this holiday season. this is just over 10 minutes. . .

>> last night the republicans in the senate rejected the republican proposal, majority of republicans voted against the republican proposal in the senate. these are important, important initiatives. economists, independent -- tell us that again, 400,000 jobs would be lost if we don't pass what the president suggested in the expanded suggested of ui and payroll tax and other initiatives. very important because they expire december 31st. we can't leave here without passing. we have to stop toying with the american people and their economic security. we really do. it is a job we know that we have to do it. it is time for us to sit down and do this in a bipartisan way

as we did when president bush was president. christmas is coming. families are concerned. the deadline of december 31st is fast upon us. again, last month we sent a letter, last night to the republicans in the senate rejected their own plan. there has to be a better way to get the job done. christmas is coming. the republicans refuse -- they want to keep in doubt what this middle class will have a tax cut, hold that hostage to protecting -- >> thank you, madam leader. a coal in the stocking ought not be what we leave for the american people at the end of this year.

we're going to have some 3 billion people without the ability to support themselves and their family if we don't pass the unemployment insurance and do it in the next few days. an awful lot of people are going to face, working men and women, average-salaried people are going to find their salaries, their take-home pay reduced if we do not extend and follow the president's recommendation for both individuals and small businesses so that i'm hopeful that unlike what happened in the senate where a majority of the united states senate voted to extend the payroll tax. the republicans offered an alternative, and as the leader has pointed out, couldn't get a majority of their own party to support their recommendation. but at least it did recognize that we ought to extend the

payroll tax. i'm hopeful that the republican leadership both in the house and senate will work with us to ensure that coal is not the gift from the you states congress in the stockings of the american people, that we pass an extension of the tax cut and indeed expand that tax cut which economists, leaders pointed out will have a positive effect on jobs and growth in the economy and pass the unemployment insurance as well so that we do not have millions of people, millions of our fellow citizens without the ability to put food on their table in the coming year. thank you. >> it is important to note that although a majority voted in the senate for extending the payroll tax cut, you still need 600 votes in the senate, and that majority did not make a successful passage of the process to move the

legislation, and then when they had their own plan, a majority of the republicans voted against their own plan. what is it that the middle class did to the republicans that they are taking it out on them so harshly and not passing this payroll tax and saying we're not -- we're protecting the tax cuts for the wealthy, but we're not extending the tax cuts to the middle class. questions? >> republicans wanted to pave the way to the keystone pipeline -- >> i think that they're just -- this is evasive. and the fact is we know what we have to do. if we have to pay for the payroll tax cut, we're perfectly willing to do that, even though the republicans never want to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthiest people

in our country. doesn't that strike you as funny? middle income tax cut, it has to be paid for. tax cuts for the wealthy, we don't pay for that. in any event, we are willing to be fiscally sound in terms of saying we want to extend this. confidence it will create jobs and bring revenue to the treasury. we can pay for the payroll tax cut, extension of sgr very important to american seniors, what the republicans did in their budget, taking their funds from the overseas contingency operations account. >> income over a million being part of the package or oco or other options -- >> time is of the essence. >> your question is do we have the votes? united states senate, majority of the united states senate,

unfortunately the senate requires a supermajority to do anything. to put a bill on the floor requires 60 votes. american public doesn't understand it. i don't understand it. a majority of the representatives, as a matter of fact, well over the majority voting for the passage of that bill and it still does not pass given the fact it has 51. we are going to continue to advocate on behalf of the working americans to get this -- make sure that their tax cuts was affected last year is extended and expanded so that we can continue to grow the economy, grow jobs, and create those 400,000 jobs that the economists believe will result. >> -- >> it has been something that republicans have used in their budgeting. if anything important is the

economic security of america's families and we could use it for extending the payroll tax and removing all of the uncertainty in sgr. sgr is a -- initials for something that means that seniors will be able to see the doctor of their choice under medicare. it is very important to our seniors. and it is a priority. and this money, this account has a trillion dollars in it. it wouldn't take half of it to cover what we're talking about. >> and you feel like yesterday's senate vote was only a message about the millionaires tax -- expand the payroll tax cuts rather than hold it static at 4.2? you think the senate still has an appetite to expand it? >> i don't know the answer to that question. if you are talking about 60. i don't think that reflected that vote. but i think that the majority of the united states senate

