Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I first want to thank the ranking member for the work that he's done on this budget that he offers as an alternative. It is a reasonable alternative that can be implemented. To that extent, it's a stark difference to the majority's proposal, which will not be implemented, and they know it. Let me start with an observation, a headline, ``Blunt Report Says GOP Needs to Regroup for '16.'' In that, there is this sentence from the report. It's not from a Democrat, not from the newspaper, not from an editorial writer. It says, ``We have become expert''--``we,'' being the Republican Party. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reenforcement to like-minded people. With all due respect to my friend, Mr. Ryan, that's what his budget is: it is a vision. It is a vision that will not be implemented, and he knows it. He knows that the Appropriations Committee will not be able to report out bills consistent with his budget, nor will the Ways and Means Committee come even close to reporting out bills that will implement his budget. Why? Because they're so draconian. And as I have said before, if every Democrat were taken out of this House and every Democrat taken out of the Senate, you would not implement the Ryan budget. Mr. Van Hollen has put together a balanced plan. Yes, it has revenues, and, yes, it keeps the Affordable Care Act in place, and, yes, it provides for funding for investment in growing our economy. Mr. Ryan knows--and I have great respect for Mr. Ryan. I have great respect for his intellect and, frankly, from time to time, for his political courage. We voted together on TARP. It was a tough vote for him. It was a tough vote for me. It was a tough vote, period. But it was the right vote for the economy. We would have been in a depression had we not voted for that bill, and I congratulate Mr. Ryan on doing that. But I'll lament the fact that we do not have an equally honest but tough resolution of a big deal in how to get from where we are--too much debt, too much deficit--to where we need to be: a fiscally sustainable path. We will not get there, I tell my friend, by vision alone. Courage will be much more important than vision in that case. And Mr. Van Hollen has shown courage by offering a budget that will provide for our people, for our country, and for our economy. I urge all my colleagues to support the Van Hollen alternative. Why? Because it is a responsible, fiscally implementable--there's a word for you--fiscally doable alternative.

Mr. HOYER. Ezra Klein, who may not be your favorite writer, says: Ryan's tax reform plan costs more than all his spending cuts combined. That's why I say it can't be implemented. And if we were in private and there were no politics involved, I think my friend would admit that. He shakes his head ``no.'' I didn't expect anything different than that. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an important statement of vision. It's an important statement of what our priorities are. It's an important statement to the American people, to seniors, to students, to families, to children where our priorities are. The Van Hollen priorities are the right priorities for America, and I urge my colleagues to support the Van Hollen alternative.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I heard the gentlelady from Michigan's comments. I have three grandchildren of my own and two great grandchildren. The gentlelady said we don't want to turn to them and say, We don't want to pay our bills. You pay them. That's what we did in '01 and '03. We cut revenues. We cut revenues deeply. We didn't cut spending--we increased spending--on the theory that the people who were going to get the benefit were voting and that the people who were going to get paid and who were going to have to pay the bill weren't voting. It worked to some degree; but we didn't pay, as the gentlelady suggested we ought to, our bills. As the gentlelady probably knows, we had a provision in place which said we ought to pay as we go. If we buy a war, we ought to pay for it. If we buy a tax cut, we ought to pay for it. If we buy a prescription drug, we ought to pay for it and not ask my children or my grandchildren or your children or your grandchildren to pay for it. I agree with the lady, but that's what we've done. Now we are about the process of undermining the people's government by slashing its funding so it cannot provide the services that the people want and need and vote for, and now we will slash the ability of this House to do what the people expect us to do. I'm sorry the former Secretary of State left the Chamber. He's the Secretary of State. He says we ought to lead by example. By golly, I'll tell you: the people in my constituency, they hope we're not the example of how to work. They hope we're not the example of the dysfunction that they ought to follow, that we're not the example of ``do it my way or no way,'' which is what we've been doing. The people of the United States of America send us here, and they want us to make sure that we adopt policies that will help them and their families, that will create jobs and grow our economy. That's what they want. What the people of the United States also want is to make sure we can conduct the oversight of their government. That's our responsibility. The previous gentleman said, Well, the executive ought to lead, and then we wouldn't need to do oversight. I didn't get that, frankly, at all. The executive is a separate and equal branch of government, but we are the first