Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. With respect to the appropriations bills, much was made of the fact that you wanted to bring appropriations bills to the floor one at a time and under open rules. I think that's a good practice. Frankly, I would have liked to have done that when we were in charge, and we didn't get that done. I said then that I didn't think it was good for the institution for the consideration of appropriation bills, and you, I think, rightfully criticized us for that--not you, personally, but the Republican side of the aisle. Is it your intention to bring the appropriations bills to the floor singly, individually, with an open rule as Speaker Boehner indicated would be the case, and, if so, when will that occur? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I make the additional observation that we passed a budget. Many of us voted against that budget, as you know, that passed. We voted for our alternative. But the American people, I think, have an interest and, frankly, a right to know what the ramifications of that budget that was passed are; and obviously they will find that out as the appropriation bills move forward, are considered on this floor, open to debate and open to amendment. That will educate the American people on what the consequences are of passing budget A over budget B, your budget, our budget, or an alternative budget. It's really in the appropriations bill. The budget doesn't really do anything, as we all know, other than set a 302(a) allocation. That is the amount of discretionary dollars that can be applied in the appropriations process. What that means is that the only thing it does is set that limit and does not apportion resources to particular objectives in the appropriations bill or, for that matter, in the Ways and Means Committee bill in terms of actions that might occur with reference to taxes and revenues. So I say to my friend that the importance of bringing the appropriation bills to the floor is to give that transparency to the American public so they can make a judgment on which priorities they support. We think it's going to be very difficult, frankly, to bring appropriation bills to the floor under the constraints that have been imposed. And we regret, as the gentleman knows, very much that we did not follow the agreement that was reached when we precluded the country's going into default. We agreed on a figure of $1.048 trillion to be the figure that the Appropriations Committee would mark to. I don't know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to see, but 12 out of the 14 Senators on the Appropriations Committee voted to honor the agreement that was reached today, including Senator McConnell. Regrettably, we did not do that in the House. We reduced that figure very substantially, and we also shifted some of the resources from one object--nondefense to defense--which cuts even further the nondefense portion of the budget by about $8 billion. So I ask the gentleman, in that context, is the committee going to mark to the House-passed budget, which we have deemed adopted? Notwithstanding the fact it has not been adopted, is the House going to mark to those figures, and will it mark to those figures knowing full well what dollars are left for bills that are to follow? In other words, are you going to front-load and make those appropriation bills sweeter? That will then not leave resources for bills that will come after.

Mr. HOYER. I know the gentleman doesn't like to relitigate history, but when he says spending got out of control over the last two decades, I may agree with him on the last decade we went deeply into debt, but certainly the decade preceding that my friend surely remembers that we ran 4 years of surplus and a net surplus over 8 years during the Clinton administration. A $62.9 billion net surplus after 8 years. And we had 4 years of surplus. Two of those were actual surpluses--and we counted Social Security's revenues, which obviously were borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund. So we swapped Social Security money for IOUs. But 2 of those years of actual balance. So I would agree with him on the last decade, but I would not agree with him on the decade before that because, frankly, working from both sides of the aisle and an exploding economy, we created those deficits essentially together. I want to say to my friend that in that context, yes, the American people want to see us use their money wisely. We all agree on that. They need to know how we intend to use their money. And if they don't have appropriation bills on the floor--because the gentleman talks about the fact that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in a thousand days. It has had no effect, none, zero on what we are doing. Why? Because all the budget does, as the gentleman well knows, is not allocate money. It sets a ceiling--as the gentleman likes, apparently, ceilings and not agreements--a ceiling on what discretionary spending will be. Other than that, it doesn't do anything. Therefore, it sets forth a plan. But the key is going to be how you carry out that plan and let the American people know how you're going to carry it out. We do that in appropriation bills and the Ways and Means tax bills. Does the gentleman have an idea of when a Ways and Means tax bill carrying out the budget might come to the floor?

