Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as the sequester's effects continue to place our economy and national security at risk, the news that 650,000 civilian defense workers will be forced to take unpaid leave ought to alarm all Americans who are concerned about our military readiness and national security. These furloughs will affect thousands who live in my district and thousands who live in the districts of every Member here. After Congress voted earlier this month to end furloughs for air traffic controllers that had caused flight delays, one would have expected there to be a unanimous outcry for the rest of the sequester to be replaced. The best way to do that, of course, Mr. Speaker, is with a big and balanced agreement, but, instead, Republicans in this House don't seem interested. It's not just Democrats who are taken aback by their silence. Republican Senator and former Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, John McCain, said on May 14, just a few days ago, about these furloughs for civilian defense employees: Nobody seems to care. It's amazing. It's one of the most amazing things I've seen in the years I've been in the Senate. So said John McCain. Democrats continue to call for the sequester to be replaced with a balanced approach to deficits that restores fiscal discipline, preserves our ability to pay for our military readiness, and invests in a strong economy. The sequester, on its own, is not a solution. It has been, however, Republican policy all along and is now in effect because they refuse to compromise in a bipartisan way to find a real solution. If you go back to July of 2011 and look at the Republican offer of the Cut, Cap and Balance bill, you will see that sequestration is in there. It is the alternative that Republicans put forth as policy; 229 Republicans voted for that policy. Well, they got what they wanted. On April 27, a report in The Hill said: GOP leaders in the House said they have no plans to bring up broad legislation to replace sequestration, according to a leadership aide. The men and women who are hard at work supporting our troops and protecting our Nation are set to be furloughed for 11 days this year-- an unfair, unplanned, undeserved pay cut, while, frankly, the leadership of this House sits idly by and takes no action to replace the sequester. The same goes for the other terrible effects sequestration could have: 70,000 eligible children kicked off Head Start; 10,000 teachers' jobs at risk; retirement disability claims delayed; 4 million fewer Meals on Wheels for seniors; 125,000 fewer rental assistance vouchers; 2,100 fewer food safety inspectors. Surely, if those were on the floor for a vote, most of us would not vote for them; but that's what's happening as a result of the sequester. We know, Mr. Speaker, what the Republican plan is for these defense cuts, to pass appropriation bills in the House that shift those cuts so that domestic programs, those education, Head Start, food safety that I've just mentioned, basic biomedical research, are cut more deeply than the parties agreed to in the Budget Control Act in 2011. We also understand, Mr. Speaker, and everyone recognizes, that the domestic cuts Republicans want to impose, instead, couldn't even pass the House, let alone make it through the Senate or survive a certain veto. So, again, Mr. Speaker, we have only one reasonable option before us, and that is to work together, to set our differences aside for the good of our country, and to achieve real compromise. A big, balanced, bipartisan approach that replaces the entire sequester is the only way to protect our defense workers against these furloughs and end the uncertainty that they and their families are facing. Let's have a vote, Mr. Speaker, on a balanced alternative, not another vote to repeal health care reform that's not going anyplace, not another vote to roll back the rights of workers, not another vote to strip away safety standards or environmental protections. Let's stop wasting time and get to work on the most pressing challenge we face, and make the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal stability and invest in our economy and in our national security.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, apparently the Republicans are opposed to ObamaCare. I know that comes as a shock to America, so we need to tell them one more time or 37 times or maybe a 38th or 39th or 40th or 100th time. I don't know how many times we have to replay the election. There was an election in which this was one of the principal issues, and the proponent of health care for all Americans was elected by most Americans. Mr. Speaker, this vote, as we all know, is a waste of our time; it is, however, a political exercise. This will be the 37th vote to repeal health care reform since the Republicans took control of the House. It's exactly the same as the bill that we considered in July. That partisan bill was dead on arrival in the Senate, just as this one will be; and everybody knows it. In fact, The New York Times reported that since 2011: Republicans have spent no less than 15 percent of their time on the House floor on repeal in some way. Since 2011, they've spent 15 percent of their time on this House floor trying to repeal health care for all Americans. When President Obama was reelected after campaigning on the Affordable Care Act as a major first-term achievement with the unanimous opposition of Republican colleagues and after the Supreme Court said, yes, this is a constitutional exercise of the Congress' authority, Speaker Boehner said, ``ObamaCare is the law of the land.'' I had hoped that would be the end of wasted time and $52.4 million in taxpayer money on legislation to nowhere that would strip away benefits for millions and millions of Americans. Sadly, however, this vote is more of the same. It would increase out-of-pocket costs on preventive services for 105 million Americans, including 34 million seniors on Medicare and 71 million Americans covered under private plans. It would allow insurance companies to reimpose arbitrary lifetime limits on coverage for more than 100 million people. It would allow insurance companies once again to discriminate against and deny care to as many as 17 million children with preexisting conditions. CantorCare tried to reverse that and had to be pulled from this floor because even a Republican-sponsored attempt at dealing with preexisting conditions was rejected by our Republican colleagues.