branch of government. We are article I. We are the people's House. We represent the people, and they expect us to make sure their government is operating properly. To the extent that year after year we reduce our ability to conduct the oversight necessary to ensure that the people's government is operating consistent with law and on behalf of the people of the United States-- to the extent that we undermine that ability--we undermine free government, a free people, a free country. We undermine the ability of this government to make sure that the executive is doing the right thing. And to the extent that the population of this country keeps growing, as it does every year, it needs us to be on the job. And what we're saying, of course, is: Well, we have a sequester. Sequester starts with ``S''; it stands for stupid. It is an irrational policy that we've adopted. And we've adopted it. It just didn't happen. It didn't come out of the air. It didn't fall from the trees. We adopted sequester. It's an irrational, ineffective, inefficient, negative policy that we've not only allowed to go into place, but in the budget we passed, we adopted it one more time, not by mistake but by policy. It was a bad policy. I didn't vote for it. It's irrational. I tell people around the country, you know, it's like the family has a budget. You have a food budget and you have a movie budget. Somebody loses their job and so your income goes down. So what you do is you sit around the table and say: We'll cut food by 10 percent and movies by 10 percent. What rational human being would do that? Nobody. They'd say we're not going to go to the movies this month so we can put food on the table and make sure that our family is well fed. But that's not what we're doing. The sequester that we're now pursuing, somewhat mindlessly, in my opinion, with respect to our ability to do the job that the people expect us to do, is to cut food by 10 percent and movies by 10 percent.

Mr. HOYER. My friends, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I want the American people to know we've cut committee funding for 2 years in a row because we understand that we're asking everybody to notch in their belt by one or two notches, and we ought to do the same. And we have. But if you undermine the people's ability to do their job, you're going to be in trouble. Woodrow Wilson once wrote: ``Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition.'' That's what we are here, we're on public exhibition. The TV is on, people are watching us, and people are seeing us. But what Woodrow Wilson also said was: ``Whilst Congress in committee rooms is Congress at work.'' That's where we really do our work. We vote on it here, but committees are critically important creatures of oversight and of action. I think the gentlelady is a good Member of this House, and she's been given a tough responsibility. She laments the fact that we have no money. We have no money because we said we didn't need it; we have no money because we can operate government without it. Mr. Speaker, I hear your gavel, and I will close, but I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. Let's make sure that the Congress of the United States can do the job that the people expect. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this committee funding bill, which would hurt the ability of Congress to do its work effectively. This bill would cut the funding for House Committees by an additional 11% in order to meet the irrational demands of sequestration--on top of huge cuts imposed last Congress. Committees have lost around a quarter of their funding in the past few years, and this has meant fewer staff positions and the possibility of furloughs. Most, I think, do not realize just how important committees are to the work we perform on the American people's behalf. Woodrow Wilson once wrote: Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work. Eroding the ability of committees to do their work seriously limits the ability of Congress to engage in the people's work. The Speaker and majority leader have said many times that this House ought to follow regular order. To do so, we must have strong and fully functioning committees. I urge my colleagues in both parties to oppose this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HOYER. Just so we're pretty accurate, as the gentlelady knows, your side offered a bill which was called Cut, Cap, and Balance. The alternative in Cut, Cap, and Balance was sequester. I didn't vote for that. I'm not sure how the gentlelady voted on it. It passed this House overwhelmingly with Republican support and with opposition on our side before Jack Lew suggested to Harry Reid that that might be one way to get off the lack of action in making sure that America paid its bills. The only reason I interrupt the gentlelady is because I think it is important to understand that your Cut, Cap, and Balance, passed before that suggestion was made, included sequester as the fallback if we didn't reach the numbers. If it's the President's, it's the President's via Cut, Cap, and Balance which your side of the aisle passed and sent to the Senate as presumably good policy. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. She was very kind to do that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Is it in order to request at this point in time a vote on the Journal?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was seeking recognition to ask for a vote on the Journal when you recognized me to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. I ask unanimous consent that I might now ask for a vote on the Journal.