Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. And I want to thank him for his participation in addressing this issue. And frankly, in my opinion, he was one of the 100 signatories that we had saying let's get a big deal, we have to get a handle on this debt. I want to thank him. But I want to assure him as well, I've been here just a little longer than he has, this debate has been going on for some period of time. This is not a new debate. With all due respect, it's been on this floor--I've been raising this issue for some 20 years, very frankly, others have as well on both sides of the aisle. The debate has been going on, but as I said, we need to summon the courage and political will to not just debate it, but to address it and address it effectively. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, according to a new poll by The Washington Post and ABC News, 84 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. I don't know that the other 16 percent are paying attention, because we're not doing our job well. And this certainly is not doing our job well. The reason it is not doing our job well is because it is a pretense, a sham. This legislation is to pay bills that we've already incurred. Whether, as the gentleman said, it was incurred with your votes or whether it was incurred with our votes, we have incurred those expenses. This is about whether America is going to pay its bills. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, the previous gentleman said nobody had done anything about the debt. In point of fact, we did do something about the debt. We put revenue at levels commensurate with our spending. As a result, in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 and 2001--in 1997 we brought the deficit down to $25 billion, and for the next 4 years, we had a surplus. Now a couple of those years were not real surpluses because we counted on Social Security revenue. But two of those years were real surpluses. This is about whether we pay our bills that we have incurred. Not doing this would be irresponsible, and would lead, I think, to further disrespect by the public, and properly so. One of the reasons for this feeling by the public is that Americans are tired of political games. This is a political game. This is a game that will say, see, I voted against debt. Now, let me tell you how you can vote against debt. When you cut taxes in 2001 and 2003--and I agree with my friend, it's not about blame. It is about learning, however. When we cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 under George Bush, we didn't pay for them. We pretended they would pay for themselves. They didn't. Alan Greenspan says they won't. We ought to learn from that. Learning from that, we ought to say yes, we'll pay our debts. The President doesn't want this money. It's not for the President; it's for bills that we incurred in fighting two wars, in giving tax cuts primarily to the wealthiest in America, to passing a prescription drug program that frankly all of us now support, but we didn't pay for it. And as a result, we got deeply into debt. And we have to get out of that debt, and we have to show courage, wisdom, and hopefully intellectual honesty in getting to that. The American public is tired of seeing Republicans spending time on votes simply because of electoral positioning. And, frankly, they'd be tired of us doing the same thing. But that's all this is. It's so we can say: Look what we voted for. This is not our debt, we voted against it. But that's not responsible, and it's not honest. And I think most of you know that. The resolution before us today is simply another waste of time. More than that, it undermines confidence here and around the world. Some of that debt, of course, we owe to people around the world. It is the essence of political gamesmanship, and does nothing to reduce the debt or create jobs. And we spend a whole day on it. As a matter of fact, this is the only full day we are going to spend in January debating any issue. Americans know that we ought to pay our bills. They know we reached a deal in August that said both parties will work together to address our deficits in a way that will provide certainty to our businesses, markets, and families around the dinner table. Agreeing to this resolution would only provide more uncertainty at a time when our people need to see us working together on a big, balanced deal to meet our fiscal challenges. My friend and I are both for that effort. I am very much for that effort. But I don't pretend that not paying the bills that we have incurred is going to solve that problem. The only thing that's going to solve that problem is we're going to ask everybody to contribute their fair share. Yes, we're going to have to make some cuts. And we're going to have to make some cuts that neither side will like, and we're going to have to raise revenues that neither side will like. But I will tell my friend who is waiting for his grandchildren, I have three grandchildren now, and I have two great grandchildren, and he's right; they are the ones who are going to have to pay this bill. And I saw my young friend, a new Member from South Carolina, and I can't recall his name right this second.