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the clock will not be turned back. ObamaCare is the law of the land. Those are not my words, but Speaker Boehner's. You say this vote is necessary so that freshman Members have a chance to get on record on a major issue. If they haven't gotten on record now, they're not going to get on record. If that is the standard for getting a vote on the floor, then let us have a vote on replacing the sequester which you have denied freshmen the chance to vote on all year. That is what we ought to be spending our time on, getting our country on a sound fiscal path, creating jobs and growing our economy. Instead, we tread water; we waste time as we continue to debate for the 37th time the repeal of health care for all Americans.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will be voting for the 37th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This vote comes at a time when we are facing serious and pressing challenges, one of the most important of which is the operations of the sequester. That is 37 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Let us set aside for a moment the important issue of how health reform is working and making quality care accessible and affordable for more Americans. I'll be speaking more about that from this floor in coming days, as I know some of my colleagues will. What I find--and I believe most Americans find--incomprehensible is how this House could waste its time on such a blatantly partisan vote when the effects of sequestration are having a growing negative effect on our economy and on the lives of so many American families. That ought to be our focus this week and every week until we find a solution, Mr. Speaker. Speaker Boehner has said that this 37th repeal vote is justified because freshman Members have not had an opportunity to vote on that issue. If that is his view, then, by the same reasoning, he should allow a vote on a balanced alternative to the sequester. Freshmen have not had a chance to cast their votes on whether to replace the entire sequester with a big and balanced solution to deficits. If the House proceeds with a vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that Members deserve an opportunity to be on the record on such an important issue, surely, Mr. Speaker, we also ought to have a vote on replacing the sequester, which we know is having adverse effects on our economy and on our national security. American families and businesses are facing greater and greater uncertainty as the result of the sequester and the unwillingness on the part of Congress to take a meaningful, bipartisan action to stop it. With this uncertainty, businesses have slowed hiring and in some cases have even begun to lay off workers. This indiscriminate and irrational nature of the sequestration means that it's ill effects will be felt across our economy and society without regard to our priorities. It also means that none of us, not one of us in this Chamber, is immune in our own districts where constituents will see a reduction in services and dislocation. Because of the sequester, we are at risk of 70,000 young people kicked off Head Start; 10,000 teacher jobs at risk for title I cuts; 4 million fewer Meals on Wheels for seniors; 600,000 women, infants, and children dropped off the rolls; emergency unemployment insurance cut by 11 percent for 2 million out-of-work Americans; 2,100 fewer food-safety inspections. That's a drop of 18 percent to make sure that our food is safe. And one-third of combat air units are grounded. The responsible path forward is for Democrats and Republicans to work together on a big and balanced approach to deficits that restores certainty to our businesses and families. Four times Mr. Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, has offered an amendment to the sequester, which would get to the same deficit reduction, but in a way that was prioritizing those things that are important in our country and eliminating those that are not, and raising some additional revenues, as well. Not only has that not been considered, but the Republicans have refused to allow that amendment on the floor. Yet we have the 37th time to repeal the health care bill, which is already benefiting millions of Americans. It's not a responsible use of congressional time. I urge the Speaker and the Republican leader to cancel this repeal vote and get back to business by allowing us to consider a balanced alternative to the sequester this week. I also urge them to bring to the floor a motion to go to conference on the budget. My Republican friends pleaded for the Senate to pass a budget. The Senate passed a budget; we passed a budget. Regular order is going to conference where we could, in fact, come to an agreement on a big and balanced deal to replace this negatively impacting sequester. There is nothing on the schedule to do that, either to repeal the sequester and change it or to go to conference, but a 37th vote that will go nowhere. And everybody who knows that to be the case is on the floor this week. How sad.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. ``Address us'' overstates what I'm going to do, but I'm always so pleased to be with all of you. And I was kidding on saying that. I want to tell you frankly, on the Republican side, you guys look so much better than you did when we served together, and we want all of you back on our side of the aisle. We're voting to reelect you. But I am so pleased to be here with all of you. I had the opportunity to say just a few words yesterday, but I particularly wanted to be here, and I don't see my Republican Speaker here. I think some of you know that story. Ray LaHood was presiding, and it was the nineties, '95, early '95, and I went up to Ray. We had about--I forget exactly--199 Members at that point in time. I went to Ray and I said, ``Ray, if you can get 20 votes, I will get 199, and we'll elect Bob Michel Speaker.'' But we didn't do that, as you noticed historically. But I fondly recall with you the days when we really did sit down and work together on a lot of things in a positive way and get things done for our country. We're not doing that as well this time, as you know. Ray would tell you that, working in the administration, but I particularly wanted to be here this morning. I don't see Bob here. Is Bob coming?