indicated they had an appetite. whether we have 60 or not, i don't know. what the president has said we have an economy that is struggling, although we had some good news today. unemployment rate went from 9 down to 8.6. we added 140,000 private-sector jobs. unfortunately we continue to use public-sector jobs, about 20,000. we had a net 120,000 appreciation of jobs, but the answer to your question economists tell us if we do what the president suggests, we're going to expand the economy and grow jobs and that is what the american people want us to do. >> this morning there seemed to be a lot of disarray in the republican conference about whether or not -- it seems that anything that would extend it would need democratic support in the house. do you feel you have the leverage and are you willing to negotiate anything in terms of spending cuts that you would ordinarily be opposed to? >> well, let me just say, i'm not an expert on disarray on

the republican caucus. but i do know that the democrats put the heat on passing the payroll tax cut and that disarray may be a result of them feeling the heat. the american people know that this is about fairness. it is urgent for us to pass this, and, again, jobs are at stake and the purchasing power of the middle class during this holiday season which is important to our economy depends on this. we're always willing to talk about some offset when it comes to this. with the winding down of the war in iraq and afghanistan, too, there are these resources. they will be used for something. and we're saying they should be used as a priority to give a tax cut to the middle class and other issues that are of concern to the middle class. we're always open to hear what

they have to say. so far we haven't heard anything that even sounds like a serious attempt at a bipartisan compromise. >> let me speak to that. talk is cheap. when president bush said the country was in trouble, democrats responded in a bipartisan way. when the republicans couldn't keep government running without our help, they got our help. the second time they couldn't keep government running without our help, we gave them the help. they couldn't make sure that america paid its debts, paid its bills. democrats helped. so, the answer to your question, yes, democrats have shown, not just talked about it, have shown that we are prepared as we did just recently when the republicans couldn't pass their own appropriation bills, republicans appropriation bill that came out of their committee with the support of their chairman of the appropriations committee. 101 of their folks voted

against it. they have more than 218. when historically, frankly, when speaking pelosi was putting legislation that was needed by the american people public, too often we got zero support. so the answer to your question is an emphatic yes. we are prepared to cooperate on behalf of the welfare of our country and of our people. thank you. >> thank you all very much. >> we cannot go home for christmas unless we pass this legislation. the clock is ticking. >> thank you, mr.

speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what reason does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. schedule for the week to come. i yield to my friend, mr. cantor. >> thank you -- however know votes are expected in the house. on tuesday and wednesday, house meets at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour noon. 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes for the week no later than 3:00 p.m. on thursday, members advised to keep plans flexible as we continue to work towards a journey for the first session. members informed yesterday that we expect to be in session and voting the week of december 12th. the exact voting schedule is not yet known and will depend on the progress of our

legislative business. a number of bills under suspension of the rules monday and tuesday. complete list will be announced by the close of business today. for the remainder of the week -- hr-10, sponsored by representative jeff davis of kentucky, and hr-1633, sponsored by representatives of south dakota and robert herd of virginia. we may be able to go to conference on a couple of year-end items and legislation on expiring provisions of existing law. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his information. if i can clarify, i understand that we are coming up to the end of the year. there is a lot of business which needs to be done in the time remaining, and so i understand urging to be flexible. my members have asked me, i'm

sure your members have as well, friday the 9th is scheduled on the calendar to be a non-work day. the 8th was the target date. neither side very rarely meets its target. but can you, in your flexibility, clearly we told our members the following week, the week of the 12th, that undoubtedly we're going to be here. but can you give them some sort of confidence level with respect to the 9th or is that not possible? >> as -- mr. speaker, as i said earlier, it is our intention to finish legislative business for the week next thursday at 3:00 p.m. and again to remain flexible while we monitor the progress of all of the discussions going on with the gentlemen side of the aisle both in this chamber and the

one across the way. >> reclaiming my time, thank you for that. possibility here -- thursday at 3:00, clearly i don't believe we're going to finish the business that we need to finish before we leave. therefore, my presumption is that we will be back in the following week. therefo therefore friday would not be the last day. do whatever we need to do on a monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, plan on a five week at least for the following week -- i yield. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i would say to the gentlemen again, request is for members to leave their schedules flexible. we do expect to be in session the week of december 12th. the exact voting schedule is unknown at this time and will depend upon the discussions surrounding issues that we need to address prior to the christmas holiday. i yield back. >> further on the schedule just

