Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is no common ground here, nor was it sought. We find ourselves at an unprecedented place today. America stands on the brink of default. It stands there, my friends, because the leadership of this House has failed to act in a timely and responsible way. This is an unprecedented status for America, an intolerable place, and Americans are understandably outraged at this politically caused impasse that confronts us, the consequences of which for every American and our country have been correctly characterized as ``catastrophic.'' For more than two centuries, an American default has been unthinkable. The men and women who came before us in this Chamber built up the full faith and credit of the United States until it became the bedrock of the world's economy. Despite their differences, they agreed that the honor that comes from paying our bills responsibly and on time was a moral obligation. Now our Nation is on the verge of breaking that trust. If America fails to pay its bills and default comes, the wound to the global economy, to jobs across this country, to our standing among nations, that wound will be entirely self-inflicted. It cannot and must not come to that. Americans have overwhelmingly called on us to come to a balanced, bipartisan solution, one that pays our bills, reduces our deficit, and draws common contributions from all Americans--not only the vulnerable and the unconnected, but also those who have enjoyed our Nation's prosperity. That is the consensus of the vast majority of the people who sent us here. They understand that ``my way or the highway'' is no way to govern. They understand that all of us who had a hand in accumulating our debt must share the work of paying it off. They understand that the prosperity and prestige of our country are at stake right now. And they are relying on the ability of this body to put partisanship aside. There will, in fact, be bipartisan opposition to this bill, but I predict there will be no Democrat for this bill because bipartisanship was not sought. So I am deeply concerned that the short-term plan offered by Speaker Boehner would put us right back, right back here on the precipice of imminent default in just a few months, casting a pall of uncertainty over our economy and leading to a job-destroying credit downgrade.

Mr. HOYER. Each of us, ladies and gentleman of this House, has a duty to end this impasse. Let's live up to that duty by voting down this partisan legislation. And then let's come together on a balanced, bipartisan solution to reduce our deficit and pay our bills. I suggest to my friend from California that Majority Leader Reid has offered just such a plan. In fact, it incorporates exactly what Speaker Boehner suggested in his speech in New York City. Let us embrace that plan. After this fails, let the Senate send it to us. This is a moment of great crisis for our country and for our citizens, a crisis that demands our putting aside partisanship and politics for the good of our people. We're not there yet, but it is my great hope that we as a body can live up to that challenge. Our fellow citizens expect it, our duty demands it, our oath requires it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOYER. The American public was concerned mainly about two things in this last election: A, jobs--trying to get opportunities for themselves and their children and young people to earn a living. They were also concerned, correctly, about the debt and deficit that confronts this country. Those were the two items that they were very focused on and concerned about, and I think almost everyone on this floor shares their concerns. I got no message from any voter that I ought to come to Congress and undermine the air, water, land that they survive on, recreate on and rely on for the quality of their lives. Not one constituent, whether they voted for me or against me, said, ``Undermine the protections of our land and water and air.'' Not one. However, that is what we're dealing with today--not jobs, not deficit--but undermining the integrity of our air, our water and our land. I rise, therefore, Mr. Chairman, in strong opposition to this bill, which puts some of our Nation's most precious natural resources at severe risk. This bill slashes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by nearly 20 percent, after a year in which its funding already declined by 16 percent. The result of these cuts will be an agency unequipped. Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't have to address you, but if I didn't under the rules have to address you, I would address all of America about their concerns about this undermining of the Environmental Protection Agency. Americans want the environment protected. They don't want that effort undermined. It will mean higher risks of dirtier air, unsafe water and carbon pollution in our atmosphere. No American said that that's what they wanted when they talked to me. This bill also includes a rider that would defund the listing of endangered species and habitats--a true failure of environmental stewardship. Perhaps worst of all, this bill comes with 39 separate anti- environment riders that cater to some of our Nation's most powerful special interests. Now maybe I missed it. Maybe there's an American somewhere who said, ``Look, protect the special interests and undermine our environment,'' but I just missed talking to them maybe. Maybe that was it. These riders would endanger and exploit our public resources, including such treasures as the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River, the quality of our Nation's air and water for the private gain of just a few. