Weekly Colloquy With Exchange Between Hoyer and Cantor on House Floor

See video
Transcript: 

Clip 1
now, as it relates to the gentleman's bipartisan, the gentleman was quoted apparently just a few days ago about referring to o meeting. our meeting, o course, dealt with a one-page recitation of three or four proposals, many of which are in the health care bill that we passed this house. in one fashion or another, notwithstanding that, of course, no republicans voted for the bill. i was not surprised at that, frankly, because in february apparently not based upon the specifics of a proposal, but the specifics of a proposal were not on the table until the summer, your campaign chairman, pete sessions, said republicans -- told republicans that they need to get over the idea that we're participating in legislation and ought to start thinking of themselves as an insurgency instead. he was quoted in ""politico"" at the virginia retreat, february 2, 2009. senator jim inhofe on the ""hugh hewitt show"" said, we can stall them, and that's going to be a huge gain for those of us that want to turn things over in the 2010 election. senator jim inhofe, as i said, said that. and then senator jim debent said also in july of 2009, if we're able to stop obama on this, referring to health care, it would be his waterloo, it will break him. very frankly, i tell my friend that i'm disgust with him and with mr. blunt, my good trent, who was his predecessor and with whom he worked in the whip organization and asked him to participate with us. i is it that early this year. i did it a little later in the year. sometime before i met with you as well in trying to discuss, was there a way forward to work in a bipartisan fashion? unfortunately, that did not result in a bipartisan fashion. i will tell my friend on a smaller, more defined matter, the children's health insurance program, i spent about 100 hours trying to work with many on your side of the aisle to try to get in the last congress to try to get bipartisan agreement on moving children's health insurance. and as i'm sure you'll recall, because you weren't with us on that issue, we couldn't get bipartisan fwrement. so the answer to your question is, i'd like to have bipartisan discussions moving forward on this issue. but i have concluded from my experience over the last year, and not just these -- i quote three but there have been other statements as well that indicate opposition for opposition sake has been adopted at least by some on your side as a strategy and as a tactic. i think the losers are not so much democrats in that context. i think the losers are the american people. they expect us and want us to work together towards resolving the issues that confront them, one of which is health care. they know it's an issue. i read the results in massachusetts, but i will tell you i also read the polls which when asked not so much about a bill but whether or not health care reform is needed in this country, a very significant majority of americans responded, they think it is. they think when they're denied coverage for pre-existing conditions that's a problem. they think when their child becomes 26 years of age or now becomes 23 years of age and out of college and doesn't have insurance, they think that's a problem. they think when they have a very serious illness costing them thousands and thousands of dollars that an insurance company telling them, sorry, you cost too much, we can no longer insure you, they think that's a problem. so when they go depeeply into debt for health care -- deeply into debt for health care costs that's not covered by their health insurance company and declare bankruptcy and put their home at risk, they think that's a problem. so, yes, i tell my friend, these are issues we'd like to work together on and we hope that can happen.

Clip 2
we passed a jobs bill through this house in december. it's pending in th senate now. we believe that that would substantially move forward on creating jobs. it's not the answer but it is one of the answers, we think. it focuses, as the gentleman knows, on infrastructure, which we think is a very important initiative that gets people working immediately. jobs here in america. we think that's very important. it also tries to help states so they're not laying off teachers and policemen and firemen. we think that's very important as well. let me say something. i did a little -- i get a little confused, and perhaps these facts are not well-known to you, but i thought i'd remind you of these facts. we pursued an economic program that your party put forward from 2001, 2003 on for eight years. now, while the people gave us the majority in the house and senate in 2006, obviously president bush threatened to or did in fact veto any changes that we made in economic policy . that economic policy, which you were a very strong supporter of and your party was a very strong supporter of, you continue to mention jobs. so i want to make sure you know these statistics. in the last three months of the brucks under the economic poll -- bush administration under the economic policies that not only did you pursue then but you still want to pursue because in fact theroposals that you have made essentially mirror the proposals that were made in 2001 and 2003. those proposals were touted by yoand others -- i'm not going to go through all these quotes --oing to grow the economy, create jobs and have a robust growth in our economy. in november and december and january, that policy which you pursued lost 2,000,000,019 jobs in three months and we confronted the worst recession, the great recession, if you will, worse than at anytime in three quarters of a century. and it's swhat confounds me that it's still -- your party -- not necessarily you personally -- presents an economic policy which was the poorest job creating administration eight years since herbert hoover. an average of approximately 4,000 jobs per month. you needed 100,000 just to stay even. now, i'll tell the gentleman, since the recovery act, which you nor your party voted for, since the recovery act, let me tell you what the last quarter was. perhaps you know. we still have not succeeded in growing jobs. so we haven't had success. but we've had great progress. let me tell you how much progress. you lost in the last three mont of your economic program 2,000,000,019 jobs. the last quarter we lost 208,000 jobs. a quarter, three months. that's way too many jobs. we want to be creating. as the clinton administration did on average 220,000-plus jobs per month. 22 million in total over eight years. so i tell my friend that when the gentleman says we haven't had progress on this, those figures in my view belie that assertion. in fact, we've made progress. not only that, the stock market is up 60%. had a couple of bad days, it's up 60% since we adopted the recovery and reinvestment act. it had a minus growth under your economic policies during the eight years of the bush administration, minus to the extent it decreased in value so that the investment i had in 2001 was about 26% less valuable in december of 2008. contrast that to the clinton administration in its eight years, the value of your stock portfolio or investments went up 226%. that's a 250% difference. so i tell my friend that we have taken very substantial action. we're going to take more action because until we get americans back on the job, until weet america growing sohat it creates the kind of jobs our people need and must have to support themselves and their family, we're not going to be satisfied. soyes, we passed a bill last month which you and your party voted against. we think that's unfortunate. and if you have ideas, i'd love to sit down wh you again and discuss your ideas. very frankly, however, some of the ideas we discussed to date are some of the same ideas that in my opinion led to not such a robust job-creating economy. in fact, as i said, the worst economy we've seen in 75 years. i yield back.