so our members have pretty clear information, the week of the 19th, which is the following week, can you give me some thought on what you are advising your members with respect to the week of the 19th? i yield to my friend. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i join with the speaker in saying that we want to be out of here by the 16th. and it all depend on whether we get the work done. so, it is not our desire to be here week running up to christmas, and i would say to the gentlemen that it is my hope that we can finish our business by the week of the 12th. >> i want to tell my friend that there is overwhelming bipartisan unanimity on the gentleman's hope. for purposes of my members, i

would say i would hope that our members would take the flexibility beyond the week ending on the 16th and make sure at least on the 19th and 20th and 21st they're flexible as well. none of us want to be meeting that week. we have a lot of work to do, as the gentleman knows. the gentleman announced we may go to conference next week on the milcon bill -- do you anticipate other bills being added in that conference? we all know there are nine appropriation bills which still remain unpassed, a number of which have not passed the senate, some of which have not passed the house itself. can the gentleman clarify the situation that may result or may be affective as it relates to such a conference? i yield to my friend.

>> the gentlemen is asking about the shape or form of the package and what it is we are voting on. the committee on both sides of the aisle is engaging in discussions to try to finish up our work and look forward to that happening again within the time frame that both of us would like to see happen. i yield back. >> that does clarify very much. i understand the gentleman's problem with respect to what is being done. let me ask the gentleman, if we can't get agreement, is the gentleman in light of his focus on the 16th as the date of adjournment, is the gentleman saying that we might consider a cr for some period of time, either the balance of the year continuing resolution or a continuing resolution for some other time? i yield to my friend. >> our hope, thank you, our hope is, again, to be able to

avoid that so that we can have a full appropriations package to dictate the priorities that we can agree upon for spending the rest of the year. again, as the gentleman knows, we are operating within the context of the budget control act. the agreement that was put into law at the end of the debt ceiling discussions, and the beginning of august of this year, as you know, as the gentleman knows, the amount of spending reductions is not enough for many of us on our side of the aisle and perhaps may not be enough or too much on his side of the aisle. but we are operating under the deal that was agreed upon, and the hope is to try and finalize all bills and we're working towards that end at this point. and i thank the gentleman for the question. >> i thank the gentleman for that information. pleased to hear that he is

going to be sticking with the level of funding that we agreed upon. i think the gentleman's observation is correct. many people on my side who believe that is lower than is necessary to meet the responsibilities they would like to see met. and on your side, it's too much in terms of the fiscal situation. i'm pleased to hear we will be consistent with the 1.043 discretionary number that was set forth in the budget control act. also my friend knows that in the budget control act, we also provided for some head room for emergency spending as a result of disasters. the gentleman well knows our region and the northeast was hit very hard by a hurricane, we've had earthquake,

tornadoes, other natural disaste disasters. that gave $11 billion of head room. will we continue to honor that part of the agreement as well? i yield to my friend. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as i said earlier to the gentleman, our intention is to operate and abide by the terms of the budget control act. >> i thank the gentleman for that. i was profoundly disappointed that the so-called supercommittee, or the special committee on deficit reduction either was unable to reach an agreement on a $4 trillion, at least, agreement to reduce our deficit, or as i had urged individually to extend its life for a period of time 60 to 90 days, which would have allowed us further opportunity to reach

such a deal. i think that is absolutely essential for our country. i think it would be an extraordinarily plus for our economy if we were to reach such an agreement. i think it would raise the confidence of the american people and raise the confidence of the international community. and not -- not inconsequentially the rating agencies as well. we didn't reach an agreement. we didn't extend the life of that commission. i would like to see us set up another process which would give us accelerated consideration of such an agreement. having said that, we now -- we built into the budget control act disciplinary consequence of that failure, and that was the sequester, $1.2 trillion across the board cut divided equally between defense and nondefense discretion ary spending.

