Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. His comment reflects what I've heard. There is a lot of discussion going on about this. Hopefully we would get significant notice of what changes there might be. Can the gentleman tell me, would it be safe to assume that this bill will be considered, when and if considered, no earlier than Wednesday, and will be considered Wednesday and Thursday? And I say that, I will tell you, some of my Members who are very concerned about this bill are very concerned about when it might be brought up, the timing from their perspectives. This is a very serious piece of legislation, as the gentleman knows, again from all perspectives, and I would hope that this bill would be, in light of the fact that the Rules Committee will probably deal with it--I'm not sure whether they'll deal with it on Tuesday; my presumption is they'll deal with it on Tuesday--but there will be time for proponents and opponents of whatever changes might be recommended to prepare their arguments for the floor. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer, and I thank him for the fact that you will be following the notice rule that has been discussed. I would ask the majority leader, could I be confident in advising people who are very focused on this bill, that if they are here Wednesday, that they will be in time to consider that bill? In other words, do you expect that the Rules Committee would consider this bill before tonight? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his answer. So that in an abundance of caution, proponents or opponents would need to be here by Tuesday. I thank him for that answer. Let me ask an additional thing that is similar to my question on the farm bill. We are very, very hopeful that the bill we have just been discussing, whether it's considered Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, is subject to a somewhat open rule. I don't expect it to be fully open, but that amendments will be made in order. There are very strong feelings on both sides. That's why the gentleman has indicated there's a lot of discussion going on on his side and on my side. I would hope that we have the ability again for the House to work its will and that we would have the ability to offer such amendments as would be relevant, and important amendments, not specious amendments but very important amendments, to be considered by the House, and I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and I feel constrained to add, however, on the defense bill that we just considered, yes, it was bipartisan to the extent that both sides agreed on a formulation on the sexual assault issue within the military. Very frankly, there were two very substantive, widely supported, widely discussed amendments that were requested, one by Ms. Speier from California and one by Ms. Gabbard from Hawaii. Neither one of those was made an amendment so that the only alternative that we had available to us was the committee agreed-upon alternative with respect to sexual assault complaints that women in the military or men in the military might have. Then a very substantive and, I thought, well-thought out motion to recommit, which was deemed by the individual on your side of the aisle who opposed it, in an almost cursory fashion, less than, I think, 120 seconds, dismissed as a procedural motion. With all due respect to the majority leader, and it was not the majority leader, obviously, it was anything but a procedural motion. It was a very substantive motion. It would have, in my opinion--of course we can differ on that, but my opinion, would have made a very positive improvement in the piece of legislation we were considering. Now, I voted for the piece of legislation, the defense bill. I've never voted against a defense authorization in my career here. The national security of our Nation is critically important. But we had somebody offer that amendment who served in the military, who gave two of her legs for our country, and who has been honored for her service, both in the military, as an officer, a helicopter pilot, and for her service to veterans, both in Illinois and in our country. And very frankly, that was rejected as a procedural motion. I understand the gentleman's representation that we follow the tradition of giving a full and fair--but if, I say, with all due respect to the majority leader, if the motions to recommit are to be considered simply as procedural motions, which the gentleman will observe we did not do when we were in the majority, we understand, and some of our Members understood, that these amendments made a difference. And once we got rid of the procedural impediment that a motion to recommit would send the bill back to committee, which is no longer the case, then we should consider very legitimate alternatives on a substantive basis, not the procedural objections that we were confronted with today. I say that all to say this is a critically important bill, very strong feelings on all sides, and I would--the gentleman has said this, and I take him at his word, that we allow alternatives to be considered on this floor as amendments that are not perceived as procedural, but are perceived as substantive attempts to improve, from the offerer of the amendment's perspective, the piece of legislation before us. If the gentleman wants to make any additional comments, I'll yield.