the range of Iranian missiles. Of course, there are untold economic interests of the United States and of the international community. Enhanced security cooperation with Israel is one of the many tools we have to help prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weaponization and to protect American assets in the region. This bill strengthens that cooperation in several ways: It authorizes aid for the joint U.S.-Israel Iron Dome missile defense, a critical investment.

Mr. HOYER. It also increases U.S. strategic stockpiles in Israel and provides Israel with additional weaponry as a first line of defense for the United States, as well as for Israel. Furthermore, this bill extends loan guarantees for Israel and encourages an expanded Israeli role in NATO. Mr. Speaker, it is so encouraging to see that even while we may divide on other matters, this House will pass the legislation before us with strong, overwhelming bipartisan support. That sends a message that hopefully cannot be missed, a clarity of purpose expressed by this Congress, the policymaking body of this Nation, that speaks for all the people of our Nation. Hopefully, those who would pose a threat and risk to us and to our allies would take note of that unanimity of purpose. Let us continue to ensure that close U.S.-Israel ties are an issue that unites us as Americans. As I said, the House overwhelmingly passed this measure earlier this year, 411-2. Now the Senate has sent it back to us for final consideration. I congratulate my friend, Senator Boxer, and the Republican leadership of the Senate, as well. I hope we can pass it again today. I know we will, and I hope it's with even greater support. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill--for America, for Israel, and for international security.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that scheduling information. As the gentleman knows, we have, as I calculate, 12 legislative days left to go in July and the beginning of August, of which 3 of those days we will be coming in at 6:30. As a result, we don't have much time left, and I would ask the gentleman if there is any expectation of having bills other than the regulatory--I understand one of those weeks will be the regulatory week. Other than the regulatory bills, will we have any jobs legislation on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentleman's answer, and I think we have consensus on this floor about cutting red tape and facilitating decisions by the Federal Government or by the State government or by local government. We have all heard that complaint throughout our careers. I think that's a legitimate concern for us to have. However, when I ask about a jobs bill, the gentleman responds on a couple of levels. I think I may have mentioned this before, but what concerns me is that Bruce Bartlett, whom I think the gentleman probably knows, a former President Reagan and President H. W. Bush administration official, says that no hard evidence is offered for the claim that regulatory issues have increased. But he says that Republicans have embraced ``the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.'' As I said, he says no hard evidence is offered for this claim. He then says: In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it's a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment. Now, that's his opinion, I understand that. But my concern is, if you ask an economist whether or not many of the pieces of legislation we've passed that we've called jobs bills--the gentleman's pointed that out-- economists say in the short term--which is really what we need to deal, we need to deal in the short term and the long term-- is not going to create jobs. This week, we haven't done anything to create jobs. By the way, might I ask the gentleman, because I didn't see it next week, do we expect a 32nd or a 33rd vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act either next week, the week after, or the week after that? As the gentleman knows, CBS opines that we've spent some 80 hours on that issue, with whatever cost is attendant to that. You can answer both questions, I suppose, but certainly I would be interested and the Members would be interested to know whether or not we're going to have another vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Well, the gentleman knows full well I think you have wasted a lot of time on this House floor, wasted a lot of effort on this House floor knowing full well that that had no chance of passage and that you were simply appealing to the base that you were just appealing to. In fact, this gentleman believes that what you would do if your bill is passed, you would take away benefits from millions and millions and millions of people. I think that's incontestable. It's incontestable that seniors, who are now getting more help with the doughnut hole for their prescription drugs which enhance their quality and length of life, would lose it if we repealed the Affordable Care Act. It is incontrovertible, I will tell my friend, that millions of young people who can't find a job unfortunately in this economy--and we haven't gotten any immediate jobs legislation that was offered by the President on this floor to even consider, pass or fail--millions of young people would lose their insurance. Millions of children who have a preexisting condition, who now, under the Affordable Care Act, cannot be precluded by the insurance companies--which is really who you want to put in--not you personally, but who the defeat of the Affordable Care Act would put insurance companies back in charge, not government bureaucrats, but insurance companies. So many of your Republican Governors don't want to set up the exchanges. All the exchanges are is setting up a free market of private sector insurers where people can make a judgment: Do they like policy A, B or C? It's very tough for consumers to determine right now whether they're getting a good bargain for the price they're paying for their health insurance, which is very expensive. And I will tell the gentleman that the Affordable Care Act will also create--CBO says, economists say--millions of jobs in the health care area. So, contrary to the gentleman's assertion