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Nolan, who was in this body before I was and before you were and before Mr. Barletta was, he has been in public service for a very long period of time. Therefore, I appreciate the remarks he made in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, which I am proud to have sponsored for the last 22 years. It allows the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to hold its 72nd annual competition on June 15 on the grounds of this Capitol. This is a longstanding tradition which brings young people ages 8 to 17 and their families from around the D.C. metro area to the Capitol for a fun and educational experience. Since 1938, the derby has inspired thousands of the region's young people to learn the physics behind gravity racing and the engineering used to design soap box racers. America's Soap Box Derbies have been called ``the greatest amateur racing event in the world,'' and on June 15, it will continue to make history. The derby teaches sportsmanship, hard work, and pride of accomplishment, and it imbues its young participants with that same spirit of innovation that has long fueled America's greatness. The young people who participate in these derbies are often sponsored by community groups, police departments, fire departments, and others who want to invest in our country's future in a very direct and meaningful way. Every year, I am incredibly proud of my constituents from Maryland's Fifth District who participate. A number of Soap Box Derby champions have come from the Fifth District, including the winners of 2007, 2008, 2009, and last year. The winners in 2007 and 2008, Kacie Rader and Courtney Rayle, respectively, went on to win the national Soap Box Derby championship. As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to be able to say that about the Maryland Terrapins this year, but that, apparently, will not be the case, although I do expect them to win the NIT. Last year's winners from the Fifth District were Brittany Sorli and Brandon Sorli of Waldorf, who won the Masters and Super Stock divisions. I want to thank the Members who are cosponsoring this resolution: Representatives Gerry Connolly, Donna Edwards, Jim Moran, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chris Van Hollen, John Delaney, and my classmate who came with me to Congress in the 97th Congress, my dear friend, Frank Wolf. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, and I thank Mr. Nolan and Mr. Barletta for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of his substitute and in opposition to the so-called SKILLS Act. Mr. Chairman, there was an opportunity to do this in a bipartisan fashion. As we so often do, unfortunately, in this body, we choose to do it in a partisan fashion, which almost predictably will mean its defeat. This bill is a partisan-sponsored version which is opposed by most stakeholders, including the National Skills Coalition. It's a partisan bill because, unfortunately, Republicans refused Democrats' request to negotiate a bipartisan version. We need a bill like the Democratic alternative introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who wrote a bill that enhances career pathways into training programs for advanced manufacturing and other industries. Our alternative would work to enhance partnerships with industry, maintain a role for all stakeholders in workforce investment, and protect services for those facing significant barriers to finding work. This is the type of approach that House Democrats' Make It in America plan has endorsed. Unfortunately, the Republican bill, on the other hand, would eliminate and/or consolidate 35 programs into a single Workforce Investment Fund. That may sound good, but it lacks any priority of service for those facing the highest barriers to employment. These include low-income individuals and those with poor work histories. It ends the requirement that State and local Workforce Investment Boards include representation of workers, labor representation, and it removes much-needed funding for low-income youth, other than Job Corps. Mr. Chairman, this is not the Workforce Investment Act Reauthorization that the American people expect nor the one that Congress should pass. We need one that invests in competitiveness, jobs, and the growth of our manufacturing sector. We need the alternative offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. I hope my Republican friends will set partisanship aside and work with us to enact legislation that helps all of our people find jobs and pursue the opportunities that make our country great. We have had some success in this Congress when we acted in a bipartisan fashion. We had it just a few days ago on the Violence Against Women Act. But when we act in a partisan fashion, we fail--and this country is sick of failure, sick of this Congress' inability to work together--and this is an example, a bill that has historically been passed in a bipartisan fashion comes to this floor in a very partisan fashion. What a shame. What a shame for America. What a shame for Americans. What a shame for workforce development. What a shame for our ability to compete and to grow and create jobs. Let's pass this alternative that the gentleman from Massachusetts has offered.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor of Virginia.