Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, Mr. Cantor of Virginia, for the purpose of inquiring as to the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information. I don't see on the schedule, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to a budget conference. At least there's no notice from the majority leader of that fact. Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are facing a number of critical deadlines. It has now been 125 days since the House passed a budget and 123 days since the Senate passed a budget. On issue after issue, our Republican colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have passed bills and then refused to negotiate. Mr. Speaker, it's past time for action. We should go to conference and reach an agreement. I would urge my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to go to conference. One of his colleagues, Mr. Speaker, from Virginia said this: ``I am proudly on record about this. I believe we need to go to conference,'' speaking of the budget. This Member went on to say, ``I have listened carefully to the argument that we should not go to conference, and frankly I do not find it compelling.'' Mr. Speaker, that was Representative Scott Rigell of Virginia. I would ask my friend, the majority leader, does the gentleman expect that we will go to conference at all on the budget? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's premise is absolutely incorrect, and the American people ought to know that. The Senate hasn't voted to go to conference because the Republican Members of the United States Senate won't vote to go to conference. There was nothing in that motion, however, that said there was a prerequisite that the House agreed to anything, Mr. Speaker. Nothing. Now, my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, has said repeatedly that we have a prerequisite. We have a difference of opinion. That's what democracy is about. There's no prerequisite. There's no precondition. There's no condition precedent, as we lawyers say, for going to conference. Number one, the Senate couldn't make us agree. That's what conferences are about, Mr. Speaker. They're about coming together and understanding there are differences. There would be no need for a conference if there weren't differences. There are differences. We're $91 billion apart, Mr. Speaker, on our budgets. We are 14 days away from the end of this fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, in terms of legislative days available to us to get to a compromise, to get to a number, to get to some understanding of how we are going to ensure that government operations continue. There's no prerequisite. There's no precondition. I don't know where that comes from, Mr. Speaker. I've heard it a lot. I have no idea where it comes from. Nothing the Senate does can force this body, Republicans or Democrats, to do something. What they have asked is come to the table and talk. There has been a refusal to do that, Mr. Speaker, and it's bad for the country. A $91 billion difference between us on budgets has to be resolved somehow, some way. And the way democracies do it and the way the legislature does it, Mr. Speaker is to meet and try to resolve those differences. Now, you can divide the differences in half. The Senate comes down 46, we go up 45. My own view is Mr. Ryan believes there's nothing he will agree to. I'll get to that a little later, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're not going to conference, and he said so in the paper. He didn't say it about the conference, but I'll get to his quote in just a second. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader mentioned that the T-HUD appropriation bill is on the floor next week. So far, Mr. Speaker, we are now essentially going to be at the end of the session before the August break coming next week on Friday, and we've done four appropriation bills. The House T-HUD bill of which the majority leader speaks, Mr. Speaker, is 17 percent below the Budget Control Act that we agreed on. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, it's 9 percent below the sequester level. Now, we're not going to vote for it, Mr. Speaker. We believe it badly underfunds, transportation, housing, and infrastructure in this country, but this performance makes some sense considering the lack of regular order. We talk about regular order, but we don't follow it. Going to conference is regular order. It doesn't change the fact, however, that we just have 14 days left to go and that we need to reach agreement. I will tell my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that we are willing to work together. We have been willing to compromise. We have compromised. In every one of these agreements we've reached, we've compromised. My friend, the majority leader, would say, yes, and they have, as well. But you cannot compromise if you don't sit down. I will tell you nobody has called me to ask me how I believe we can get to the end of this year with a continuing resolution. Nobody's asked me that. I talked to Mr. Ryan and Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Ryan has not talked to Mr. Van Hollen. With all due respect to this discussion about their talking, they're not talking. I talked to Senator Murray. No discussion of how we resolve the differences. I talked to the chair of the Appropriations Committee, both the ranking member here, Mrs. Lowey, and the chair on the Senate side, Senator Mikulski. Nobody is talking to them about how we resolve the question at the end of next month. And we won't be here at the end of next month. We're in session 2 weeks in September. I want to use a quote: But we should not pass a continuing resolution, and I will not vote for a continuing resolution unless we talk about preconditions for going to conference. Talk about preconditions. Talk about demands and ultimatums: I will not vote for a continuing resolution unless it defunds ObamaCare for the period of time of the continuing resolution. Nobody in America believes that's going to be done. A lot of people, I know the majority leader would tell me, want it done. But we had an election. The President won. He won't sign the defunding of ObamaCare because he believes it's in the best interest of the health of our people and the welfare of our country, and, yes, even job creation and economic growth. But Marco Rubio says he won't vote for a continuing resolution unless it does something that's not going to happen. The majority leader, Mr. Speaker, said they weren't going to go to conference--another ultimatum--unless the Senate abandoned its point of view. The Senate has a right to its point of view. We have a right to our point of view. We need to discuss it. That's the way you get things done in a democracy, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the majority leader, Does the gentleman expect that we will go to conference at all, at any time on the budget? