Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for yielding. I also want to thank him and my dear friend Ileana Ros- Lehtinen for their leadership on this bill. I know that Mr. Berman, in particular, is very focused on the central bank and sanctioning of them, and so I thank him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, last month the IAEA released a report on Iran's covert nuclear program that was troubling, to say the least. Not only is Iran continuing to enrich uranium, but they're also believed to be pursuing the development of delivery technologies to create a warhead that could threaten Israel and our allies in Europe and the Persian Gulf, not to mention the over 200,000 Americans that are in the region. On top of these dangerous risks, Iran's continued nuclear development runs the risk, of course, of launching a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Indeed, just last week, a former Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, confirmed our worst fears, suggesting that his country might begin to pursue a nuclear capability in response to Iranian nuclear development. Iran has continued its sponsorship of terrorism against our ally, Israel, and carries out gross human rights abuses against its own people. Sanctions against Iran's energy, transportation, and financial sectors are intended to, and I believe, will make clear to Iran the steep costs of its choices. That is why I am in strong support of this resolution, the Iran Threat Reduction Act and the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both. We know from history that ignoring the threats of leaders, ignoring their building up of capabilities to threaten the rest of the world, is done so at great peril and at great cost. I urge my colleagues to support this very important piece of legislation. I thank Mr. Berman and Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the majority leader to inquire about the schedule for the week to come, let me say I join with the gentleman from Virginia, and I know certainly Mr. Cantor, who also represents Virginia, but the entire country as well. We don't know the facts yet. We don't know exactly what's happened. But the information I have is that two people may well have lost their lives at this point in time. We certainly want to send our deepest sympathies to Virginia Tech and to the families that are affected by this incident and hope sincerely that there is no further loss of life. On that issue, let me yield to the majority leader, who I know will want to say something as well.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments and his leadership on the Hackathon event that occurred yesterday. He and I both had the opportunity to address a large number of--over 250, I think--individuals who were there who will, in fact, bring their expertise, their technical knowledge to bear on what the gentleman referenced as making our institution more accessible and transparent to our citizens. We all believe, I think, that doing that will make the products that we produce better and make citizens better able to make judgments on the work that we do. So I want to thank the gentleman and his staff for their leadership on this effort. We were glad to join in that. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the unemployment insurance, the payroll tax issue, which will continue to give the middle class tax cuts to those who need it most, the unemployment, which will keep millions of people from losing their unemployment, as well as the physician adjustment are scheduled next week. It's my understanding that that bill has not been filed yet. Can the gentleman tell me when he believes that bill will be filed?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment. I have had discussions with the gentleman, and with Mr. McCarthy in particular--and also briefly with the Speaker--that we are certainly prepared to participate in discussions leading towards a successful passage of those three pieces of legislation, particularly the unemployment insurance and the payroll tax extension, which we believe are critical before we end this year. So we're pleased to see that legislation moving forward. But I will tell my friend that I would be pleased to participate in discussions with him so that we can assure that that bill will in fact pass and, hopefully, pass in a bipartisan fashion. I want to tell the gentleman that I'm a little bit concerned, and I want to ask him whether this principle will be followed. I think I used this quote last week, but it bears repeating. Speaker Boehner said: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time. That was in the Republican Pledge as well, and the Speaker has reiterated that at the beginning of this session. Now, I am concerned because Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio is quoted in The Washington Post as saying the following: ``The fact the President doesn't like it''--the ``it'' referring to the Keystone pipeline provision, which we understand is under discussion. I'm glad to hear those discussions have not concluded. But he again quoted, ``The fact that the President doesn't like it makes me like it even more . . . said of the GOP leadership proposal as he left Thursday morning's closed-door meeting.'' I will say to my friend that we are at the end of the session. We are hopeful, as I have said--and as we have demonstrated on the two CRs and the debt extension and on the minibus