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would remark that I was pleased that he had the opportunity to go to Selma with John Lewis and others of us who had the opportunity to go to the birthplace of our colleague, Terri Sewell. Congresswoman Sewell is on the floor. The March to Selma, of course, which was interdicted by members of the Alabama State Police at the direction of the Governor, was one of the advances, the gentleman knows, that led to the introduction, passage, and signing by President Johnson of the Voting Rights Act. We are privileged to serve with someone whose contribution to this country and to the realization of its promise of equality to all was so enhanced by the life and commitment and courage of John Lewis, our colleague. And I was glad that the gentleman participated with us on that. I also am very pleased to hear about the Web site. I think that's a very positive step. I want to thank the gentleman also for the information about next week. Mr. Leader, I would first like to ask about the budget resolution that you referenced that will be coming next week. I wondered if there's any plan on the floor to replace the sequester, which all of us seem to think is irrational--at least I think it's irrational and most of the colleagues I talk to think that it is irrational in that it is a meat-ax approach, and we have offered a number of times to get to the same budget savings--but notwithstanding that, whether there was any thought of replacing the sequester with its cuts to high priority and low priority by the same percentage to replace that. Is there any plan to do that, as far as you know?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and that would be a positive effort, I think, towards that. Of course, if we could adopt a budget and if we could adopt appropriation bills and Ways and Means recommendations pursuant to such a budget, that would be a very much appreciated option to the sequester. Having said that, the Budget Committee did a markup this week on Wednesday, and I know members of the committee worked well into the night, both Republicans and Democrats. And I wanted to ask the gentleman, I know that normally when we bring a budget--both sides have brought a budget--which does in fact allow for substitutes, but for the most part it does not allow individual amendments. Now I say that because so many amendments were rejected in the committee. Mr. Cardenas from California offered an amendment to protect the mortgage interest deduction for the middle class. That amendment was voted for unanimously by Democrats and unanimously opposed by Republican members of the committee. Mr. Cicilline offered an amendment to protect workers from privatizing Social Security. Again, on a partisan vote, with Democrats supporting the Cicilline amendment and Republicans opposing it, it was rejected. Mr. Jeffries from New York offered an amendment to prevent the student loan interest rate from doubling, which as the gentleman knows is set to occur on June 30 without our action. Again, unfortunately, on the same partisan vote--the Democrats voting for the Jeffries amendment and Republicans voting against it--it failed. Mr. Pocan of Wisconsin offered an amendment to protect middle class Americans from tax increases. It seems to me that we have agreement on that; but, nevertheless, that amendment was rejected, again, on a partisan vote, with Democrats voting for it and Republicans voting against it. Mr. Leader--which I don't understand--Kurt Schrader from Oregon offered a sense of Congress amendment on the need for long-term, balanced deficit reduction. That was also rejected on a party-line basis. And I could go on and mention other amendments--there were approximately 28 of them. My question to you is, Mr. Leader, is it possible that any of those amendments would be made in order so that the House might work its will on those propositions? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would suggest that the amendments put forward do in fact express policy, which of course is what the budget does. Those policies are pretty straightforward in terms of not raising taxes on the middle class, on making sure that students don't have to pay higher interest for their loans, and making sure that we do in fact proceed with a comprehensive agreement not only to replace the sequester, but to, in a bipartisan way, get us on a road to fiscal sustainability. Regrettably--as I think the gentleman probably knows--most budgets are usually partisan documents, whether they're offered by Democrats or Republicans. I understand that. Rarely have we been in the position that we now find ourselves in, however. Rarely have I experienced, in the 32 years I've been here--if ever--the fiscal crises that occur on such a regular basis here. The public, I think the economy, and I think the business community, and indeed the international community, is hoping that we get on a solid path. The gentleman mentioned that the budget was a complex document. I think that's a fair statement. But, unfortunately, the budget that has been proposed--which the gentleman is very pleased to say balances within 10 years--unfortunately doesn't tell us how it's going to do so. It is in fact filled with conclusions, but not with policies to get us to that end. In fact, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post--I think you probably read this--said there are so many blanks in the Ryan budget that it could be a Mad Libs exercise, which I understand is a children's book that sort of has a couple of sentences and the rest is fill in the blanks. This, of course, is not a game; it's black budgeting, in my opinion, an expression