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I saw my young friend passionate about not passing these bills along to his children. I thought to myself, I could give that speech. But, very frankly, I voted against cutting taxes without paying for them. I voted against the AMT without paying for it. We paid for it when we set the AMT. I think it needs to be fixed, and we paid for it. I will vote ``no'' on this resolution, which comes as no surprise after you've heard me talk, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same. Why? America is disheartened because they do not believe we are honest in dealing with them. They believe we play political games. They believe that we are not addressing the issues they know are of importance and they know do not have easy, simplistic answers. I hope Democrats who vote ``no'' are joined by a large number of Republicans, not because you like debt, not because any of us like debt. And, very frankly, I voted for the Clinton revenue increases in 1993, and the prediction on your side of the aisle was that it would destroy the economy, unemployment would spike, and the deficit would explode. None of that happened. You were wrong. All of us are wrong from time to time. Dead wrong. As a matter of fact, we enjoyed the best economy I have seen in my adult life in the 1990s. And we have seen the worst recession in my life after pursuing the Bush policies for 8 years. Yes, we were in charge for the last 2, but we couldn't change policies because the President had the veto and a majority of the votes to sustain that veto on this floor. So ladies and gentlemen, let's be honest with the American people. We've all incurred a debt. We all spent the money. We drove on the roads, we were defended abroad, we invested in health care, research. We all incurred these debts. We know we need to solve it. We know that medicine will be tough. But honesty will make it easier, honesty between ourselves, honesty with the American people, and honesty, integrity and courage. I hear around this country talk about Greece has a real problem. They are 128 percent, I think, in debt; we're only at about 100 percent. If you count our internal debt, it's less than that. But the problem that Greece has is they don't have the resources to solve their problem. America, the good news for us is we have the resources to solve our problems if we have the courage and political will to do so. This vote is a small token of showing that we have the courage, the wisdom and the political will to do so. We need to pay our bills. Vote ``no'' on this resolution. Show the American people that we have courage, that we have wisdom, and we can have the political will to make America the continuing strongest country on the face of the Earth.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I know that the American people are pleased that we have come together to agree on this extension to give certainty and peace of mind to the 160 million Americans who are concerned about losing their tax cut, the 48 million seniors who were concerned about their Medicare, and the 2.3 million people who are unemployed and seeking work who were fearful of losing their benefits. I thank the Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri, and I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. It is December 20, and the Republicans are using it as a day to dissemble, pretending to support a tax cut for working Americans while making it uncertain and delayed. We, of course, as we all know, could pass the Senate bill by 2 o'clock today, send it to the President, and provide certainty to working Americans come January 1 that their taxes will not go up. The choice, I suggest to all of you, is not between 60 days and 1 year, because at least we all say we're for 1 year--we are for 1 year, we will support a 1-year extension--but we know the Senate has been unable to agree. So they sent us back an agreement that they could agree on to give us 60 days to get to that 1 year. Instead, House Republicans refuse to even bring the Senate's bipartisan compromise to the floor. Eighty-nine U.S. Senators voted for a compromise, and you will not bring it to the floor. You create uncertainty and anxiety among the public. That is shameful and disappointing. As a result, on January 1, if there is no agreement, those of you who vote to send this to conference today and against this motion to instruct will be responsible for 160 million Americans seeing their taxes increase next year, for 2.3 million people seeking jobs who will lose their unemployment lifeline by mid-February, and for 48 million Americans having their access to doctors placed in jeopardy. Those are the stakes. America thought we had an agreement this weekend. John McCain thought we had an agreement this Saturday--and yes, Speaker Boehner thought we had an agreement on Saturday. America thought there was reason to hope that middle class Americans would be spared this entirely preventable tax increase. I tell you, my friends, if this were about the upper income tax increase, it would pass like lightning in your conference--like lightning. But no. This is about putting in jeopardy a middle class tax cut, and we could play political games with that. We're now witnessing the concluding convulsion of confrontation and obstruction in this most unproductive, Tea Party-dominated, partisan session of Congress. As a result, Speaker Boehner decided he wasn't for the agreement. Now let me tell you what Speaker Boehner said 6 months ago, because there was a lot of talk about this 1-year extension. He called proposals to extend or expand the payroll tax cut at that point by a year ``another little short-term gimmick.'' Same rhetoric. Different circumstances. But both put at risk the middle class.