the speaker has said that we are morally bound to accept the defense cuts if the super-committee failed. that's a quote. i wonder if you support the speaker in that commitment. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i say to the gentleman that i don't know the quote from which the gentleman pulls as to the speaker's statement. i know that i share with the speaker commitment towards fiscal discipline and there will be the record that cut to go along with the increase in the debt ceiling that will occur by law at the end of this year. it is my hope that we can act in a bipartisan way to find a way to implement cuts that can replace the across the board cuts that will do what i believe is irreparable damage to the defense department and our ability to defend this country. if i could, quote from secreta

secretarypeneta, if congress fails to act, the the department of defense will face devastating, automatic across the board cuts that will tear a seem in the nation's defense. the half trillion in additional cuts would lead to a hollow force incapable of sustaining the mission it is assigned. the pentagon's ability to provide benefits and support for u.s. troops and their families also would be jeopardized if the cuts as designed would go into effect. he ended the statement by saying, mr. speaker, our troops deserve better and our nation demands better and i would say to the gentleman, it is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan fashion to try and do that which eluded the supercommittee and the other efforts along the way this year to try to come up with the requisite cuts. again, i hope that we can do so. and to make sure that the cuts

are there. not to avoid the cuts, but to make sure that the cuts are there, but not allow them to -- i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments, i appreciate mr. pinetta's quote, and i believe the quote is an accurate quote and i believe subsequently correct. let me give the gentleman another quote from the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral michael mullen. i know the gentleman knows admiral mullen who served so ably -- the most significant threat to our national security is our debt, period, closed quote. and he went on to say, and the reason i say that is because of the ability of our country to resource our military and have a pretty good feeling and understanding about what our

national security requirements are is going to be directly proportional over time, not next year or year after, but over time to help our economy. i would agree with the gentleman that we need to reach a bipartisan agreement. i would hope that the gentleman would share my view that we need to reach a bipartisan agreement on a big deal. a little deal, as the speaker and i have discussed, will simply push off until next year a decision and the year after. just doing it incrementally. that will not give confidence to the markets. it will not give confidence to the business community. it will not help our economy domestically or internationally. my concern i tell my friend is if we now walk away from the sequester, as we have walked away from too many agreements in the past, if we walk away from the sequester, we will again remove the discipline, remove the incentive, remove the imperative as the gentleman points out, remove the

imperative for coming to a bipartisan agreement -- the gang of six, as the 100, 40 republicans, 60 democrats, as the 46 equally divided between republican and democrats have said we need to reach a balanced deal. a deal which will restrain and cut spending, a deal that will deal with entitlement, sustain ability over time, and a deal that will provide a revenue stream that will allow us to fund what we believe to be absolutely essential, of which the gentleman points out, he and i agree, national security is one. i would hope that we would not walk away from that disciplinary incentive to, in fact, have republicans and democrats come to an agreement. i yield to my friend. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, no one is talking about walking away from fiscal

discipline. and, you know, i share in the gentleman's desire to try and address the real problem here, which is washington spending. as the gentleman knows, the republican majority in the house has the only plan on the table that actually is a deal that fixes the problem. unfortunately there is not an agreement on those very big issues, as i said and indicated earlier, at least three attempts this year to chase the so-called big deal and the problem is that there is no agreement. there is no agreement on doing what's necessary to fix the real problem. and so, if we had been there and the president himself has said that there may be some issues that have to be disposed of or resolved in next year's election. it doesn't mean we can't make incremental process. i disagree with the gentleman, mr. speaker, if somehow we make some progress that that somehow takes away from our ability to

solve big problems. we have demonstrated around here that the bar is pretty low when it comes to fixing big problems. that's unfortunate. it doesn't mean we can't work incrementally together to address priorities. i'm with the gentleman. i know that the response with the markets and otherwise are not going to be as positive if we don't fix the problem through a so-called big deal. but the point of contention is one, the unwillingness to fix the real problem because we and the majority that have put forward the only fix long-term -- and then the other point of contention is, we don't believe that now is the time to raise taxes on small businessmen and women. and it is not the millionaires and billionaires. that's not the point. we don't believe that when you want to grow the economy, when you want to create jobs, that we should be putting a higher burden on the small business people of this country to

create the jobs we want. so, if we know that there is that divide, we have already seen it play out for eight, nine months. let's try and work incrementally together in a bipartisan way, the way most people do that have differences. come together where you can, set aside the differences. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. i believe that both sides have shown flexibility in some respects. certainly a number of republicans and democrats showed flexibility on the simpson commission -- none of the house members on the republican side showed that flexibility for reasons i have heard them articulate. unfortunately we did not get to the 14 votes in a bipartisan way on the commission. as you know, both i and the -- i was not on the commission. i supported the commission's report. would have voted for the commission's report.