that we are taking away care, in fact we are adding 30 million people access to affordable quality health care. As Mr. Romney said, we are requiring responsibility. So everybody takes personal responsibility to make sure that, if they can, they will insure themselves. So, what? So that the rest of us won't have to pay when they go to the hospital or get sick. They will be responsible for themselves. And if they need help, as Mr. Romney said in Massachusetts when RomneyCare was adopted--a model just like we've adopted for the Nation--it's important to make sure that they get some help. That's what that bill does. In addition to that, we've made sure that people didn't have a serious illness and have the insurance companies--not government bureaucrats, not the government, but insurance companies--say you're too sick, we're not going to cover you anymore. So I will tell my friend, he and I have a radically different view on what the consequences are of the 31 votes that we've had, that the gentleman knew were not going to pass the Senate, knew the President wasn't going to sign, and knew you didn't have the votes to override. You're making a political point, I understand that. There are people who disagree with the Affordable Care Act; I understand that as well. But I frankly think that, had we dealt with jobs legislation during that period of 80 hours and considered the President's jobs bill, we would have millions of more people employed today in America right now. Now, let me just, so that there's no misunderstanding, so I don't neglect to respond to the gentleman's assertion, he's right. He and I agree: we need to cut government red tape; we need to speed approvals; we need to make sure that we do not impede, by regulation, the growth of our economy and the growth of jobs. I couldn't agree with him more. I think we ought to deal with that on a bipartisan basis, and hopefully we will continue--or perhaps start to do that, I might say, or continue to do that in some instances. But the gentleman is correct. Now, let me ask you something, however, about the tax vote, because you also mentioned bringing taxes down. Let me ask you something: Do you expect that vote to come the last week that we are in session before the August break? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Yes. Do you expect the vote on taxes, which you have referred to, to occur the last week--which I believe is the 29th of July, the week of 29 July--to be on that week?

Mr. HOYER. My way or the highway. That's what you just said, Mr. Leader. I understand that concept. Very frankly, in my view, we have agreement. We have agreement on something that you won't bring to the floor, and it is that all middle class, working Americans will not get a tax hike, all of them. And everybody, up to $250,000 of income, will have no tax increase. But we have a big deficit and a big debt, and we need to pay our bills. We have a debt limit vote coming up at the end of this year. Very frankly, we took the country to the brink of default and very adversely affected our economy by undermining confidence. You talked a lot about confidence in the last campaign, Mr. Leader. I agreed with you. I think we need to instill confidence, not undermine confidence. But I will tell my friend that if you wanted to work together, as you've said on a number of occasions now, as for instance we did with the Export/Import bank, the bills that you sent over there, we didn't work together on. They were passed on a partisan vote, for the most part. Not all of them. And some votes were overwhelmingly bipartisan. And guess what happened? They became law. The President signed them. Export/Import bank, the jobs bill that you promoted and which I voted for. You said you want to work together. Now, it's interesting when you say ``work together,'' because what you say you're going to give us is a motion to recommit. And what you will instruct, and what your whip will instruct, is for all of your Members, vote ``no,'' and your side will inaccurately say it is a purely procedural vote. And as you have for the last 18 months, your Members will vote ``no'' on motions to recommit, notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the substance. And the fact of the matter is, Mr. Leader, we can have a vote that ought to pass with 435 votes, 435 votes. Everybody in this Congress says that we ought to not have a tax increase on working Americans, on working Americans making less than $250,000 in taxable income. As you know, that's more income. But we won't get that vote except on an MTR, on which you have instructed your Members to vote ``no,'' incorrectly arguing that it's a procedural vote only and not a substantive vote. I would say to my friend, not only will you not allow us an amendment on the floor, it appears, but you won't allow an amendment to be offered in committee so that we can vote on that. Yes, we have disagreement; but you're prepared to hold hostage working Americans by saying, if the richest people in America might have a little bit of a tax increase, then everybody else is going to get a tax increase. You said it a different way, I understand; but the reality and the ramifications of the actions that you are proposing to follow will mean that we will not get a vote, which I think there is overwhelming support of, in making sure that working Americans and, yes, 97 percent of small businesses don't get any tax increase at all. We have agreement on that, Mr. Leader. Why don't we bring that to the floor and show the American public that, yes, we can come together, as you have suggested; that yes, we can agree; and that yes, we can make sure that they don't get a tax increase? Then, yes, we can have a debate on the balance. You will take one position, and I may take another position, and the American public will see that, and then they can make a judgment as to with whom they agree. Now, my view is an overwhelming majority of the public will agree with me, and you will think the overwhelming majority of the American public will agree with you. That's what democracy is about. Let us have this debate. Let us have this vote. Let us make sure that working Americans aren't held hostage to the wealthiest in our country.