Mr. HOYER. We passed--if I can go to another subject briefly--we passed a bill today which the gentleman was a principle advocate of which cost $46 billion in terms of revenues in effect forgone, if you will, that otherwise were being expected, if that bill passes. Does the gentleman believe that if that bill passes and is signed by the President, that in light of the fact it's a 1-year bill, does the gentleman believe that it will be only 1 year or does the gentleman intend, if his party happens to be in charge in the next Congress, to see that lapse and that tax increased again on small businesses? What is the gentleman's thought on that? I ask him that question, if I might, in light of The Wall Street Journal's observation today that certainly this did not give small businesses much certainty.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and he is correct, we do have a very substantial difference of opinion. The indication is this is a start. Frankly, we were told it was a start in 2001. We were told it was a start in 2003 when we cut taxes very substantially. Unfortunately, we didn't cut revenues very substantially. And when you don't cut revenues after you cut taxes, what happens is you have deficit. And that's why we went from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus after the Clinton administration, projected by the Bush administration, to an $11 trillion deficit at the end of the Bush administration-- because we cut revenues and we increased spending. We were not in charge for 75 percent of that time. In fact, we weren't in charge of ultimately passing legislation any of that time because the President, of course, had an 8-year term. So I say to my friend, we dug another $46 billion hole. My belief is that your side of the aisle will not want to reinstate that tax next year no matter what the economy is doing, no matter how good the economy is. That's my suspicion. But it's based upon 30 years of experience, I tell my friend. And if that's the case, then we're not talking about $46 billion, we're talking about a half trillion dollars, which is $46 billion times 10 with escalation for inflation, so about a half-a-trillion-dollar additional hole in the deficit unless the gentleman is prepared to say, look, if the economy recovers, we're going to reinstate that revenue. The difference between us is you want to talk about tax increases, and I want to talk about paying our bills. And I believe that if we don't want to buy, then we don't have to tax. But if we buy, we have a moral responsibility to have the courage to ask people to pay for it. Very frankly, I think you've taken the discipline out of the system. I think supply-side economics takes the discipline out of the system. What supply-side economics does is, we can cut revenues but don't have to cut spending because magically we're going to get more revenues. Very frankly, Mr. Greenspan thought for a while that that worked. He said 3 years ago, no, he was wrong. I think he was right the second time. He was demonstrably, graphically not right the first time when he rationalized the 2001 and 2003. We cut revenues, they did not raise sufficient additional dollars and growth in the economy. As a matter of fact, whether there was a direct result, we had the worst economy I've experienced in my adult lifetime at the end of the Bush term and at the beginning of the Obama term as responsibility for the economy went over to President Obama. Now, there's a lot of debate during this bill about how we've lost jobs. That's true. Those jobs were lost in the early part of the Obama administration. As the gentleman knows, over the last 24 months, we've had 4 million new jobs created, 10 quarters of economic growth in our country, and the Dow has doubled. The Dow has doubled since March of 2009. It's hard for me to see how that was a failure. It certainly hasn't been the success we'd like, but not a failure. I tell my friend that, yes, we have a difference, and the public needs to come to grips with that difference and that debate, and that is whether or not we're going to pay for things we buy. And if we don't want to buy them, we won't have to pay for them, and we can cut taxes. Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a man who put his life in harm's way for our country as a member of the iconic 101st Airborne Division's Easy Company during World War II. MSG Clarence Odell Lyall, a longtime resident of Leonardtown, Maryland, passed away on March 19. The 101st Airborne Division was created in 1942 to put American boots on the ground in some of the most treacherous enemy-held territory--in possibly the most dangerous way possible. Paratrooper tactics were still very new, and the risks of jumping out of an aircraft, let alone into a warzone, were enough to give even some of our bravest soldiers pause. But for the men who were formed into the Division's E Company, known as ``Easy Company,'' landing safely on the ground was only the first obstacle. On June 6, 1944, Clarence--``Clancy,'' to those of us who were fortunate to know him--jumped with Easy Company a few miles from Utah Beach in the opening hours of Operation Overlord, and he landed in a tree. He was so laden with heavy equipment that another soldier had to cut him down to safety. After the Normandy beachhead was secured, Clancy fought