Mr. HOYER. Okay. Well, he is not here. I'm a huge fan of Bob Michel's, but I'm also a huge fan of Ray LaHood's, and I know you're honoring Ray today, and I want to join with you in honoring him. Not only did he serve as a staffer in the House of Representatives, upholding what we're not upholding as much today, the integrity and the self-respect of all the Members here, to some degree denigrating this institution and Members--I lament that. But Ray LaHood, as a staffer and as a Member of Congress and as a member of the President's Cabinet, has done some extraordinary work. Ray, I want to congratulate you and thank you for all the positive roles you have played in moving this country forward. We're going to miss you from the Cabinet, but we don't expect to miss you from our lives, as so many here see. I want to wish you the very best. Jack tells me he's now the president of a community college in New York. I said, ``Well, are you watching what we're doing?'' He said, ``Not much.'' That's why he's got such a happy look on his face--hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Some of you were here when I came to the Congress in 1981, and some came with me. I came 5 months after you did, Dennis, and just a few months before Barbara came to the Congress. So I want to say on behalf of all the leadership--hopefully on both sides of the aisle--I know that's the case. And remember, I'm not going to drag my leg, but do you remember John Rousselot? Does that name ring a bell with you? Well, when I came to the Congress, John Rousselot probably was the Member that I had the most negative feelings about: John Birch Society, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Into about a year, I got to really think, John Rousselot is not a bad guy at all. I don't recall whether you recall, but he used to smile at all of us as if to say, Okay, I've come over to your side and now I'm really gonna give it to you. And he did it with such a twinkle in his eye and such a positive. Jim Blanchard--Governor Blanchard, Ambassador Blanchard, all things Blanchard--is shaking his head. But that was a lesson to me, as it should be a lesson for all of us, to take people not on which side of the aisle they're on, not which side of the liberal-conservative range they may fall, not on some simplified newspaper story that you read, but on, as King said, the content of their character. I think the more that we get to know one another, the more we understand why this body really does over the long term work. The only way you can get here is be elected by your neighbors, and they do pretty well. They're not perfect, we're not perfect, but they do pretty well, and they elect some really fine people Representatives of their districts. The trick is for all of us to come together and work together. Your efforts here, I think, help in that regard. So, welcome back, and I look forward to seeing you, not just when the former Members come back. I see Connie all the time and Bev all the time, my colleagues from Maryland. And I saw Jim the other day, and we had a good talk. But come back, visit; and if I can help in any way, I want to do it, just as I will want those who succeed me after I leave to do the same. So, Ray, congratulations to you. Thank you very much. And, to all of you, thank you for all you have done through the years, and thanks for remembering and coming back and helping our institution be all that it can be. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember Vincent Roper, who passed away on April 4 of natural causes at the age of 79. For decades, Vince and his wife Roberta worked tirelessly to advance victims' rights in Prince George's County and throughout Maryland, advocating for rights and support services for crime victims and their families as they heal and seek justice. Vince and Roberta suffered an unimaginable tragedy in 1982 when their daughter, Stephanie, was murdered. Following this tragic crime, the Roper family wasn't permitted to observe the trial and was denied the right to address the court at the sentencing. Their frustration led them to establish the Stephanie Roper Committee and Foundation, Inc., which is now known as the Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center. The Center actively lobbies legislators in Annapolis and played a significant role in the passage of the Federal Crime Victims Rights Act, the Maryland Crime Victims Rights Act of 1997, and other legislation that is making a substantial difference in the lives of crime victims and their families in Maryland. Born in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, in 1933, Vince later enlisted in the U.S. Navy at the age of 17 and was selected to attend the U.S. Naval Academy. A graduate of the class of 1956, he served our nation for thirty years as a naval officer and retired as a Captain. In addition to serving as the Treasurer of the Stephanie Roper Committee and Foundation, he served our community as a member of the Knights of Columbus, the Most Holy Rosary Council No. 11511, and the Naval Weather Service Association. Prince George's County and the State of Maryland owe a great deal to Vince for his hard work and dedication to ensuring that every crime victim in Maryland is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. I join our community in mourning his passing, and my thoughts and prayers are with Roberta and their family.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, the ranking member. I rise partly in sadness, wholly in disappointment, that we are playing this game. How sad. I tell my other friend from Michigan, his amendment is sad, too, I want to say. It's a device to try to get people to vote for a bill that has no merit by making Members' pay somehow present in this bill. We ought to consider things on their merit, not on this political gamesmanship. Madam Speaker, for the second time, House Republicans have decided to put our country at risk by defaulting on its obligations. They know this bill is not going anywhere. They know the President would veto it, and they know Republican economists think this bill makes no sense. I won't ask the gentleman who chairs the Ways and Means Committee his real view on this bill. This so-called ``debt prioritization'' bill mandates that, in the event we hit the debt limit, we will pay China first, not our contractors doing business with us, not our Federal employees, not veterans--yes, Social Security is taken care of--not our military. We'll pay China first. That's what this bill says. No major creditor in this country would have a debt prioritization. Now, the secondary lenders and tertiary lenders, yes, have prioritization, but no major lender, no big corporation. They say, if we incur a debt, we'll pay it--not we'll pay this one first and you second or third or fourth. We'll pay China first and other creditors before we pay our troops, seniors, health care and veterans benefits. Yes, you've made an exemption for Social Security, not in the original bill, but politically that was too hot to handle, so you added Social Security. Just yesterday, Speaker Boehner admitted that this bill means the United States of America will voluntarily act like a bankrupt corporation and pay China before we pay our troops. How sad. How patently political. How transparent that we are trying to give a fig leaf so that we can play around with the national debt. Ronald Reagan would be deeply disappointed, and he expressed that. Speaker Boehner said: Those who have loaned us money, like in any other proceeding . . . the bondholders usually get paid first. The same thing here--pay China first. This partisan bill is not a feasible solution to our debt problem, and even Republicans recognize this won't work. Tony Fratto, a former Bush administration spokesman on economic policy--this is a Republican spokesman--said: Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really going to be in the position of withholding benefits, salaries, rent, contract payments, et cetera, in order to pay off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political catastrophe.