as did mr. durbin, the minority whip and the majority whip in the senate. let me say to the gentleman, with respect to small business, nobody wants to put taxes on small business. as a matter of fact, we want to reduce taxes for small business. we offered that on the floor in the united states senate yesterday. every democrat but one voted for that yesterday. and unfortunately it did not pass. your side, as you know, offered an alternative, alternative which didn't even enjoy the support of a majority of your party. so that we need to get to bipartisan support. i wish the gentleman would, when we talk about trying to ask some of the wealthiest people in america to pay a little more, not a lot more, but a little more, to meet the

obligations so our country is fiscally sound, would not keep putting forth this, what i believe to be a windmill of small business. we are for small business. this tax cut would reduce substantially taxes on small business. your party, the majority voted against it in the united states senate. it hasn't been brought to the floor. we would hope to extend the tax cut for middle class, working people. and not restore that tax. and that that would affect both individuals and as the gentleman knows, small business. so that we have a tax cut that we're recommending, the president has gone all over the country and talked about, but it hasn't been brought to the floor. we think that is regrettable. we would hope that you would do that. the millionaires, billionaires' tax is as you know a net taxable income level.

not going to hurt small business at all. not going to hurt job creators at all, and very frankly, i will tell my friend, we continue to follow an agenda which i don't think you can quote an economist that will tell me your regulatory bills that we have been spending time on day after day, week after week, which i know sounds good to your people and we need regulatory reform, we need regulatory simplification. we need to make it in america. one of the ways we need to do so is make it profitable to make it in america. i agree with that 100%. it will have little, if any, effect. do you have an economist who said that that is going to grow jobs? i yield to my friend.

>> let me respond -- i think some of the position taken by the house members in simpson that it didn't fix the real problem, the entitlement axes with the bowles-simpson plan suggested and gave you options to do, it's like throwing good money out. i think the american people are tired of it. we had to fix the problem. and that's what we want to do. and as far as the sequester's concerned, i want to reiterate that we're not talking about and i'm not suggesting not doing all the cuts because we believe, and this is the change that we put in place here when we became majority, we believe you shouldn't be raising the credit limit of the country without turning things around and stopping the spending. so we're not talking about or

not suggesting not doing all of the cuts. what i'm saying is we need to work together to find the commensurate cuts that aren't those that disproportionately affect the defense of our country. and i think the gentleman agrees with me, a priority is the defense of our country, and that's why if we can't see our way clear to even finding $1.2 trillion through the joint select committee process, then let's look to see how we can come together in an incremental way. but i think the american people are looking for some progress here. but i want to tell the gentleman, again, i don't believe that raising taxes is a good thing. and, again, the gentleman continues to talk about balanced deals and that is a euphemism for saying raising taxes. but, look, if we disagree on that, if the gentleman thinks it's good to raise taxes then we have a disagreement. so let's instead focus on areas

where we can actually find common ground, and the common ground should be, as the gentleman suggests, on small businesses. now, every economist there is will tell you that uncertainty that add -- that added costs will cause an impediment to job creation. i'm sure the gentleman visited small business people in his district like i have in mine, and the kind of regulatory measures we brought forward, whether it's regulations being proposed by the e.p.a., those being proposed by the nlrb or any of the other measures, the ones that we passed on the floor today, these are measures to remove the uncertainty of added costs to our businesses, our small business men and women. today's measures and this week's measures went to the fact that we need some common sense put back into the regulatory process. we want to make sure that agencies take into

consideration their actions and the consequences that those actions have on small businesses. we want to make sure that the agencies are going to a cost benefit analysis. that's a balanced and sensible approach and, yes, i think you'll find agreement among economists, if you got that kind of certainty you will lend it -- lend the process towards a better economy to create jobs, and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. i take from his comment, however, that he doesn't have an economist who has said that these bills are going to grow jobs. i agree with him that economists certainly believe that over the long term certainty is a good thing. we all agree on that. i hope all of us agree on that, and i'd like to accomplish that. that's one of the reasons why i'm for a big deal. but let me give you a quote from ben bernanke as it relates to your saying we want to raise taxes. nobody wants to raise taxes. i will tell my friend, i've been in office now for a long