in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany in Operations Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge. The exploits of Easy Company were highlighted in the book Band of Brothers and the television miniseries of the same name. Clancy's service to our country continued long after the Second World War came to a close. After the war, Clancy was honorably discharged. But he re-enlisted and went on to a military career that took him from occupation duty in West Germany to service in the Korean War and even a stint as an observer at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam in 1954, escaping the besieged town just two weeks before the fall of its French garrison. Over the course of his career, Clancy made an astounding four combat jumps, earned twenty-five decorations and citations, and retired as a Master Sergeant. Since leaving the Army, Clancy continued to serve his country and community as a VFW Commander, President of the Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge, and President of the American Legion Vice Commander Lions Club. He served on the Southern Maryland Veterans Advisory Board and was a member of the Order of the Purple Heart in support of our wounded veterans. I was proud to represent Clancy in Congress for so many years, and I continue to be in awe of what he and others in Easy Company and across the Armed Forces achieved during World War II. Their sacrifices, their courage, their bonds of brotherhood through unspeakable difficulty have ensured the lasting triumph of democracy. Clancy Lyall was my dear friend, and I join in thanking Clancy for his service to this nation and to our community in Southern Maryland, and I offer my condolences to his wife, Liz, their five children, eight grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, and I have no intention of objecting, Mr. Speaker, but simply to say that we continue to believe on this side of the aisle that we could resolve this issue, as we have had this debate, over a longer term and give confidence to the markets, give confidence to the States and localities by simply bringing the Senate bill to the floor and passing that bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Ryan, who is an outstanding Member of this body and my friend, and who is one of the most able among us, as well as Mr. Van Hollen, who has been my close friend for many years and one of the most able among us, have just spent time thanking our staffs for the work that they have done. I share their view that our staffs have worked mightily. And, indeed, there has been much debate. Tragically, the product we will produce today is far less than the sum of our parts in this body. It is, I would suggest to you, a product unworthy of the intellect that has been applied to it. It is a product, indeed, that I think will hurt America, not help America. It is a product that is too much politics and too little policy. It is a product of which I think this House can not be proud. It is a product that relies on substantially undermining the security of seniors. I say that as one who has said repeatedly that in reaching a fiscally sustainable path we must deal with entitlements. We need to do so together, and we need to do so in a balanced way. But there is no balance in this proposal. Seniors, middle class, the vulnerable, and working Americans are asked to pay the price of this agreement. And, indeed, not only are they asked to pay the price, but the best off among us is asked to do the least. That's not the America of which we're all proud--that has worked together and sacrificed together at times, to come together to make a joint contribution to the welfare of this country. This product is less than the sum of its parts. This product would undermine the guarantee of Medicare. Again, we need to deal with entitlements, but not in a way, I tell my friends in this House, that undermines the guarantee of senior security as well as family security, so their children will know their parents are secure. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we had an agreement. I think that the gentleman from Wisconsin is an honorable man. He is my friend. I like Paul Ryan. But I am sorely disappointed, I tell my friend. We came to having a difference of opinion on what the number ought to be for this year's budget. You had a lower number. We had a higher number. We almost took the Nation to the brink--as a matter of fact, we took it to the brink--of default.

Mr. HOYER. We came to the brink of default in this great Nation, the most creditworthy Nation on the face of the Earth, and were downgraded as a result of failing to get to an agreement. But when we got to an agreement, it was an agreement. And if we are able to rely on one another's words, we ought to keep our agreements. It simply said that 302(a), which simply means, for the public, that the dollars we were going to spend on discretionary spending this fiscal year coming would be $1.47 trillion. That's a lot of money, no doubt about it. Your side didn't like it, my side didn't like it, but we agreed on it. That agreement is not carried out in this budget. How can we rely in the future on such an agreement? It asks seniors to pay the bill, the vulnerable to pay the bill, but not the wealthiest in America. It puts Medicare at risk and does not get us to where we want.