Mr. HOYER. I'll look forward to seeing the latter bill because the gentleman is correct, I think we do need to reform our tax system. We need to make it simpler. I would like to see us reduce preference items and bring rates down, as the Bowles-Simpson/ Domenici-Rivlin--Gang of Six, whoever you want to refer to--has suggested. I think that's moving in the proper direction. I also think we have to, however, frankly, make sure that we bring down the deficit and debt confronting this Nation. And I think, as Bowles-Simpson pointed out, you've got to do that in a balanced way. Let me ask you something on these packages that you said are coming that last week. There have not yet been hearings on the ramifications of either of those bills, as I understand it, in the Ways and Means Committee. Does the gentleman expect there to be hearings on those? And does the gentleman expect there to be a markup of either one of those bills in the Ways and Means Committee? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. When you say, I presume, as the gentleman said, we're talking about two different bills, are we not?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that clarification. Let me say to the gentleman that when the gentleman says there have been hearings on tax reform, I think that's probably accurate. What there has not been, in my view and in Mr. Levin's, who's the ranking member of the committee, there's been no hearing on the ramifications of the bill, which, apparently, is going to be brought to the floor, which simply extends all the Bush-era tax cuts, ramifications to the deficit, ramifications to the debt and, indeed, ramifications to the economy. I would say, with all due respect to my friend, the majority leader, I don't believe there have been hearings on that issue. There have been hearings on, should we reform the Tax Code. The gentleman and I agree. We should simplify it. We should reform the Tax Code. We should make it more compatible with economic growth, and very frankly, for average individual Americans who want to pay their taxes, would like to pay as little as possible, all of us would like to do that, but want to support their country as well. So I don't really share the gentleman's view that there have been hearings on the ramifications of the bill that the gentleman says he's going to bring to the floor, and that's what I asked. Now, let me ask you the other question, which was the second part of it. Is there going to be a markup of the bill which you're going to bring to the floor in terms of taxes? To clarify, so that Members on both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to offer amendments in committee, make observations in committee as to the ramifications of that action, and that Members will have an opportunity to reflect on that bill. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I take it the answer is no, there will not be a markup on a bill that will have extraordinary consequences to all Americans, and possibly extraordinary consequences to the deficit and debt and to our economy. Am I correct in interpreting your answer as no, there will not be a markup of this very important bill? You will bring it straight to the floor without committee consideration? Is that an accurate interpretation of what you said? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I did hear the response, and apparently I accurately characterized it. I think that's a shame, Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Boehner said that we were going to be an open House, that we were going to consider matters, and that everybody would have their opportunity to have their input. Usually, tax bills are brought to the floor, not subject to amendment. You have just said, as I understand what you said, this bill, our way or the highway. If you don't like the bill the way we brought it to the floor, you're out of luck. You don't have an option. You can't put any of your ideas into this bill. If that's the way you intend to consider this bill, Mr. Leader, I think that's unfortunate. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman is asking me am I for the President's proposal, the answer is absolutely yes. I don't want the gentleman confused in any way. If the motion to recommit is the only option we have available, we are certainly going to discuss that option, but we're not going to pretend, either to ourselves or to the American people, that your side will treat it as a real vote. Do you want to put it on the floor as an amendment? Do you want to have a real debate on it, not 5 minutes on one side and 5 minutes on the other side, which the motion to recommit is limited to? You're shutting us down--you're gagging us--and, yes, you're putting middle class taxpayers at risk because you know, I know, and the American people know the President of the United States has said he would veto your bill. He has said he will sign a bill that together we could pass making sure that 98 percent of Americans do not get a tax increase. What you are proposing to do, Mr. Leader, is to bring to the floor a bill which simply protects the 2 percent, that says that the 2 percent should not pay more. The gentleman says, oh, they're great job creators. I understand what the gentleman is saying. By the way, the program you're going to offer, it was in place. It was in place from 2001, 2003 to 2009. You and I both know what happened, not solely because it was in place, of course--let us stipulate to that. The fact is we had the deepest recession in your lifetime and my lifetime and the lifetimes of anybody who is younger than 90 years of age under the program that you're proposing we continue with. I will tell you, Mr. Leader, I don't think that's a great way to proceed. At least we ought to have the opportunity to debate it. At least we ought to have more than 5 minutes on our side to tell the American people where we're coming from. At least we ought to have a vote where you don't instruct your Members it's a procedural vote and don't vote for it. I will tell the gentleman with all clarity that the consequences of your act--and you do it knowledgeably--will be that middle class taxpayers will be put at risk. Why? Whether you agree with it or not, the President will veto it. The Senate, I don't think will pass it. The fact of the matter is we can do for 98 percent of Americans that which we agree on. You don't want them to have a tax increase. I don't want them to have a tax increase. We agree on that. Americans can not understand, when we agree on that, why we can't at least pass something on which we agree which will