Mr. HOYER. I yield myself an additional minute. In Senate Republican Leader McConnell's own words, ``The compromise that you are rejecting today was designed to pass.'' In fact, the bill that you passed you knew was designed to fail. Because you knew it was going to fail, your Republican leadership in the Senate objected to its being considered on the floor of the United States Senate, just as you have refused to consider the Senate's compromise on this floor. It did so in the Senate. That bill that was designed to pass, according to Senator McConnell, did so in the Senate with overwhelming support from 83 percent of Republicans and from every Democrat, including the entire Senate Republican leadership and the entire Democratic leadership. Democrats, Mr. Speaker, are fighting to prevent a painful tax increase for the middle class. The way to do that is to pass the Senate compromise while we continue to work on a yearlong extension. That's what Senator Reid said he'll do, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we're prepared to do, Mr. Speaker. But we don't want to put at risk January 1 coming and that tax cut disappearing. If they fail to pass the compromise, House Republicans will have to answer to the American people whose taxes will go up.

Mr. HOYER. I yield myself an additional minute. To the innocent unemployed and to the Medicare seniors who are seeking services from their doctors, we must not leave this work unfinished just days before the holidays and New Year. That's what the Senate did. They gave us time. They gave the American people time. We ought to be bringing relief to middle class families who are increasingly anxious about their futures during what should be a joyful and hopeful holiday season. We ought to pass the bipartisan Senate bill. That's what this motion to instruct says. That's what the American people want to happen in Washington: to see us work together, come to agreement, act, bring certainty, stop the blame game. We can send the bipartisan agreement to the President today, and he will sign it. Vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct. Vote for the American workers, the Medicare recipient, and the unemployed. Vote for this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to my good friend from New York, Joe Crowley, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute for the purposes of inquiring of what the schedule will be as we go forward.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for withdrawing her objection. I have just been handed a--it may have been sent out earlier--a Members' advisory which says: The House will be in session as necessary to consider a conference report on H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011. The House's request for a conference will be transmitted to the United States Senate this afternoon where it will await the appointment of their conferees. To be clear, H.R. 3630 will physically reside in the Senate by the close of business today. It goes on to say, ``Members will be provided with at least 24 hours' notice prior to the House's next recorded vote.'' What I wanted to ask the majority leader is, does he expect his Members to go home this afternoon? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand the majority leader's position, but he didn't answer my question as to whether his Members intend to go home this afternoon.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority leader's observations. I don't think I got an answer to the question. But having said that, if in fact an agreement is not reached prior to, say, the middle of next week, is the House prepared to preclude the eventuality of 160 million people losing their tax cut? Are you prepared to preclude the possibility of 48 million people losing their Medicare benefits? Are you prepared to preclude 2.3 million people losing their unemployment insurance by acting on an overwhelmingly bipartisan agreement that was reached in the United States Senate? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, while there is clearly a difference in this House on a number of things, one of the things that I don't think we differ on is a lack of confidence that the Senate will do its job. I don't think we differ on that greatly because our experiences show us differently. So that what I'm asking the gentleman is that we do not put at risk the 160 million people who are expecting their tax cut to continue, the 48 million seniors who want access to their doctors, and the 2.3 million people who are going to go off unemployment, contingent upon whether the Senate acts as the gentleman wants it to. I will tell you my experience has not been great confidence that that will happen. I will tell the gentleman further, we have tried to prepare for that contingency. We have introduced a bill with 170 cosponsors which adopts the compromise agreement so that we will give that certainty of which the gentleman speaks, allay the anxiety which we know exists, and give to those 160 million people the certainty that they will get the tax cut, the 48 million the certainty they will have access to their doctors, and the 2.3 million the certainty that they will not be kicked off the unemployment rolls so they won't be able to support themselves and their families. I ask my friend if he will be prepared to bring that bill to the floor if in fact the Senate doesn't act.