Mr. HOYER. In fact, it adds $10 trillion, and then some magical formula that's somewhere out there, like waste, fraud, and abuse, we're going to find the money to pay for the $10 trillion in tax cuts. That's by the extension of the Bush tax cuts and the 35 to 25. Some magical way, we're going to eliminate preference items. It doesn't say which ones. It doesn't say who's going to pay the bill. Ladies and gentlemen, we can do better. The parts in this body are very good on both sides of the aisle--good intellect, good instincts, and a love for this country. We can do better. Let's reject this budget. Let's do some real work. Let's come together and put this country on a fiscally sustainable path without harming our people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before I start my formal presentation, let me say the gentleman from Arizona is correct. We do need to take responsibility on both sides of the aisle. Very frankly, I will tell my friend we had an opportunity to take responsibility when the Bowles-Simpson Commission voted. There was a vote in the Senate. It was divided somewhat, but mostly they voted for it in the Senate. We had one of our people from the House vote for it, a Democrat. None of your representatives voted for Bowles-Simpson, I guess, because it wasn't perfect. That was a missed opportunity--it was a doggone shame--because that would have made 14 votes, and we would have had that on the floor in the Senate and in the House. I think this is a missed opportunity because I don't think this is a real document. Now, frankly, I also think that we had a deal. We had a deal as to what the discretionary number was going to be, or as we call it in the jargon of the House, the 302(a) allocation, which the gentleman as a member of the Appropriations Committee knows about. We had a higher number and you had a lower number, and we made a deal in between. We haven't kept that deal. We haven't kept that deal because you couldn't get the votes in your committee, in the Budget Committee, for that deal. So here we are, Madam Speaker. The chairman of the Budget Committee has spoken of a choice between two futures. He is correct in framing it this way. The budget he proposes would end Medicare's guarantee, cut taxes for the wealthiest, and place our economic recovery at risk. Robert Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, described the Republican budget this way, and I quote: It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times. Now, that is not a budget on which we proceed where you have a Senate that is chaired by the Democratic Party, majority leader, and a Democratic President. You're not going to get consensus on that kind of a budget. So this is essentially a statement of purpose and vision by one party, not a document that anybody thinks is going to pass. However, that is a future we simply cannot afford. In fact, the Republican proposal is not a realistic budget at all, I would suggest to you. Nobody believes in its premises that we, as a Nation, are suddenly going to decide to savage our domestic programs and leave the most vulnerable out in the cold. That's not America. That's not the values that we share as a country. This disastrous budget ends the Medicare guarantee, increasing costs for seniors. It cuts Medicaid by a third. That's the most vulnerable in America, the poor in America. My faith doesn't teach me that's the kind of policy I am going to support. I don't think anybody's faith teaches that. We want to take care of those who need the most help. It will jeopardize access to affordable health and nursing home care for seniors, the disabled, and low-income families who depend upon it. Furthermore, it repeals the critical patient protection and cost containment policies of the Affordable Care Act. That will cost us dollars. Their budget slashes funding for programs that help the vulnerable, enable our children to afford college, and provide health coverage to those with long-term disabilities; and it puts millions of jobs and our economic recovery at risk as a result of drastic spending cuts. At the same time, the budget extends the Bush tax cuts, including $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and cuts an additional $4.6 trillion in taxes on top of that. In fact, you can get tax cuts up to $10 trillion with the Bush extension and the reduction from 35 to 25. And, oh, yes, we're going to eliminate preference items. We won't tell you what those preference items are. We don't know when we'll eliminate them, but we're going to eliminate them. I happen to agree we need to look at preference items. I agree with Mr. Ryan on that proposition. I'm just not very confident that, given what happened in Bowles-Simpson, that anybody has the courage to do so. It does all that without saying how it will be paid for; but presumably, as I said, by eliminating the deductions that middle class families rely on to send their kids to college and afford their homes. Let me say this: I have said in the past and I will say it again today, we must have a big, bold, balanced deal. That will affect entitlements, it will affect revenues, and it will affect expenditures.

Mr. HOYER. I will tell my friend of my deep disappointment, because I think the chairman of the Budget Committee certainly is one of the individuals in America who could be a part of the solution but is not being part of the solution, is proposing something that is clearly unacceptable to this side of the aisle, to the President. We need to come together and come to an agreement. Democrats have proposed a different future: one where we invest in a strong economy and ask everyone to contribute their fair share; a future where the Medicare guarantee is preserved and seniors' health security is protected; a future where students who work hard, take responsibility for themselves, and get accepted to college won't have to worry about whether they can afford to go; a future where we help businesses create millions of jobs here at home that won't be shipped overseas; a future, ladies and gentlemen, where the deficit is reduced in a balanced way-- that's the key, we all know it's the key--with everyone pitching in. Any of the Democratic alternatives, in my opinion, will be better than this Republican budget. And I don't agree with everything in each one of those budgets, clearly.