Mr. HOYER. Former Bush chief economic adviser Keith Hennessey--this is an economic adviser, not a spokesperson--said this: If the U.S. Government legally commits to paying someone a benefit or agrees to pay a firm for a good or a service, the U.S. Government should fulfill that agreement in a timely fashion. To do otherwise is taking the first step to becoming a banana republic. That's Hennessey, not Hoyer, not a Democrat. That's a Bush economic adviser. Madam Speaker, we should not be admitting defeat and ranking the losers as this bill would do. Instead of choosing to pay China or any other holder of our debt before we pay our troops--and we ought to pay them, and we ought to pay them on time, but that's not the issue. The issue is the United States of America, the most creditworthy Nation on Earth, ought to pay all its debt in a timely fashion--all--not prioritize--all--across the board. For our wounded veterans and for the seniors who have worked hard to build this country, we should be working to fix the problem by coming to a consensus on a big and balanced deal to reduce our deficit, including tax reform, which the chairman is so assiduously seeking. Playing politically motivated games with the creditworthiness of the United States will only risk another downgrade.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have already spoken about this amendment. I think this amendment is as sad as the bill. We continue to play games because we think that, in a way, we will compel people to vote for something they don't want to vote for--and, in my view, are not going to vote for. I think it's sad. I think we continue to demagogue this institution and its Members. That's sad. We leaders should not do that. This is a serious bill. Now, I want to tell the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, I know what the debt is. And I know that debt has been incurred because we bought a lot of things we didn't pay for, including over $1 trillion of Afghanistan and Iraq, including a prescription drug bill that projects over $2 trillion, including tax cuts that were $2.3 trillion that not a penny were paid for. I understand, and I think it's serious. The sad thing is that this is not a serious response. This is an irresponsible response. This is a response that, as I said earlier, says that we will pay some people first, but we won't pay all our debts. The richest country on the face of the Earth, the most creditworthy nation on the face of the Earth, we won't pay all our debts. There is a simple way to do this: stop demagoguing one another. And I want to say to the gentleman, as he knows, Democrats have demagogued this issue when we've had Republican Presidents and Republicans have demagogued it when we've had Democratic Presidents. We all know that we've incurred debts and we're going to pay them. That's all this is. It's very simple: we're either going to pay our debts or we're not. Now, I want to tell my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, I know about the debt. The gentleman refers to $5 trillion. I'm sure the gentleman knows these statistics: Under Ronald Reagan, the debt was increased 189 percent; under George Bush, 55 percent--the first George Bush, 55 percent; under this President so far, a little over 40 percent.

Mr. HOYER. Every Republican President with whom I've served, Madam Speaker, every Republican President has increased the debt as a percentage of GDP higher than either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Bill Clinton was the lowest, 37 percent. This President is a little over 40 percent of GDP. It's just like saying the minimum wage now is $7.25, which is so much higher than it was in 1970--which is not the case. Now, as a dollar, a nominal figure, it's higher, and the gentleman knows that very well. He is my friend and I have great respect for him. But this bill is unfortunate. This amendment is--I won't characterize it as harshly as I feel about it. We have to stop playing games. We have to be serious. We need to come together and adopt a big plan that's balanced, that can pass and will put this country on a fiscally sustainable path; and, in the process, we ought to pay our bills because we incurred them. We incurred them honestly for objectives that this House, this Senate, and the President of the United States signed for.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come. Mr. Brady, as I understand, is the designee of the majority leader, and I welcome and appreciate his participation.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information and, again, I want to thank him. I know that the majority leader could not be here and he's filling in, and I appreciate the fact that he is doing so. Mr. Brady, I notice that there is not on the notice for the schedule for next week any reference about a motion to go to conference on the budget. As you know, the Senate has now passed a budget, which it had not done for some years. Your side, in particular, but all of us wanted the Senate to pass a budget. They have now passed a budget. We passed a budget. We would hope on this side of the aisle that we would now go to conference. I'm wondering whether the gentleman can--in light of the fact that it is regular order that two sides pass, now try to compromise the differences that exist between the two Houses--can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is a plan to go to conference and, if so, what that schedule might be? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the fact that you're encouraged. Frankly, our side has not heard an encouraging word. In fact, we continue to hear discouraging words, as the song says. I'm very hopeful we can bridge the gap that exists, which is about $100 billion, as the gentleman knows. The Senate marked $1.058 trillion, which of course was consistent with the Budget Control Act that we agreed upon, we voted on, and passed. The President signed the Budget Control Act, including that figure for the fiscal year '14 budget. The Ryan budget, as you know reflects a $966 billion 302 allocation; that is, general discretionary spending levels. I'm wondering when you say you're encouraged, do you know whether there's been any progress toward trying to bridge that gap? Obviously, as a former appropriator, many times it's 50/50 you come to the middle, which would be about $1 trillion or a little more than that. I'm wondering whether or not the gentleman knows whether any progress has been made on that? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Just let me observe that on our side we think it would be useful if the American public had the opportunity to, in effect, see the discussions in a conference. I've been here long enough to remember when we had conferences on the Appropriations Committee. They were open to the public. They were reported on. We had discussions about the differences that existed, as one would expect, from people elected from different parts of the country and with different views. But we think it would be very helpful if those discussions were held, because the differences are pretty profound and pretty significant, that it would help the public to have a better understanding of the process. In addition, as the gentleman knows, of course, there was some discussion about the President's coming down late with his budget. We should have been through the budget process by now so that the Appropriations Committee could proceed with its allocations to its 12 subcommittees. In that context, I would ask the gentleman, does the gentleman have any idea when the appropriations bills might be marked up and brought to the floor? As you know, under regular order, for the most part, we have brought appropriations bills to the floor starting in mid-May or the last week in May so that we could get through that process in June and July and send those bills to the Senate so that we might have conferences and complete our work by October 1. And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I appreciate that and I look forward to the consideration of the appropriations bills on the floor. I want to say that for the most part you have followed open rules, which we did as well in 2007 until we just couldn't get the bills done in a timely fashion. Hopefully, we can do that, because I think that, again, it gives the public the opportunity to see the priorities of not only each Member but both sides moving forward. I think that's appropriate in a democracy. I appreciate the fact that the majority leader intends to bring those bills to the floor starting in June. I'm not sure whether we can finish all 12 in June, but perhaps finish those in July. We did not bring, as the gentleman knows, the Labor and Health bill to the full committee in the last cycle, much less to the floor. That bill will be tough. Chairman Rogers--I know the gentleman is on a committee that he believes is more important. He and I may differ in that perception. He's a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I was a former member of the Appropriations Committee. But, nonetheless, Mr. Rogers has made the observation, in terms of the dollars allocated in the Ryan budget for discretionary spending, both on the defense side and nondefense side: I suspect there will be some who will be shocked. I don't think people yet understand how severe the numbers will be. Those numbers refer to the $966 billion in discretionary spending, which will require deep cuts in almost every program on the national defense side and on the discretionary side. So, the sooner we get to that, because I think it's going to be a difficult process, the better. And I appreciate your information with reference to the majority leader's intent to bring them to the floor. Now, I also did not see on the schedule, Mr. Brady, anything that deals with the sequester. I do see the Affordable Care Act repeal on the floor next week, which has been, of course, on this floor some 33, 34, 35 times before, to repeal it. We're having another repeal vote coming up. I think honestly you believe, as I believe, that that bill is not going to go anywhere, other than perhaps through the House of Representatives, but, beyond that, it won't go anywhere. However, the sequester continues to be an ongoing challenge to our country, to our government, and to our people. We dealt with it in a sort of surgical fashion dealing with the FAA, but we have not dealt with any of the other concerns. As the gentleman knows, I have concerns about the fact the sequester may result in 70,000 children not being on Head Start. They are only 3 or 4 years of age once. The Social Security Administration may have to furlough payments, which will slow down payments of Social Security. There are 4 million fewer Meals on Wheels for seniors. There are 600,000 people who have been dropped off the Women, Infants, and Children program. There are 125,000 fewer HUD rental assistance vouchers for people who are homeless or who are struggling to keep a home. Unemployment insurance has been cut 11 percent for 2 million out-of-work Americans. We now have no safety net for them. The FDA will have 2,100 fewer food safety inspectors--that's down 18 percent--obviously, putting at risk our food safety; and we will furlough an equivalent to 1,000 fewer Federal agents, FBI--we know from the Boston Marathon bombings how critical the FBI was--and border security. One-third of combat air units have been grounded. I mention all of those simply in the context of those consequences of the sequester. I see it's not on next week, and we have a week after that that we'll be in session. Does the gentleman have any information with reference to whether or not we will deal with trying to ameliorate these adverse consequences of sequester before we leave here for the Memorial Day break? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments; but I do want to observe that the President of the United States has offered a budget which eliminates the sequester and gets to a budget deficit reduction and fiscal sustainability in an alternative way which we think is much more positive. I would also remind the gentleman that Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, offered an alternative which gets rid of the sequester, which all sides agree is an irrational process in that it cuts the highest priority and lowest priority the same. The sequester, as the gentleman knows, was put in a bill to force action with the specific belief and premise that the sequester was so bad, so irrational, so lacking in common sense, so negative in its impact that it would never be adopted. Sadly, it was adopted. I want to say also that the gentleman and a lot of his colleagues like to mention that this is the President's suggestion. With all due respect, Jack Lew brought it up with Mr. Reid, and everybody has read about that in Mr. Woodward's book. He brought it up, however--and the gentleman probably recalls this--days after sequester, as a policy, was included in the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill for which 229 Republicans voted for as a policy. I want to tell the gentleman just for his future information, on our side, we are opposed to the sequester. We want to see