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I understand that you do view the motion to recommit as procedural. We disagree on that. The motion would make a substantive difference in the piece of legislation. It would have set up a different scenario. To that extent, it was clearly substantive and not procedural; and it would have, I think, comported with, from many on our side's perspective, a better process to protect women and men from arbitrary and perhaps, at some point in time, unfair treatment and would give them a choice of what avenue they would pursue to protect themselves. And as Ms. Duckworth, Captain Duckworth, Congresswoman Duckworth so aptly stated, would give more confidence, particularly to women, but men and women entering into the service that they would be protected. We don't need to debate the substance of the issue, simply to say that giving us the alternative, and the MTR gave us the alternative, but it was not considered, on your side, as a substantive alternative. Therefore, my point being, on the bill that we're talking about, the Pain Bill, referred to shorthand as the Pain Bill, that we be given substantive amendments that are not perceived as procedural, so that the House, not 20 percent of the House--the Armed Services Committee is less than 20 percent of the House--not the Armed Services Committee, or any committee, for that matter, dispose of the issue and preclude the other 80 percent of us from participating in making that decision. So I would urge my friend to urge the Rules Committee and the leadership, of which the gentleman is a principal leader, to allow substantive amendments, good-faith amendments to be made in order. Two more things if I can, unless the gentleman wants to say something further. Let me say something on immigration reform. Paul Ryan, leader on your side, a Vice Presidential candidate, said of the bipartisan effort in the Senate on immigration, he said, ``I do support what they're doing. I think they've put out a good product. It's good policy.'' That was reported on June 6 of this year in The Hill newspaper. Immigration, obviously, nor did I expect it to be on the list for next week. But I want to ask the gentleman--in light of the fact that comprehensive immigration reform, by many on both sides of the aisle, including Mr. Ryan, but obviously in a bipartisan way in the United States Senate, has been something that's been viewed as a priority item--can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is a near-term, and by ``near-term,'' I mean prior to the August break, expectation that we will have any movement in this House on immigration reform? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those comments, and I look forward to us doing that and, hopefully, doing so in a bipartisan fashion because he and I both agree that the system is broken, needs to be fixed. And my view, and I think the view of many, and certainly the Senators who came together and offered the bill that's now being considered on the Senate floor, believe that a comprehensive plan was the best answer. And I agree with that. Lastly, if I can ask the majority leader, the student loan program, which has capped interest on student loans at 3.4 percent, expires the end of this month, and therefore we're weeks away from having a substantial increase, a doubling of student loan costs. The President has a proposal. We passed a proposal through this House, as you know, Mr. Leader. Both of those proposals were defeated on the Senate floor for lack of 60 votes. The Senate alternative, which Mr. Bishop has now introduced, got 51 votes, but neither of them got 60 votes. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not--it's not on the calendar for next week--there's any plan to address the issue, beyond what we've already done and which has been rejected in the Senate, to ensure that students do not see a doubling of interest rates in the near future? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you know--and I'm sure the American public knows as well, Mr. Speaker--the reason the Senate hasn't acted is because, although they have a majority for an alternative, frankly, they can't get cloture. They can't get 60 votes. Frankly, Mr. Reid doesn't have 60 votes in order to move legislation. So, while it's well and good to say that we have acted, we have acted on a vehicle that the Senate has rejected. And they've rejected our alternative as well. They didn't reject it by a majority vote. A majority voted for our alternative. Frankly, the House would not be able to act if 60 percent of the House were necessary to pass something, and the majority leader and I both know that. We would be in gridlock. Frankly, I think it's unfortunate the Senate has a rule which allows a minority to control. I think that's not good for the country, I think it's not good for democracy, and I think it is not good for policy. I think that's demonstrable and, unfortunately, being experienced by the American people. But I would hope that within the next 2 weeks, or 8 legislative days that we have left, that the gentleman's efforts will bear fruit and that we can do something--not that we'll beat ourselves on the chest and say the House acted. That's the problem with the sequester. The House acted in the last Congress, and we're not acting now because a bill that's dead and gone and cannot be resurrected was passed in the last Congress as a pretense of--not a pretense. It was real at the time, but now claiming that that is the reason we're not acting on the sequester. Hopefully, that will not be the reason we do not act on the student loan. I thank the gentleman for his efforts at wanting to get us to a compromise which will assure that students do not see, on July 1, an increase in their interest rates. Unless the gentleman wants to make additional comments, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I rise to join the leader. I rise to join Congresswoman Esty and Congressman Thompson in recognizing this sad anniversary. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that we mark the 6-month anniversary tomorrow of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. On that day, as has been repeated and must be remembered, Americans were united in shock and grief at the senseless murder by a crazed gunman of 26 innocent people--of 20 innocent first graders and six courageous school staff members--who tried to protect them and helped save the lives of others. Since that day, approximately 4,500--the leader mentioned 5,000, but it's a figure in excess of 4,500--Americans have died as a result of gun violence, according to the Newtown Action Alliance. Mr. Speaker, this is not just a tragedy; it is an epidemic, one that Congress has a moral responsibility to address. When nine out of 10 Americans support stricter background checks to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness, there is no reason why Congress shouldn't be able to take swift and decisive action to enact tougher protections. I was deeply disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate failed to move forward with legislation to protect Americans from gun violence by enacting effective background checks that safeguard the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners and safeguard Americans. The American people are demanding action, and the House now has a chance to succeed where the Senate failed. Demonstrating that commonsense proposals to reduce gun violence can, indeed, command bipartisan support, Democratic Representative Mike Thompson of California, who chairs the House Democratic Task Force on Gun Violence, and my friend Republican Representative Peter King of New York have joined together to introduce legislation in this Chamber similar to that which was blocked in the Senate. There is not a single provision in their bill that should be worrisome to those concerned about our longstanding tradition of protecting Second Amendment rights--not a single provision. It will help us keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous and mentally unstable individuals likely to do harm to others or themselves. Will it keep all of us safe all the time? It will not. We know that. That is the tragic fact of life. But will it help? It will. If we can help, should we? The answer is an emphatic ``yes.'' This proposal contains commonsense proposals that I strongly support and that most Americans have supported, as well. Congress has the opportunity to get this right by considering the Thompson-King legislation in the House and sending it to the Senate for consideration. I congratulate Congresswoman Esty in particular, as well as Congressman Thompson, for their leadership and efforts in this regard. After the backlash many Senators received for opposing expanded background checks, I suspect that a number may be ready to reconsider. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to come together, as Representative Thompson and Representative King have done, to advance this bipartisan solution to this pressing challenge facing our Nation--not just the Congress, but every American. It should not take and it must not take another tragedy such as Newtown for us to act. We have a responsibility to keep our neighborhoods and our schools safe. I urge Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor to allow this bill to come to the floor for a vote. The Speaker often says that he wants to allow the House to work its will. That's why the people of Newtown sent Congresswoman Esty to Congress. That's why the people of my district and every district represented in this House, people sent them here to vote on policies, policies to make their country better, policies to make their country more safe. The memories of those children, the memories of those teachers, the memories of those 26, and, yes, the memories of those 4,500-plus who, since the Newtown tragedy, have lost their lives to violence, their memory, Mr. Speaker, demands and deserves action by their representatives.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this rule as it fails to make in order several important amendments, including ones from Representatives Speier and Gabbard, that would have continued a critical debate on the urgent problem of sexual assault in the military. The previous speaker has pointed out how important an issue this is. If it's such an important issue, it really deserves broader debate in this House fully. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee saw fit not to allow those amendments in order. But I want to thank the Rules Committee for making in order by the ranking member, Mr. Smith, to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I've been to Guantanamo--I don't know how many of my colleagues have been there, but I've been to Guantanamo--and Guantanamo is a significant drain on the Department of Defense's resources. There are other reasons to close Guantanamo, which I will speak of, but the numbers speak for themselves. It costs us $1.6 million per detainee. That's versus $34,000 for Federal prisoners. $1.6 million per detainee. $247 million authorized in this bill to replace temporary facilities at Guantanamo. Overall, $264 million a year to keep this facility operational for 166 people. For every dollar spent on a detainee we spend one less dollar on our troops in the field. At a time of great fiscal uncertainty, it is astounding that this facility stays open. Guantanamo costs us not only in economic might, but in moral might as well. We are a Nation of laws, and it is our continued adherence to the Founders' vision of a lawful society that allows us to lead the world in confronting threats to peace and stability. I urge all of my colleagues to think about the damage Guantanamo's continued operation causes to our national security as our moral might slips, as terrorists continue to use Guantanamo as a recruitment tool, and as our allies grow leery of cooperating with us for fear that a transferred detainee could end up at Guantanamo. I also urge all of us to remember that hundreds of terrorists-- hundreds--have faced justice in civilian courts and are currently serving time in prison in the United States. Among them are Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber; Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; Zacarias Moussaoui, who conspired to kill nearly 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11--all of them in our prisons here. We don't have to worry about these individuals because our system works. Not a single terrorist--not one--or anyone else has ever escaped from one of our maximum security prisons.

Mr. HOYER. Since 9/11, 494 terrorists have been convicted in our civilian court system. In stark contrast, there have been only seven terrorists convicted by the military commissions in Guantanamo. Five of these, by the way, were pleas. To quote General Colin Powell from 2010: We have 300 terrorists--it's now less--who have been put in jail not by a military commission but by a regular court system . . . We ought to remove this incentive that exists in the presence of Guantanamo to encourage people and give radicals an opportunity to say, ``You see? This is what America is all about.'' That's Colin Powell. We should be proud of our Nation's long history of bringing to justice those who commit crimes that threaten the peace and freedom of innocent people around the world. Guantanamo is a stain on that record. It should be closed. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Additionally, let me say there are a few other amendments that, I hope, Members will support. One is the amendment from my friend Jim McGovern--a sense of Congress that this body should have the right--indeed, the duty--to engage in a debate about the continued path forward in Afghanistan. I urge my colleagues to support that amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with the 15th week of the Republican policy of sequester, this House continues to avoid taking the steps it ought to be taking to replace the entire sequester with a balanced alternative. Instead, House Republicans have fully embraced the sequester's draconian cuts, which slash funding from our highest and lowest priorities equally and put our economic recovery and national security at risk. Last week, they approved a rule deeming the Ryan budget's caps for next year, which locks in the sequester cuts. This is a blatant violation of the Budget Control Act agreement reached between the two parties in August of 2011. Now we're about to consider a defense authorization bill that shifts $54 billion in sequester cuts from the Pentagon onto domestic programs which were already cut by sequester, like Head Start, Meals on Wheels, and rental assistance for low-income families. How shameful. This follows the passage of two appropriations bills last week as part of a strategy from Republicans we've seen before. It came as no surprise that they chose to consider two of the most popular bills first, those that fund programs that protect our homeland security and provide care for our veterans. I'm glad there's bipartisan consensus that these bills represent important funding priorities. But let me quote from an Associated Press article from June 4 which sheds some light on their strategy: The boost for veterans came even as Republicans controlling the Chamber marched ahead with a plan that would require most other domestic programs to absorb even deeper cuts next year than those in place now after the imposition of across-the- board spending cuts. This refers, of course, to the sequester. The article continues: Republicans are coping with the shortfall by slashing across a broad swath of domestic programs, forcing cuts in the range of 20 percent, for instance, to a huge domestic spending bill that funds aid to local school districts, health research, and enforcement of labor laws. The article goes on to say, ``The GOP strategy is to, early on, advance popular bipartisan bills''--for