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, which reinvests money we can gain from offshore oil and gas drilling into protecting our public lands--now, we have just seen a dramatic assault on our lands on the gulf coast--it's cut 78 percent from the current year's funding in this bill. Communities waiting for funding for new sewer and drinking water systems will find a 40 percent cut from current levels. No American asked me for that. In 1995, the very first vote the new Republican majority cast was on a bill like this one, one that attempted to slash the EPA and an active wish list of special interest priorities. The year is different but the policy is the same. But there was one major difference. That failed bill had just 17 environmental riders--less than half of this one. This one has 39. These provisions do nothing to control spending. They are end-runs simply around laws to protect our environment. Now, as then, the wish list deserves to be voted down. Sherry Boehlert, who was a member of the Natural Resources Committee, stood on this floor when that 1995 bill was offered. A Republican leader in the House of Representatives said: Do not do this to our land, our air, and our water. Let me close by quoting the wise words of the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, my colleague and friend Congressman Jim Moran: ``There are those who want to make this controversy between humans and the environment, but that is a false assertion.'' I urge you to read the balance of Mr. Moran's quote in opposing this bad bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this House, I am pleased to rise with my colleague and dear friend Barbara Lee to focus on an issue that all too frequently is ignored. I rise to speak as we are engaged in an extraordinarily important discussion, debate, and responsibility. That responsibility is to ensure that America pays its bills; that America's creditworthiness is not put at risk; and that an America which has incurred obligations meets those obligations to individuals and to others, as we have made policies that have cost money and it is now necessary for us to pay the bills that we have already incurred. But as we engage in that debate and discussion, we must remember that there is in our country one child out of every five who is living in poverty, who is worried about proper food, proper housing, proper medical care. Children who are, in fact, at risk. We now in America, the richest nation on the face of the Earth, have the largest number of people living in poverty that we have had in over seven decades. And so as we engage in this debate, it is important that we take this time to focus on those who all too often are invisible, who all too often are not the center of our discussion, who all too often are perceived to simply be those who will not matter at the voting booth. Each of us in this House has a compass formed in many respects by our faith. My faith teaches me I have a responsibility to my God to reach out to the least among us to lift them up, to care for them, to clothe them, to feed them, to house them, to make sure that as a part of our American family, they are not forgotten. They are not by negligence driven more deeply into despair, unhealth, sickness, and a negative lifestyle which costs us all and costs those individuals. I come from the State of Maryland, and I want to quote somebody you would think it may be unusual for me to quote, but I was elected to the State senate in 1966. Ted Agnew was elected Governor of our State in 1966, and he was inaugurated 2 weeks after I was sworn in as a member of the State senate at the age of 27. In his inaugural address he said: The cost of failure far exceeds the price of progress. What he meant by that, the failure to invest in the welfare of our people, as well as our infrastructure and the creation of jobs and the expansion of opportunity for our people, the failure to make those investments would in the long run cost us far more than the investments would cost us in the short run. My colleagues, I suggest to you that our failure to invest in the welfare of all of our citizens will cost us far greater sums in the long run for the failure to invest in the short run. And so I congratulate Barbara Lee from California for making sure that the least of us are not forgotten in this very important debate. Do we need to bring down spending? We do. But one of the interesting facets of every report that has been issued in a bipartisan way, most recently by the so-called Gang of Six, or the Simpson-Bowles Commission, or the Senator Domenici-Alice Rivlin Commission--all had a central premise: Do not take actions that undermine the most vulnerable among us. Those were all bipartisan commissions. I know my friends on the Republican side of the aisle who pride themselves on being the party of Lincoln understand Lincoln's message of healing and bringing us together and making sure that we lifted up our fellow citizens and cared for the sick and the homeless and for the young and, yes, for the old. So as I said, I thank Chairwoman Lee, such a courageous and powerful voice on behalf of those who sometimes have no voice. I am pleased to join my voice to hers and hopefully to all 435 of us who have been given the privilege of serving in this body to raise our voices on this day on behalf of a Nation that has been perceived around the world as being a Nation of hope, of opportunity, of heart, and of soul. Let us reflect that in whatever way we go forward in ensuring the fiscal health of our Nation, both in the short term and in the long term. And understand that the health of