Mr. HOYER. We have a choice today, tonight, tomorrow of two futures, and that choice couldn't be clearer. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, I urge you to stand together in defeating this budget and passing one that will bring our middle class and working families not a grim future but a bright future. And in conclusion, let me say this: Whatever happens to this budget, any of these budgets on the floor, is not going to be the final word. It perhaps will not even be the beginning word. We need to solve this issue, and we need to do it not by pointing fingers at one another, not by pretending that it's going to be simple, not by pretending that we're going to be able to make happy all of our supporters. We won't be. The hole we've dug is way too deep. The decisions we will make are way too tough. And the only way we will make them is to join hands and look the American public in the eye and say, We have to have a balanced deal. We have to do all that is necessary to put this Nation on a fiscally sustainable path for the chairman's children, for the ranking member's children, for my children, my grandchildren, and, yes, my two great-grandchildren.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan, but certainly also my friend from Ohio, both of whom have served here for a long period of time and who love this institution and know how critical the functions are of the Parliamentarian. I want to thank them both. Mr. Dingell has had the privilege of serving alongside all four of the men who have been the modern Parliamentarians in this House. I've had the privilege of serving with three of them. When the Framers of the Constitution wrote article I, section 5, clause 2, they probably had little idea of the volume of precedents that would accumulate in the 224 years since the House convened and adopted its first rules. Today, the job of the Parliamentarian is probably one of the most difficult in Washington. A thorough understanding of the rules of precedents is a prerequisite to be an accomplished Parliamentarian. John Sullivan has that. One must also, however, have the respect of every Member of this House. John Sullivan has that. That is what John Sullivan achieved over the course of his 17 years in the Parliamentarian's Office. As our Parliamentarian for the last 8 of those years, John has sat beside the Speaker's rostrum through some of the most heated floor debates I've ever seen, indeed perhaps in which I've participated. Throughout, he preserved the impartiality of and the high regard for his office in the eyes of both Democrats and Republicans--when Democrats were in charge and when Republicans were in charge--and he demonstrated his keen and incisive command of precedent issuing his rulings. Hearing of John's decision to retire, I was among the many Members who felt that they were losing a respected colleague and friend. Because after his tenure here, John Sullivan has left his mark on the House no less than any of us who were elected to serve here by our constituents. He, no less than ourselves, has served the American people well. As we wish him the best in retirement, we also welcome as our new Parliamentarian a man who is eminently qualified to succeed him in office. Tom Wickham has been at John's side throughout his tenure in the Parliamentarian's Office, and I know John is leaving us in very capable hands. Mr. Speaker, I join you and my colleagues and everyone else who has come to the floor this evening celebrating John's service to this House and to our Nation. I wish him well and thank him for all he has done to preserve the order--and with it the honor--of the people's House. John, you have been a great public servant in the best traditions of that term. You have been someone, as I said earlier, who has been respected by every leader of both parties, an individual who has listened intently, who has judged fairly, and whose judgments have made this House better. John Sullivan, well done, the House's good and faithful servant. Well done as a friend and colleague and adviser. Many of us are better Members of this House because of John's counsel through the years, and this House is certainly a better place for his service. I congratulate him and wish him Godspeed. And I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Ohio for leading this Special Order to praise and give testimony to the outstanding service of our friend, John Sullivan.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I won't pursue it any further, Mr. Leader, but you've been unable to get agreement within your party on this side of the Capitol for well over a month. I hope you can get there. I would hope you would get there in a bipartisan fashion so that Mr. Rahall and Mr. Mica could agree on a bill, which has been my experience in the 31 years I've been here. It's not my experience this year. That hasn't happened. But almost invariably--and I think for the years you've been here, you've experienced that as well. Let me ask you now with respect to the budget. Do you expect the budget to come to the floor? You indicated that. If so, would that be Wednesday?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to the legislation that is going to be considered next week. I would note that he talks about the highway bill, the infrastructure bill that is pending. Obviously, we had expected to consider that bill on the House floor. On our side, at least, our expectation was that it was going to be considered a number of weeks ago. It has not come to the floor here. As I understand it, we are now talking about an extension of some period of time. We are concerned that you rightfully, personally and as a party, made it very clear that certainty was an important aspect of growing our economy. That's a proposition on which I agree. I think you are absolutely right. I think that we need to create certainty and, clearly, we need to create jobs. I said this morning, Mr. Leader, to the press--and I'm sure you get it as well--that the public says to me: When are you guys going to start working together? When are you going to get something done in a bipartisan way? The Senate has done that, I will say to my friend. The Senate has done it in an overwhelming fashion. They had 74--it would have been 75, but Mr. Lautenberg was absent but was for the bill. So 75 percent of the Senate, three-quarters of the Senate voted for what