Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. While the Defense funding in this package is something, as I said, I would like to vote for--it would continue support for critical national security programs important in my district, but more important than that, important in our country--if Congress continues to face every manner of manufactured crisis every other month, we cannot govern rationally, and it will hurt our people, our economy, and our security. When dysfunction rusts the wheels of Congress, it is the American people who suffer. And our defense community and the industries that support it will also suffer greatly from the uncertainty that results. I want to vote for appropriations bills that keep the promise we made to each other. I want to vote for appropriations bills that enable us to limit the negative impact of sequestration on our defense community and the most vulnerable in our society, but this CR does not do that. This vote will do nothing to lessen the effects of the sequester, whose impact is already being felt in my district and throughout the country. That is what compels me to vote ``no'' on this CR. I represent 62,000 Federal employees. I do not want this government to shut down. That is a more irrational policy than even sequester.

Mr. HOYER. The honoring of our agreement demands that we vote ``no'' on this and pass a CR that obviates the sequester. I urge my colleagues to defeat this CR so we can send a message to those who control this Chamber that we have a responsibility to our country and to our people to adopt a balanced fiscal plan to reduce our debt and deficit and invest in the growth of the economy. That is not what this bill does. I urge its defeat.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the leader for her efforts in getting us to this point. Today, after 2 months, I think we're going to do something very positive, and we're going to do it in a bipartisan way, and I think that's excellent. I think America will be advantaged. Every American-- women, yes--but every American will be advantaged. House Democrats support the fully inclusive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act which passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 78-22, as has been referenced. A majority of Republican Senators, and all Republican women Senators, voted in favor. That bill represents a compromise, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the partisan, Republican-amended version so we can pass the Senate bill. I voted for the rule, which allows us that opportunity. Let us take it. The changes House Republicans made in their version significantly weaken its provisions--and I want to say some Republicans. I want to make that clear. It's not all--aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence and empowering law enforcement to keep our people safe from these crimes. The House Republican bill omits critical protections for Native Americans, for LGBT Americans, and for immigrants. Furthermore, the House Republican bill removes protections for students on campus, victims of human trafficking, and those who've experienced rape or stalking. Why? Why not protect everybody, all Americans? When we fail to protect all victims, abusers can get away with the abuse and repeat it. Madam Speaker, Congress ought not to be playing games with women's lives and with the lives of all who suffer from domestic violence. We owe it to the victims, their families, victims' advocates, law enforcement and prosecutors to make sure the protections of the Violence Against Women Act work and can meet the challenges we face today. That's why we should defeat the weaker House Republican alternative and, instead, pass the fully inclusive version passed by Senate Democrats and Republicans. I expect it to be a bipartisan vote. It is a good day for America.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information. I also thank him for his reference to the march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge from Selma to Montgomery, which we will commemorate. That march occurred on March 7, 1965. Yesterday, we had the honor of dedicating and accepting a statue in memory of Rosa Louise Parks. Rosa Parks, of course, is known in many respects as the mother of the civil rights movement that led to America's perfecting its Union--to its allowing and making sure that every American, irrespective of race or color or nationality or religion, could be treated equally. It's appropriate that we participate in this march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge to recall this country's commitment in 1965 to the Voting Rights Act, which ensured that every American would have what is intrinsic in the definition of democracy--the right to vote and the right to have one's vote counted. I look forward to being the honorary cochair--with the majority leader--of this march with a true American hero, who is the chair, the leader, the person who has shown such extraordinary courage, not only on March 7, 1965, but years before that and every year thereafter, including until today. So I thank the gentleman for calling attention to that march, and I look forward to participating with him in Alabama this weekend. Now, Mr. Leader, as all of us know, automatic, draconian--in my view, irrational--cuts will occur starting tomorrow as a result of the so- called sequester. I did not see any legislation on the floor for next week which would obviate the happening of that event, the sequester, although I do see that there is some desire, apparently, to make sure that the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs have the ability to manage those cuts in a way that will be least detrimental. I would ask the gentleman--there are, of course, 10 other appropriation bills; there are 10 other major agencies and multiple departments and offices that will have a problem similar to that of the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration--is the gentleman aware of any efforts that will be made to accommodate the domestic side of the budget?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Let me only observe that the bills which the gentleman has now discussed for 3 weeks running, on which we've had colloquies, are no longer available in either the Senate or the House. He knows that. They were in the last Congress, and they died in the last Congress. There has been no legislation in the 59 days that we've been here, put on this floor, and only the majority leader can put legislation on the floor, no legislation which would have an alternative to the sequester. And, in fact, notwithstanding some of the representations that have been made, Mr. Speaker, there was a bill on this floor on July 19, 2011, which was called cut, cap, and balance; 229 Republicans voted for that bill. That bill had as its fallback, if the objectives of the bill were not reached, sequester. That was substantially before--many days before--the President, and through the person of Jack Lew, talked about making that a part of a piece of legislation that we needed so that we did not default on the national debt. And for the first time, not only since I've been serving in the Congress, some 32 years, but for the first time in history, as a result of that action of coming so close to defaulting on the national debt, this country was downgraded by a single point. The gentleman talked about the STEM bill that was passed. He