which almost all of us voted-- ``and then bring up bills making deep cuts later in the summer, if at all.'' In fact, I predict that they will not bring up most of the bills, notwithstanding their discussions about regular order. By insisting on budget numbers that not only include the sequester but cut even further into domestic priorities, in clear violation of the Budget Control Act and the agreement that we reached between the two parties, Republicans are torpedoing any chances of reaching a big and balanced solution to deficits. The longer we wait, Mr. Speaker, to forge a compromise that can replace the entire sequester with a balanced alternative, the more pain will be felt across our economy and the greater the risk will be to our national security. Just ask the joint chiefs, not us. Let me review just some of the sequester's many effects: 70,000 kids kicked off Head Start; 10,000 teachers' jobs at risk from title I cuts; furloughs to cause delays in processing retirement and disability claims; 4 million fewer meals for seniors; 125,000 less HUD rental assistance vouchers; emergency unemployment past 26 weeks cut 11 percent for 2 million Americans out of work; 2,100 fewer food safety inspections; longer waits to approve new drugs; furloughs equivalent to 1,000 fewer Federal agents, FBI, Border, et cetera, on the job. We talk about border security while, at the same time, slashing border guards. One-third of combat air units are grounded in America. It has now been over 70 days since the House passed its budget and since the Senate did the same. Regular order. Yet, Speaker Boehner, who claims to wish regular order for this House, will not appoint conferees. Or shall I say, he is unable to do so as a result of a severely divided caucus. The Washington Post reported on June 3 that the House Republicans have ``disintegrated into squabbling factions no longer able to agree on, much less execute, some of the most basic government functions.'' It seems what matters is only a commitment to deep austerity and a weakened government. This ideology has achieved a dangerous manifestation in the sequester, which has been the Republican policy all along, and which, as I have pointed out in the past, was included in their Cut, Cap and Balance bill passed in July of 2011, when 229 Members of their caucus voted for sequester as an option. Now we have further evidence the sequester is their policy, as Republicans double down on these irrational cuts and refuse to negotiate. There is, however, Mr. Speaker, an alternative. That is a balanced bill that will replace the sequester entirely. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, has put forward a proposal that deserves a vote. The Speaker so often says, ``Let the House work its will.'' In fact, he has asked for a vote on it six times, Van Hollen has, and will ask for a seventh time at the Rules Committee today, but Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader Cantor have so far said, no, the House cannot work its will; the House cannot consider this option. The American people deserve to see where their representatives stand on a balanced alternative to the sequester, and they deserve a Congress where real compromise proves stronger than partisan maneuvering. If the Van Hollen alternative were to come to the floor for a vote, I would hope that a majority of Members would vote for it. A majority of Democrats certainly would and I believe a substantial number of Republicans who are concerned about our fiscal future. Hal Rogers, in fact, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has opined how much pain the sequester would be causing and how much dysfunction it would be causing. It's exactly the kind of compromise approach we need, the Van Hollen alternative. All we're asking to do, in the immediate term, is for Speaker Boehner to let the House work its will and have a vote on Mr. Van Hollen's alternative, and to follow regular order and agree to go to conference. That's what they said they wanted to do. That's what they said they would do, but they're not doing it. It's time for Democrats and Republicans to work together, in a bipartisan way, to rise to our budget challenges and set our country back on a sound fiscal path. Let us have regular order. Let us have a vote, and let us restore sanity to this House, and replace the sequester with a balanced solution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my friend for next week's schedule, I would like to join, I know, with all of our colleagues in wishing him a happy birthday. It is the majority leader's birthday today, and because I don't want him to retaliate, I'm not going to mention which birthday it is, but I want to congratulate him and wish him the very best. We'll have a birthday colloquy today. I thank him for his leadership, and I yield to him to explain our schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. We have started the appropriations process. We did two bills this week. They were relatively bipartisan in nature. I regret, of course, the adoption of the King amendment, which we thought was a very bad policy. It precluded us from voting for a bill that we otherwise would have voted for and that we failed to reach bipartisan agreement. I think there were some on your side who did not want the King amendment offered which precludes any