was a very bipartisan bill. And, as a matter of fact, half the Senate Republicans essentially voted for that bill. As you know, it had a technical flaw in the bill in that it had revenues which need to be initiated in the House of Representatives. Representative Tim Bishop of New York has introduced the Senate bill, which has overwhelming support in the United States Senate and, very frankly, in my view, would have at least 218 votes in this House if it were put on the floor. The Speaker has said in the past that he is committed to letting the House work its will, obviously referring to the open amendments process. But if a bill doesn't come to the floor, we have no opportunity either to amend or to vote. That's been one of our problems, of course, with the jobs bill that the President proposed that we had hoped would have been brought to the floor which has not been to the floor. But I ask my friend, rather than continue to delay--and both sides have done that on the highway bill--to give that confidence, of which you have spoken and others on your side of the aisle have spoken I think absolutely correctly, in order to give the confidence that we can, in fact, act, that we can work in a bipartisan fashion, I would ask my friend whether or not he, as the majority leader, would be prepared to bring the Bishop bill to the floor, which, again, is the Senate bill, supported by 75 Members of the United States Senate, half of the Republican caucus in the Senate, and which will give some degree of certainty for a highway program which clearly is also a jobs bill and will have an impact on almost 2 million jobs and maybe another million jobs along the way. We think that's the way that would be good for our country to proceed, and it would send a message--because I think it would get bipartisan support if you brought it to the floor--that it would send a good message to the country that, yes, from time to time, we can work together. And, very frankly, Mr. Leader, if we did that, it would be consistent with every transportation bill that we have passed since 1956 under Dwight Eisenhower, where we worked together in a bipartisan fashion. This is the first time that I have experienced a partisan divide--I mean, people have had differences of opinion, but a partisan divide on the highway bill. As you know, Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe came together to agree. I think that's a pretty broad ideological spectrum of the United States Senate. They came together, they agreed, and they led the effort to pass that bipartisan bill. I would very much hope that, Mr. Majority Leader, that you could bring that bill to the floor and see whether or not, in fact, it could pass. I think that would be good for the country. And I yield to my friend for his comments.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. But I will say again to the gentleman, we've been down this path before. We've been down this path before where the Senate was able to reach a bipartisan agreement on legislation very important to jobs, to the economy, and to the confidence of America. That bipartisan piece of legislation would have enjoyed the support, I think, of certainly the overwhelming majority, almost the unanimous support on our side on a bipartisan agreement. I don't mean a Democratic proposal from the Senate, but a bipartisan agreement that came from the Senate. That dealt, of course, with payroll taxes and extending those, and ultimately we did that. We took that bill. But I would say to my friend that the Speaker indicated he wanted a bill on this floor. I've been asking you for approximately a month now if it was going to come to the floor. That bill hasn't come to the floor. We all know it hasn't come to the floor because there's very substantial disagreement within your party about that bill. The papers report that. Everybody talks about it. We understand that. I say to my friend that he and I do have a disagreement. I think it would enjoy bipartisan support on this floor if you brought the Bishop bill, the Senate bipartisan bill, to the floor. But the only way we're really going to be able to find that out--it's not by me saying, I think it would and you saying, I think it wouldn't. There's a very easy way to see whether it would, and that is to bring it to the floor next week. I don't think there is anybody, hopefully, that wants to disrupt and have literally hundreds of thousands of people thrown out of work or not have opportunities for work. We know the construction trades in particular have been very badly hit by the lack of construction that's going on. You can have your opinion and I can have my opinion, but there is a way to determine whether or not, in fact, we can get bipartisan agreement; and that is, as I said, and as the Speaker has indicated, let the House work its will. The only way the House can work its will-- having been majority leader--is for the majority leader to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote. Then you may be right, I may be right, but we will know and it won't have to be speculation. We will know. If I'm right and we do pass that bill, then next week, before March 31, before the expiration of the current highway authorization, we can send a bill to the President of the United States, and he will sign the Senate bill. We don't know that he will sign a bill that's still languishing in your committee because we haven't seen the final parameters of that bill because it is obviously pretty controversial on your side of the aisle. Again, if you want certainty, we have an opportunity for certainty. We have an opportunity with a bipartisan bill that the Senate has passed. I don't know why we're rejecting that bipartisanship. The gentleman says, well, this is a unique economic time. He's right. It seems to me that's a greater argument for trying to embrace a bipartisan agreement and move forward with giving certainty to the construction industry, to States, to municipalities, and to counties on what is going to be available to them to plan and to pursue infrastructure projects critical to commerce and to their communities. I regret that the gentleman has indicated that's not an option that he will consider, but a short-term extension seems to be the continuation of uncertainty, not the allaying of uncertainty. I don't know whether the gentleman wants to make another comment on that or not.