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's recitation of history. Let me remind him, the first year I was majority leader, all 12 appropriations bills passed the House prior to the August break--all 12. That also happened the third year. It didn't happen the second year when we had a lot of political delays. And the reason we went to structured rules, as the gentleman I'm sure recalls, because we had filibuster by amendment. We had delay and obstruction in 2007, just as we have delay and obstruction today, just as there is a refusal today to go to conference. Over 120 days after both Houses have passed their budgets, we still have refusal to go to conference. That is why you can't get agreement. The gentleman characterizes, I think Mr. Ryan has talked to Senator Murray, and I will tell you that Senator Murray does not believe it was a very long discussion or a very substantive discussion because--and you talk about Mr. Ryan. I've got a quote of his I know you'll like that I want to get to because it makes the point I'm making. I was going to make it a little later. Paul Ryan, when asked about Senate Republicans' plan to work with Democrats to address the debt ceiling, said: It doesn't matter. We're not going to do what they want to do. It doesn't really matter what they do. It doesn't matter what John McCain and others do on the taxes and the rest. If they want to give up taxes for the sequester, we're not going to do that. So that doesn't really affect us. But, oh, it does affect us because, Mr. Speaker, if we can't get agreement, those American folks of which the majority leader just spoke who are looking for jobs, who want to see this economy grow, who are suffering because of gridlock, who have a lack of confidence because this Congress does not work--the most dysfunctional Congress in which I have served, and I've been here 33 years, the least productive Congress in which I've served. Mr. Speaker, that's what we need to be doing. Mike Lee, another Republican in the Senate talking about trying to get to agreement: ``If Republicans in both Houses simply refuse''--and this is their strategy, Mr. Speaker. ``If Republicans in both Houses simply refuse to vote for any continuing resolution that contains further funding for further enforcement of ObamaCare''--and I understand the gentleman is opposed to it. He was opposed to it before the election. Mr. Romney was opposed to it. We had an election, and you didn't win that argument at the national level. I say that Mr. Obama won that argument. But Senator Lee says he will not vote for a CR if it includes ``further funding for further enforcement of ObamaCare. We can stop it. We can stop the individual mandate from going into effect.'' How? By shutting down government. That's their strategy. We don't think that's a good strategy, Mr. Speaker. We think that's a bad strategy. We don't want to see that. We're prepared to work together to compromise. Nobody believes, just as the gentleman has said he's not going to agree to tax increases--I understand what he's saying, so we'll have to compromise on that somewhere along the road when we sit down. But nobody believes that either we on this side are going to compromise or the President's going to compromise after an election, after being reelected on a health care program that is benefiting millions and millions of people right now, nobody believes we're going to compromise on that. Thirty-nine times they've tried to repeal it in one form or another. It's failed. We've got to come to grips on that. Now, one of the House Members, Mick Mulvaney from South Carolina, said: It is completely appropriate to use the debt ceiling or the CR to ask for some changes that reduce the burdens of this law on Americans. Now, they've offered that 38, 39 times. It's not going to happen. But apparently their strategy is: We're prepared to shut down government unless they will be bludgeoned into agreeing by doing it our way; if we don't do it our way, apparently we're not going to do it any way. That's what the budget conference is about, and that's what this debate is about. Now, Pat Toomey, Senator Toomey, on the other hand, said this, Mr. Speaker: This has been the way we've been operating for a couple of years now. This is Senator Pat Toomey, former chair of the Club for Growth, said: It's a disaster. It's a terrible way to run government. Senator Toomey and I don't always agree, but we agree very emphatically on that. Congressman Tom Cole, former chairman of the Republican Committee, described the latest shutdown threat, which is what the previous three speakers had indicated--not Pat Toomey, but the three before that. Tom Cole described the latest shutdown threat as: The political equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum. That's Tom Cole, chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee, Mr. Speaker, not me. We need to get past this ``you won't do this; I won't do that'' and figure out what we will do, I say to my friend, the majority leader, and we have 14 days to do it. We haven't gotten it done yet; and, frankly, we have nothing on the calendar for next week that shows that we're moving toward that end. I would hope very sincerely that we could come to an agreement. And we're not going to come to an agreement on something that was so hard fought for the last 5 years, and we know that. We know you're probably not going to raise taxes, I tell my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker. But the fact of the matter is that we need to come to an agreement. Americans expect us to come to an agreement. With so few legislative days remaining before the fiscal year ends and the fact that we must address it in mind, I hope the gentleman can give us some clarity as to what Members can expect on the floor in September for the 9 days we're here in September since we're so far off course from regular order on the budget and the appropriations schedule. Can Members expect to see a CR? And if so, does the gentleman have any idea what the CR will look like, what it will encompass, and what we can expect? I want to say to my friend that we Democrats are prepared to cooperate in that effort. We're not going to--and the gentleman clearly knows that we're not going to--repeal the health care act. The election, we think, decided it. As a matter of, Speaker Boehner said that it decided it after the election. He said, well, the health care law has been confirmed. But I want to make it clear that we are willing to do some things. We are not willing, however, to see the sequester cripple policies that this Congress has adopted. We're not willing to defund the Affordable Care Act. We're not willing to sacrifice our economic recovery to push the cost of deficit reduction onto those who can least afford it. We are not willing to shift more of the tax