it period of time, some 40-plus years, takes zero courage, zero colonel to spend money and not pay for it. we believe we ought to pay for things. that's the difference. taxes are the money we collect to pay for things. taxes that we collect to pay for our national security, taxes we collect to pay for researchers at n.i.h., taxes we pay for f.b.i. agents to protect us from terrorists, both domestic and foreign. those are what our taxes are. taxes are to help our kids get a college education so we can be competitive in the international community. it's paying for things that we're for, and i will tell my friend i'm glad you come to the point we're going to pay for things because very frankly and the gentleman knows we're collecting revenues at a far lesser rate than your budget asked to spend, that your budget, the ryan budget, which as you well know, did not balance the budget within the

next 20 years. did not balance the budget within the next 20 years and was all on the cut side and the gentleman well knows was not a viable document. i'm not sure it would have passed the senate even if the republicans had been in control of the senate. but notwithstanding that, let me give you a quote from ben bernanke, because i agree with you and you and i talked privately and we are now talking publicly, we ought to come together, we ought to be courageous together. we ought to address this extraordinarily dangerous fiscal crisis that confronts us. ben said this, we need to push our elected leaders to face the long-term fiscal challenges with civility, honesty and a willingness to sacrifice their own re-election. this means not kicking the can any more. that's why if we abandon the sequester that will be kicking the can. if we abandon trying to get a

big deal that will be kicking the can. this means, as he said, it means reaching a deal on debt, revenue and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall. well, it came and it went and we failed. it means considering all options from entitlement programs, and the gentleman knows i've given a number of speeches on having to deal with entitlement programs. we need to do that. but we also need to deal with taxes and revenues so we pay for what we buy, and we don't tell the american people, we can't buy that if you don't want to pay for it. now, very frankly, i think in the short term, given the economic -- given the economic crisis, lack of jobs and the struggling economy, raising additional revenues in that time frame has bowles-simpson and domenici and rivlin said is not good policy and would not

propose them and has not been proposed, as the gentleman knows. but i will tell my friend that paying for things, and as the gentleman knows, one of the reasons we've gotten into this problem was we didn't pay for things in the last decade. we bought a lot of stuff and we didn't pay for it. we asked our chirp to pay for it because it's -- children to pay for it because it's a delayed effect. we didn't pay for the wars. we didn't pay for the prescription drug bill, and we didn't pay for the tax cuts. simply giving up revenue, voting for tax cuts and continuing to buy things is frankly i think not only not courageous but it is a disservice to this generation and generations yet to come and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, and the gentleman asks what regulations that we put forward or bills removing impediments and the regulatory process. i mean, the keystone pipeline, look at that bill. that bill says we'll create

12,000 construction jobs right away if we can remove the necessary government red tape getting in the way of that project. so i don't see that there's any disagreement over that. but somehow we have, your side saying we shouldn't do that. and if the gentleman's so interested in paying for things, because i don't believe that that's an issue now because we're not saying remove the sequester. what we're saying is finding cuts elsewhere but imposing that discipline. but if we're talking about not paying for things, what about the stimulus? my goodness. that was an $800 billion-plus effect at the end, didn't pay for anything, and ended up imposing all kinds of debt now on us and our children and theirs. so i am with the gentleman, let's be courageous. again, our budget was put out there. in the joint select committee process, our side proposed a plan to come together. and i think that the gentleman knows on his side there were

comments made that there was any coalesceans on the part of the democrats as to a way to come to some solution. so i'm for the courage, but seemingly after looking at the three processees that have taken place, the biden talks, the white house talks and those between the speaker and the president and the leader on the other side of the capitol as well as now the joint select committee, all of those did not come to a result. so if that's the case, let's then say, well, wait a minute. maybe something's not working here. then, let's try and see what can work and what can work. we really can come together in a bipartisan way and find something to agree on. let's set aside those big differences, and the president even suggested back in the spring those big differences may get in the way. so, fine, let's find a way for us to at least make some progress because some progress is better than none.