the sequester changed. Mr. Van Hollen not only offered a budget, but he offered four amendments. Each time we considered the CR and other legislation, four times he offered an amendment to substitute the same savings so we would get to those budget deficit reductions to which the gentleman spoke, but would not do so in the irrational, across-the-board fashion that sequester requires. So I want to make it clear, if there was any confusion on your side of the aisle, we are not for the sequester. I voted for the CR to keep the government open, but I voted against the CR, when it left this House, which had sequester in there. I, frankly, thought shutting down the government was even worse than the sequester, but I think the sequester is having a harmful effect, not only on government, but a harmful effect on our economy. I think it's a drip, drip, drip. It wasn't a ``shut the door.'' It wasn't black and white. It wasn't overnight, but it is a drip, drip, drip that is harming our economy. I understand what the gentleman has told us, but I would hope that we would seriously consider trying to see if we could reach agreement either outside the context of the budget conference or inside the context of the budget conference that would give us an alternative which would be more rational, more positive, and more helpful to our economy. The next subject is simply the debt ceiling. We just passed a bill on the prioritization. We unanimously opposed that on our side. We think that is not a good policy. Obviously, there is a disagreement on that. May 19 is the date that the debt ceiling extension expires. Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any proposal to act in the near future other than on debt prioritization, which will have no chance in the Senate and is roundly opposed by many Republican economists, as the gentleman knows, and by the former economic adviser to the Bush administration, who said that it would not work, should not work? Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any alternative plan, before we leave here for the Memorial Day break, to give confidence to the economy and to creditors and to the American people that we will deal responsibly with the debt limit extension? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Of course, we did have a balanced budget, as you'll remember, for the last 4 years of the Clinton administration. Now, there was a Republican-controlled Congress; but in the next 4 years, there was a Republican-controlled Congress, a Republican-controlled Senate, and a Republican President, and we went deeply into debt. We escalated the debt during the Bush administration by 87 percent of GDP more than this President has escalated the deficit. In nominal terms, as Mr. Camp observed before, the dollars are higher. That's true. It's because we are bigger, spending more money, making more money as a country. GDP is up. During the Reagan administration, we increased the debt as a percentage of the national GDP by 186 percent; 55 percent under George Bush; 37 percent under Mr. Clinton; and some 40-plus percent under this President today. So I think the gentleman and I agree that we need to get a handle on the debt and the deficit, but we disagree on how this happened. It happened because we didn't pay our bills, and we jettisoned PAYGO in 2003. As a practical matter, we jettisoned it in 2001. Not paying for things is what creates debt, not buying. If I buy things and I pay for them, I don't have a debt. If I buy things and don't pay for them, I have a debt. So it's not a question of what I buy, although clearly we need to restrain buying and we need to constrain spending, as I've said, all across the board--the gentleman has heard me--including entitlements, including discretionary defense and nondefense spending. But what we ought to do is manage our finances in a way that does not give pause to the American people or to the economy. I want to just read for you a quote. Keith Hennessy was George Bush's National Economic Council director who disagrees with your proposition that this prioritization will in any way stabilize--I don't think the gentleman disagrees with me that that bill is not going to pass the Senate. Here's what Keith Hennessy said: Payment prioritization doesn't stop payments; it just delays them. Then the aggrieved party sues the government and probably wins, and it turns into a bloody mess. Tony Fratto, who was the spokesman on economic policy in the Bush administration said this: Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really going to be in the position of withholding benefits, salaries, rent, contract payments, et cetera, in order to pay off Treasury bondholders? We refer to this, of course, as the Pay China First bill. And China ought to be paid. We borrowed money from them; we ought to pay them. Here's what he concludes of the prioritization bill: That would be a political catastrophe. I suggest it would be an economic catastrophe, as well, to say to our armed services personnel, We're not going to pay you, but we are going to pay China for our debts. The fact of the matter is the United States is the most creditworthy Nation on Earth. We ought to pay all of our debts and not on a priority status. If we owe you as the United States of America, we're going to pay you. That's our proposition. We should not prioritize paying simply bondholders, but paying smaller contractors we are doing business with who offer us services and products and we don't pay them until after we pay our bondholders. We ought to pay everybody. That's what America is about. So I would hope that we could revisit this because your debt prioritization is not going to pass. You know it's not going to pass. We need to get to a responsible way of dealing with the debt-limit extension. Both parties, I will tell my friend, have demagogued on this issue. We demagogued on it when we had a Republican President; you've demagogued on it--not you personally. I cast no aspersions. But both sides have demagogued on it when the President was of the other party. It's a shame. It's not been good for our country. Ronald Reagan said that Congress continues to run us up. And we ran us up so close last time that for the first time in history, the United States of America was downgraded by one of our rating agencies. I would hope the gentleman who serves on the Ways and Means Committee and I and others could work together so this doesn't happen again, that we make sure that the American people and that all of our creditors and people around the world know that the United States of America can and will handle its