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, 6 months ago the Speaker said that he thought the 1-year extension of the middle class tax cut was a short-term gimmick. He said that 6 months ago of the year extension. So we're somewhat concerned about the commitment to a 1-year extension. But that aside, let me say to my friend that one of the problems I'm worried about is, A, whether we can get this work done in the next 14 days because we know that even if we had a conference, they take a long time. There are very significant differences between us. In fact, we have compromised on something that you indicated in our colloquies about a week ago was very important, and that was the Keystone bill, which your side believes will create a significant number of jobs. That of course is in the bill that the Senate sent us, because even though the Democratic majority was not for it, they cared enough about the middle class tax cut to compromise. Unfortunately, I will tell my friend, too often we have seen on this floor unwillingness to compromise, even on your bills. We had a CR on the floor on March 15; unfortunately, 54 of your Members walked away from that. On April 15, we had a continuing resolution to keep the government open; 59 Republicans walked away from that. On June 23, you left the Biden talks. On July 22, Speaker Boehner walked away from the debt limit negotiations with he and the President. On August 1, 66 Republicans walked away on the debt limit extension, which was your bill--not ours, your bill. On November 17, some 101 Republicans walked away from passing an appropriations bill which would keep three agencies funded. On December 16, 86 Republicans walked away from the bill to fund the balance of government. So I might say to my friend, it seems to me what we're doing today is walking away today from those 160 million people, walking away from those 48 million seniors, and walking away from those 2.3 million unemployed. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we walked away from 160 million Americans and put their tax cut at risk. We walked away from 48 million Americans and put their access to doctors at risk, and we walked away from 2.3 million unemployed. Frankly, when President Bush asked us to stabilize the financial markets, two-thirds of his own party walked away. On December 3, they walked away from Bowles-Simpson. On March 15, 54 Republicans walked away from continuing government funding. On April 14, 59 Republicans walked away from their bill to continue funding of the government. On June 23, their majority leader walked out on the Biden talks. On July 22, Speaker Boehner walked out on the talks he had with President Obama. On August 1, 66 Republicans walked away from making sure America pays its bills. On November 17, 101 Republicans walked away from the appropriation bill for three of our Departments. That was a Republican bill they walked away from. On November 21, Republicans walked away from the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. The Walkaway Caucus should not have put at risk working Americans in this country today.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for yielding. I rise in support of this legislation. This ought to be a lesson for us in some humility. I was the majority leader. Had I, as majority leader, brought that bill that sits on that floor, 1,207 pages, within the last 24 hours to the floor, I think the response from that side of the aisle would have been harsh, accusatory, and not helpful. Now, why do I say that? Because it happened. And it ought to be a portion of humility for all of us to understand the legislative process is difficult. We bring different views and we represent different constituencies and we have different priorities. I rise in strong support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. None of them have read it. Not one of us has read every page of this bill. I see the chairman raising his hand, and I take him at his word. That means 434 of us will have to rely on his advice and counsel. And I'm sure Mr. Dicks has read it as well. My point is we work by committees, as President Wilson said, and we've worked hard on this bill through the year. My Republican colleagues, during the course of the last election, said, We're going to bring bills one at a time to the floor and consider them. The Labor-Health bill that is included in a substantial portion of those pages, not only has it not been brought to the floor, it didn't pass the subcommittee. Nor the full committee. Nor this floor. But this bill has been worked on carefully, and I want to congratulate Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks and all of the subcommittee chairs for working out the differences that we had so we could do what the American people expect us to do--come to agreement on a bill that none of us perceives as perfect but perceive as a positive step for our country.