discretion for prosecutors, which I think is bad as general policy and certainly bad as it relates to the DREAMers. I would hope that as we move forward on the appropriation bills, that we would be able to do those as we did the Military Construction, Veteran Affairs, and Related Agencies bill on which we passed on an almost overwhelming vote on both sides of the aisle. One of the problems, Mr. Leader, is going to be the amount of dollars that have been made available to the nine remaining bills--perhaps Agriculture--so the eight remaining bills after we do MilCon and Homeland Security, which essentially were done at the agreed-upon levels of the Budget Control Act, similar to what the Senate is marking their bills to. I'm not sure what the defense number is going to be, but our fear and concern is that these bills will be marked so that substantial dollars that would otherwise have been available to other subcommittees will not be available because, in effect, we front-loaded spending on the first three bills. The Ryan budget, as the gentleman knows, is almost $100 billion less than the agreement of August 2011 on how much dollars would be available for priorities on the discretionary side of our budget. Can the gentleman give me any information with reference to whether or not we may still be going to a budget conference where we perhaps could reach elimination of the sequester and a new number that could be agreed upon between the Senate and the House, as we always have to do? Whether there's a budget or not, we have to agree on the numbers. We are about $100 billion apart, and that has to be overcome if we're going to pass bills. Can the gentleman give me any thoughts on whether or not we're going to go to conference? There is nothing on the schedule for a motion to go to conference or appointment of conferees. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. In other words, I think the gentleman is saying there is not going to be a conference because there is disagreement on what the result of that conference will be? Is that what I'm hearing you say? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I would say that we have indicated on a number of occasions that we would love to see some growing-the-economy legislation on the floor, jobs bills on the floor, bills that the administration and Republicans and economists on both sides say would grow the economy. We haven't seen those, and we're concerned about that. First of all, let me make the observation that we don't believe the first three bills that you're bringing out--you've brought out two defense bills--are being brought out at the Ryan-budget levels. In fact, they're being brought out substantially above the Ryan-budget levels, if, in fact, you perceived equal distribution under 302(b) of the allocations of discretionary money. We don't share your view that the two bills we voted on--the two bills we voted on, frankly, have been at the Senate level, essentially, which is why they were relatively bipartisan. Not only was it at the Senate level, but it was at the level we agreed to in 2011, and August of 2011 would, in fact, be the discretionary number for fiscal year 2014. There's not anything on the schedule with reference to the debt limit. As the gentleman knows, the debt limit was extended until May 19. That is now 3 weeks past, and we have not dealt with the debt limit. Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any plan to deal with the debt limit extension, which the gentleman and I agree must be done if we're not going to destabilize the economy and grow the economy? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would say that he mentioned two bills with reference to jobs--the SKILLS Act. Unfortunately, the SKILLS Act suffered from the same thing that the Homeland Security Act just today suffered from, as the gentleman knows. Contrary to what we could have done on a bipartisan basis in the SKILLS Act, diversity, a small number was inserted into that bill, reducing diversity visas to this country, which was highly offensive to many, many Americans who saw that as a direct attack on their ability to get family members to come to this country, particularly from Africa and the Caribbean. It was well known on your side that if that was put in, it was going to undermine our ability to have a bipartisan agreement. The same thing occurred with Homeland Security. The gentleman knew full well that the inclusion of the King amendment, which we felt was a very negative amendment and put Dreamers in particular at risk, but whether or not that was the case, it undermines very, very substantially--excuse me, I was incorrect. Staff corrects me, it was the STEM bill that I was talking about. You did not mention that bill. But the point is the same: in moving ahead on a bipartisan fashion, the committee did come out with a bipartisan bill on Homeland Security, you're absolutely correct. And Mr. Price, the ranking member, was prepared to vote for that. He was going to urge the caucus to vote for it, and we were going to vote for it until, with very few exceptions, your caucus, your side of the aisle, voted overwhelmingly to put in a piece, an amendment, which you knew would undermine the bipartisanship that had been arrived at by the committee. That's unfortunate. The gentleman, ironically from our perspective, I