Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I say this because, Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know what's happening. They pulled the Transportation-Housing bill. I wasn't for that bill as it came out of committee, nor were any Democrats that voted on it in committee, but they brought it to the floor and then pulled it. Nine days from tomorrow, nine legislative days from tomorrow, we are going to have that issue of how we are going to fund government and keep it running. The Senate just a few minutes ago refused to allow the Senate-- because the Republican Party voted ``no'' on bringing debate to close after days of debate and discussion, and they voted ``no'' to take the HUD bill up for discussion. So in both Houses the Republican Party has abandoned the appropriations process. Now, I've just said that. Hal Rogers, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a conservative Republican, says this: ``I am extremely disappointed with the decision to pull the bill from the House calendar today. The prospects of passing this bill in September are bleak at best, given the vote count on passage that was apparent this afternoon. With this action, the House has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted'' without a single Democratic vote. He went on to say--Mr. Rogers, conservative, Kentucky, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Republican: Thus, I believe that the House has made its choice: sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end. The Ryan budget was unrealistic when it was considered on this floor. Mr. Rogers voted for that budget. He knew then it was unrealistic. He knew then it could not be implemented.

Mr. HOYER. I predicted then that if you took every Democrat out of the House and every Democrat out of the Senate, that that budget could not be implemented through the appropriations process and through the Ways and Means process, and I was right. Yes, we need to seek common ground. We are hurting the economy, we are undermining the confidence of the American people and, indeed, we are undermining the confidence of our international partners. Tom Cole sits here representing the Rules Committee. I want to tell everybody in America Tom Cole is a reasonable Member of this House. He's been a leader of this House. He wants to see common ground, in my view, so I do not criticize him. But I say, Mr. Speaker, as you tap the gavel, time is not only running out on Steny Hoyer, time is running out on this House, time is running out on America, time is running out on the patience of Americans that their House is not working.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing on full display the utter failure of Republicans to govern as the majority. Yesterday, after the Speaker and Majority Leader pulled the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development appropriations bill from the floor, because they didn't have the votes to pass it, chairman Hal Rogers of the Appropriations Committee--that is, Republicans' top appropriator--issued a scathing rebuke to his party's own sequester strategy. He wrote: With this action, the House has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted just three months ago. Thus, I believe that the House has made its choice: sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end. Not my words, Mr. Speaker, but the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee. What a shame that we are now harming our national security and limiting our ability to protect the most vulnerable people in America through this sequester process. It is also hurting our economic recovery, as the nonpartisan CBO has estimated it could cost us as many as 1.6 million jobs that would have been created by the end of the next fiscal year--and 1.3 percentage points of added GDP. The sequester is a result of Congress stalling on tough decisions and an insistence by tea party Republicans on divesting from America and dismantling the foundations of the American Dream. And it has been embraced by the Republican leadership as their singular approach to deficits. But the sequester is not a rational or responsible solution. It was never meant to be. The mere threat of sequester was intended to be so severe that it would compel both parties to cooperate and find a balanced alternative. Now, like Chairman Rogers, many Republicans are growing tired of the sequester and are ready to compromise. But not the Republican leadership, and that is very sad. The complete implosion of their appropriations strategy demonstrates that, in order to pass appropriations or any substantive legislation, Republicans will have to compromise and work with Democrats in a bipartisan way. It is sad and shameful that we are about to adjourn for a 5-week district work period, leaving critical business to create jobs and tackle deficits unfinished, while Republicans waste this Congress's time on a 40th vote to repeal ObamaCare. When we return in September, I hope Republicans will see this week's appropriations debacle as their own appropriations chairman has--and abandon their reckless support for the sequester. Let us focus now on seeking bipartisan compromise and the big, balanced solution that will restore fiscal sanity and give American families and businesses the certainty they deserve.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I used to be the majority leader, and the thing that I hated losing most was my magic 1 minute, because as the gentleman will recall, it was an unlimited 1 minute.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, I say respectfully to my friend, we think the President sent down a piece of legislation similar to yours, correct. But we both worked together; you're right.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that point?