voted for it. I voted for it. An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for it to help our economy. That event substantially hurt our economy. Mr. Speaker, the inability to get to agreement on the sequester is hurting the economy. And I will tell my friend that we've offered three times to have a bill considered as an alternative to sequester which cuts spending, raises some additional revenue--and I know the gentleman is going to give me a lecture about raising taxes. I understand that. But I would urge the gentleman, let a vote happen on this floor. Let the House, as you said in 2010, work its will. That's what the Speaker said he wanted to do. Let us vote on an alternative, not just blindly go down this road of sequester, not blindly go down this road that the gentleman has just agreed with me, and we agree together, I think most of us agree, the sequester is irrational. It should not happen. In fact, it was put in the bill on the theory that surely we wouldn't let it happen. But in 59 days, we've had no bill on this floor. All the gentleman talks about is a bill that is dead and gone and buried that we can't consider, that won't make a difference, that will not in any way ameliorate the sequester. And I regret that, Mr. Leader, because I think we can. Frankly, next week we can put alternatives on the floor. If you have an alternative, put it on the floor. I may vote against it, but that's what the American people expect. They expect us to try to solve problems, and they sent us here to vote on policy. Mr. Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, has asked three times, Mr. Leader, to bring an amendment to this floor to provide an alternative to sequester. It seems strange that when both of us agree that sequester is wrong, irrational, will have adverse effects, and Ben Bernanke says it will substantially hurt the economy, that we don't provide alternatives, and all we talk about is something that we yesterday--actually, 3 or 4 months ago--that is dead and gone. We need to do something now, and we need to come together on a bipartisan basis. I might say to the leader, we've had four major bills signed into law in this Congress by the President. Every one of those bills was passed in a bipartisan basis with an average of 168 Democrats voting for it, and an average of 124 Republicans voting for it. We saw a perfect example, Mr. Leader, on the floor today of making very good policy. How did we do it? We did it in a bipartisan vote. I suggest to my friend, the majority leader, that we could do that as it relates to the sequester if we would bring something to the floor, have a vote on it; and in my view in a bipartisan fashion, we could in fact set aside this irrational, negative sequester, and move on to a rational fiscal policy. I would be glad to yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment on it.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. It doesn't get--we've been here 59 days, in this Congress. Not a single bill has been brought to this floor which will deal with the sequester, not one. As a matter of fact, we've only met 17 of the 59 days this year. So my friend laments the fact that the sequester is going into effect and he talks about bills that, as he didn't deny, they're dead and gone. The Senate can't take them up. So many folks want us to read the Constitution of the United States. I'm for doing that. It's Article I that gives to the House, as the leader, I'm sure, knows, the responsibility to raise revenues and to pass appropriation bills. It's the House that needs to initiate legislation, and we guard that pretty jealously. We guarded it--we just passed VAWA. There was a lot of discussion about VAWA having--in the last Congress, that passed overwhelmingly, was delayed because, very frankly, they had some money effect in that bill. We said that was subject, therefore, to objections on our side. We haven't met very often, and when we do meet, the only real bills we pass are passed in a bipartisan fashion, as happened today. And when we talk about balance--and I get very frustrated. Take somebody else's money. Did you want to take it out of your pocket? Was the Constitution of the United States, which formed a more perfect Union, designed to take the Chinese money or European money and fund our education, our health care research, our highways, our national security? Of course not. It is our money. Each one of us individually works hard, and we apportion a part of our earnings to the common good, to the common defense, to the common investment in our future, in education, in innovation, in infrastructure. Yes, we do that. And I will tell my friend, and he well knows this, I get somewhat frustrated when I hear this. When I served in this Congress from 2001 to 2008, when the economic policy that was in effect was all your party's economic policy, and you cut revenues substantially and you increased spending substantially and we went from surplus to deep deficit, we need to solve that. I agree with the gentleman. We need to solve it, but we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. That's why I point out the only bills of substance that have been signed by the President, that weren't suspension bills on which we all agree, were bipartisan bills that had an average 124 Republicans voting for them and an average 168 Democrats voting for them. Both parties joined together to solve problems. That's what needs to happen. And I will tell the gentleman, he can talk about confidence all he wants, talk about why the rating agencies downgraded us. There were a number of reasons. But the greatest reason was--and they articulated it, Standard & Poor's articulated it--they weren't confident that we could solve problems, and we're not doing that. The gentleman continues to not want a balanced program. Every group, every group that I've seen or read about or talked to people about has said, you cannot get from where we are in the deep debt that was created in the last decade to where we need to be, a balanced fiscal and sustainable plan for America for the years to come, without addressing both the spending side and the revenue side. The example I use is, we are selling a product, Mr. Leader, that many of us have voted for it, and you want to accommodate on the defense side, which costs $23, and we are pricing it at $15. No business in America or in the world could survive with that imbalance. We need to bring that in balance. And you're not going to get to the 15 percent of revenues that we're collecting, or now maybe 16 or 17 percent, simply by savaging either defense or non-defense spending or entitlements. And so I would certainly hope, Mr. Leader, that we would come together. You and I have talked about this a lot. Every Member goes home and says how bipartisan we're going to be. On our side, I will tell you, we are prepared. We understand there are going to be things that we have to do that we won't like. On your side there will be things to do that you won't like. That will be a compromise. That's the definition of a compromise. Our country needs it. Americans want it. I would hope that we could, in the coming days, not only address the sequester, but address the need, over the next 10 years, to get this country back to balance where we were in 2000, where we had a balanced budget, the debt was coming down, and, in fact, some people were concerned that it was coming down too fast.