burden onto the backs of the middle class. We're not willing to target Medicare or Medicaid and education, or the deep cuts that were in the Labor, Health bill which has now been pulled. Apparently, we're not going to consider the Labor, Health bill. It's not on the schedule. It was supposed to be marked up today. It was pulled. So I say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that he and his colleagues should be willing to compromise on the few legislative days we have remaining; and if he is, he will have a willing partner in me and in Democrats because we believe we need to come to an agreement. Now, lastly, let me speak on the debt ceiling. The majority leader, Mr. Speaker, has made it very clear he thinks not resolving the debt ceiling would be a bad policy for our country. In fact, I believe it would be disastrous for our country, for the economy, for every American, and for people around the world. We all know what happened last time; we were downgraded. It's the majority party's responsibility in each House to make sure that America's creditworthiness is not put at risk, that we pay our bills. I'm hopeful, and I want to tell me friend that I'm prepared to work in tandem with the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to pass a debt limit extension, and we will do so in an equal way so that whatever political consequences there are, we will take them together to do what the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, and the Speaker, and Mr. McConnell, the leader in the Senate, have said is the responsible thing to do. We're prepared to take half of that responsibility with them. We would hope that they would join us in that effort. Senator McCain has said that some of my Republican colleagues are already saying we won't raise the debt limit again unless there is repeal of ObamaCare. Senator McCain said, ``I'd love to repeal ObamaCare.'' He agrees with the majority leader. He goes on to say, ``But I promised you, that's not going to happen.'' That's on the debt limit. The President has made it very clear it's not going to happen. We've made it very clear it's not going to happen. Going on with Senator McCain's quote: So some would like to set up another one of these shut down the government threats, and most Americans are really tired of those kinds of shenanigans here in Washington. That's Senator McCain. I've quoted Senator Toomey, Senator McCain, who both believe we need to come to agreement. I have also, unfortunately, quoted Congressman Ryan, who says he doesn't care what Senator McCain thinks; who, of course, was a candidate for President on the Republican ticket just a few years ago. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the majority leader whether he expects we will take an up-or-down vote on a clean debt limit extension when we return in September. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I have heard that answer, I think, more than the President has given the speeches that Mr. Cantor refers to. This party has always been, is now, and will be focused on the working people to which the majority leader refers. The President asked us to pass a jobs bill. No jobs bill has been brought to this floor. I know that there are some bills that the Republican Party leader wants to say, Mr. Speaker, are jobs bills. But there's been no comprehensive jobs bill. There's none scheduled for next week. But what the American people are really concerned about is their board of directors is not working. This isn't about Washington. This is about people who voted all over America. And the leader and his party made their point, and we had an election, not here in Washington, all over America. And America voted. And it hasn't made any difference on this floor. Politics as usual. Confrontation as usual. Refusal to compromise as usual. Talk about regular order, but not going to conference, not going to conference on a budget, not going to conference on a farm bill, not going to conference on a Violence Against Women Act. We finally passed that. So when the majority leader repairs to the fact that we want to focus on working people, he's absolutely right. We do want to focus on that. And the working people of America voted. They didn't all vote for my side. But as I told the majority leader last week, 1,400,000 of them more voted for our side than voted for his side. But his side's in charge. We understand that. And we know we need to compromise. We know we need to work together. But we haven't been doing so. And he can talk as much as he wants. That's what the American people believe as well, I tell my friend, the majority leader. I asked him about the debt limit and he said no.

Mr. HOYER. I want to clarify what he said no on was that a clean debt limit extension was not coming to the floor.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the majority leader's comment. Can he tell me whether there might be a possibility of having a clean debt limit extension after September? Because I tell the gentleman again, I want to repeat so that he knows, his party knows, and America knows, we're prepared to work with the majority party to do, in a bipartisan way, what every leader believes is the responsible action to take. One of his predecessors, Senator Roy Blunt, in responding to whether we ought to risk default by not passing a debt limit, he said this: ``No, I don't support that. I think holding the debt limit hostage''-- in other words, if you don't do the debt limit, we're not going to do this, that or the other, or, said another way, if you don't repeal ObamaCare, we're going to let the country default. Senator Blunt, again, one of his predecessors: ``I don't support that. I think holding the debt limit hostage to any specific thing is probably not the best negotiating place.'' Now, I thank my friend for his comment, Mr. Speaker, and I would again ask him, could we expect a clean debt limit extension at some point in time between September 30 and November 15? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response, which I took as a no, which didn't indicate that we could expect to see bipartisan work on making sure that the government pays its bills that have already been incurred. No, it was a lot of rhetoric. And there was a lot of recitation, Mr. Speaker, about bills. All those bills have something in common: do it my way or no way. Now, we had an election, I tell the gentleman again. He knows that. They thought they were going to take the Senate. They didn't. The majority in the Senate is Democrats. And the President of the United States was reelected. And the House, Republican majority, was returned. But that didn't mean the American people didn't expect us to work together. I tell the gentleman, I'm not sure what error he thought I made. We did not go to conference on the Violence Against Women Act. We did not go to conference yet on the farm bill.

Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I didn't talk about intentions. I talked about fact. I talked about fact. Pete Sessions, chairman of the Rules Committee, Republican, said this when we passed the farm bill: ``I believe that this is an honest attempt to get us to go by passing part of the farm bill, to go to conference.'' I asked the gentleman last week, I asked him again, there's nothing on here about going to conference. The gentleman's told me we're not going to conference until we pass something on the nutrition part. We want to see something on the nutrition part passed. Pete Sessions said, in addition to that, when talking about why they brought the farm bill to the floor in the condition it was, dropping all reference and provisions for poor people to have nutritional assistance, said this: We're attempting to then separate, bifurcate, offer today a rule and the underlying legislation which hopefully will pass which would go to conference and the Senate, because they've passed their own farm bill, has included in its provisions where they discuss the nutrition program. This is Pete Sessions, Republican chairman of the Rules Committee speaking, Mr. Speaker. As a result of that, that should be in their bill on a conference measure. The House simply, at this point, if we pass this part, could go to conference. So the gentleman is not accurate when he reflects there's nothing to go to conference on. The Senate has amended their bill into the House bill. We could clearly go to conference on that under the processes. I think the gentleman must know that. And that was the expectation that Pete Sessions says was the purpose of passing the farm bill. But let me go back to the point I was making before the gentleman wanted to correct me on what I think were accurate representations on all the pieces of legislation I mentioned. Certainly that's the case on the budget. My opinion, it's the case, certainly on the budget. I don't know what the intentions are, but the fact is we haven't gone to conference on the farm bill and we didn't go to conference on the Violence Against Women bill. The fact is, what those bills that he mentioned did have in common, Mr. Speaker, is--and he said, we've got no Democratic votes for it. There was no work to get Democratic votes. There was no work for compromise. That's, I tell my friend, why the polls reflect of working people such concern. The majority, Mr. Speaker, talked a lot about confidence, talked a lot about building confidence if we were going to grow the economy. I agree with him. We need to have individuals confident. And the gentleman knows, because he talks to a lot of business leaders, as I do, every one of them says that if they had confidence that we could work together and get things done, not put the debt limit at risk, not put the ongoing operations of government at risk, not continue to have fights--I talked to a major leader of one of the health insurers in this country and said, look, we may not like some of this bill, but we think it's the law, and we're going to work to try to make it work for all Americans. We're not doing that, Mr. Speaker. We're trying to repeal. We're not conferencing. We're not cooperating. We're not trying to come to compromise. And we can talk about working people, as is appropriate for us to do, and that's what the President is out doing, not here in Washington, not talking to all of us. He's talking to the people and saying, look, this is my program. This is what I want to do, and I'm not getting cooperation from the Congress of the United States. I think he's absolutely right. And he's talking to the people, not to us, not here in Washington, but he's criticized for doing that by the majority leader. Mr. Speaker, I think that's what he ought to be doing because the American people ultimately are going to have to make a decision as to who is looking out for their interest and who is just simply confronting and not listening to the people in the last election, just a few months ago, or right now. When the people are saying, board of directors, work together, stop obstructing, I would hope we could do that, Mr. Speaker. Unless the majority leader has something further he wants to say, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I've come to this floor nearly every week since the sequester took effect in March to highlight its dangerous consequences to our national security, its harmful impact on our economy, and the pain it is causing the most vulnerable people in our country. Now, with the sequester in its 21st week, this Congress has still not achieved the big, balanced and bipartisan solution to deficits that we need to replace the sequester and put America back on a sound fiscal path. Only such an agreement, Mr. Speaker, can provide a viable alternative to the irrational cuts this sequestration has imposed. Those cuts are already exacerbating the many challenges we face as a Nation. Later this week, I will be delivering meals to seniors in my district with the Meals on Wheels program, which could be delivering 4 million fewer meals nationwide as a result of the sequester. One small business owner from my district recently reached out to my staff to say that he was personally impacted by Meals on Wheels when the grandmother who raised him was diagnosed with cancer and came to rely on Meals on Wheels during the final part of her life. He couldn't believe that after all the good work the Prince George's County Meals on Wheels office had done, that they were being forced to reduce their operations significantly as a result of the sequester. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the richest country on the face of the Earth does not need to leave people, particularly seniors who can't get out, hungry. Other harmful effects on the most vulnerable Americans include an 11 percent cut to emergency unemployment insurance payments and 125,000 fewer rental assistance vouchers. Mr. Speaker, as many as 70,000 children could be kicked out of Head Start--they're only going to be 4 once--including approximately 800 children in my own State. I read on Monday in The Washington Post about the Whitney Young Head Start Center in Yonkers, New York, Mr. Speaker, which has served primarily Hispanic families for more than 12 years, teaching kids English and providing them medical services and meals. It closed down on Friday, a victim of sequestration. And on Monday, an article in the Huffington Post drew attention to an effect of the sequester that represents a dangerous undermining of justice, and that is the cut to public defenders who represent defendants in the Federal court system who cannot afford their own attorneys. This fulfills the Constitutional requirement that everyone is entitled to legal representation. It can't be waived. That report in The Washington Post says, ``The Public Defender system hasn't just been stripped bare by sequestration, its bones have been chiseled away as well.'' Mr. Speaker, can we risk delaying justice for victims and their families because our country can't afford public defenders? Do we want cases dismissed against people who have done wrong because the Constitution says they have to have a defense that we can't afford, apparently? I met yesterday with Maryland District Court judges, about eight of them, and they raised this issue as one of critical importance. And one of the judges, a Reagan appointee, was obviously very animated at how we were undermining the very essence of the judicial system. Surely no one on this floor intends to do that. At the Defense Department, 650,000 civilian workers are already being furloughed 2 days a month. That's an effective cut in pay of 20 percent for hardworking people on whom we rely to maintain the national security of our country. On July 2, I visited with civilian defense workers from Pax River Naval Air Station in St. Mary's County, and I heard from my constituents there who are being forced to stay home from work without pay. They were certainly concerned about their families' finances. But Mr. Speaker, these hardworking and patriotic public servants were far more worried about furloughs' effect on our military readiness and support for our troops in the field on those Fridays when many are forced to stay home, and not at their post. Legally, they can't even come to work and volunteer their time. The sequester is hurting morale and putting our security at risk, Mr. Speaker, at a moment when our troops are still in harm's way every single day, Fridays, otherwise known as furlough days, included. I'll be going to another installation in Maryland's Fifth District on Friday, Mr. Speaker, the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head, to meet with civilian employees there. I will tell them that Congress has the ability to end the furloughs they are experiencing now. We have the ability to keep those kids from losing Head Start, and our seniors from losing meals. We have that ability now. We can do so by coming together in a bipartisan way to replace the sequester with a balanced alternative that includes spending cuts and, yes, revenues. This is what Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen has put forward seven times, Mr. Speaker, only to see it prevented by the majority from receiving a vote. The Speaker says, let the House work its will. Well, perhaps this is the will of the House. I hope not. I urge my colleagues to work together across the aisle so we can end the sequester and restore fiscal discipline in a way that does not harm our security, our economy, the most vulnerable in our country, or America itself.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as Speaker Boehner has said, later today Members and staff from both parties will come together to remember the tragic shooting that occurred 15 years ago in this Capitol when a lone gunman tried to enter the building through what we now know as the Memorial Door. U.S. Capitol Police Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut--Gibson from Virginia and Chestnut from Maryland-- courageously placed themselves between the gunman and not only all of us who serve here but all of us who visit here. They gave their lives, Mr. Speaker, to protect this institution that is the foundation of our democracy. They died protecting the many people who come here each day to serve our country, to see their government in action, and put so much of themselves into making America better and stronger and safer for us all. On this day--and every day--let us remember the heroic sacrifice of Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut and let us appreciate the dedicated and often unsung service of the United States Capitol Police personnel, who stand watch every hour over our safety, our lives, and our ability to perform our duties without fear of violence. May God bless their families and keep us safe.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to the legislation for next week. I note that there was not on the notice for next week--the Senate has now voted to go to conference on the farm bill. Clearly, that is a matter that I think both sides, or certainly our side, I think your side as well, feels is a priority item. Does the gentleman have any plans to move to go to conference now that the Senate has asked for a conference next week on the farm bill? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment; however, I'm somewhat perplexed, Mr. Leader. You and I had a relatively animated colloquy some, I think, 2 or 3 weeks ago, at which point in time you said that we passed the farm bill that, of course, we didn't like and none of us voted for, that we passed the farm bill so that, in fact, we could follow regular order and go to conference. We passed that farm bill. The Senate has now voted to go to conference, but what I hear the gentleman saying is, like the budget bill, we're not going to go to conference unless something else happens; in the case of the budget, until Mr. Ryan apparently gets Ms. Murray to agree on--I don't want to characterize it too heavily, but to agreeing with him as opposed to compromise. But I'm a little, as I said, perplexed, because a few weeks ago you told me that the reason we passed that farm bill without the provision for nutrition, which had been in there for half a century, was so that we could go to conference. Well, now we're there, but there's no motion to go to conference. I'm perplexed, and I would appreciate if the gentleman--because we now have the opportunity to follow regular order. We now have the Senate who has voted to go to conference, acted on our bill that we sent there, substituted their bill for ours, and now have asked for a conference on the same. That is regular order. Can the gentleman tell me: Are we now making a condition, as we lawyers say, precedent--that is, something's got to happen--before we go to conference? Because, very frankly, Mr. Leader, you and I both know that the nutrition bill is what made the farm bill apparently fall on the rocks, which is why you dropped it in order to pass the farm bill. It was a totally partisan bill, but now we need to get to agreement. I tell you, we're running out of time, Mr. Leader, and I think we need to get this farm bill done; and I would hope that we could go to conference, as the gentleman said we were going to do, with the Senate on the House-passed bill. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation. The truth in legislating is that we are not legislating. We are putting forth the positions of your party in this House, not shared by the Senate, not shared by the President of the United States, also elected by the people of the United States; and absent agreement by those two entities, coequal branches of the Congress and a coequal branch of the government, the executive, absent their agreeing with your party's perspective, we're not legislating. That's the problem, Mr. Leader. And again, I express to you, you said--and I don't have the words in front of me exactly, but we can pull them out. But I am perplexed because you said, when we passed the farm bill without the nutrition program in it--which had been done for a half a century. They had been paired by Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses, signed by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. It's only this last 2 years that we have been unable to come to grips with bipartisan agreement on the farm bill. It's only in the past 2 years that we've been unable to get a bill that was bipartisan in fashion to the floor and, ultimately, voted on final passage. The bipartisan bills that came out of committee both in the last Congress and this Congress were turned into--the first one, of course, in the last Congress didn't come to the floor, as the gentleman knows. He didn't bring it to the floor at all, notwithstanding the fact it had bipartisan support in the committee. And notwithstanding the fact that the bill that was brought to the floor had bipartisan support and the support of the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, notwithstanding he didn't agree with some portions that were adopted, for instance, on milk, he was, nevertheless, prepared to adopt it until three very partisan, we thought very harmful, amendments to people without means were adopted. You knew that was the case. You then had told me--and I repeat, I know, and reiterate. But the simple representation you made was that we did that--and Mr. Sessions made that and said, by the way, that the nutrition part of the program, getting support for people who needed food, was extraneous to the bill. That's not our perspective over here, but that was the perspective that the chairman of the Rules Committee laid out when we considered the rule. But you then said, in that colloquy, that the reason we did that was because you wanted to get a bill through. And, frankly, that's the only way you could pick up the overwhelming majority of the 62 of your Republicans who voted against it. I can only conclude that because you got the majority to do it, failing the first time because 62 Republicans decided they didn't like, apparently, the nutrition part of the bill and they voted against it. When you dropped the nutrition part of the bill, which had been in there for 50 years, then you got the majority on your side. That's when you got zero of us. You had 24 the first time. So I'm perplexed that now that we have done what you said we were going to do, not about budgets, not about--you and I agree we need to get a handle on it. That's not what this issue is about. This issue is about whether or not we're going to have a farm bill and whether we're going to have such in a timely way. I'm going to talk a little bit about the CR. But we have 17 days left to go between now and September 30, and we think it's timely to move. I don't know. Your nutrition bill is not on the program here. We'll have 1 week after next week. We're not sure because we haven't seen a nutrition bill that you have. We don't know what's going to be in that. But we have passed a farm bill. The Senate wants to go to conference. The Senate wants to go to conference--at least the Democrats do--on the budget. And we're not doing it, Mr. Leader. And we need to do it.

Mr. HOYER. It takes two to be bipartisan, Mr. Leader. You know that and I know that. I've got a pretty long record of working in a bipartisan fashion. But I will tell you, I disagree with the majority leader, respectfully, that there aren't the votes on this floor to pass the SNAP program and the agriculture program. We agree on this side that there's a relationship between those who produce food and those who eat food. We think there's a direct relationship, which is why for half a century these have been related, so that the folks in the city would understand that those on the farm are very important people and we need to make sure that we have a partnership with them. Very frankly, it's worked for half a century. Unfortunately, it didn't work this year. I will say to my friend, you are accurate in saying there are a majority of people on this floor--not in our party--but a majority on this floor, including Mr. Lucas, who twice has reported out a bill with bipartisan support and argued for it on the floor. He argued for it and pleaded with your party to support the farm bill, even though from both parties' standpoint it wasn't a perfect bill. But 62 of your Members rejected his plea. And my view is Mr. Lucas is still in that position of where he sees the rationale of having those together. He's the Republican chairman of the committee. I respect Mr. Lucas for his comments both times the bill was considered on the floor. I will move on. But allowing the farm bill to languish is dangerous for this country, for the farm community, and for others. It undermines our economy. Moving with dispatch is in the best interest of our country. Now, let me ask you something. As I said, we have 17 days left to go until September 30. This Congress has not passed an appropriation bill. We've passed three appropriation bills. The Senate is going to consider one, apparently, next week. We won't be here on September 30. We're only here 2 weeks in September. There are holidays and Labor Day. So we're only going to be here 2 weeks. I want to ask my friend if he or the majority or the Budget Committee or the Appropriations Committee and the leadership in concert has a plan for what we might do to assure stability in government and in our country's confidence that the government will be operating on October 1.