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is correct. Both sides have done it. But you will recall, your side criticized us very substantially and said you would not do it. That I think is the difference. But both sides, you're absolutely correct, have brought rules that have been closed and limited in their scope.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak. I was constrained to speak, to come to the floor, when we had this chart about 2 million employees. But only adversely affecting just a small sliver. The premise seems to be you can undermine--as long as they're a small minority--the rights of people. And those Capitol policemen of which the gentleman spoke, and the people at the desk of whom the gentleman spoke, people who serve in our committees of whom the gentleman spoke, people who serve as nurses--not necessarily in VA hospitals because they're exempt--zero COLA 4 years in a row. All 2 million have been affected. Every new employee has been affected--everyone--not just that small, little sliver that apparently the SES is. They don't get rights. If it were 1.98 million, well, then, that's a different story, but as long as it's only a small sliver, undermine their rights. I came to the floor to say that, if we undermine the rights of one, frankly, the rights of all are soon at risk. We have learned that throughout history. So I would hope that we would reject this bill, which was seven or eight bills to start out with, which were put up here in a way that you could not amend them--suspension--in this transparent, open, ``let the House work its will'' process, and we now come back with a closed rule, putting all the bills in one--a rule covering all seven bills--and the chairman shakes his head and shows pictures and believes those are facts. My friends, we ought to reject these bills because they are about all employees. They may affect only a small few at this juncture, but they are about all employees; and it's about undermining their rights and the respect we ought to accord to them for the service they give to the people of the United States of America.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there is so much I would like to say, particularly as to the extraordinary discrepancy between those folks who make far less than their counterparts in the private sector and those who work in the private sector, who, perhaps, have less responsibility on their shoulders. Look it up. See the statistics. That's the case. The other thing I want to say to my friend is that the law now provides for procedures to remove bad actors. Do we have some bad actors in the Federal service? We do. That's human life. That's the human experience.

Mr. HOYER. I don't have anymore time, but if the gentleman from California will yield you some time, I will be glad to yield you some time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to only speak once, even though there's seven bills. Time is short. We have just a few days left in the legislature until we shut down the government if we don't act. We passed three of the appropriations bills. My understanding is that the one we've had under consideration is not going to be brought to final passage. I may be incorrect in that, but that's the understanding. At least there's some talk about that. This Congress has been the worst Congress for Federal employees that I have ever served in. The gentleman who spoke before me says he ran a business. If you treated your employees as we're treating our employees, they would have all quit. They would have all walked out. They would talk about the epithets that are used and that ``bureaucrats'' spit out as a pejorative term to the people who make this government run. I don't know whether the gentleman read this in the paper today, but two of our largest financial institutions were fined very heavily for misconduct. Do people do things wrong? They do. They do them wrong in the private sector. They do them wrong from time to time in the public sector. Should we be concerned about that? We should be. Should we excise that kind of behavior from private and public sectors? Absolutely. But I will tell you that these bills--and some of them are okay; they're somewhat redundant. The bill the gentleman speaks of--I just got on the floor when the gentleman was speaking so I don't know exactly what the circumstances are in terms of his being, obviously, from his perspective, threatened by the fact that somebody was going to record him. I understand his concern about that. Frankly, if they'd called me and done that, I would have said, very frankly, I'm going to hang up, and I'll talk to you later with my lawyer, and you're welcome to meet with me. I'm a lawyer so I would have advised him to do that. That does not explain the torrent of antigovernment workers that we have seen from this Congress and, frankly, to some degree, from the last Congress. They can't strike. And because they have to support their families, they can't walk out. They don't have many tools. They have us, of course, who represent many of them, to stand up for their rights. But much more importantly, for respect from their employer, which they're not getting. I would tell my friend that he can come with me. I was down at Pax River, a big naval base, talking about the 20 percent cut that we've asked people to take. They perceive it's because of our dysfunction and because we can't get our job done here, not because of anything they did wrong, not because of a lack of performance. And I will tell my friend, Mr. Kelly, that an awful lot of my folks are saying, We want to be at work. We've got guys at the point of the spear relying on it, and we're not able to work on Fridays. But they're still fighting on Fridays. They're still at risk on Fridays. And so when they see these bills, I tell my friend, it's a ``gotcha'' reaction they have. We'll get 'em. You didn't like being recorded, so your response is to do what you didn't like to them. Now my response, if I were them, is to say, Sorry, Mr. Kelly, I can't talk to you. If you're going to record me, I'm not going to talk to you. We'll put it down on paper, we'll do whatever. As you were concerned about that effort, understand their concern as well. As I said, out of eight of these bills, four of them aren't too bad. Three of them, obviously, go to undermining due process. The gentleman talks about being concerned. One of the bills says: no due process. You're fired because I think you did something wrong. Not because I proved you did something wrong, not because maybe you did do something wrong. But because I think you did something wrong, you're off--and you're off with no pay. Maybe the gentleman is asking Mr. Issa whether in fact that's one of the bills, but I assure him it is.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest we're the employer, we're the board of directors. And I think, frankly, in the IRS case, we haven't proved any wrong yet. There's been a lot of assertions but not much proof. We shouldn't go head-over-heels denigrating those folks on whom we rely to carry out the very policies we adopt. Do we need oversight? Of course. Do we need honesty in performance of public duties? Absolutely. But we also need respect and consideration shown for those who work for America--the best civil service in the world. It's the most competent, best-educated civil service in the world, and we treat them as second-rate citizens. We ought not to do that. We ought to reject this bill and a number of others of these bills. Let us think of our Federal employees. Because if we don't, we won't have the kind of government that America deserves and wants.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. HOYER. I didn't think you would.