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

Mr. HOYER. Can I just reclaim my time? Because my point, I'll tell the leader, is that we didn't pay for what we bought. We kept buying but we didn't pay. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said a lot, and I could have a lot of comments on that, but I will say this. As long as the gentleman believes it's only us saying that we need a balanced program, he will oppose it because we are Democrats. If the gentleman listens to independent advice all over this country, from all sorts of sources, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, they will say you need a balanced approach. We need to cut spending. We need to restrain spending and we need to balance the cost of what we provide with the income that we have. Every businessperson, small, medium, and large, understands that concept. We have not followed it, and we did not follow it in the last decade. I regret the fact that the gentleman doesn't like the President going around the country and telling the truth saying what the consequences may well be. Now, are they going to be on March 1? No. But will they inevitably occur if the sequester stays in place? The answer to that I think is an emphatic, ``Yes.'' I think the President is going around the country saying these are the alternatives. And saying that the Senate won't act or the President won't act-- people did not elect me, I will tell you, to make the President act or to make the Senate act. They didn't think I could do that. What they did think I could do was make Steny Hoyer act. And if I were the majority leader, they expected me to have the House act, even if people didn't agree with legislation I put on the floor. They expect us to do our job, not to cop out, with all due respect, to the fact that the President is not doing something or the Senate is not doing something. We have a responsibility here in this Chamber, the people's House, as representatives of 435 districts, to do our job. And if the other folks don't do their job, we can lament that, we can criticize them, we can inform the American public of that, but we cannot say that's why we are not acting. So I would hope that next week we would, in fact, act and bring legislation to the floor. And I would be, as the gentleman knows, my friend knows, I'm for a big deal. I'm for getting us to that $4 trillion that Simpson-Bowles recommended, because I think that would give real confidence to our economy, really grow businesses and put our country on a fiscally sustainable path. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are now 2 days away from failure- triggered, ideologically driven, and irrational budget cuts called ``sequester.'' It is an extraordinarily bad policy that 229 Republicans voted for on July 19, 2011. These cuts could be incredibly harmful to our national defense, our economy, and our national welfare. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: This will affect the entire country, and it will undermine our readiness for the next several years. Hundreds of thousands of civilian defense personnel could be furloughed, and thousands of contractors could be forced to lay off critical personnel. Congress should not put our national security or economic recovery at risk. If I were the majority leader, this policy would not happen. House Republicans should listen to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood when he said: As a former Republican Member of Congress for 14 years, I urge my former colleagues to address this issue and to work on a long-term, balanced solution to our deficit problem. With only 2 days left, it is time for us to come together to find a solution that can replace these cuts with a sensible, balanced alternative. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today, Mr. Speaker, we continue an unfortunate and unnecessary countdown to the irrational and reckless automatic cuts the Republican policies will impose. The countdown stands at three days. Unless Congress acts by Friday, the cuts will take effect, with dangerous results across the country and in the Fifth District of Maryland, my district. Approximately, 46,000 civilian defense personnel will be at risk of being furloughed at installations in Maryland, including Pax River, Webster Field, Indian Head, and Joint Base Andrews. This will undermine their ability to serve our Nation and keep America safe. Federal defense contracts could be canceled or reduced, which will translate into lost jobs--an economic hurt for the communities they affect. There will be cuts to the FDA, which, as I said, are in Maryland's Fifth District. National FDA cuts could result in fewer food safety inspectors for consumers. And children will be kicked out of Head Start. There will be longer wait times for those seeking to access job-training and placement services. Our first responders will lose much-needed personnel. This year alone in Maryland, the sequester could mean up to 500 fewer victims of domestic violence receiving critical services. And around 2,050 children unable to receive vaccines for communicable diseases like measles, mumps, whooping cough and the flu. This is not a rational way forward. Law enforcement could lose about $317,000 in my own State for this year in grants that support crime prevention and drug treatment and enforcement. Mr. Speaker, the people of my district are hardworking folks who just want the chance to pursue the American Dream. Many of them are Federal employees who have already been forced to cut back as a result of some of the actions that we've taken. Others are defense contractors who support our men and women in uniform who are at the point of the spear and rely on these defense contractors to keep them well-equipped and well-trained. They cannot afford the arbitrary, irrational cuts that are set to take effect in just 4 days. Even if some here believe Congress does not have a responsibility to create opportunities, at least I think we can agree that Congress has a responsibility not to prevent them. I believe Congress has an important role to play in making sure our businesses can compete, our communities can thrive, and our people can make it in America. That's what is at stake in the policies that we are confronting today. They remain extremely disappointed that some in this Chamber are actively supporting the sequester's painful and indiscriminate cuts as a viable path forward. As a matter of fact, many Members on the Republican side have said ``bring it on, this is what we want to do.'' To do so, in my opinion, is gravely irresponsible. Marylanders, and all Americans, deserve a Congress that takes our challenges seriously. None of our challenges are more serious or more immediate this week than the dangers of allowing the cuts to take effect. That's why I have cosponsored a bill with Mr. Van Hollen and many others on the Democratic side of the aisle to replace the cuts for the remainder of the year with a balanced approach to reduction, a balanced approach which will bring down our deficit, bring down our debt, but will do so in a responsible way. Mr. Speaker and Mr. Majority Leader, you have the power to bring that bill to the floor today. And if you don't agree with it, don't vote for it. But allow the American people to see their representatives have the opportunity to vote for a rational policy so that we do not pursue an irrational policy that will undermine jobs in America and the growth of our economy. Only a balanced solution can achieve the savings we need and still afford our investments in attracting middle class jobs. As we count down to Friday, what are we doing on this House floor? Well, yesterday we did a suspension bill. Today we will do a suspension bill. I dare