Mr. HOYER. There's a way to do that, of course. It is called regular order, as we've discussed. The conference committee is where you do that. But not withstanding that fact, we have for over 100 days now seen languishing the Senate-passed budget and our budget, and an attempt by the leader in the Senate, Mr. Reid, to go to conference, but no effort to go to conference to, as you say, in a bicameral, bipartisan way to resolve differences. They're very substantial. But everybody is sitting in their corner. Patty Murray wants to come to the midpoint to have a conference. I've talked to her. She's the chairman of the Budget Committee. But we have not moved, unlike the Senate--and they haven't succeeded because of Republican opposition--but they have tried to go to conference. We have not made any effort to go to conference, Mr. Leader, and you can't have a bicameral resolution and compromise and bipartisanship if you don't sit down and talk to one another in conference. Mr. Ryan asking Senator Murray, Do it my way, is not going to get us there. A conference may. I don't think it's guaranteed, but it may. And I would hope we could go to conference and follow regular order on the budget. We should have adopted a budget 4 months ago. We need to adopt a funding resolution by September 30 in some form or fashion. The failure to go to conference is undermining our ability to do that.

Mr. HOYER. I'm surprised to hear the majority leader say budget has no relationship to the appropriations process or the continuing resolution.

Mr. HOYER. I've been on the Appropriations Committee, as the gentleman knows, for 23 years. I'm not on it now. And you've adopted a budget, not because the budget passed but because you deemed the budget passed, you've pretended it passed. We did that ourselves to get a number. Why is that important? Because that's the spending number. Ours is $967 billion. The Senate's is $1.058 trillion. It's some $91 billion more. So there's a very substantial difference between the two Houses. It has to be resolved. Maybe the gentleman can tell me, since we don't have a resolution of what the number is going to be, which is what a budget conference does, and what I hear the gentleman saying is, unless the Senate agrees with your perception of revenues--and I know that you repeat that all the time. I get it. I know your position. I know the position of your party. My position, of course, is we need to pay for what we buy. You're right. If we don't buy it, we don't have to pay for it. And we have to make that judgment on behalf of the American people. That's what they sent us here to do. But the fact of the matter is, if your position is that unless they agree with your perception--they have a different point of view. They were elected by the American people. By the way, this side was elected by the American people, 1.4 million more of whom voted for us than voted for your side of the aisle. You have the majority. Redistricting provided for that, God bless you. I wish I were in your position, not in mine, from that standpoint. But the fact of the matter is more of the American people voted for us than they voted on your side. But you have the majority. You ought not to be in the position, I suggest, respectfully, Mr. Leader, of saying unless the Senate will accede to our position, we're not going to go to conference. I don't understand saying you want a bicameral, bipartisan agreement without going to conference. Let me ask you about immigration. There's nothing on here about immigration. The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill. Does the gentleman have any reason to believe that we're going to move ahead on immigration? President Bush said just the other day the system is not working. The system is broken. Your chairman of the Budget Committee, talking about the budget, said we have a broken immigration system that needs to be fixed. Can the gentleman tell me whether there's any action contemplated on immigration?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, the last question. You said the defense authorization bill is coming to the floor. Can the gentleman tell me whether that will be coming to the floor under an open rule or a rule other than open?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of sadness. I am saddened by the passing of my friend, William H. Gray, who represented the people of Pennsylvania's Second District in this House from 1979 to 1991. Bill Gray was an historic figure. I had the honor of serving as vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus when he chaired the Democratic Caucus. He made history as the first African American Democratic whip from 1989 to 1991. As Budget chairman, Bill Gray played an instrumental role in setting the stage for the balanced budgets of the 1990s. He was a leading voice against apartheid. Some of us just participated in a birthday celebration for Nelson Mandela in Emancipation Hall. Bill Gray was a leading advocate of changing the apartheid system in South Africa, and it was because of his efforts that we were able to enact sanctions against South Africa. After retiring from Congress, Bill Gray led the United Negro College Fund, helping literally thousands access higher education and the opportunities that come with it. Throughout his tenure, Bill Gray continued to minister to the families of the Bright Hope Baptist Church as their pastor. His deep faith and enduring love for his fellow man was evident not only from the pulpit but from the committee rooms and on this floor. I join my colleagues in expressing my condolences to Andrea and their sons, William, Justin, and Andrew, and in thanking them for sharing Bill Gray with all of us and with our country. We were privileged to serve with him, to know him, and to be his friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, for civilian defense employees at Pax River Naval Air Station, Webster Field, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head, all of which I represent--and Mr. Jones, who is on the floor, represents a substantial number as well in his district-- sequestration hit home last week as furloughs began. The same is true of 650,000 civilian defense workers throughout our country. The furloughs brought on by the irrational policy of sequestration are harming our national security and putting our military readiness at risk. At the same time, they also represent a severe 20 percent pay cut in the form of days when they are forced to stay home without pay, forbidden even from volunteering to continue performing their important tasks. Federal employees, including those in civilian defense positions, have already contributed $114 billion over the last 3 years for the next 7 years toward deficit reduction from pay freezes and changes in retirement benefits. These are hardworking, dedicated men and women who only want to serve their country and make a difference. As I said on this floor last week, I went to Pax River 2 weeks ago to meet with many of those preparing to be furloughed. I heard their concerns about the sequester's effects on the missions of our men and women in uniform