of lofty aims--that is, that we balance within 12 years, which I think, frankly is--if there were no Democrats in the Congress of the United States, I tell my friend with all due respect, if there were no Democrats in the Congress of the United States, in my view you could not implement the Ryan budget. You couldn't get appropriation bills passed, and you could not pass a Ways and Means tax provision that would meet the requirements of the Ryan budget. In addition to that, Mr. Leader, you and I both know we voted over 30 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It's not going to happen. If we want to do something in a bipartisan fashion, if we want to get to an end here, we ought to stop pretending that we're going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We had an election about that. We won. The President won. Very frankly, even in the House there were more people who voted for Democrats than voted for Republicans for the House of Representatives. Having said that, you're in charge. That's the law, and you won fair and square. But having said that, we're going to need to get to an agreement. I would hope that as we deal with the budget--and I will oppose the Ryan budget. I think the Ryan budget is unrealistic. I think the Ryan budget will not possibly be able to balance within 10 years. I wish we could. But if we do that, we're going to badly damage the economy that the gentleman talks about. We're going to undermine the creation of jobs. I don't say that; CBO says that. CBO says the sequester itself is going to cost us 750,000 to 1 million jobs. The Ryan budget, if adopted, would cost us over 2 million jobs. So I'm hopeful that as we consider the budget--and my expectation is your budget will probably pass this House, but my hope is, and urging, Mr. Leader, is that we deal with this budget--and I don't know whether the Murray budget is going to pass or not through the Senate. I hope they pass some alternative, not because the budget-for-pay bill passed--which I think was a terrible bill to put on this floor and a terrible bill to pass. I think it sets a terrible precedent about you've got to pass something or you don't get paid. That's not what our democracy is about. People voting their conscience is what our democracy ought to be about, not about whether they get paid. But in any event, Mr. Leader, I'm hopeful that in fact we can get to, in some form or fashion of another, a budget and appropriation bills and a Ways and Means bill that can be signed by the President, passed by the Senate, passed by this House so we can put our country on a fiscally sustainable path. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader says that his side is against the Affordable Care Act. He's said that regularly since it was first considered. He's said they're against revenues. Mr. Speaker, he's said that repeatedly, and the majority party has said that repeatedly. Of course, pursuant to the Republican tax bill of '01 and '03, rates went up on January 1. They went up substantially. You could look at it half full or half empty, and the gentleman looks at it, as we increase $600 billion in taxes--actually, taxes would have proposed $4 trillion had the tax law that was in effect at that time stayed in effect. The gentleman knows that, so you can look at it as a tax increase or a tax decrease, ensuring that middle class taxpayers didn't get an increase. The American people, of course, 80 percent of them say what we did is the right thing. Now, we had an election, and the gentleman's position did not prevail in that election. But we are still hoist on the petard of saying, We disagree; do it our way or the highway. The gentleman mentions the SKILLS Act. I wish we'd had an opportunity. We need to make the programs more focused and more effective, and the gentleman is absolutely right on that. Unfortunately, the majority gave no ability to have bipartisan input into that bill, and so its prospects for passage are almost minimal, maybe nil, so that the gentleman's party continues to, in my view, keep us in this gridlock. We understand your position. You understand our position. We've both got to come off our positions. The American public elected a House of Representatives that's led by Republicans and a Senate run by Democrats. The only way democracy is going to work is if we come to an agreement. And simply restating what I know to be your position or my restating what I know my position is, we've already come, I think, a pretty far way towards your position in trying to reduce spending, about $1 trillion worth, which, by the way, your budget takes credit for. We have a baseline that's been reduced because of the revenues that are in the Affordable Care Act, which you take credit for. You take credit for the $715 billion in your budget while repealing the Affordable Care Act, but you take credit for the $750 billion that reduced the baseline. So that on the one hand, you want to say, I'm against this; on the other hand, you want to use the revenue that it produced or the baseline that it reduced. We have this same debate every week. It doesn't get us anywhere. The American public is pretty upset with all of us. They ought to be. I tell the press that 10 percent of the people think we're doing okay. They're wrong. We're not doing okay, and our country, as a result, is not having the kind of success in growing jobs that it ought to have. Now, let me ask you, because I don't think you're going to change my mind or I'm going to change yours right now----

Mr. HOYER. I'd be glad to yield.