say, Mr. Speaker, nobody, outside of the particular interest groups will know what those suspension bills are. And then we will consider a bill on Wednesday and Thursday, an important bill. We should have passed it in the last Congress. But we ought to be dealing with these cuts that are confronting our country starting on Friday and Saturday. As we count down to Friday, I will continue to work towards an agreement that will avert these arbitrary, hurtful cuts and protect Maryland families and businesses from congressional partisanship gone awry. And I am encouraging those who live in my district, and anyone else, to visit my page on Facebook and share how the proposed cuts will impact you, your loved ones, and your community. For the sake of our families, Mr. Speaker, our small businesses, our children, our teachers, our defense contracts, our public servants, our first responders, and others, I urge my Republican colleagues to embrace the spirit of compromise that has been so absent of late in this Chamber. I call on them to work with Democrats to find a balanced, sensible, smart, rational, and responsible solution to our deficits. Mr. Speaker, we have 3 days left to go. Let's bring something to the floor that's a solution. Let's do it now.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, last month I lost a dear friend, and our nation lost a tireless public servant who spent his career keeping Americans--and, indeed, the world--safe from the threat of nuclear war. Ambassador Max M. Kampelman never held elected office, and most Americans may not know of the impact he had on their security. But he played a crucial role in advising leaders from both parties during the Cold War and in helping to negotiate the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in 1991. He died on January 25 at the age of ninety-two. Born in 1920 in New York City, New York, Max was the son of Jewish immigrants who taught their son the importance of education and the value of hard work. After graduating from New York University in 1940, he attended night school there in pursuit of his law degree, which he earned in 1945. During World War II, Max volunteered for an experimental study on the effects of recovering from starvation and malnutrition, the findings of which were later used to treat concentration camp survivors and former prisoners of war. Following the end of the war, he obtained a master's degree and doctorate in political science from the University of Minnesota, and while there he began working as an aide to then-mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey. When Humphrey was sworn in as a United States Senator in 1949, Max came with him to Washington as his legislative counsel. After six years with Senator Humphrey, Max went into private law practice and joined the Marine Corps Reserves. In 1968, he advised Vice President Humphrey's presidential campaign. Growing alarmed by the Soviet Union's foreign policies and human rights violations in the early 1970s, Max became a proponent of a tougher Cold War stance. He was brought on to advise the Reagan Administration and led the negotiations for the Madrid Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe that were the key forum in the early 1980s for raising human rights concerns in the Soviet bloc and that led to the release of some prisoners of conscience and refuseniks from the U.S.S.R. At the Madrid conference and throughout the 1980s, Max Kampelman advocated a concept we now take for granted--the notion that human rights are an integral element of international security. As former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton noted, Max ``advanced with unmatched eloquence and effectiveness the precept that respect for human rights within nations is essential to cooperation and peace among nations.'' Max was instrumental in the drafting of the first START treaty to limit nuclear arms stockpiles at the end of the Cold War, helping to ease tensions between the superpowers during the days of communism's collapse in the former Soviet Union. Testifying to Max's beliefs in putting country before party, and indicative of the respect leaders on both sides of the aisle felt for him, in 1984 he served concurrently as a foreign policy advisor for Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale and as counsel to Edwin Meese III, one of President Reagan's closest aides. Throughout his years in Washington, Max left his deep imprint on the city and its community. He was a founder of the DC National Bank, a chairman of WETA-TV, and founding president of Friends of the National Zoo. For many years, Max was an active supporter of Jewish community organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the American Friends of Lubavitch, and others. In 1989, Max received the Presidential Citizens Medal from President Reagan, and, ten years later, President Clinton awarded Max the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I came to know Max well when I served as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission in the 1980s, and we worked together on human rights and disarmament issues. In the process, we became great friends. Max led the U.S. Delegation to a Human Dimension meeting of the Helsinki process in Copenhagen in 1990, where, thanks in no small part to his able stewardship, breakthrough achievements were reached on democracy, the rule of law, and free and fair elections. A year later, he led a U.S. delegation to another Human Dimension meeting in Moscow--on the heels of the August 1991 Soviet coup attempt--and negotiated an agreement explicitly recognizing that human rights are the direct and legitimate concern of all countries. Max was a true believer in the power of diplomacy to shape a safer, freer, and more just world, and he will be missed terribly by all those in Washington and throughout the country who came to know him as I did--smart, thoughtful, and creative in the pursuit of a better life for all. Marjorie, Max's wife of fifty-eight years, passed away in 2007, and they were preceded in death by two of their children, David and Anne. Max is survived by their three remaining children, Jeffrey, Julia, and Sarah, along with five grandchildren. I join in saluting Ambassador Max Kampelman's life of service to our nation as a diplomat, as a Marine Reserve officer, as a philanthropist, and as a model citizen. The furtherance of peace in our world and freedom for millions who had suffered behind the Iron Curtain will be his lasting legacy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of National Invasive Species Awareness Week, which will be observed this year from March 3 through March 8. Invasive plant and animal species are dangerous to regional ecosystems and carry with them serious negative effects on our economy. Already, they are a threat to 50% of federally endangered or threatened native species. From reduced crop yields to declines in fish populations, the consequences of invasive species are significant. In the agriculture sector alone, they have led to an annual loss in productivity worth $7.4 billion. Researchers estimate that invasive species cost the United States more than $130 billion in damages every year. National Invasive Species Awareness Week, which is sponsored by the Weed Sciences Society of America, Dow AgroSciences, the National Network of Invasive Plant Centers, the Entomological Society of America, APS, and the Wildlife Habitat Council, helps raise public consciousness about this important issue. It features workshops and panel discussions at the Capitol and around Washington with experts in invasive species containment and prevention methods--as well as educational programs for students and families. National Invasive Species Awareness Week also highlights the work of local, state, federal, and tribal agencies as well as efforts by private organizations and individuals to combat invasive species and preserve local and regional ecosystems. In the State of Maryland, we have forged strong partnerships to try to address the problems posed by invasive species in our state. The Maryland Invasive Species Council is comprised of concerned scientists, land managers, business people and citizens. It works closely with our state agencies and the United States Department of Agriculture, particularly the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, the United States Department of the Interior, and the University of Maryland. Committed partnerships such as these are an important part of focusing attention and sharing limited resources in an effort to reduce the spread of invasive plants, animals, and diseases. I am proud to support the goals of National Invasive Species Awareness Week, and I join with many of my colleagues in Congress in wishing its sponsors and participants a successful program.