help 98 percent of Americans in this struggling economy, which is as you clearly point out. Now, you point out--you didn't use the term--that we only added 80,000 jobs last month. I was disappointed by that; that was unfortunate. But in the last month of the previous administration, we lost 818,000 jobs in 1 month with your program in place. That's an 890,000, almost 900,000, turnaround. From 818,000 minus to 80,000 plus, we created 4.4 million jobs in the last 28 months. Not enough. Not enough by far. I want to work with the gentleman to create many more--work with him on jobs legislation, economic growth legislation, Make It in America legislation. If we could get some of that legislation to the floor, we think it would be helpful. So I say to my friend that I feel very strongly, as you can tell, that if we are going to have this vote, which is an extraordinarily consequential vote, at least we ought to have a substitute--at least-- not just an MTR, which your side incorrectly argues is just a procedural vote, not just a 5-minute debate on our side and a 5-minute debate on your side. Don't you think Americans expect more of us in terms of a very substantive debate on the floor of this House, not in a political forum but in a legislative policy forum? I would urge the gentleman to consider that objective. If the gentleman has nothing further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Why is it a waste of time? Because the Republican majority knows that it will not pass the United States Senate, and it would not be signed by the President of the United States. It's a message bill. It's politics as usual. It is spurring the base while spurning the average working American. I outlined several proposals yesterday that are bipartisan in nature and ought to come to this floor immediately. It's called ``Make It in America.'' Let's vote on those bills. Let's vote on those bills to create opportunities, not this one to take them away. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and let us work together constructively for a better economic future for our people, more economic security, more health care security, and a better America.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend. Repeal it and replace it. For the 31st time, we have a repeal with no replacement, no alternative, no protection offered by my Republican colleagues--not one. You could, of course, introduce legislation that would say, We're going to repeal and replace with this. You haven't done it. So the American people have no idea. We're on the floor today with the distinguished gentleman from Michigan who himself, and his father before him a half a century ago, said: Americans need the security of having the guarantee of access to affordable quality health care. That's what we did. Madam Speaker, after the landmark Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, Americans are ready to move on. Yet here we're again voting for the 31st time on a bill to repeal the health care law with no replacement, no alternative, no protections. That's not what we ought to be focused on. Americans want us to create jobs and to grow our economy. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll last week, 56 percent of Americans believe that opponents of the law should drop attempts to block its implementation. It's time for Republicans to end their relentless obsession with taking away health care benefits for millions of Americans. If this bill were to pass, insurance companies could once again discriminate against 17 million children with preexisting conditions. If it were to pass, 30 million Americans would lose their health insurance coverage. It would take away $651 each from 5.3 million seniors in the Medicare doughnut hole, making their prescription drugs more expensive. There would be 360,000 small businesses no longer able to claim a tax credit to help cover their employees. And 6.6 million young adults under 26 would be forced off their parents' plans and left to face a tough job market with the added pressure of being uninsured. The Republican repeal bill would take away these benefits and end these cost-saving measures. And after 31 votes, as I said, no alternative, nothing. There is no bill to read, no plan to follow, no security to offer. Repealing health care without an alternative would add over $1 trillion to deficits over the next two decades. I don't say that. The Congressional Budget Office says that. It is occurring in the place of a vote that we could be taking on legislation to create jobs. There is nothing about jobs this week, nothing last week, nothing scheduled for next week, or the week after. It's a waste of time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Well, I'm sorry I'm a little late. I always try to come by to say hello to former Members. One never knows when one is going to be a former Member. So in the expectation that that will be, at some point in time, where I will be, I want to make sure that the present Members understand how important the former Members were to creating the institution that we have and that we're all very proud of. I apologize for my voice. I have got an awful allergy that I'm fighting, but beyond that, I'm fine. I want to say to all of you, welcome. I know that a little earlier today, I was at a fundraiser--I know you understand those kinds of things--where we honored our colleague Gabby Giffords. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was here; is that correct, Connie? And I'm pleased to see Connie Morella here, my colleague from Maryland, and my very long-time friend who I met when she was about 2 years of age, some 40 years ago, Beverly Byron from western Maryland who has remained so active. And we're very proud of them in Maryland. But we're proud of all of you as well. I'm glad to be your friend and your colleague, and I welcome you back and look forward to seeing you. George--where's George? George and I walked in together. I asked him what he was doing. And he had some billable hours walking up the steps. Good for you, George. But I want to say, Madam Speaker, how proud I was to have served with you. Barbara and I came in within months of one another in special elections. I think Barbara came in about 5 months after I did in 1981; and she served in a very distinguished way, as all of you did as well. I don't know whether Nancy came by or if John was here, but I know that they--oh, they weren't here, yet. Hope springs eternal. But I wanted to welcome you here and join you here. We have a caucus now that I will go down to. We are going to talk about repealing health care