whom these civilian employees support. We have men and women at the point of this spear, but we have a lot of men and women who are making sure that they can be as effective and as safe as possible at the point of that spear. And I heard from them about how the sequester is affecting morale on and off base. What I did not hear much at all from those employees was concern for themselves, about how furloughs will impact their own families. That's because their number one concern, even facing an undeserved 20 percent pay cut, is still their ability to serve and get the job done for our troops and all of us who depend on a strong national defense. After my meeting with civilian defense employees from Maryland's Fifth District, I received an email message from an employee at Webster Field. He wrote this: We pride ourselves in not only delivering a quality product but on being responsive to the emergent needs of our soldiers and sailors around the world. He went on to say: If our dedicated folks are told to turn the lights off and lock the doors at 4 p.m. on a Thursday, then who will provide that level of responsiveness our military counterparts have so desperately come to expect and rely on when no one is here to respond to the call on Friday? What message does that send to the civilians and contractors who have made it their mission to ensure our military never goes without critical equipment, data, and training they need? He goes on to say: I genuinely worry that it devalues the level of effort that our employees have put forth. And when you're losing your pay and your work appears to be less important, it will become much harder to retain a lot of these very talented folk. Not my words, Mr. Speaker, but the words of one of America's many selfless public servants who are concerned about this dangerous sequester. What will it take for Congress to act? We've also seen air combat units grounded, and some classes at the Naval Academy this fall could be canceled if sequester continues. The only way to reverse these effects, Mr. Speaker, on our military readiness and training is to replace the sequester with a big and balanced alternative. Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen has proposed a balanced alternative seven times, but the majority has not allowed us to consider a balanced plan on this floor. If we had, on this floor, an alternative to the sequester that achieves real deficit reduction-- which we know we need--through a balance of revenues and targeted spending cuts, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the majority of us, Republican and Democrat, would come together and would support it. It's time for Speaker Boehner to appoint budget conferees so that House and Senate negotiators can begin to reach agreement on a balanced compromise. I will continue, Mr. Speaker, to call on both parties to listen to the men and women of Pax River, of Webster Field, of Indian Head, Quantico, the folks in North Carolina that Mr. Jones represents, the folks in Maryland that I represent, the folks in Connecticut that Mr. Courtney represents, the folks in Massachusetts that my good friend, the ranking member--almost ranking member on the Rules Committee represents, and the gentleman from Illinois represents. They and I will continue, in both parties, to act, to act on a balanced, rational, reasonable alternative that brings the deficit down but maintains our national security and the morale of the people who every day work to protect our great land.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak the truth. This bill and the other bill are not real; they are purely partisan politics. They have nothing to do with reality. My friends and Mr. Speaker, the American people ought to know that is the truth. These bills take time, with no effect. And everybody in this House-- the majority leader and 434 of the rest of us--know these bills are going nowhere. They are, in fact, the 38th and 39th effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, an attempt which has been made some 37 times already with no substantive alternative to assure quality, affordable health care for all Americans. My friends, that is the truth. This is a game. This is political messaging, nothing more, nothing less. It is a ``gotcha'' game. The President has already taken action to make sure that businesses-- some 4 percent of the businesses in America, by the way, are affected by what the President did and your purported bill--to make sure that they can do the paperwork properly. The administration took the right action. Your first bill is not necessary and you know it. It is a setup so that your second bill, which takes away the individual mandate--which America ought to know, Mr. Speaker, would undermine the very benefits that are today being enjoyed by seniors, by young people, by children with preexisting conditions, and by so many millions of Americans enjoying the benefits today. But without the individual mandate, as the Heritage Foundation pointed out so many years ago--a position they have now changed, of course--was absolutely essential to make sure that we could bring costs down. The New York Times of course, today, ironically, said on its front page that there is a possibility that premiums are going to be reduced 50 percent. So, Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friends in the press, in the media, don't take any of these votes for real. They're ``gotcha'' votes so that maybe some people will vote ``yes'' to confirm the President's opinion and then say, But we don't want to undermine the Affordable Care Act--as all of you who have voted so often have expressed your willingness and intent to do. But then they will vote ``no'' on the individual mandate, and you will say, of course, My, my, my; they were for businesses but against all you individuals. That RNC ad I'm sure is written already. That's what this is about, ``gotcha'' politics. Isn't it a shame. Isn't it a shame, when millions of Americans have no health care, when millions of Americans have no jobs, when people are being furloughed in the defense sector, undermining the security of our country--in Virginia and in Maryland--undermining our national security, that we spend our time here on this floor with ``gotcha'' politics, with no expectation whatsoever that either of these bills will ever become law. This is simply messaging. This is simply saying for the people who have been, for the last 4 years, trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And so many people were absolutely positive that President Obama was going to go down to defeat on the horns of the dilemma of the Affordable Health Care Act. It didn't happen. The American people said, No, we don't buy that argument. We believe providing Americans with health care is an important objective. We believe in making sure that kids and individuals with preexisting conditions can get health care, making sure that seniors won't be driven into poverty by paying for expensive drugs to keep them alive, making sure that people get preventive health care and are not disincentivized in doing that by additional costs.