Mr. HOYER. Normally, as you know, we've had alternatives made in order. We, of course, want to make in order an amendment which will guarantee that Medicare will be available to our seniors and that we will not decimate Medicaid, which we think is appropriate for our seniors. We also want to make sure that we have revenues that can sustain health care for seniors, education for kids, help for our communities. Will the gentleman be able to tell me whether or not, in fact, alternatives will be made in order by the Rules Committee that would be offered either by the minority ranking member of the committee and/or others as historically has been the case?

Mr. HOYER. Was there a bipartisan vote in the committee on that? I thought it was a totally partisan vote in the committee. Was I incorrect?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. The last thing I would ask the gentleman: Am I correct that the agreement that was reached between our parties, which led to the passage of the Budget Control Act in a bipartisan fashion, does not reflect the substance of that agreement as it relates to the discretionary spending number for fiscal year 2013? Senator McConnell is quoted, as you know, as saying that that was an agreement that was reached and that he expected it to be pursued. I want to make it clear that he was not referring to the action of the Budget Committee, but he was referring to the agreement on the discretionary number. Am I correct that the agreement that was reached, in order to get a bipartisan vote on the Budget Control Act, which we passed, which made sure that this country did not default on its debts for the first time in history, am I correct that that number is not the number that is reflected in the budget? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, but I will tell the gentleman that if we're going to have negotiations, and we have one number and you have another number, and we agree on a number, and then we pass a bill which reflects that number, put it in law--it doesn't say it's a cap; it says that will be the number. As we pass the budget, we said that will be the number. Now this is the law. And as was observed by others on the other side of the Capitol, but I will observe it here as well, if we're going to have those kinds of negotiations, it's sort of like the guy who comes up to you and says, look, I've got something to sell you, do you want to buy it? And you say, yes, let's negotiate on price. And you come to a price of $100. And then you come to settle, and the guy says, well, that was my top number. I'm going to give you $92 for that item. You don't have a meeting of the minds as a contract requires. Very frankly, nobody on our side, and frankly I don't think anybody on your side that negotiated the deal--I don't mean that didn't vote for it--and as a matter of fact, I know for a fact the Speaker, and I believe yourself, have been quoted that that was the number and we ought to stick with it. Clearly, Mr. Rogers believes that's the number that was agreed to. Now, we're not going to be able to agree on things if all of a sudden it becomes, well, that was a notional thing that we did, not an agreement. A lot of our people voted on that to make sure, A, we didn't go into default as a country, and, B, that was not the number we wanted. It clearly was not the number your side wanted. But it was a number we agreed upon. And it seems to me that if we're going to try to keep faith with one another and with the law that we passed that we should stick with what we agreed to. I understand that we want to bring the budget deficit down. As a matter of fact, on this side of the aisle, I've made those comments, and I've been criticized by some on my side, as you well know. Yes, we do need to get a handle on the budget. We're going to have a real debate on the deficit and debt, and I've been working very hard on that. We're going to have a debate, a fulsome debate, hopefully, on whether or not your budget does that. We've had disagreements all the years I've been here on that, and performance has not reflected, from my standpoint, that the representations made have always worked out, perhaps on either side. But I regret, I regret deeply, Mr. Majority Leader, that we've reached an agreement, and based upon that agreement, this House took an action, it took a bipartisan action, and it passed a piece of legislation that was critically important to make sure that America did not go into default. And now we see 7 months later, crossed fingers, well, we really didn't mean that, it was a cap. Nobody on our side-- there was no mention in the law nor was there any mention in the negotiations that that was a cap, not a number. Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I look forward to next week debating how we bring that deficit down, and I yield back the balance of my time.