finances in a responsible fashion. If the gentleman wants to say anything further, I'll yield back to him; if not, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mrs. Roby and I are friends, but we have a very substantial disagreement about this bill. I call it the Pay Working Families Less bill because what it will result in is a cut in pay for almost everybody. Yes, there will be those who will volunteer who can afford to do comp time. Others will not be. And so they will not be able to earn overtime because the employer will invariably--not because they're bad people--but will invariably go to the person that will, in fact, do it for free. I understand it's comp time, but they won't get paid. Most workers at this level need the pay. They need to pay their mortgage, they need to pay their car payment, and they need to send their kids to school. It would, of course, be cheaper to run a business if we didn't pay people at all. But it wouldn't be America. Mr. Speaker, today in the House it's deja vu all over again. This bill has been here before. In 2003 it was pulled from the floor. Why? Because at that point in time, there were a significant number of Republicans who thought this was a lousy idea and thought it would undermine the Fair Labor Standards Act and the pay of working people. Unfortunately, there aren't that number of Republicans left in this House. It's deja vu all over again not only because this bill would send American workers back to the days before the 40-hour workweek, but we've also seen this same bill introduced and then, as I said, withdrawn. That's because it would eliminate the 40-hour workweek as we know it. Now, I know my friends on the Republican side disagree with that premise. I've been an employer. I've seen employers. They're not bad people, but they're trying to maximize profits, and they wouldn't be paying minimum wage if they didn't have to; and very frankly, the minimum wage is way below what it ought to be. This bill says that we would provide the workers with comp time, but permission as to when a worker could take accrued comp time would be entirely in his or her boss' hands.

Mr. HOYER. So that that letter, while a very nice letter, doesn't take that into consideration. The result would be longer hours for workers with no overtime pay and only the hope that their bosses will let them take their earned time off when asked. How we have skewed the rules and play against the middle working class of America. You ought to read the book ``Who Stole the American Dream?'' by Hedrick Smith. Workers wishing to collect their overtime pay would be forced to wait until the end of the year, essentially granting employers an interest- free loan. Mr. Speaker, this isn't fair, it isn't right, and it isn't going to become law; and everybody on this floor knows that--everybody. All 434 of us that are here today know that this bill is not going to become law. But we're wasting our time on it. Instead of wasting time on a partisan measure that would never make it through the Senate, we ought to be working on creating jobs and restoring fiscal discipline, not a partisan rollback of workers' rights, but a bipartisan compromise to help put more Americans to work. Again, I say, if those Republicans who were Members of this House in 2003 were still here, this bill would not be on the floor.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to call on Congress to replace the dangerous and irrational sequester with a big and balanced deficit solution. Ten weeks after the dysfunction of this Congress led to the sequester taking effect, our economy and the most vulnerable in our society are continuing to experience its effects. On a macro level, the sequester has added to the uncertainty businesses and markets were already facing, making it even more difficult to plan for the future and discouraging private sector investment and development that creates jobs. Just this past Wednesday, the Federal Reserve issued a statement that ``fiscal policy is restraining economic growth.'' But the ill-effects of the Republican sequester policy have been most devastating to those who are in the greatest need and rely on Federal assistance. 70,000 children who will be 3 once and 4 once will be kicked out of Head Start. $115 million in subsidies that help low- income parents access child care while they work will be eliminated. Over half a billion dollars is being taken away from children and family service programs. Because of the sequester, our most vulnerable children are at risk of losing their shot at the American Dream. It's not only our youngest citizens who are being hurt by sequestration. Low-income seniors will see 4 million fewer Meals on Wheels deliveries this year, putting at risk seniors who are sick and homebound. The National Institutes of Health will have to reduce life-saving medical research, and 600,000 women, infants, and children could be dropped from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's nutrition program. What an extraordinarily perverse version of ``women and children first''--an admonition to save first, not abandon first. Congress, Mr. Speaker, must act to replace this stupid sequester. I tell people that sequester starts with ``s,'' which stands for stupid. Congress needs to replace it with a big, balanced agreement that every bipartisan commission that has looked at our fiscal challenge has recommended. Restoring financial discipline sets America on a fiscally sustainable path and enables us to invest in education, innovation, and infrastructure that will grow our economy, create jobs and keep millions out of poverty and lift millions of others from poverty. In order for that to happen, of course, Mr. Speaker, I think you should appoint budget conferees so that negotiations on such a rational solution can begin in earnest. Sadly, it's becoming increasingly clear that Republicans are in no hurry to complete the work on a budget as a result of the draconian, unrealistic, and damaging spending levels they set forth under the sequester. Simply put, they cannot implement the budget they adopted, neither through the appropriations process nor through the Ways and Means Committee. Sequestration, of course, was meant to be so unacceptable that we surely would not allow it to come into effect. But it has. It has because it reflects the spending levels Republicans have long sought. Now, when I say that, some Republicans say, oh, well, the sequester was the President's idea. Not only is the President opposed to sequester, Democrats in the Senate and Democrats in the House are opposed. Most Republicans--that