Mr. HOYER. I didn't think you would.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Her lawyer, or the lawyers, because there was a criminal investigation underway, did what lawyers do in an abundance of caution. That, by the way, is provided for in the Constitution of the United States--I know the gentleman's read it. I've read it as well. So they were availing themselves of their constitutional right.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of this legislation, but I also thank my friend Keith Ellison for his perspective on this, and I want to speak to that as well. I want to thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for their leadership on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I believe the most dangerous threat to peace and stability in the Middle East continues to be that posed by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, which would launch this turbulent region into a nuclear arms race that no one can afford to risk, including our troops in the region. Time and again, Security Council resolutions after Security Council resolutions, Iran has refused to heed the international community's warnings, and it has, instead, continued along a path toward the bomb, choosing isolation over integration. We are here today to talk about how to stop Iran's pursuit. As a government, we have many tools to use. Diplomacy is one and diplomacy must continue. Indeed, many feel the time is right to test President- elect Rouhani's sincerity, and I agree, but he must expect us to turn his positive talk of a policy of reconciliation and peace into action. We should welcome and pursue his willingness to come to the table to negotiate. We need to test that, but delay has been too long for us not to pursue concurrent approaches. That tool of economic pressure, which is working, should also be pursued additionally. That is why I support this resolution.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his thoughtfulness. Hopefully, negotiations will prove successful and such pressure can be either moderated or removed. President-elect Rouhani campaigned on a promise to ease the burden of sanctions on the Iranian people, and he won. We would welcome a second victory for him and the United Nations in seeing that objective of denuclearization realized. I support today's bill because I believe a robust sanctions regime could help encourage Iran to abandon its pursuit of the bomb and to end its support for terrorist groups and human rights abuses. President- elect Rouhani is uniquely positioned, I believe, to show leadership on this and achieve early success in his new administration. However, our skepticism about the Iranian leadership's action in the past has been more than justified, but we must nevertheless continue to work for a resolution of this challenging issue. Engaging President- elect Rouhani in our quest for early resolution is appropriate, but these sanctions are also appropriate. Therefore, I rise in their support.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOYER. Let me start with the fact that I choose to believe that Mr. Latham does not like this bill. Mr. Latham's not listening to me. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say that I start my debate, that I choose to believe that you do not like this bill. I know you. I've worked with you over a long period of time. This bill is insufficient to meet the obligations of this subcommittee. It is unworthy of the support of this House. Mr. Chairman, there are many things wrong with the 2014 Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriation bill, but perhaps none more egregious than its severely painful cuts to the Community Development Block Grants. Now, let me start with this observation. This is not about a poor people's program. It helps some poor people, but it helps communities-- rich, moderate, and poor. This is not about the 47 percent. This is about the 100 percent. The Community Development Block Grant program was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 1974 and signed into law by the President, Gerald Ford, former minority leader of this House, President of the United States. From its beginning, it has served as a model of how bipartisan compromise in Congress can help tackle important challenges on the local level. For nearly 40 years, these grants have been awarded on a formula basis to State and local governments for infrastructure development, the creation and maintenance of affordable housing units, anti-poverty initiatives. It makes communities better. It empowers Members of Congress to be able to help their local communities who elect them. These grants save lives in our largest cities and in our smallest towns, in Alaska, in Hawaii, and in Maryland. The cuts in this bill would reduce Community Development Block Grants by more than half. America is not bankrupt. America need not claim defeat and retreat. America has the resources, if it has the will, to grow our economies, to grow our communities, and to make them better. We appropriated around $3.8 billion for these grants in fiscal year 2012, while this bill would cut that figure to just $1.6 billion. To put this into perspective, in 2001 we spent $4.7 billion under George Bush II on Community Development Block Grants. After years of whittling away at those critical grants which empower our States, counties, and cities to help the most vulnerable have a chance at finding jobs and putting roofs over their heads, it would be devastating to communities whose budgets are already pushed to the limit and rely on these grants to serve all of their residents. Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk a great deal about fiscal responsibility. But what about social responsibility? Now I'm a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility. But if fiscal responsibility is not coupled with social responsibility, it is not worthy of this House or this country. Community Development Block Grants are an instrument of our common citizenship and, yes, our common humanity. In this case, however, they are a poignant example of the Republican strategy of disinvestment in America and abandonment of our communities and their people. Surely we're better than that, Mr. Chairman. When we considered the Veterans Affairs, military construction, and Defense appropriations bills that included robust funding, we knew those funds had to come from somewhere. Here it comes. Like our Republican friends, we believe we must invest in a strong, national defense, as Chairwoman Mikulski has been doing on the Senate Appropriations Committee. But we do not share the Republican majority's view that we ought to abandon our domestic priorities in the process. We're better than that. None of us are surprised that their strategy to deal with the sequester is to ignore its consequences and impose cuts even deeper, even deeper, even deeper than the sequester calls for. In fact, I know of a number of our colleagues on the Republican side who see the folly in such strategy but cannot or will not speak up, for fear of the political consequences from the radical right. This bill is proof that such a strategy is underway. It's not only an abdication of responsible leadership, it is a recipe for gridlock, as Democrats in the House and Senate could never agree to it. Reject this bill. We can and must do better. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. He and I spent literally a decade working together, shoulder to shoulder, in a bipartisan way because this is America's subway. This is a subway that is used by almost all of the visitors who come to visit their capital. It is for that reason that the Federal Government has participated in building this extraordinary system. The gentleman is correct. We have an agreement. There is a compact that has been signed by Republican Governors and Democratic Governors, by Republican Members of the House and Democratic Members of the House, by Republican members of the Senate and Democratic members of the Senate. I would hope that the House would reject this amendment. I adopt the remarks of the gentlemen from Virginia. My colleagues Mr. Moran and Mr. Wolf, I think, speak for all of us, and, of course, Mr. Connolly has spoken very strongly for himself, but I would hope that the House would continue to keep the faith with the agreement that has been made for what is America's subway, used by all of our people when they come here to their Nation's Capital. I want to thank the chairman, and I want to thank the ranking member for their efforts on behalf of the Metro as well as for keeping the faith of the agreement that we have reached. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and his remarks.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Dr. Burgess and Mr. Butterfield for their leadership on this bill, but I certainly want to thank my friend, Dr. Phil Roe, who has been a delight to work with. It has taken us a little bit of time, but we stayed after it. We stayed after it because, as Dr. Burgess and Judge Butterfield have observed, this will save lives. This will save the lives of children. This will save the lives of children who do not know that they have an allergy which is life threatening. I'm the grandfather of an 11-year-old little girl. I've been with her twice in the emergency room when she was but an infant and when she was slightly older than an infant. I want to tell my colleagues a story about my daughter who took Alexa to Disney World. They were walking down the pathway, one of the walkways at Disney World, and all of a sudden my granddaughter started wheezing heavily and stated having an allergic reaction. She is extraordinarily allergic to peanut butter and peanuts. But she'd had no peanut butter and she'd had no peanuts. As a matter of fact, this little girl is extraordinarily careful about what she eats. She comes to my house, she makes sure that I read the labels and she reads the labels. She brings with her her EpiPen in the little case that is always with her. But as they were walking down that pathway, she started to wheeze heavily, and they had no idea why. My daughter turned around and retraced a few of their steps, and they saw popcorn being made--popcorn being made with peanut oil. And the mere breathing in of that peanut oil air caused her to start wheezing heavily. Now, she didn't have anaphylactic shock at that point in time, and she did not need to go to an emergency room at that time, but it shows how extraordinarily vulnerable people can be to these food allergies. So I'm very pleased to stand here in support of this bill. I'm very pleased to stand here as a cosponsor of this legislation with my friend, Dr. Roe from Tennessee, and I want to thank him. I want to thank him for his work. I want to thank him as a doctor and as a Member of Congress and as a parent. He shared my concern and we worked together. There were some difficulties to overcome, but he and I together, working together with Fred Upton--and I want to thank Fred Upton and Henry Waxman, the chair and ranking member of the committee, as well as Dr. Burgess and Mr. Butterfield for their help. They have both said, and I'm sure Dr. Roe will say, this will save lives. It is not a mandate, but it is a suggestion. It is an urging to make sure that, given the fact that we have this lifesaving capability, that that capability be deployed and be present so that no child will have to die because of a reaction to one of these allergies. So I thank them again and thank my friend for yielding.