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have now entered the final week before the dangerous, arbitrary, and irrational policy of sequestration, which Republicans proposed first in their cut, cap, and balance bill in July of 2011. If I were the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that policy would not go into effect. Budget discipline is absolutely necessary, but damaging job growth in our economy to do so is self-defeating. The only responsible way forward is for Republicans and Democrats to work together to achieve a balanced solution to deficits that can turn off the sequestration. House and Senate Democrats have each proposed balanced alternatives that combine smart, targeted cuts in spending and tax expenditures. I would hope the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, would bring that to the floor. While many Republicans have been praising the sequester as a viable path forward, Democrats recognize this mindless policy for the danger it is. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the sequester's consequences, and to work with Democrats to find an alternative, or, if that can't be done, to abandon this reckless policy. We only have 4 days left to go, and our country's overall well-being depends on it. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 699, which is the balanced Democratic alternative to sequestration, which I know we have ample time to debate over the next few days and, hopefully, send to the Senate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Steve and I were both in the senate, and you have a president in the senate. That's why he was referring to you as Mr. President. I understand that, Steve. I am pleased to join Marcia Fudge, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and my good friend, Steve Horsford, the gentleman from Nevada. And I notice that Don Payne is here. His father was a very close friend of mine, active some 45 years ago. So it's good to see you here, Don, and Hakeem Jeffries, two of our really great new Members. I'm pleased to join you. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing this Special Order hour. America's greatest strength--and its greatest gift to the world--is our democratic system of government based on an equal voice for every citizen. It is what grants legitimacy to our laws and earns us respect from those in other parts of the world who yearn for the freedoms we enjoy. For most of our history, our democracy was deeply flawed: excluding women, African Americans, Native Americans and many others. But part of what makes America great is that we are constantly working to perfect our democracy by correcting such flaws. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a central part of that effort--and an incredibly successful one. Before that legislation was enacted, millions of African Americans were systematically prevented from registering to vote or casting their ballots across much of the South. And I would venture to say that there were other parts of America where they were dissuaded from voting, as well. Poll taxes, ``grandfather clauses,'' literacy tests and other nefarious devices were employed to keep Americans from exercising their most fundamental civil right. Perhaps the greatest impetus for enacting the Voting Rights Act was the horrific violence and hatred of ``Bloody Sunday,'' when peaceful civil rights marchers were beaten and turned back at the Edmund Pettus Bridge outside Selma, Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, a number of us here will be traveling to Selma, led by the same man who helped organize those 1965 marches, our friend and colleague, Representative John Lewis, an extraordinary historic figure, an extraordinary gentle man, but a giant of courage and principle. We are going as part of an annual pilgrimage to remember that day, ``Bloody Sunday,'' March 7, 1965, and the cause for which those brave Americans, black and white, risked their lives: political equality and the perfection of our democracy. Mr. Speaker, I've been privileged to walk with John Lewis across that bridge and others, including at least two Presidents, for 10 out of the 13 times that John Lewis has reenacted that walk. Walking in their footsteps is one way to honor that cause. But it is far from the best way. The best way to do it is to carry on their work--to defend and promote the protections included in the Voting Rights Act that they fought so hard to bring about. On Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, which challenges the constitutionality of one of the Voting Rights Act's central provisions, and that is pre- clearance, making sure that the Justice Department says, yes, this is fair; yes, this will not exclude; yes, this is a policy that will be consistent with our democracy. Pre-clearance, established by section 5 of the act, mandates that jurisdictions with a long history of voter suppression and civil rights violations must submit to the Justice Department for approval any plans to change their election practices or district boundaries before doing so. Section 5 has been instrumental in ending discrimination and protecting eligible voters at the polls. Its constitutionality is rooted in article I and has been working as intended for nearly half a century. At a time when we are hearing about problems voters faced all over the country in last November's election--with long lines, registration errors, voting machines that malfunctioned and deceptive practices--we ought to be working together to make the Voting Rights Act stronger, not weaker. I will continue, along with my colleagues, to stand up for the Voting Rights Act on this floor and in every forum of debate. Because those who marched at Selma or braved the dangers of the freedom rides did not do so in vain. Their legacy is our responsibility. The more perfect democracy they helped forge is ours to safeguard, not only for our sake, but for the sake of those who will inherit our democracy in generations to come. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus in strong support of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act-- and the rest of it as well--as it faces meritless challenges this week that I am confident will be surmounted. And, again, in closing my part of this Special Order, I want to congratulate Steve Horsford, Congressman Horsford, from Nevada. He's new to this body, but he's not new to legislative representation. He understands the legislative process very, very well; and it is appropriate that in one of his first Special Orders on this floor that it's on behalf of every American--not just black Americans, not just Hispanic Americans and not just disabled Americans--every American. Because if one American's right to vote is compromised, there will be a risk to all Americans that their vote will be compromised. And I thank my friend, Congressman Horsford.