so incremental progress is better than no progress. that's for sure. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment, and i agree with some progress is progress. however you describe it. let me clarify because i want to make sure in terms of coming together and reaching some progress he mentioned the -- i'm not sure that every republican agreed to it. maybe the gentleman knows. but there was. mr. toomey put a proposal on the table which offered $300 billion in additional revenues. of course that was offset by an $800 billion increase next year in tax cuts or a net reduction of $500 billion in revenues for next year. excuse me, for january, 2013. let me ask the gentleman, in

reaching that, the gentleman mentioned entitlements, i agree with him on entitlements, but the gentleman said he's not for any increased revenues. all three of the bipartisan commissions, the two commissions and the gang of six, all three have said that revenues must be part of that picture. that's taxes. fancy word for taxes. does the gentleman agree with that because that certainly was the basis for bipartisanship in all three of those? i'd yield. mr. cantor: again, i say to the gentleman, i think our side demonstrated. we put together plans both in the processees ending with the joint select committee and in our budget. i think we come from the perspective, mr. speaker, that let's fix the problem. if you don't fix the problem and then you want to raise taxes, especially on small business people, you are throwing good money after bad and you're aggravating the crisis that is gripping this

country right here and now as well which is the jobs crisis. so, again, mr. speaker, i would say, let's agree to work towards common ground. we have laid out very well several times where differences are, but it's time for us to really work to transcend those differences and work in a bipartisan manner and see where we can come together. we've done it. we've done it in the house, on the trade agreement, we've done it in the house on the 3% withholding bill. we've done it in the house when it comes to the veteran hiring bill. we can do this. yes, it's not everything that all of us want, and i share the gentleman's frustration. the gentleman's been here a lot longer than i have, but i will tell you i think the gentleman's career has been built on progress. so let's work towards progress again. that's all. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i didn't get an answer to my

question, however. he's gotten an answer to his solve the problem issue. what he means by solving the problem is we have to deal with the sustainability of entitlement programs. . i have adopted that premise myself in speeches i have given on numerous occasions on this floor and in other floors around the country. what i'm asking him is does he also agree that proposition was adopted by all three of the four that we have discussed, does he also agree as mr. bernanke points out that revenues or taxes, however you want to call it, resources to pay for what we believe are priorities, for instance the gentleman correctly believes we need to invest in our national security. i feel very strongly about that. for 30 years i have voted on behalf of the national security of this nation. to pay for it and to pursue weapons systems, personnel levels, strategies to assure our

national security. so that i have no qualms with saying that is a priority. if it is a priority, if it is important, it is important to pay for it. paying for it is through revenues. now, if we don't pay for it, if we borrow for -- we are going to borrow over $1 trillion to protect our country. afghanistan, iraq, and other places around the world, but particularly those two, that's important. that's important to do. he and i agree. but i think it's important to pay for it not have my children or grandchildren pay for it who are going to have to pay for their security in their time. and if be-- we leave them only a legacy of deep debt, they will not be able to do so. that is a immoral policy and fiscally irresponsible. we have to fix the problem. what you are talking about makes sustainable. demographics have changed. costs have changed. we have to make sustainable

entitlements. does the gentleman agree that a component of the solution has to be dealing with revenues as well? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. we have always said, certainly. there needs to be more revenues. but we need to be focused on how we can have a sustainable growth in revenue flow and that's from a growing economy. the gentleman asked me before whether we have economists that will endorse our republican jobs creator agenda. and, yes, the speaker as he knows has issued a letter with 132 economists, listed on that letter, and i'm going to send it to the gentleman so he can be reminded yet again, that, yes, there are plenty of economists who embrace the notion that if we take away the entitlements that washington has put in place, that we can see a growing economy and produce more revenues. ok. now, i would say to the gentleman about his assertion about fixing the problem. he's correct. we need more revenues.

we believe we need more revenues. let's first see if we can fix the problem -- first if we can fix the problem because just paying for things without raising taxes -- with raising taxes doesn't fix the problem. we know the demographics of this country. we know 10,000 people every day turn 65 and become eligible for medicare. we know that medicare is supported by premiums and taxes paid in, and those revenues cover only a little over half the costs of the program. we know that that means every day come 10,000, you are 50% in the hole. you cannot tax your way out of that. you can't grow your way out of that. you got to fix the problem. back to my original notion, we are the only ones that have put a real fix on the table to that problem. and so what the gentleman says is, no, no, no. we don't want to fix the problem, we want to tax people more until sometimes somewhere we come up with a solution to fix the problem.