today on the floor of the House. I hope you are not holding your breath. But in any event, that will be the subject of our debate this week, I think. I want to say to all of you that I hope that you are trying to play a role in energizing the public to the understanding of how critical it is for us to meet the fiscal challenge that confronts this country. In my view, the most important thing this Congress can do in the next 6 months is to take very substantive, effective action on behalf of getting our country on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. In my view, that's the single most stimulative thing we could do for the economy. It would give confidence to the world that America, in fact, will be the economic and national security anchor that it has been for all of our lifetimes, frankly. And that is threatened by this inability to come to grips with meeting the fiscal challenges that confront us. I tell people all over this country, Greece doesn't have the resources to solve its problems. It's going to need help from outside. America has the resources to solve our fiscal challenge. What we need is the political will and the courage to do so. And I would hope that you would take, as part of your responsibility, as someone who has worked in this institution--and frankly, many of you worked in it at a time when it was more possible to work together across the aisle in a constructive way to solve the problems that confront our country. I have three daughters, three grandchildren, and two great- grandchildren. Some of you have more of all of those, I understand. But I'm very concerned about the world that we're going to leave them. My father's generation was called the Greatest Generation. Not only did they defeat the terrorists of their time, but they came home and built the greatest economy the world has ever seen. In my view, over the last decades, we have, unfortunately, not built on that legacy in a way that would have made them proud or that will make our children proud of us when we leave. So I'm hopeful that you will play a continuing role in trying to bring the country together and the Congress together. My view is--and I said this a little earlier this morning--that we probably won't get anything of real substance done before November 6. And none of us know what will happen on November 6. But between November 7 and December 31 or January 2, when sequestration takes place, we will see the biggest fiscal challenge this country has confronted in the 31 years that I have been in the Congress of the United States. The Bush tax cuts expire. The payroll tax cut expires. The unemployment insurance expires. The estate tax, dividend tax, the capital gains tax expire with the Bush tax cuts. The sustainable growth rate reimbursement for docs expires December 31. The AMT expires on the 31st, and sequestration takes place on January 2. If we took no action, that would be a devastating blow to the economy, to the country, and to international confidence in America's ability to lead. So these are serious times, and I believe that all of you are continuing to be very significant leaders in our country with an experience that very few of us are given and, that is, service in this body. I would urge all of you to take it as your personal responsibility to try to help energize our people and our Members in acting responsibly, with courage and with will so that America can continue to be the kind of country that all of us believe it to be and want it to be. So thank you for what you have done--not to get us into this bad spot because most of you were not here when we really started going down this road pretty steeply. But you are uniquely capable, in my opinion, to help us confront this challenge, which we can confront because we have the resources, if we have the will. God bless you. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the House of Representatives. It is an irresponsible day for the House of Representatives. It is a day in which the majority party asked us to take an action that has never been taken in the history of America-- never once--holding a Cabinet officer in contempt of the Congress. Now, there have been previous contempt citations--some promoted by Democratic committees and some promoted by Republican committees. The average time between committee action and consideration on the floor of this House is 87 days; time to reflect on an extraordinarily important action with consequences beyond the knowledge of anybody sitting here today. Now, I want to tell the chairman, with all due respect, I think this investigation has been extraordinarily superficial. I think the chairman has failed to call witnesses that could in fact give relevant, cogent testimony on the issues to bear. That ought to be done. That is why I will strongly support the motion of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has served here longer than any of the rest of us and who is one of the strongest gun control rights supporters in this Congress. What his motion says is: let us reflect. Let us bring thoughtful judgment. Let us not, every time that there is the opportunity, choose confrontation over cooperation and consensus. That has been the history of this Congress, confrontation over consensus every time, and America is suffering because of it. I ask my friends on the Republican side of the aisle--who know me to be a bipartisan Member of this body who believes in this institution and who cares about its actions and the precedent that they will set-- don't do this. Vote for this motion to refer. Give the chairman the opportunity he should have taken before to have a full hearing, calling former Attorney General Mukasey, calling the former head of the ATF, calling agents who were personally involved in this proceeding. I venture to say that there are very few Members who will vote on this issue who have read the committee proceedings, very few Members who have read the minority report or the majority report. Yet they're about to take a historic vote to do what has never been done by any Congress--111 Congresses. Do not take this action. This is not about Republicans or Democrats. This is about our Constitution, our country, our respect for a Nation of laws, not of men. That's what this vote is about. We ought not to be voting as Republicans and Democrats; we ought to be voting as Americans, Americans committed to justice and fair process. I regret that I do not believe this committee has followed that. I believe that the political motivations behind this resolution are clear and pose a clear and present danger to this Nation.