Clip 3
i don't blame you at all for not wanting to look back in history. i wouldn't want to stand on that record either. but it's important to look at history so that we don't repeat the same mistakes that the assertions that were made for thpolicies that you pursued of great growth and economic expansion, which did not occur, that's why i pointed out, because frankly your proposals mirror those that have been made in the past. and the premises that you have pursued are the same you're pursuing now. it's instructive, i think, for the american people and for us who represent them to look at what worked and what didn't work. your party unanimously opposed the clinton economic policies. mr. army, an economist who was your majority leader, said that they would fail miserably. in fact, they succeeded mightily. they created those 22 million jobs that i said. in fact, in the last year when there was a slowdown, it created 1.8 million jobs as opposed to losing 3.8 million jobs under the last year of the bush administration. i think it's instructive to see what worked and what didn't. so that is why i refer to it. not because i think that will solve our problems going forward. i agree with the gentleman. what is important is, what are we going to do now? but we woulde fools, as the writer said, to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. so i say that -- to my friend, when he asserts that we were in charge in 2007 and 2008, he and i both know that economic policy was not changed. why? because the president of the united states who had the veto pen and the votes to sustain a veto, even when we tried to give four million children health insurance in america, that veto was sustained. they were not given that insurance until president obama signed the bill which was one of our first bills. so i say to my friend, looking back is useful only to the extent that you ensure that you do not repeat the mistakes of the past. the clinton economic program worked and the bush program did not and i want to tell my friend on his points for recovery, this so-called free recovery, supply side and recovery, if will you, one of the first things you want to do is stop the deluge of rules and regulations. quite frankly i tell my friend, one of the reasons we face suched -- we faced such a crisis was the last administration took the referee off the field. as a result the referee being off the field,he players on the field went wild and they did irresponsible things and unfortunately the taxpayer of this country, in order to prevent a great depression as opposed to a great recession, had to respond. the good news, hopefully, is that we're going to get paid back. the president's made efforts to make sure that happens and i pe, you hope, i'm sure, that we do get paid back. you want to block tax increases in cutting taxes. we cut taxes for 95% of americans as i'm sure you know in the recovery and reinvestment act. you want to freeze investment in items like job training, infrastructure and education, to iranian in deficits and debt. you want to -- rein in deficits and debt. we don't think that's good policy. your program says you want to reform the unemployment system by requiring people to participate in job training. we agree with that. but you have to make sure that the job training is available to them. approving the free trade agreements as the gentleman knows, i'm a supporter of the free trade agreements. i don't think it would create those 250,00 jobs tomorrow or the next month or the month after, but i agree with the gentleman that that's good policy. it's controversial policy, i say to my friend, as he well knows, on both sides of the aisle. you want to reduce taxpayers that inhibit domestic job creation, the recovery act, as you know, had tax cuts for small businesses to do exactly that. your side didn't support that. we also addressed the housing crisis by giving, you say, addressed the housing crisis by giving regulators incentives to deal responsibly with banks and their borrowers. however, as i pointed out earlier, in fact, and history shows that, regulation and oversight and the referee being on the field was a policy that the previous administration thought got in the way. well, i tnk that referees that get in the way of the game are not useful but referees that make sure that people play by the rules are essential. i yield back.

Clip 4
we're talking about policies that you want to replicate that have been pursue. that was my point -- pursued. that has been my point, it remains my point. did your picies work? you can argue allou want tat you will say the bush administration policies worked, you have not in any way said the figures i have said on this floor, not only today but i've had manyopportunities to look to see whether i'm accurate on those figures, are wrong. and point of fact, they did not produce what you said they were going to produce. we need to adopt polics that did produce. the reason i compare the clinton administration and the bush administration is because under the clinton administration you said the policies wouldn't work, i don't mean you personal -- personally, but your party said the policies wouldn't work. in fact, the only administration, not the reagan administration, not the first bush administration, certainly not the second bush administration, that produced surpluses. after eight years they had a net surplus. no administration in your lifetime has had a net surplus after eight years other than the clinton administration under the economic policies we pursued then. not one. so from that perspective, not a question of failure, again, these statistics, you don't like. you prefer i simply look at the problems we're confronting why. no are we confronting these problems? because your economic program did not work and plunged us into the deepest recession we had in 75 years. now, i raise my voice only because you simply ignore that. you say that's just carpet. you say,h, we don't want to look at what happened. we don't want to look at what our policies produced for eight years. we want to look in the eight. we do too. and what we wanted to do and what we have been doing, as i pointed out to you, is trying to bring this economy out of the ditch in which we found it, in which the american people feel very stressed, properly so. so we have to get them back to jobs, and the first thing we had to do is stop losing so many jobs. again, i point, the last three months of the bush administration we lost two million jobs. the last quarter, last three months we've lost 200,000. way too many, but 1/10 of what your policies produced or did not produce in the last three months of the bush admistration. that's so what, you say. let's not repeat those mistakes. let's invest in our future which is what we did in the recovery and reinvestment act. and mark zandy said we saved over a million jobs, 1.6 million, i believe he says, we would have lost had we not passed that bill. so did it work perfectly? it worked better than the policies we were pursuing, frankly, that we inherited. that's my point. i think it's a valid point. if the gentleman disagrees with inside figures, i'd be glad to be corrected. i think they're accurate.