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are on the brink of achieving the Republican policy of sequester. Why do I say it's the Republican policy? Because on July 19 of 2011, 229 Republicans voted for their Cut, Cap, and Balance bill, which said that the alternative to cutting spending in a rational way would be the irrational imposition of sequester, which cuts across the board irrespective of priorities. It's the wrong thing to do. It will hurt America. It will hurt our economy. It will hurt the growth in jobs. I am here to tell you, if Democrats were in charge of the House of Representatives, that sequester would not happen; but we've been here 6 weeks, and not a single piece of legislation has been brought to this floor by the majority to stop sequestration from happening, to substitute a rational fiscal policy for an irrational one. So when sequester hits, as unfortunately as it may, as tragically as it may, as unacceptably as it may, the American people need to know this is Republican policy included in legislation for which 98 percent of them voted on July 19, 2011.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, there is not time to debate in the time I have available how we determine Federal pay. I was a sponsor of the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act which George Bush signed back in 1990. I know a little bit about this. America is confronting a sequestration that will have a devastating impact on our economy, on every individual in America, and on international confidence in America's ability to manage itself. And what have we spent 2 days on? A quarter percent cap on cost-of-living adjustment for Federal employees. A quarter of a percent. Some of us in this body earn that in about 10 minutes. Not all of us, but some of us. Uh-huh. Yet we fiddle while America faces a sequester burn. And sequester is Republican policy. July 19, 2011, Cut, Cap and Balance brought to this floor; 98 percent of Republicans, 229, voted for it. What was the fallback position? Sequester, an irrational policy that cuts across the board irrespective of the priority. And so what does the majority in this Congress do? It has now wasted 2 weeks on debate of nickel-diming the people we rely on to protect our domestic safety, our international security, our food and drugs, our health care, our borders. I join in the remarks of my good friend, Frank Wolf. He and I have been here 32 years. We have some understanding of what is proper and not proper in terms of managing the government. Now, the sponsor of this legislation has been here approximately 45 days--45 days--and he introduces a bill to cap, by a quarter of a percent, Federal employees. The animosity directed at our Federal employees is so great that we have now taken 2 weeks to try to diminish their pay and benefits--how sad--while the sequester looms 14 days from today, putting at risk, as I've said, America's economy, creation of American jobs, the sense of confidence in our country.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And the perception around the world that America is a serious situation. How sad. How shameful.

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

Mr. HOYER. Is the gentleman aware that 2 weeks ago and this week the majority has denied us the opportunity to offer an alternative?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman who preceded me is new to the Congress of the United States. I've been here for a little longer than that, some 32 years. This is the least confidence-building Congress, last Congress and this Congress, in which I have ever served. It is taking us from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. It is creating cliffs where no cliffs ought to exist, and they undermine the confidence of business, America, Americans, and indeed, the rest of the world that needs a stable and secure America to ensure that we keep the kind of stability that Americans want here at home and around the world. We will be dealing with a bill today and tomorrow that could be considered in an hour. We're going to take two days to consider it. And while we consider that, while we fiddle, while the sequester threatens to burn our economy, jobs, and confidence, we do nothing. We have not done anything to avoid the sequester for the last 7 weeks of this year, and nothing in this Congress. As a matter of fact, other than completing the work of making sure the folks who were damaged by Sandy were assisted, which should have been done in the last Congress, we've done nothing here of real substance in 7 weeks, but we are about to confront the sequester. I want every American to know, I want every person who relies on the Federal Government--and that is mainly all of us--that if Democrats were in charge of this House the sequester would not go into effect. Why? Because we would adopt an alternative policy that would cut spending so that we could move towards deficit and debt reduction, which we need to do as a country, and we would make a balanced proposal that the Senate Democrats will offer this day, and that we wanted to offer and Chris Van Hollen offered last night in the Budget Committee, but which as not made in order. In his State of the Union speech, the President talked about the American people deserve a vote. He's right. The American people deserve to know how Members are going to vote on issues of consequence to them, their families, their lives, their jobs, and their country. But we were denied a vote last week on this issue, which was a substitute for the sequester, and we are again denied this week a substitute for the sequester. Some of my Republican friends try to say, Oh, it's the President who wanted the sequester. That is dead flat wrong. Rob Nabors did mention the sequester after the Republicans passed the sequester in this House in July of 2011. They call it the Cut, Cap, and Balance Legislation. Its fallback position was ``sequester.'' It was a policy that all, I think, but two Republicans voted for when it passed this House. It was a policy that they promoted and supported. It is a bad policy. It's an irrational policy. It is a policy that will have great adverse consequences. At a town meeting, I said the sequester works like this: if you have a food budget and a movie budget and somebody loses their job, the sequester says you cut food by 10 percent and movies by 10 percent. No rational American family would do that. They'd say this month we're not going to the movies or this 6 months we're not going to the movies, but we're going to make sure we put food on our table. Sequester says, No, we cut food by 10 percent and movies by 10 percent. Sequester is an irrational response to our failure as a Congress, correct, to get our finances on a sustainable path. We need to do that. And Democrats are suggesting a balanced way to do it. By the way, every bipartisan commission that has dealt with this issue has recommended a balanced process to get from where we are to where we need to be. We're going to go on break next week as if we've done our job. We haven't. We ought to be spending time today, tomorrow, next week, and the week thereafter in avoiding the irrationality of the sequester process, but I have a list of Republicans here, all of whom say, Bring it on. The sequester is okay. Well, if we do the sequester, we're going to find out it's not okay. Mr. Speaker, I urge the majority leader and I urge the Speaker to bring forth substantive legislation that is balanced and which will avoid the sequester taking place. It's bad for our