Mr. HOYER. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, my colleague and my friend, for his leadership on this effort. When we vote on this referral, let us vote as Americans, as I said, not as a partisan issue. You may have the Attorney General in the future. It's not the question of the party of the Attorney General. It is the question of whether or not this Congress is going to provide for equal treatment of all Attorney Generals and all Cabinet officers. Let us vote for this motion to refer and give the committee the opportunity it should take, and let us vote down this motion that should fail, and let us vote down these motions for contempt, and let us thoughtfully consider the equities of this issue.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On November 1, 2009, our Speaker stood on this floor, outraged about the process. We, too, are outraged about this process, and let me quote the Speaker: We will not stand for this. And I would ask my House Republican colleagues and those who believe that we should be here protecting the American people, protecting our Constitution, not vote on this bill. Let's just get up and leave. My colleagues may well follow that advice.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader, to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. Obviously, the gentleman has spoken to a number of very important pieces of legislation, and I want to talk about those. Then I want to talk about what I believe to be a diversion from the important business of this country. But I will get to, first, the highway conference. On Friday, it will be 100 days since the Senate has passed a bipartisan bill, a bill which had 75 Members of the United States Senate for it. That conference has not yet reported out. I understand there is some activity on that. The House overwhelmingly voted for the Walz MTI, and it said the conferees ought to report out a conference report by tomorrow. I don't know whether that's about to happen--today is tomorrow--but we will see whether or not it proceeds. Perhaps the gentleman can give us some information on that issue. I've offered a motion, as the gentleman knows, to instruct to give the House an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill if we can't wait for a bill that comes out of conference. Clearly, if it doesn't come out of conference, it's going to cost us a lot of jobs. It will not protect the 1.9 million jobs the Senate bill protects, and it will not create approximately 1 million additional jobs. As the gentleman knows, it is our view that we've been considering a lot of legislation which does not create jobs, does not impact positively the growth in our economy; but I think there is little dispute that the highway bill will in fact do that. In addition, there has been a lot of talk about certainty. I agree with the premise that we ought to give certainty to the economy and to employers and employees, and to States and subdivisions and private sector contractors. Obviously, if we don't extend the highway bill, that will not be the case. In fact, it will be a very uncertain world in which they will be operating. So can my friend tell me what the status of the conference is, if he knows? I will tell you, very frankly, that the Democratic conferees do not know the status of the conference. And I will yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I hope the gentleman's correct. My concern, and the concern on this side, continues to be the position--as Mr. Shuster, who is the one of the ranking members and whose dad, of course, chaired the Transportation Committee at one point in time. There was a story that Shuster acknowledged that the House GOP's leadership's inability to pass its 5-year, $260 billion transportation bill ``weakens our hand in conference.'' And this is what concerned me, Mr. Leader. But he added, ``It's not an option to give away the House position.'' Now, he was referring to, of course, a bill which has not passed this House, has not even been brought to the floor of this House. And that article went on to say, House Republicans say they are willing to walk away from the highway bill talks if they cannot get what they want. Now, this was an interview--I see Mr. Shuster on the floor, and Mr. Shuster's a friend of mine. I'll be glad to hear what he has to say on that matter, and I'll yield to him.