Mr. HOYER. I, therefore, urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Yes, it will keep government open, which is essential; but it will also do the most fundamental job that this Congress has to do every year, and that is to fund appropriately the priorities that this Congress puts before the country. In closing, let me congratulate my friend, Hal Rogers from Kentucky, with whom I served on the Appropriations Committee for over two decades, and Mr. Dicks, with whom I have served every day of my congressional career. Both are decent, hardworking, conscientious Representatives. They and their subcommittee chairs and ranking members have come together to present this product. It is time to act. It is time to act positively. I will, when the roll is called, be supporting this piece of legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. Just to clarify, it is my understanding, therefore, that we do intend, before we leave for the year, to address the House-passed bill or a Senate version thereof. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I want to join her in saying that there were some minuses in this bill, and the minuses in this bill historically have been, as it relates to the District of Columbia, that the Congress has treated the District of Columbia as its own possession as opposed to an independent political jurisdiction that has been granted home rule, and the Congress ought to honor that home rule. As we urge democracies around the world or dictatorships around the world to honor the views of their people, the Congress of the United States ought to honor the wishes of the people of the District of Columbia. I always lament when we put in these individual provisions. I also want to say to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia how outstanding a job she does representing this jurisdiction in which we have the Capital of our country, the only capital of a free world country whose citizens do not have a representative in their parliament who has the authority and privilege of voting. It's a lamentable fact that Mrs. Norton, who is speaking to us this afternoon, does not have that vote, and all of us ought to recognize that it's a blight on our democracy. But I congratulate her on representing the District of Columbia in such an extraordinarily positive fashion even without the vote. And it would be awesome what she could do, in addition to that, with the vote. And I rise, as well, to make a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker, about the business that is pending before this Congress. We have passed an omnibus appropriation bill, this bill that is on the desk here, 1,207 pages, reported out last night, a conference report. I urged support of that bill. But it was not, of course, consistent with the pledges that were made to do appropriations bills discretely, that is, one after another. It's difficult to do that, unfortunately. It's the way we should do it, but we didn't do it this year, and we haven't done it in years past under Democratic and Republican leadership. But I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we have some critically unfinished business pending in the Congress of the United States. We passed a bill here through the House some days ago which provided for the extension of the payroll tax cut that we gave to 160 million Americans last year. Our economy is still not as robust as we want it to be, and the President of the United States has said let's continue that tax cut for middle-income Americans. We have not done that yet. And, unfortunately, the bill that we passed through the House had items in it that obviously the Senate did not agree with. The majority leader tried to put that bill on the floor for consideration by the Senate, and the minority leader objected to that consideration, so it has not moved. In addition to the middle class tax cut, we must not leave Washington without providing for an extension of the unemployment insurance. This great Nation, this wealthy Nation, should not abandon those who cannot find work through no fault of their own. If we do not act, then a million Americans may go off unemployment insurance and not have money to feed themselves, to assist in feeding their families, pay their housing bills and continue to afford to look for work. In the month of February, another 2 million will find themselves similarly situated. Lastly, we must pass an extension of the compensation of doctors who are serving Medicare patients. That is critical to do so that we can assure medical treatment for our seniors. There's not a Member of Congress who wants to see that happen, or at least none who say they want to see it happen. So I want to join Ms. Norton as we stand here today as we are leaving for the weekend, but I also want to call the House's attention to a concern that I have. The majority leader, Eric Cantor, announced to us the schedule this afternoon and said that we would not be meeting today, later in the day, after our business, which is now concluded, that we would not be meeting on Saturday or Sunday, and that we may come back on the 19th, which is Monday. Now, one of the things I was concerned about is that he said on the floor that it is difficult to predict if or when we need to return. Now, he meant by that that he wasn't sure when the Senate was going to act. I understand his meaning. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the American people will demand that we return and that they will demand that we act before we adjourn sine die, before we conclude this first session of the Congress. Yes, Christmas is coming, Hanukkah, Kwanza and other celebrations, but there will be no celebration for those people who cannot find work and who believe that the support system that this country has extended to them will be ripped out from under them. So I am here on the floor to join my colleague in talking about the omnibus appropriation bill to say that I'm pleased that we passed it. It will keep our government operating. It has not yet passed, but hopefully in the next 48 hours the Senate will have acted--hopefully in the next 24--on the conference report, and we'll get it ready to send it to the President. I am very hopeful that all 435 Members of this House and that all 100 Members of the United States Senate are committed to the proposition that we will not leave this town and that we will not abandon our responsibilities to assure the adoption of the three measures which I have referenced. The middle class tax cut will affect 160 Americans. I frankly think we should pay for that with a slight surcharge, not a sacrifice, just an additional contribution by some of the best off in America, not because of class warfare but because they want, I'm sure, to help their fellow citizens who need help. We are committed to the proposition that we will not leave here without making sure that that middle class tax cut continues, that unemployment insurance is available and that doctors will be compensated. So I thank the gentlelady for yielding for this comment. And in closing, let me say that I wear a yellow ribbon. There's a great song called ``Tie a Yellow Ribbon 'Round the Ole Oak Tree.'' We wear that yellow ribbon for the troops that have been overseas defending freedom in harm's way. We wear that yellow ribbon to remind them of how pleased we are that so many of them are coming home. The President has met his commitment to end our participation in the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home. We welcome them home. We honor them for their service. And we pledge to them our continuing care for their needs resulting from their service. And I thank the gentlelady for yielding this time to call our attention to the important work that is yet to be done in this first session of this Congress.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, yesterday we passed a Defense authorization bill. That Defense authorization bill had a 1.6 percent increase for our military personnel. That was an appropriate thing for us to do. However, at the same time we are looking at reducing very substantially the pay and benefits available to our civilian Federal employees. Madam Speaker, I rise out of a deep concern that this Congress continues to ask one group to sacrifice to bring down our Nation's deficit while not asking others to contribute as well. That one group are average working Americans. Now, they work for the Federal Government, some perhaps the State and local governments. And there is an antipathy towards government by many, many of the public, many Members of this House. That antipathy is, therefore, focused on the workers. But we have substantially fewer Federal employees today than we had 20 years ago, not only in terms of real numbers but in terms of per capita, where the population has substantially expanded and the number of Federal employees per person to be served has been substantially reduced. With all of the challenges we face today on a national scale, we ought to ensure that those who help devise solutions and carry them out receive the recognition they are due. We talk a good game on this floor; but, very frankly, we turn it over to employees to carry out our policies. We don't do that. They do it. They should not be constantly subjected to the kind of verbal attacks and legislative assaults we have seen over the last couple of years and that are included in the bills that have passed this House just this past week. I am speaking, of course, about America's public servants. Those who work in civilian government positions are no less important to our safety, health, prosperity, and general well-being than their military counterparts who protect our freedom. I honor our troops. I will be wearing a yellow ribbon later today to welcome home those troops who have fought to protect country, defeat terrorists, and stabilize the international community. They have blessed America with their courage and their commitment and their service. But Federal civilian employees make certain that the products we buy and the prescription drugs we use are safe. They perform critical research to advance the fight against cancer and other diseases. They help our farmers and ranchers access new markets for their goods. They see millions of passengers travel safely across our skies and keep watch over our ports and border crossings. They ensure a fair playing field for banks and businesses and enforce the rules we have in place to preserve the health of our air and water from pollution. So many of the public functions we often take for granted are the purview of the hardworking men and women who constitute our Federal workforce. They're middle class Americans, working Americans, who have, in many cases, chosen to serve their country by lending their talents and skills--some for a short time, others for their entire careers. As an American, I am proud of the work they do, and as a Member of Congress from Maryland, I am proud to represent a great number of them in this House. But for those who believe that most or even a significant number of our Federal workers live here in Washington, Maryland and Virginia, let me set the record straight. Eighty-five percent of Federal employees live and work somewhere other than the Washington metropolitan area--85 percent. They provide essential services to neighbors and communities in all 50 States and every single one of our districts. Everything must be on the table when addressing the budget. And by the way, I put on the table a zero COLA adjustment 2 years ago sitting in the White House around the table, having talked to leaders of our Federal employees. I said, look, we need to tighten our belt. Americans are having trouble, we have a lot of our neighbors out of work, we need to tighten our belt, and we took a zero percent. We have taken it 2 years in a row, a $60 billion contribution already by Federal employees--$60 billion. We say we can't raise a nickel of additional taxes from the most well off in America, but we can take $60 billion from average working men and women in this country. Everything must be on the table. I'm deeply disappointed, however, that we continue to attack these public servants unfairly and single them out. Now when I say ``we,'' I mean the Republican bills that have been offered on this floor and have been discussed. When middle class families across