our people physically, mentally, financially will be equally important to the health of our Nation. I thank the gentlelady for leading this debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we are still feeling the effects of a crisis that largely came about because the referees who oversee the soundness of our financial system were not on the field. We took the referees off the field. As a result, millions of Americans are still out of work. But while Democrats have worked to restore proper oversight to Wall Street, Republicans want the referees off the field again, and that would put us all at risk. This legislation puts the special interests ahead of the public interests by weakening the very entity that shields responsible consumers from financial abuses. Last year, Congress passed an important Wall Street reform bill in order to prevent a job-destroying financial crisis from happening again. And one of the most crucial parts of that bill was the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a watchdog, a watchdog that would look out for the interests of ordinary Americans who want to sign mortgages, apply for student loans, and start businesses on honest and fair terms. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is empowered to ensure that lenders provide clear, plain-language explanations of loan terms and to help stop the kind of abusive and deceptive loan practices that helped drive our economy off a cliff. If such protections had been in place in the last decade, the odds of a crisis occurring would have been significantly less. And I want to tell my friend from Alabama, he said that there was no congressional involvement. In fact, of course, the President does appoint, but it is with the advice and consent of the Senate so that the entire Senate, as is normal, is involved in this appointment. The Republican legislation that we have on the floor today would make it much easier to overturn these consumer protection rules. It would make the people's watchdog far weaker at a time when they are needed more than ever. This legislation is part of the Republicans' stated goal to dismantle Wall Street reform, protecting special interests but leaving Americans unprotected from another crisis. Removing America's defenses when we have not even fully recovered from the last crisis is a new level, in my view, of irresponsibility. I urge my colleagues, think of what we have been through; think of our responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again; think of our responsibility to make clear that the interests of your constituents come first, and vote this bill down.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, for yielding. The American public are rightfully very distressed with the Congress of the United States. They're distressed that at a time of great challenge and great risk, that we fiddle while the debt threatens to burn us, to place our country in the position of being adjudged uncreditworthy. That is not worthy of this Congress or any one of us that serves in this Congress. We have 14 days, according to the Secretary Treasurer, until such time as America will be unable to pay its obligations, whether to foreigners or to people in this country. That is not a situation that will be looked at positively by the financial sector or by any one of our constituents whose ability to save, to have a 401(k) that is stable, to purchase an automobile or a refrigerator or send their kid to college will be put at risk because of increased interest rates. Not one of us will be held harmless if this Congress fails to do its duty. Ladies and gentlemen, we have had a number of efforts to get us to where we needed to be to get back to fiscal responsibility. I'm amused when I hear our new Members talk about the fiscal irresponsibility, because I've served here long enough to know that the two Presidents under whom the debt was raised most were Ronald Reagan, a 186 percent increase from the $985 billion total debt when Ronald Reagan took office to over $2.8 trillion, and George Bush II, who increased the national debt 86 percent. Did he do it alone? Of course not. Did we all do it, Republicans and Democrats? Yes. Democrats believe that the debt was raised because we bought things on the Republican watch that were not paid for. That's indisputable. You cannot argue that. Those are the facts. The fact is, did we do the same in the Obama administration? We did. Why? Because we had to respond to the deepest recession we have seen. We didn't create enough jobs. In fact, we lost jobs. So we bring a bill to the floor some weeks ago to address the creditworthiness of the United States of America, and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said, We offer this bill to fail. Not to solve the problem. To fail. Now we bring a bill to the floor of the House of Representatives this day, 14 days before the debt limit is reached and America might default for the first time in history. This bill was written sometime late Friday or perhaps Saturday. How many of you said, Have you read the bill? How many hours have you taken to consider this bill? I've read the bill, too, Paul. I guarantee you there is not an American who's not on the Budget Committee that reads this bill knows what impact it has, and the chairman of the Budget Committee is shaking his head and agreeing with me. The fact of the matter is you haven't had one second of hearing on this, there was no markup on this bill, and it has significant consequences. Let me tell you, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I'm one of those who stands in this well who voted for the balanced budget amendment in 1995.