is to say, 229 Republicans--voted for H.R. 2560, Cut, Cap, and Balance. And what this bill that 229 Republicans voted for--and, by the way, 181 Democrats voted against-- was to say that we set numbers. If we don't meet them, what do we have? A sequester. Sequester was their policy; the across-the-board, irrational cutting of the highest priority and the lowest priority the same was their policy that they voted for, an unfortunate policy because it is so irrational and so harmful. Now they won't say how we can get there, of course, because it just isn't possible without gutting some of the most important programs that have a positive impact on our communities. The Republican Appropriations chairman, my friend, Mr. Rogers from Kentucky, said, on April 25: There will be some who are shocked. I don't think people yet understand how severe the numbers will be. That's the Republican chairman, my friend, with whom I served for many years on that committee, Hal Rogers from Kentucky. ``How severe the numbers will be.'' They're the numbers that were in the Ryan budget; they're the numbers that will be affected by sequester. Republicans are setting up, in my view, a dangerous game of hide-and- seek in which they will hide what sequester levels actually mean and try to mitigate the ones they believe will have political backlash, very frankly, as we did just about 12 days ago regarding the FAA. They know they can't achieve cuts their caucus can agree on and that the American people would support. And they seek, in my view, to blame the President and Democrats for what has been a wrong-standing Republican policy which I referenced in their Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation for which 229 of them voted for on July 19, 2011. To do so, Republicans proposed shifting the defense portion of the sequester--``to do so,'' meaning to get to the numbers that they proposed--by shifting the defense portion of the sequester on to domestic programs. In other words, the cuts that would normally be across the board, their solution is to simply shift them to some of the programs that I mentioned earlier in terms of Head Start, Meals on Wheels, and other programs that are so necessary to make sure that some of the least of ours are taken care of. Of course, this is a breaking of the agreement reached in the Budget Control Act of 2011. We all know the likely outcome of these partisan games, Mr. Speaker. House Republicans will once again be divided, as they were a week before we left, and prevent the adoption of a budget that includes a balanced approach. Now, balanced approach, I won't like all of it. My friend, Mr. Jones, won't like all of it. None of us will like all of it because it will be balanced and we'll have to take the good with the bad. But what it will be is an effort and a reality of getting America on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. Democrats are ready to make tough choices necessary to reach a compromise, and both sides have a responsibility-- my side, their side. Very frankly, we ought to be one side, the American side. Both sides have a responsibility to work together to meet our challenges in a sensible way, not a senseless, irrational way, which is what the sequester does, but in a smart way, worthy of our role as the American people's representatives.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this piece of legislation. The Editorial Board of USA Today was scathing yesterday in its assessment of where the blame for this sequester should lie, and I quote: No Members of Congress should be surprised at the havoc wrought by the sequester. After all, they caused it, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood repeatedly warned them about its sentences. But flight delays are just the tip of the iceberg visible above the water line for most Americans. As time goes on without a big, balanced deficit solution to replace the sequester, more of that iceberg will surface. More Americans will be negatively affected. While I want to end these delays for passengers in Maryland and across the country, I will oppose this bill because it fails to address the whole impact of the sequester. Let me share just a handful of examples of how the sequester will affect Americans: Education: Head Start--70,000 children will be kicked out of Head Start. Nothing in this bill deals with them. Furloughs to cause delays in processing retirement disability claims. Nothing in this bill deals with them. Nutrition for Vulnerable Populations--4 million fewer Meals on Wheels for seniors; 600,000 people dropped off WIC. Nothing in here for them. Housing--125,000 fewer HUD rental assistance vouchers. Nothing in here for them. Unemployment Insurance--emergency unemployment insurance cut 11 percent for 2 million out-of-work Americans. Nothing in here for them. FDA--2,100 fewer food safety inspections, an 18 percent cut; longer waits to approve new drugs. Nothing in here for them. Nothing in here for them. Defense and Homeland Security--furloughs equivalent to 1,000 fewer Federal agents, FBI, Border, et cetera, on the job; one-third of combat air units are grounded. Nothing in here for them.

Mr. HOYER. IRS--89,000 agency-wide furloughs up to 7 days, including taxpayer-assistance centers. Nothing in here for them. They serve 89,000 taxpayers trying to find help. We ought not to be mitigating the sequester's effect on just one segment when children, the sick, our military, and many other groups who will be impacted by this irresponsible policy are left unhelped. Instead of dressing this serious wound with a small Band-Aid, let's get to work on a real solution. Let's go to conference, let's get a big deal, let's deal with all the adverse consequences of sequester, not just those that affect the powerful air travelers of America. We ought to help them, but we ought to help everybody else as well.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me inform my friend from Iowa that he absolutely misstates my position. I have been against the sequester every year I was on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, these across-the-board cuts. I opposed your Cut, Cap, and Balance bill, which you supported, which had sequester as the alternative. The President is against sequester, the Senate budget is against sequester, and you would not allow us to offer an amendment four times, which would have precluded sequester, not only for air travel, but for those Head Start children, for those senior citizens, for basic biomedical research. So I tell my friend, if you are going to state the facts, state them correctly.