appropriation bill that we passed--that we are prepared to respond in a bipartisan fashion to assist in passing must-pass legislation and would hope very much that we don't put controversial items in that. The President has clearly annunciated that he will veto a bill that has the Keystone pipeline. I will say, as my friend clearly knows, there is bipartisan concern-- as a matter of fact, the Governor of Nebraska, a Republican, and the Republican legislature, which although nominally nonpartisan, as the gentleman knows, is two-thirds Republican, one-third Democrat, have all voted to delay this project because of their concern about the aquifer and the impact that the Keystone pipeline, as currently platted, will have in reference to the aquifer, so that there is a bipartisan concern. As the gentleman knows, as a result of Nebraska's passing legislation which said they wanted to do a study on the aquifer and alternative siting of the Keystone pipeline course, that that study would take them 5 to 6 to 7 months, as a result, the President indicated they would give time to the Nebraska Governor and the Nebraska Legislature--again, Republican organs--to look at that, has given them additional time and said he won't act until the beginning of 2013. I ask the gentleman, does he believe that provision--I understand what Mr. Jordan says. It may be a nice political gesture, but I would hope that that would not be the kind of provision that would be included in the legislation, whether it's individual bills or a comprehensive bill, including those three items that hopefully we can pass in a bipartisan fashion. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. If I may, I thought I did make the point.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. I will say this, though, it seems inconsistent, when the President of the United States yesterday said he would veto such a provision, that we would include it in legislation that is must pass. By the way, the unemployment insurance, economists tell us, will provide for 100 times as many jobs; so, therefore, we're for that. Some 500,000 jobs may be affected by extending the unemployment insurance. In addition to that, I tell my friend, the President has offered a jobs bill. I know that you're concerned about jobs. The pipeline bill, in and of itself, is about 5,000 to 6,000 jobs over the lifetime of the pipeline. The jobs bill, economists tell us, is 1 million jobs, or 200 times as many jobs. Notwithstanding that, very frankly, that has been languishing since September and not brought to this floor. So it seems to me that, if we are really interested--and I think you are--in extending unemployment insurance and providing for a continued tax cut for middle-income Americans and for providing for the payment of doctors who are serving Medicare patients, that we not include in that bill an item that apparently is popular on your side just because the President doesn't like it, according to Mr. Jordan. I think that's not the way we ought to be operating. The last 7 days of the session, or 5 days, 6 days, 7, assuming we went through Sunday, we shouldn't be doing that, I suggest respectfully to my friend, the majority leader, because it will simply put us back into the situation the American public doesn't want us in, and that's confronting one another, playing chicken with one another, bringing us to the precipice of defeat and lack of success. The public doesn't want us there. We shouldn't want us there. And I would urge the gentleman not to include items, as I have urged you with respect to the appropriation bills that also must be passed. That's not in this list, but you did mention it, of course, in the announcement, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks have been working hard, and others have been working hard to get our appropriations bills done. We have urged that we not put controversial items in that, and we showed our good faith on that representation when we passed the minibus, and 165 Democrats joined 135 Republicans to pass that legislation. So, again, I would urge the gentleman to, if he feels strongly about that, and I know that he feels--he said labor is for that bill. Labor is for that bill. I think I'm for that bill, I want the gentleman to know. So this does not come from my particular opposition to this bill. I am concerned about the alignment and the aquifer. I think that's a legitimate concern. But I think that that oil is going to be drilled no matter what we do. It seems to me that it's better for us to have it than for others to have it and have that availability. But having said that, gratuitously putting it into a bill that the President has already said I don't agree with that is simply playing chicken on legislation that's very important. If the gentleman wants to comment on that, I would be glad to yield to him.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I was quoting, not imputing. Mr. Jordan's comments seem to be pretty clear. Before we conclude, the STOCK Act, Tim Walz had a bill that was ready for markup in the committee. We understand that was pulled. As you know, that bill has 220 cosponsors and is a bipartisan sponsorship. It simply says that Members should not use insider information to trade with, information the general public may not have about legislation that may or may not be reported or passed to the floor. And I understand that was pulled. I think that was unfortunate. Can the gentleman tell me what the status of that piece of legislation is?