the country are struggling to make ends meet, Federal employees have already accepted a 2-year pay freeze. That was appropriate. That was acceptable. But continuing assault on just one segment is not. This comes on top of salaries that are already lower than those for comparable private-sector jobs. Let me repeat that because there is a prejudice that somehow Federal employees are vastly overpaid. In fact, the Federal Salary Council's annual report last month found that Federal workers are paid, on average, 26.3 percent less than comparable private sector jobs. Now some people don't understand that because what we ask our Federal employees to do requires for the most part high skills. We have a lot of engineers, scientists, and doctors at NIH, at Goddard NASA and in the FBI, highly skilled, highly educated people, a 26.3 percent differential in pay for comparable work that is done in the private sector. Now most of you who, many of you are sitting there, and perhaps our viewers, are saying, oh, no, that's not true, I know it's not true, because I see what the average salaries are. What they don't see are the average requirements for skills. Madam Speaker, America's public servants are already making a contribution because they loved this country and recognized that when times are tight, everyone--everyone--everyone has to pitch in, even the best off in America. A belief in smaller government does not grant one license to diminish the contribution made by those who serve in government. If we cut government and need less people to run it, that makes sense. But what does not make sense is to undermine the ability to recruit and retain the quality of people that we need to continue to make this country, in partnership with the private sector, the greatest country on the face of the Earth. We must always remember that we are blessed, as Lincoln said, with a government of the people, by the people and for the people, that this is us together, the one who serves and the one who benefits from that service. It is the bond of a neighbor and that of a fellow American. Let us remember that. Yes, we need to tighten the belt in a notch. We need to make sure that we are on a fiscally sustainable path. But let us do so in a way that has everybody contribute, not just an unfavored few who serve us well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this bill. We are now in overtime. The scheduled date for ending this session was December 8. That date, of course, was substantially later than we normally suggest ending the session. Notwithstanding that fact, we did not meet that deadline. In the Pledge to America, our Republican colleagues, when they were running for office to seek the majority--which they got--they pledged to America that they would not put nongermane items in must-pass bills. That, apparently, was a campaign pledge not to be honored in practice. In the Pledge to America, they also said that we needed to do appropriation bills one after another. That, apparently, was a pledge to be honored during the campaign but not in practice. So we have ourselves confronted with a bill that must pass. We must not leave this city and our responsibilities without extending unemployment insurance. We must not leave Washington, D.C., for this holiday season, delivering a block of coal in the stockings of our constituents by failing to continue the tax cut from their payroll taxes. And we must not leave Washington, D.C., without affecting a continuation of the proper reimbursement of doctors to ensure that Medicare patients will be able to get their doctors' services. We have three items to focus on to get done and nine appropriation bills. Now one of those appropriation bills has not even been reported out of subcommittee in this House, the Labor-Health bill. It hasn't been considered by the subcommittee. It hasn't been considered by the full committee. It hasn't been considered by this House. So we have a lot of business to do in essentially the next 72 hours. What are we confronted with? We are confronted with a bill of over 350 pages, filed just a few days ago. We have heard a lot about reading the bills. I would be shocked if any Member has read this bill, shocked. By contrast, the bill that was so criticized, the Affordable Care Act, was up for review for over a year, hundreds of hearings and essentially thousands of meetings around this country. This has not had a single town meeting, a single hearing, and a single perspective around this country.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. So, my Tea Party friends, I am sure you lament the fact and think this bill ought not be passed. But I haven't seen you. I haven't heard you. I haven't gotten a letter from you. I tell my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, I have demonstrated throughout this year that when we had the opportunity to work together, I worked to get the votes so that together, we could pass legislation that was necessary to run this country. So I don't take a back seat to anybody in this Chamber willing to work together in a bipartisan fashion. But this bill was not worked together in a bipartisan fashion. This bill seeks to poke a finger in the eye of the President of the United States, who has said, I will veto this bill, not because of the three things that I said were absolutely essential but because of something that is not essential to pass. Now the majority leader lamented last week that this would create 5,000 jobs if we passed the Keystone pipeline project. But a bill that would create at least a million jobs, the American Jobs Act, lays languishing in the bowels of the committee.

Mr. HOYER. So I can conclude. Yes, the gentleman asked for regular order. I lament the fact that we are not pursuing regular order. We could act in a responsible, bipartisan fashion to accomplish the three objectives I set forth and the appropriations bills; but, no, we're playing politics. We're pandering to a base. We're having a pretense that this bill can pass. It cannot. Let us defeat this bill and then let us come together in a responsible fashion as the American public wants us to do and act on their behalf, not on the behalf of our politics.