Mr. HOYER. I wish I had the figures in front of me, and I don't. It's my understanding the SKILLS Act was introduced February 25 and marked up shortly thereafter. There may have been hearings in the last year when the SKILLS Act was passed in a partisan vote, but the reason the members walked out was because they didn't believe they were given an opportunity to interface. I don't have the facts as strongly as I ought to have them, but I believe that the proximity of introduction and markup was very, very close, and therefore the opportunity and the inclination of the committee to engage in a bipartisan discussion of what the bill ought to look like--what should have been a bipartisan bill--was not there. But let me get my facts straighter so we can discuss that perhaps a little further at some point. April's schedule, Mr. Leader, Mr. Speaker, if the majority leader could give us some information on the April schedule as we go forward.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. We're ending now, but I know you have an extraordinarily able assistant sitting to your right who advises you on issues of great importance to our country. The gentleman to my right does the same thing for me. The gentleman to my right went to Wake Forest. Maryland played Wake Forest last night, and I hope as we play Duke tonight that we are equally successful. Mr. Nevins, who is a graduate of Duke, it's going to be a little tougher game than Wake Forest. I understand that. But we look forward to trying to be successful in that effort. Kyle Nevins is a wonderful member of the majority leader's staff. He worked for my dear and close friend, Roy Blunt, for some period of time, and he began working for Mr. Cantor in 2008 as his floor director. He's been a real delight to work with, and I know Mr. Burnes and my floor staff all appreciate all the work he has done. While I want to be very effusive today, I want him to know that I will be rooting very vigorously against Duke tonight when they play Maryland. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that the sequestration has taken effect because Republicans refused to work with Democrats on a balanced plan to prevent it. The automatic, arbitrary, and irrational cuts it has imposed could have, and I think will have, serious, negative effects. It could erode our military readiness and weaken our national security, and it could reverse the gains we've made in our economic recovery and see reductions in critical programs that help the poor and most vulnerable in our society. Sequestration is not a solution. Only a balanced approach can achieve the savings we need to get our fiscal house in order and end the uncertainty that is keeping our businesses from creating the jobs we need. It is not too late to act. This Republican-controlled Congress may not have been able to avert the sequester, but it can limit its impact if both sides work together. And I still believe that if Republicans are willing to compromise, we can achieve the big, balanced solution to deficits the American people expect from us. Today's vote is on whether you think sequester is rational. The next vote will be on keeping government open.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I agree with the gentlelady who has just spoken, but I want to say to my friend, Mr. McKeon, this is neither regular order nor rational policy. It ought to be rejected. This CR does nothing to address the irrational cuts to defense and nondefense that the sequester will require. It could be very harmful to our economy and to our national security, and it could place the most vulnerable in America at great risk. We should not allow, my colleagues, our government to shut down, but we cannot do business this way, lunching from one manufactured crisis to the next. When we make agreements, we ought to stick to them. And the agreement was, as the chairman has tried to put forward--and I want to congratulate him for that--that we would spend on the discretionary side of the budget at about $1.43 billion. That is not what this bill does. It breaks the deal. Nobody expected sequester to take place, and we ought to obviate it because it will hurt defense, our national security and our domestic security. Mr. Speaker, we made an agreement. We ought to keep it. That's not what we have in this CR. While the Defense funding in this package is something I would like to vote for and the procedures incorporated in the bill I would like to vote for--let me say as an aside, that is regular order. When we usually pass CRs, we do it for House-passed bill levels, Senate-passed bill levels, conference levels, but not at a level a year ago. The reason they've amended Defense, Veterans and MILCON is because it is irrational, and they recognize its irrationality as it relates to national security. You ought to recognize the irrationality for the rest of the budget.