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. As he knows, Congressman Walz has been working hard on this, and I know that he will be very inclined to work with you and with the committees of jurisdiction; and I will certainly be able to work with you as well on this issue because, as I say, Congressman Walz has worked very hard on this. I think all of us agree, as you just indicated, that no Member of Congress ought to be using insider information to trade in the stock market to disadvantage, obviously, others who are trading in the stock market. So I thank the gentleman for his comments, look forward to working with him and, again, in closing, hope that we can reach bipartisan agreement on so many major pieces of legislation that we need to pass prior to leaving this. I will tell the gentleman I hope his side agrees, my side will not want to adjourn, nor will it support adjournment, until such time as we act on the unemployment insurance and the middle class tax cuts. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about an outstanding public servant who will soon be retiring after nearly forty-eight years of service to our nation. Robert G. Mahony was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, and attended the University of Notre Dame. When he graduated, in 1961, Bob was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army. He attended law school at Loyola University Chicago and earned his J.D. in 1965. For the following two years, Bob served on active duty, including a combat tour in Vietnam. After returning home, he became a member of the Army Reserves and transferred to the Judge Advocate General Corps. Service in the military was only the beginning for Bob. In 1967, he began work as a trial attorney for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice here in Washington. After nine years there, he spent a year in private practice and was subsequently appointed as an Administrative Law Judge at the Department of Labor, serving in that capacity for twenty years. Since 1997, Bob has been an Administrative Law Judge at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Throughout his civilian career, Bob remained in the Army Reserves, serving with distinction as the Commander of the 10th Military Law Center and later as Staff Judge Advocate for the 97th Army Reserve Command at Fort Meade. He retired as a Colonel in 1991 and received the Legion of Merit for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. Bob is also a holder of the Vietnam Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal from the former South Vietnamese government. Bob's commitment to public service extends as well to involvement in the community. He has served for over three decades as an official of the Northern Virginia Swimming League and for over twenty-five years as a basketball coach with the Braddock Road Youth Club, Saint Mary's Academy in Alexandria, the Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Annandale, and the Holy Trinity School in Washington. Bob and his wife, Margaret, have been married for forty-four years and instilled in their four children a love of public service. I have borne witness to this, since their daughter, Gina, used to work on my staff. Bob Mahony will retire from government service on January 3 after forty-seven years, eleven months, and twelve days. I join in thanking him for his dedicated service to our country and wishing him all the best in his retirement. Like all of our public servants, he can look back on his career and know he made a real difference in the lives of many Americans and the life of our nation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, next month this House will lose a dedicated public servant. Wilson ``Bill'' Livingood, our Sergeant at Arms, will retire after seventeen years keeping us safe. Since 1995, he has stood watch over the People's House and all of its members, staff, and visitors, overseeing the security of this chamber, the Capitol, and Congressional office buildings. Under Bill's leadership, the House has adapted its security measures to meet new challenges faced since September 11. He has been a driving force in enhancing screening procedures while ensuring that Americans can still easily visit the Capitol and meet with their representatives. Bill Livingood's life has been spent in service to our nation and to protecting the institutions of our democracy. Before his long service as Sergeant at Arms, Bill was an agent of the U.S. Secret Service for thirty-three years, placing his life on the line to protect our commander-in-chief. While I have no doubt that the strong voice with which Bill has welcomed U.S. presidents and foreign dignitaries into the House chamber has become iconic, I believe he will be remembered here most for his warmth and kind-spirit and for his deep love of country. I have been fortunate to call him a friend and can attest to the attention and respect he commands from all who have known him. It has been a pleasure serving with Bill throughout his tenure, and I wish him all the best in his retirement. I join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in thanking Bill for his long career of distinguished service to the people of the United States and, in particular, to their House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Further on the schedule, just so our Members have pretty clear information, the week of the 19th, which is the following week, can you give me some thought on what you are advising your Members with respect to the week of the 19th? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information. If I can clarify, and I understand that we are coming up to the end of the year. There is a lot of business which needs to be done in the time remaining, and so I understand his urging to be flexible. My Members have asked me, I'm sure Your members have as well, Friday the 9th is scheduled on the calendar to be a nonwork day, as a matter of fact, the 8th was the target date. Either side very rarely meets its target. But in your flexibility--clearly we've told our Members the following week, the week of the 12th, that undoubtedly we're going to be here. But can you give them some sort of confidence level with respect to the 9th, or is that not possible? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, thank you for that. Let me posit a possibility here. Thursday at 3 o'clock we clearly, I don't believe, aren't going to finish the business that we need to finish before we leave. Therefore, my presumption is we will be back in the following week. Therefore, Friday would not be the last day and therefore we could do whatever we have to do on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and we should plan on a five-day week at least for the following week. Is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. I want to tell my friend that there is overwhelming bipartisan unanimity on the gentleman's hope; but for the purposes of my Members, I will say that I would hope our Members would take the flexibility beyond the week ending on the 16th and make sure, at least on the 19th and 20th and 21st, that they're flexible as well. I think none of us want to be meeting that week, but we have a lot of work to do, as the gentleman knows. The gentleman has announced that we may go to conference next week on the MilCon bill that was passed by the House and the Senate. It is the only bill that, I think, is in that status. Do you anticipate other bills being added in that conference? Of course, we all know there are nine appropriations bills which still remain unpassed, a number of which have not passed the Senate and some of which have not passed the House, itself. Will the gentleman clarify the situation that may result or may be effective as it relates to such a conference with respect to the other appropriations bills.

Mr. HOYER. That doesn't clarify it very much, but I understand the gentleman's problem with respect to what is being done. Let me ask the gentleman: If we can't get agreement, in light of the gentleman's focus on the 16th as the date of adjournment, is the gentleman saying that we might consider a CR for some period of time, either a balance-of-the-year continuing resolution or a continuing resolution for some other time?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I am pleased to hear that he is going to be sticking with the level of funding that we agreed upon. I think the gentleman's observation is correct: there are many people on my side who believe that is lower than is necessary to meet the responsibilities they would like to see met, and on your side it's too much in terms of the fiscal situation that confronts us; but I am pleased to hear that we're going to be consistent with the 1.043 discretionary number that was set forth in the Budget Control Act. My friend knows that, in the Budget Control Act, we also provided for some headroom for emergency spending as a result of disasters. The gentleman well knows our region in the Northeast was hit very hard by a hurricane. We've had an earthquake. We've had tornadoes and other natural disasters. That gave $11 billion of headroom. Will we continue to honor that part of the agreement as well?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that. I was profoundly disappointed that the so-called supercommittee, or the special committee on deficit reduction, either was unable to reach an agreement on at least a $4 trillion agreement to reduce our deficit or, as I had urged individually, to extend its life for a period of time, 60 to 90 days, which would have allowed us further opportunity to reach such a deal. I think that it is absolutely essential for our country. I think it would be an extraordinary plus for our economy if we were to reach such an agreement. I think it would raise the confidence of the American people and raise the confidence of the international community and, not inconsequentially, that of the rating agencies as well. We didn't reach an agreement. We didn't extend the life of that commission. I would like to see us set up another process which would give us accelerated consideration of such an agreement. Having said that, we built into the Budget Control Act a disciplinary consequence of that failure, which was the sequester--a $1.2 trillion across-the-board cut, divided equally between defense and non-defense discretionary spending. The Speaker had said that we are morally bound to accept the defense cuts if the supercommittee failed. I wonder if you support the Speaker in that commitment.