tell my friend with great respect, we think that the Family Flexibility Act was the Family Income Reduction Act. We think what it said to an awful lot of working people: you're not going to get paid overtime. If your colleague will work for free and get comp time at some point in time that the employer decides, we're not going to pay overtime. So you're right, we respectfully disagree. As I said, we think that was the Family Income Reduction Act. Families are already struggling. Middle-income families' income has been stuck in the mud, and we think that exacerbated it further. And, very frankly, as the gentleman knows, that was a bill that was offered some years ago with very substantial opposition and didn't become law, as this one is not going to become law. But in any event, let me close with this question. There are three bills which are being marked up. Maybe Ag was marked up or is going to be marked up soon. Does the gentleman expect that all 12 appropriations bills will be brought to the floor? He talks about priorities. Our priorities are different, although ironically, the gentleman has expressed in his memos and in his agenda that he has announced a desire to focus research on biomedical research to keep Americans healthier, children and others. Ironically, the 302(b) that he talked about earlier suggests, to be exact, a 26.5 percent cut in the bill that funds NIH. That's going to result in a very substantial reduction in basic biomedical research at NIH, and the leaders at NIH have made that very clear that not only that bill but the present sequester is undermining their ability to conduct biomedical research. I know the gentleman feels strongly about that, as I do. Let me ask him: Do you think that bill will be brought to the floor? It was not brought even to the full committee last year, much less to the floor. Therefore, no one had the opportunity to have a vote on those priorities. Can the gentleman tell me whether he thinks those nine remaining bills will be brought to the floor? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I look forward to seeing the Labor- Health bill on the floor and seeing how he comes to those priorities because I think it is very important. Before I close--and I think he has left the floor--but I do want to mention that today is the day on which John Dingell of Michigan becomes the longest-serving Member of Congress in the history of the Congress, since 1789. He is one of the great legislators with whom many of us have served, and I know that next week we will be having an opportunity on the floor to have all Members, or many Members, participate in recognizing his service. My staff tells me maybe we're going to do it tomorrow and not next week, but most Members will be here next week, and I expect that they'll be saying something at that time as well. I know the majority leader joins me in congratulating our colleague and our friend, John Dingell, on his extraordinary service to not only the Congress of the United States, but to the American people.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend. Mr. Speaker, what's before us is before us. What's before us is a rule, not the MilCon bill, not Homeland Security. What's before us is the bill. And what does the bill do? It doesn't have an open process. It doesn't allow us an amendment. Mr. Van Hollen wanted to have an amendment and say let's go to conference on the budget; let's decide what these numbers ought to be. No, it's our way or the highway. You've passed a budget. You're going to stick with those numbers. They won't work. You know they won't work. That's why you don't go to conference, because Mr. Ryan knows he couldn't make a deal that he could bring back to this House and your side would vote for, I tell my friend on the Rules Committee. So what's before us is before us, a ratification of sequester, which starts with ``S,'' which stands for ``stupid.'' It is a terrible process. It is an irrational, commonsense-defying process. And yet my Republican friends continue to demand that we mark to figures that were contrary to the understanding, agreement--deal, if you want--that we made. In August of 2011, we made a deal and we said these are going to be the numbers, and the ink was not dry on the paper until such time as you violated that agreement. And the Ryan budget violates it once again and is $91 billion, almost 9 percent, less than the deal we made. What's before us is before us, the gentleman says. What's before us is the rule to ratify the sequester. Now, your side blames the President for it. The President doesn't want the sequester. We don't want the sequester. Mr. Van Hollen, who's sitting here, doesn't want the sequester, and he's tried to offer amendments to obviate the sequester and hasn't been allowed to have those amendments on the floor, I tell my friend on the Rules Committee. And I congratulate him for his position, but he ought to allow the Van Hollen amendment so the House can, in fact, work its will, so that we can, in fact, have a process that will work.