people; it's bad for our country. It's bad policy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the President spoke to us last night and he talked to us about avoiding the sequester. I was at a political event being interviewed and a gentleman, Mr. Pompeo from Kansas, was with us as well, and he spoke before I did. He talked about the sequester and he said: It's going to be a home run. We're doing what the American people ask the United States House of Representatives to do in 2010 when I came here. He then said, in referring to the sequester: I think the American people . . . will have tremendous respect for what its House of Representatives led and what its Federal Government was able to accomplish. A profound disagreement. I think the gentleman from Kansas is profoundly wrong. The sequester will have an extraordinarily negative effect on this country, on its people, on its economy, and on its national security, and I might say on the confidence that the world at large has in the United States' ability to pursue rational policy. In the State of the Union address last night, Mr. Speaker, with regard to deficits, the President said this: None of us will get 100 percent of what we want. But the alternative will cost us jobs, hurt our economy, and visit hardship on millions of hardworking Americans. He went on to say: The greatest Nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. Every 30 days, every 60 days, every 90 days, a manufactured crisis, evidence of a dysfunctional and willful Congress. He went on to say: Let's agree right here, right now, to keep the people's Government open, pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America. That seems to be reasonable policy. We now have two and a half weeks before the sequester takes effect, with devastating consequences for our economy and national security, yet the gentleman from Kansas welcomes that policy. In fact, the Republican leadership of this House has not put a single bill on the floor in this Congress that would have any impact on avoiding the sequester. We now find ourselves facing yet another manufactured crisis. Instead of preventing it, as I've said, Republicans appear to be willing and enthusiastically welcoming the sequester. Mr. Speaker, every American ought to take note of that enthusiasm for an irrational policy, referred to as irrational by its own leader, Mr. Cantor, who said it was not the way we ought to do business. He's right, but he's brought nothing to the floor to avoid it. The sequester, though, was meant to be so undesirable an outcome that it would force us to agree on a better approach. It married the worst consequences for both parties when it came to spending cuts: indiscriminate cuts to the defense budget alongside cuts to critical domestic programs. In politics, often the key to compromise is crafting a package that contains something, some provision that everyone can love, although everyone will not love every provision. Here, Congress took the opposite approach and included something everyone could despise. A faction of the majority, which is not a majority of this House by itself, has become so zealous in its drive to pursue a spending-only approach that it has embraced the sequester's Draconian cuts. Mr. Pompeo's quote this morning affirms that assertion. They've used their clout within the majority to hold Congress hostage from one manufactured crisis to the next, and they nearly brought us to the edge of default for a second time last year. There have been several reports in a number of news outlets that Speaker Boehner promised their faction that the topline for appropriations would not exceed the level it would be after sequestration cuts, already adopting the premise that sequestration has gone into effect. It was further reported that while the sequester levels would be kept, the cuts would be rearranged in order to protect defense spending at the further detriment to domestic parties, like NIH, cancer research, heart research, prostate cancer research, diabetes research, all the other maladies that--Dr. Bera is sitting here shaking his head--afflict us in this country and around the world. By injecting additional partisanship in this way, Republicans would be taking a further step away from compromise. We need compromise. Each of us in this body understands we represent a certain segment of society, but not everybody agrees with everything we believe. Therefore, if we are to act on behalf of the country in a responsible, effective fashion, it's necessary to compromise. Mr. Speaker, the sequester is real and is rapidly approaching. It is not a rational approach to deficit reduction. Even Republican Leader Cantor, as I said, admitted on ``Meet the Press'' on Sunday about the sequester, and I quote the Republican leader: I don't want to live with the sequester. Let me repeat that. I do not want to live with the sequester. I want reductions in spending that make sense. These indiscriminate reductions don't make sense. That's what Mr. Pompeo was welcoming: indiscriminate cuts that do not make sense. We need serious action in Congress to deal with the sequester, and that action cannot wait. But there's been nothing on the floor in this Congress to deal with that sequester--nothing. Not a single piece of legislation has been brought forth by the majority. I used to be the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, and I had the power to bring legislation forward, and I would do it. I'm no longer the majority leader. The majority leader, notwithstanding this quote that these indiscriminate reductions don't make sense, has not brought an alternative to this floor. Democrats are ready to make tough choices, and we're ready to work with Republicans to do what is necessary to solve this problem of our deficits in a balanced way. We must reduce spending, but we also need to raise revenues. Every bipartisan commission, everyone has said the only way you're going to solve the arithmetic is to do so. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to yield back the balance of my time so that my colleagues have an opportunity to say their piece, but I lament the fact that we're going home next week. We ought to be here working to avoid what the majority leader says are indiscriminate cuts that are not the way to do business. Yet, we rush headlong to do that. I hope the Senate acts. I hope the Senate passes a bill that will be rational, will get us out of this conundrum of a sequester that nobody should want, and that when it does, Majority Leader Cantor and Speaker Boehner will bring it to the floor and let us vote. And if you don't like it, vote against it. But let the American people know where we stand. Let us avoid the sequester. Let us get ourselves on a fiscally balanced path, but let us do so responsibly.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, tonight, the President will once again walk into this Chamber and lay out a vision for how to strengthen America in the years ahead. Properly, part of that vision will include the need to solve our deficit challenge and address the looming sequester. That dangerous set of automatic and indiscriminate spending cuts is due to take effect in just under 3 weeks. But instead of working with Democrats to avert the sequester through a big and balanced solution-- or, frankly, even a short-term balanced proposal--a growing number of House Republicans are, instead, engaged in a dangerous blame game. Majority Leader Cantor joined in that this weekend, claiming that the President is the one who proposed the sequester in the first place. What he didn't say was, of course, the Republicans offered a piece of legislation called. The sequester was an integral part of their policy proposal. In fact, the sequester was part of a bipartisan agreement instigated by Republicans, which we supported. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that it was Republican hostage taking of the debt limit in 2011 that brought about the Budget Control Act, which created the sequester. Speaker Boehner himself, after the deal creating the sequester was struck, said about the Budget Control Act, which included the sequester which faces us at the end of this month: When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. Now, let me again stress that many of us voted for this. For the past 2 years, however, the Republican majority in this House has had our country lurching from one fiscal crisis to another. Repeatedly, they have threatened to default on our obligations, shut down government operations, and to slash spending in an irrational, meat-ax way. They have shaken the confidence of our people and of all those throughout the world who look to America for security and stability. They have undermined, in my view, the growth of economy and jobs--and that's the view of CBO as well--and have put in question our commitment to investing in our defense and in job creation. In short, the Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, in this House has given us the most chaotic and confidence-destroying leadership I have seen in my 32 years of service in this House. And now, many of them suggest the sequester that is scheduled to occur on March 1 is an acceptable way forward. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the time to quote the number of Republicans who have said that, but I believe all of them are profoundly wrong. Sequestration will have a devastating impact on both domestic programs and on our national security. If the sequestration were to take effect, it would mean 70,000 children dropped from the Head Start program; loan guarantees to small businesses would be cut by as much as $540 million; and just as we are engaged in a national discussion about how to address mental health, up to 373,000 people suffering from mental illness could go untreated. That is not the President's vision for America, nor is it the vision of Democrats in this House. Now, here we are at the 11th hour once again. First, House Republicans walked way from the Simpson-Bowles recommendation to adopt a balanced way forward; then they refused to compromise on a balanced alternative to the sequester, starting the clock of sequestration. Then we came down to the wire on the fiscal cliff and delayed sequestration for 2 months, and here we are, once again, with Republicans continuing to cast blame on others. Mr. Speaker, the blame game must end by us and by our Republican colleagues. The issue is not who is at fault. As the previous speaker indicated, we're all at fault; we're all responsible; we all serve in this House. Many of us voted for policies that spend money. Some of us voted for policies to pay for what we bought. Others voted against policies for paying for what we bought. Here we are, once again, on the brink of a fiscal meltdown. It's a game that has no winners, only losers, like the 14,000 teachers, teacher assistants, and other education staff who would lose their jobs; or the 125,000 families who would be at risk of losing their homes when our rental assistance program is cut; or the thousands of civilian defense personnel, in my district alone, and throughout this country who would be furloughed for up to 22 days during the year; and the hundreds of thousands around the country across every service branch, not to mention the tens of thousands of defense contractors critical to our national security, who would be at risk of losing their jobs. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we need to get serious and work together to avert a sequester that could stop our recovery in its tracks and defeat our common goal of helping America's economy grow and its businesses create jobs. Reducing spending in a rational way is important for us to do, let there be no mistake. Considering additional revenues will be essential--every bipartisan group has said that--if we are to get on a sustainable financial footing. The sequester, however, Mr. Speaker, is dangerous and unacceptable. We must stop simply fiddling while the sequester's flames threaten to burn our economy, our national security, and our people. Mr. Speaker, we have no time to waste. I would urge the majority leader to bring a bill to the floor today that would comply with what Mr. Lankford, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, said that we ought to pass things that we think the Senate can pass, not just messages, not just political spin, but we ought to pass things that can actually be passed through the United States Senate and signed by the President. Senator Lindsey Graham has said: We have our fingerprints as Republicans on this proposal, on this sequestration idea. It was the President's idea, according to Bob Woodward's book. But we as the Republican Party agreed to it. Let's make law and make policy so that America has the confidence that its Congress can work. It must work. America needs it to work.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to learn this week of the passing of Edward L. Maxwell, an old friend who was a community leader in Prince George's County, Maryland. He was 80 years old when he lost his battle to cancer on January 29. Born in 1932 in Phenix City, Alabama, a stone's throw from Fort Benning, Edward dreamed even as a boy of serving his country in the U.S. Army. At age 13, he rode a freight train to Washington, DC, with his older brother Stephen to chase the dream of a better life, and he attended Spingarn High School. In 1950, at age 18, Edward volunteered for the U.S. Army and was sent to Korea, where he was wounded in both legs and expected to be paralyzed permanently. With grit and hard work, Edward spent time in rehab at Walter Reed Army hospital and was able to walk again. Following his military service, he studied at the Veterans Vocational Institute, the Cortez Peters Business School, the LaSalle School of Accounting, and the George Washington University. With a penchant for math and a love of learning, Edward embarked on a career in business that would eventually lead him to become a successful small business owner and founder of the Best Value and Allen's Discount retail stores. He started it all by selling encyclopedias, vacuum cleaners, and insurance policies--and working at fast-food restaurants--until he could afford to start his own businesses. Later, Edward started other successful businesses, including a casino that contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to help individuals in the community afford college and pursue opportunities for their families. He launched a non-profit to help disabled veterans like himself access their earned benefits and find jobs, and he donated so much food to the needy over the holidays that, over the years, he became known locally as the ``Turkey Man.'' I first came to know Edward in the 1970s, when I was working as a lawyer in Prince George's County. He was a cherished member of the community who was not only a man of business but a man of deep faith in God and faith in his fellow men and women. Edward was also a loving husband, father, grandfather, and uncle. Edward married his wife Freida in 1962, and after 50 years together, she survives him. So does their daughter Gene and four sons: Kermit, Zach, Edward Jr., and Mike. He was also blessed with six grandchildren. I join in mourning Edward's passing and in offering my condolences to Freida and their entire family. He will be missed by the entire Prince George's County community, and his generosity, big heart, and warm spirit will be long remembered.