that's like throwing good money after bad and raising taxes on small businesspeople will get in the way of getting more revenues into washington because you are not going to spur the economy into a growth mode. so, again, mr. speaker, we have been over and over again for months. we know where our differences lie. let's come together. i would say keystone pipeline, again, the gentleman has a lot of support on his side for the unions in this country. they want to see the keystone pipeline built. 12,000 new jobs right away, almost 13,000 construction jobs. we've got manufacturing jobs, spinoffs that will come from that. why can't we come together on jobs? so, again, we can do this. we really can. it's time for us to begin to work together towards productive end. let's get america back to work. get this economy growing again. and then maybe we can then tackle some of the bigger problems that have eluded us in

this quest to try and accomplish it all that has failed this year. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. we ought to come together on jobs and i would urge the gentleman to bring the president's jobs bill to the floor with such amendments, such changes, such improvements, such deletions as the gentleman feels necessary. the president put a jobs bill which every economist, every economist has said will grow the economy, will grow jobs, and it has been languishing in this house since september. while people are losing jobs. the good news is we had some improvement in the economy. and by the way the recovery act worked as the gentleman knows. i want to comment on his going into deficits. as a result of the recovery act. as the gentleman knows and he voted for, george bush suggested $700 billion in unpaid spending to staunch the financial crisis

brought on by the meltdown in wall street in september of 2008 when brush was president. he -- when president bush was president. he offered a bill. we didn't pay pore it. you and i both voted for it because we thought it was the responsible thing to do to stabilize the financial sector of this country. very unpopular bill but absolutely essential. so in terms of some eight months later confronted -- actually five months later, confronted with the deepest economic crisis since herber hoover, we -- herbert hoover, we acted. and the recovery act has worked. it was not as big as some asked it to be, but it created some two million jobs over the last 36 months. it has not been as robust because we lost eight million jobs.

if you add three back, you lose eight, you haven't gotten to where you need to be. but i tell my friend that we ought to come together. we ought to reach agreement and balanced agreement. your side thinks when we talk about balance we talk about revenues. he's right. but when we talk about balance, we are also talking about fixing the problem. we are talking about a balanced deal. and i would urge my friend in these coming few days, few days that we have left, where we are apparently going to do either a c.r. or an omnibus appropriation bill, we were criticized greatly for not doing every appropriation bill individually. you have an appropriation bill as the gentleman knows hasn't even passed the subcommittee much less full committee or the floor of the house. but we need to get those bills done because it will give certainty and confidence to the american people that we can work together. i'm hopeful that over the next

few months -- few days, excuse me, we don't have a few months, a few days that we can, in fact, do that. i would urge my friend to let us keep the discipline of the see quester in everybody's mind because -- sequester in everybody's mind because we don't want that as an alternative but we want to have that as an alternative to people so we can give incentives to work together to summons the courage, to summon the judgment to reach an agreement which will get our country on the right track and give our citizens the confidence in their government that we wish they would have but they would only have it, if we do, as the gentleman suggests, come together and work constructively towards a balanced package not only in terms of a fiscal package, but appropriations. let me say as well on appropriations, this side of the aisle did what your side of the aisle didn't do over the last four years when we were in charge, we made sure those bills

passed. your bills at your levels that we agreed on and we congratulate you on sticking with the agreement we reached. and i will tell my friend we will do so again if you do not put in the riders that mr. boehner and your pledge to america said ought not to be in must-pass bills. you recall i'm sure that mr. boehner said we ought not to have extraneous controversial items which are not germane in bills that must pass. we ought to consider those on their merits. i will tell my friend that if you do that as the whip as i have done on the two c.r.'s we passed or the mini bus we just passed, i will hetch you get those through. we will work together. america will have greater

confidence. i'm prepared to yield back. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i look forward to working with him over the next two weeks. i want to clarify no one's talking about removing the sequester. absolutely not. and the gentleman knows where i stand on that. i'm talking about making sure that we come together to find the cuts commensurate with those aimed at the defense department and in lieu of those cuts putting others in place so we can maintain our priority of the next live your calls and comments on "washington journal." massachusetts congressman barney frank. after that a town hall meeting in maryland.

>> my father changed in my opinion after he was thrown out of the agency. if you watch the film closely and study him, he's a soldier. he took on the toughest, dirtiest assignments given to him by the presidents from eisenhower onward. when this came time for the president in this case to ask him to lie and mislead congress, he could not do it. >> carl colby on his father, sunday night. this morning, georgetown university economic professor luca flabbi reviews the latest job numbers. >> looking at the 2012