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment, and I agree with it. Some progress is progress, however you describe it. Let me clarify, because I want to make sure in terms of coming together and reaching some progress; you mentioned the--I'm not sure that every Republican agreed to it, maybe the gentleman knows, but there was--Mr. Toomey put a proposal on the table which offered $300 billion in additional revenues. Of course, that was offset by an $800 billion increase next year in tax cuts or a net reduction of $500 billion in revenues for next year, excuse me, for January 2013. Let me ask the gentleman, in reaching that, the gentleman mentioned entitlements. I agreed with him on entitlements, but the gentleman then said he's not for any increased revenues. All three of the bipartisan commissions, the two commissions and the Gang of Six, all three have said that revenues must be part of that picture. That's taxes--a fancy word for taxes. Does the gentleman agree with that, because that certainly was the basis for bipartisanship in all of three of those fora? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I appreciate Mr. Panetta's quote. I believe Mr. Panetta's quote is an accurate quote and, I believe, substantively correct. Let me give the gentleman another quote from the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen. I know the gentleman knows Admiral Mullen, who served so ably as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said, ``The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.'' He went on to say, ``And the reason I say that is because the ability for our country to resource our military--and I have a pretty good feeling and understanding about what our national security requirements are--is going to be directly proportional--over time, not next year or the year after, but over time--to help our economy.'' So I would agree with the gentleman that we need to reach a bipartisan agreement. I would hope the gentleman would share my view that we need to reach a bipartisan agreement on a big deal. A little deal, as the Speaker and I have discussed, will simply push off until next year a decision and the year after in just doing it incrementally. That will not give confidence to the markets. It will not give confidence to the business community. It will not help our economy either domestically or internationally. So my concern, I tell my friend, is if we now walk away from the sequester, as we have walked away from too many agreements in the past, we will again remove the discipline, remove the incentive, remove the imperative, as the gentleman points out, for coming to a bipartisan agreement, which is Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin-Domenici, the Gang of Six. As the 100, the 40 Republicans and 60 Democrats, as the 46 equally divided between Republicans and Democrats have said, we need to reach a balanced deal: a deal which will restrain and cut spending, a deal that will deal with entitlement sustainability over time, and a deal that will provide a revenue stream that will allow us to fund what we believe to be absolutely essential, of which, as the gentleman points out, and he and I agree, national security is one. So I would hope that we would not walk away from that disciplinary incentive to, in fact, have Republicans and Democrats come to an agreement. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I will assure the majority leader that we will maintain our flexibility on schedule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think that both sides have shown some flexibility in some respects. Certainly a number of Republicans and Democrats showed flexibility on the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Now, none of the House Members on the Republican side showed that flexibility, for reasons that I've heard them articulate. I understand they had reasons. But, unfortunately, we didn't get to the 14 votes in a bipartisan way on the Commission. As you know, I was not on the Commission, but I supported the Commission's report, would have voted for the Commission's report, as did Mr. Durbin, the majority whip in the Senate. Let me say to the gentleman, with respect to small business, nobody wants to put taxes on small business. As a matter of fact, we want to reduce taxes for small business. We offered that on the floor in the United States Senate yesterday. Every Democrat but one voted for that yesterday. Unfortunately, it did not pass. Your side, as you know, offered an alternative, an alternative which didn't even enjoy the support of the majority of your party. So we need to get to bipartisan support, but I wish the gentleman would, when we talk about trying to ask some of the wealthiest people in America to pay a little more--not a lot more, but a little more--to meet the obligations so our country is fiscally sound, would not keep putting forth this, what I believe to be, windmill of small business. We are for small business. This tax cut would reduce substantially taxes on small business. Your party, the majority, voted against it in the United States Senate. It hasn't been brought to the floor. We would hope that we would extend the tax cut for middle class working people and not restore that tax, and that that would affect both individuals and, as the gentleman knows, small business. So we have a tax cut that we're recommending. The President has gone all over the country and talked about it, but it hasn't been brought to the floor. We think that's regrettable. We would hope you would do that. Furthermore, frankly, the millionaires' tax, the billionaires' tax is, as you know, a net taxable income level. It's not going to hurt small business at all. It's not going to hurt job creators at all. And, very frankly, I will tell my friend, we continue to follow an agenda which I don't think you can quote me an economist that will tell me that your regulatory bills that we've been spending time on, day after day, week after week--which I know sounds good to your people. We need regulatory reform. We need regulatory simplification. We need to make it in America. One of the ways we need to do so is make it profitable to make it in America. I agree with that 100 percent. But I don't have any economist who has told me that that's going to create jobs. As a matter of fact, Bruce Bartlett, an economist for the Reagan administration and Bush administration, said specifically it will have little, if any, effect. Do you have an economist who said that that's going to grow jobs? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. I take from his comment, however, that he doesn't have an economist who has said that these bills are going to grow jobs. I agree with him that economists certainly believe that over the long term certainty is a good thing. We all agree on that. I hope all of us agree on that, and I would like to accomplish that. That's one of the reasons I'm for a big deal. But let me give you a quote from Ben Bernanke as it relates to your saying we want to raise taxes. Nobody wants to raise taxes. I will tell my friends, I've been in office now for a long period of time, some 40- plus years. It takes zero courage, zero courage, to spend money and not pay for it. We believe we ought to pay for things. That's the difference. Taxes are the money we collect to pay for things: taxes that we collect to pay for our national security, taxes we collect to pay for researchers at NIH, taxes we pay for FBI agents to protect us from terrorists, both domestic and foreign. Those are what our taxes are. Taxes are to help our kids get a college education so we can be competitive in the international community. It's paying for things that we're for. And I will tell my friend, I'm glad to see you come to the point where we're going to pay for things because very frankly, as the gentleman knows, we're collecting revenues at a far lesser rate than your budget asked to spend, than your budget, the Ryan budget, which, as you well know, did not balance the budget within the next 20 years and was all on the cut side, and the gentleman well knows was not a viable document. It did pass the House of Representatives; it did. I'm not sure it would have passed the Senate even if the Republicans had been in control of the Senate. But notwithstanding that, let me give you a quote from Ben Bernanke because I agree with you--and you and I have talked about this privately, and we're now talking about it publicly. We ought to come together. We ought to sit down. We ought to reason together. We ought to be courageous together. We ought to have the will to address the extraordinarily dangerous fiscal crisis that confronts us. Ben Bernanke said this: We aim to push our elected leaders to face the Nation's long-term fiscal challenges with civility, honesty, and a willingness to sacrifice their own reelection. This means not kicking the can anymore. That's why, if we abandon the sequester, that will be kicking the can. If we abandon trying to get a big deal, that will be kicking the can. This means--as he said--means reaching a deal on debt, revenue, and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall. Well, it came and it went and we failed. It means considering all options from entitlement programs, and the gentleman knows I've given a number of speeches on having to deal with the entitlement programs. We need to do that, but we also need to deal with taxes and revenues so we pay for what we buy, and we ought to tell the American people we can't buy that if you don't want to pay for it. Now, very frankly, I think in the short term, given the economic crisis, lack of jobs, and the struggling economy, raising additional revenues in that timeframe, as Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin both said, is not good policy, and they would not propose that, and it has not been proposed, as the gentleman knows. But I would tell my friend that paying for things--and as the gentleman knows, one of the reasons we've gotten into this problem was we didn't pay for things in the last decade. We have bought a lot of stuff, and we didn't pay for it. We asked our children to pay for it because it's a delayed effect. We didn't pay for the wars, and we didn't pay for the prescription bill, and we didn't pay for the tax cuts. Simply giving up revenue, voting for tax cuts, and continuing to buy things is, frankly, I think not only not courageous but it is a disservice to this generation and generations yet to come And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I didn't get an answer to my question, however. He's gotten an answer to his ``solve the problem'' issue. And what he means by solving the problem is we have to deal with the sustainability of entitlement programs. I've adopted that premise myself in speeches that I've given on numerous occasions on this floor and in other fora around the country. What I'm asking him is, does he also agree--that proposition was adopted by all three of the fora that we have discussed--does he also agree, as Mr. Bernanke points out, that revenues, or taxes, however you want to call it, resources to pay for what we believe are priorities-- for instance, the gentleman correctly believes we