Mr. HOYER. Now, my friend says he's been here for some time and he's participated in another legislative body. Well, I've been here for a long time myself, as the gentleman knows, some 33 years, and 12 years in the Maryland Senate, President of the Senate for the last 4 I was there. So I've been around for some years myself. The fact is, I will tell the gentleman, there is no possibility you're going to consider all 12 bills because, as the gentlelady said, you're going to run out of money. Why? Because you're front-loading that which you like, and that which you're not too happy about is going to be not only breaking the agreement we made, but far below your own budget numbers because you didn't want to mark to your 966 with this bill. Why? Because you want to make sure the veterans were taken care of. God bless you. I agree with that. But there's only X number of dollars in that pot, and somebody's going to lose. What the President is saying is let's consider them all together. That's what we ought to be doing. Reject this bill, reject this sequester, reject this deeming resolution, and let us have a rule that makes common sense for our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for taking the floor, and I thank the gentleman from New York for joining in. I think that we are on the cusp of a real expansion and reinvigoration of our manufacturing sector in this country for a lot of reasons that I point out around the country, and I know the two of you do as well. First of all, salaries are going up overseas. That's good news for them and, frankly, for us. Furthermore, as we all know, it's costing a lot more to ship goods back to the biggest market in the world than it used to. Thirdly, I think both of you have talked about energy. We are about to become an energy-independent Nation with energy that has a cost less than most of our competitors around the world, so we have become, in a relatively short period of time, I think, in many respects, the venue of choice for someone who wants to either expand or establish manufacturing here in this country or, frankly, continue to grow things in this country. As you know, our Make It in America agenda really has four component parts. One is having a plan. Nobody talks about this more than John Garamendi of California, and God bless you for that. Thank you so much for your leadership on this issue. And Paul Tonko from New York also has been very focused on this issue, and I thank him for that. The second part of the agenda is to not only have a plan, but be focused on exports, be focused on building markets for small, medium, and large businesses. Large businesses have the resources to look for markets themselves. In many respects, small- and medium-sized businesses do not, but they are producing products that they can sell not only here but around the world. President Obama was in Baltimore not too long ago at a relatively small company, Ellicott Dredges, in Baltimore. They have sold dredges to over 100 countries in the world, and they are making those dredges in America. The third part is to encourage bringing jobs home, not sending them overseas. It makes no sense to have a tax policy that gives benefits to people who are sending job overseas while we have millions of Americans who can't find jobs. So what we want to do is incentivize bringing jobs home by giving a tax break for not only bringing jobs home, but creating jobs here in America. Lastly--you both referenced this--we need to make sure that we have a 21st century workforce. As a result, we need to invest, as the gentleman from New York just said--I am just repeating his words, but I use them all the time as well--we need to invest in education, innovation, and infrastructure. That's what helps you grow American manufacturing jobs. And Americans, when they're polled, over 85 percent of them say, if America is going to be the kind of country we want it to be, it will be because we make things here in the United States of America. And the ``Made in America'' label is seen all over the world. In fact, the ``Made in America'' label is a very popular label all over the world. So I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) and the gentleman from New York for their leadership and their focus on what is critical: if the next generation of Americans is going to make it, that we provide the kinds of jobs and opportunity, as well as education and investment in innovation, that they need to continue to live in the most successful economic country on the face of the Earth. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. HOYER. Amen.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I know that Members want to catch planes, and I will be brief; but I did want to take this opportunity. From time to time we, in sadness, see one of those people leave who have served this institution very well, and served me, both in my role as majority leader and as Democratic whip. But I wanted to rise at this point in time to say thank you--and I know you want to join with me--to Austin Burnes, who is leaving as my floor director and as a valued friend and staff member. At the same time, I want to thank those on Speaker Boehner's staff, on Majority Leader Cantor's staff and on Whip McCarthy's staff who have worked so well and positively with Austin Burnes, for helping us to do our job better. Obviously, there were differences from time to time-- well, maybe all the time--but I thank you for that. Austin, I want to thank you for the service you have given to this institution, to your country, to me, and to all the Members who appreciate very much your advice and counsel.