need to invest in our national security. I feel very strongly about that. For 30 years I have voted on behalf of the national security of this Nation--to pay for it and to pursue weapons systems, personnel levels, strategies to assure our national security. So I have no qualms with saying that is a priority. If it is a priority, if it is important, it is important to pay for it. Paying for it is through revenues. If we don't pay for it, if we borrow--we're going to borrow over a trillion dollars to protect our country in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world, but particularly those two. That's important. That's important to do. He and I agree. But I think it's important to pay for it and not have my children and grandchildren pay for it, who are going to have to pay for their security in their time. And if we leave them only a legacy of deep debt, they will not be able to do so. That is an immoral policy, in my opinion, as well as a fiscally irresponsible policy. So I ask my friend, I understand we've got to fix the problem. What you're talking about is make sustainable demographics of change, costs of change. We have to make sustainable entitlements. But does the gentleman agree that a component of the solution has to be dealing with revenues as well?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. We ought to come together on jobs. I would urge the gentleman to bring the President's jobs bill to the floor with such amendments, such changes, such improvements, such deletions as the gentleman feels necessary. The President put out a jobs bill which every economist has said will grow the economy, will grow jobs; and it has been languishing in this House since September while people are losing jobs. Now, the good news is we had some improvement in the economy. By the way, the Recovery Act worked, as the gentleman knows. I want to comment on his going into deficits as a result of the Recovery Act. As the gentleman knows--and he voted for--George Bush suggested $700 billion in unpaid spending to staunch the financial crisis brought on by the meltdown on Wall Street in September of 2008, when President Bush was President. He offered a bill. He didn't offer to pay for that. And we didn't pay for it. You and I both voted for it because we thought it was the responsible thing to do to stabilize the financial structure of this country. I believed we were absolutely right at that point in time. It was a very unpopular bill but, nevertheless, I think absolutely essential. So in terms of some 5 months later, confronted with the deepest economic crisis since Herbert Hoover, we acted. We acted with the Recovery Act. And the Recovery Act has worked. It was not as big as some asked it to be, but it created some 2 million jobs over the last 36 months. It has not been as robust because we lost 8 million jobs. So if you add 3 million back, you lose 8 million, you haven't gotten to where you need to be. But I tell my friend that we ought to come together. We ought to reach agreement. We ought to reach a balanced agreement. Your side thinks when we talk about balance, we're talking about revenues. He's right. But when we talk about balance, we're also talking about fixing the problem the gentleman talks about. We're talking about a balanced deal. I would urge my friend in these coming few days that we have left, where we're apparently going to do either a CR or an omnibus appropriation bill--and we were criticized greatly for not doing every appropriation bill individually. You have an appropriation bill, as the gentleman knows, that hasn't even passed subcommittee much less full committee or the floor of the House. But we need to get those bills done because it will give certainty and confidence to the American people that we can work together. I'm hopeful that over the next few days that we can, in fact, do that. I would urge my friend to let us keep the discipline of the sequester in everybody's mind because we don't want that alternative. But we want to have that as the alternative to people so that we can give incentives to work together to summon the courage, to summon the judgment to reach an agreement which will get our country on the right track and give our citizens the confidence in their government that we wish they would have. But they will only have it if we do, as the gentleman suggests, come together and work constructively toward a balanced package not only in terms of a fiscal package, but appropriations. Let me say as well on appropriations, this side of the aisle did what your side of the aisle didn't do over the last 4 years when we were in charge. We made sure those bills passed. Your bills had your levels that we agreed on. And we congratulate you on sticking with the agreement we reached. I will tell my friend we will do so again if you do not put in the riders that Mr. Boehner and your Pledge to America said ought not to be in must-pass bills. You will recall, I'm sure, that Mr. Boehner said we ought not to have extraneous controversial items which are not germane in bills that must pass. We ought to consider those on their merits. And I will tell my friend that if you do that, as the whip, as I have done on the two CRs we passed, on the debt limit extension we passed, and on the omnibus, or the ``minibus'' that we just passed, I will help you get those through. We will work together, and America will have greater confidence in us if we do that. I yield to my friend.