Mr. HOYER. I voted because I believed we needed to get to fiscal responsibility, and in fact we did, and we balanced the budget 4 years in a row, and George Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. Not debt. Not deficit. And 22 million jobs having been created before he took office. Eight years later, we had increased the debt by $5 trillion. I'm not going to vote for the balanced budget amendment, and I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, which has no chance of passage, and we need to stop fiddling. We need to do our work and make sure America can pay its debts, because if it can't, every one of our constituents will lose and our country will lose. Our oath of office was to preserve and protect. Defeat this ill- advised, ill-timed, unconsidered piece of legislation and let us move to fiscal responsibility in a way that will bring us all together in a bipartisan way, as Bowles-Simpson tried to do, as Biden tried to do, and as, frankly, Mr. Boehner and the President tried to do. Let's get to that objective. The country deserves it. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that there is a Member here who doesn't believe that America is in poor fiscal health. But the question facing us is this: do we value fiscal responsibility enough to make hard choices, give up some of what we want, and come to the compromise that our form of government demands? Or do we see the possibility of a fiscal crisis as nothing more than a chance to advance our ideological ends? What matters more to us--restoring America's health, or gratifying our party's ideology? We cannot have both. It's clear that the first, responsible approach is typified by President Obama, who has offered a compromise plan to reduce our long- term deficit by $4 trillion, even as it gives up spending that Democrats value highly. It's also clear that the reckless, ideological approach is typified by the Republicans who have thus far rejected that compromise because it does not conform to 100 percent of their demands. It's also typified by this radical plan to cut, cap, and end Medicare. This bill, under the guise of responding to a fiscal emergency that they themselves helped create, would write Republicans' most extreme and unpopular priorities into law. It would impose cuts even more extreme than those in this spring's Republican budget, which would have ended Medicare. A vote for this bill would not only be another vote to end Medicare--it would be a vote to dramatically slash programs for the most vulnerable Americans, programs like Medicaid and Social Security. Republicans would break the Medicare guarantee--but they are adamantly opposed to asking the best-off among us to contribute their fair share. Nor would they ask for cuts in defense spending. In fact, this bill would actually make a job-destroying default on our debt more likely. In order to pay our bills, Republicans would require us to pass a Constitutional amendment that would permanently enshrine their partisan budget priorities in law and make it virtually impossible to raise revenue. It is nothing more than a ransom demand-- and the beneficiaries of than ransom demand are the most privileged Americans, who are asked to sacrifice nothing even as ordinary Americans are asked to sacrifice their futures, their security, and their health. When even three-quarters of Republicans said in a poll last week that they want a balanced deficit solution, it is clear that this bill is targeted at the extreme fringe in American politics, a small minority of the far right. I urge my colleagues to affirm that this House represents all Americans--and to vote down this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a remarkable team from Maryland's Fifth Congressional District who, last month, proved that practice, perseverance, and teamwork can lead to victory. On July 2, Team USA, consisting entirely of athletes from St. Mary's County, Maryland, defeated Spain in the 2011 Special Olympics World Summer Games Men's Soccer Championship match in Athens, Greece. They are the first U.S. team to bring home the gold in this event. In a come-from-behind win, Team USA emerged triumphant over the Spanish team with a 2-1 victory. Avery Long, who had never touched a soccer ball before this year, scored both the tying and winning goals. On the first, he was assisted by team member Larry Mills. With only two goals scored against him in the entire tournament, goalie Alan Hill can take great pride in being the most successful goalie in the 2011 games. TEAM USA was rounded out by Sam Huffman, Steven Summerfelt, Wesley Thompson, Sack Hall, Terrel Nowlin, Thomas Smith, and Shaun Ridley. All of these men can take great pride in the culmination of their hard work and dedication. So, too, can the team's leadership and coaching staff--Director Mary Lu Bucci, Head Coach John Toner, Assistant Coach Ken Cohen, and Manager Minter Willis. Together they have a combined total of 74 years of experience with Special Olympics in Southern Maryland. I also want to pay tribute to the 7 additional members of Special Olympics Maryland who traveled to Athens to be among the 7,500 athletes from 185 countries to participate in the 2011 World Summer Games. They are: Syd Lea (Cycling), Randi Penebugh (Powerlifting), James Purnell (Kayaking), Samantha DiSanti (Kayaking), Zachary Poston (Swimming), and James Dietrich and his Unified Partner, Robert Battista (Sailing). In all, Team Maryland achieved tremendous success, winning a total of ten medals--8 of which were gold. I want to congratulate them on their impressive achievements and I ask that all Americans join with me in applauding these outstanding individuals who have brought great pride to our nation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), for the purpose of asking about the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information. I would say that it's my understanding now that we are, as the gentleman has pointed out, going to be meeting on Monday, and we will be voting on Monday at 6:30 rather than commencing on Tuesday at 6:30. The gentleman has pointed out that that's to accommodate the challenge that confronts us in the crisis that we have been put in with reference to assuring, A, that America does not default on its bills, and that we continue to pursue efforts to bring the deficit down and the debt under control. I say to my friend that it is late. He is right. We should confront this situation. We on numerous occasions, of course both the gentleman and I, have voted in the past to extend the debt limit so that America paid the bills that it has incurred. The gentleman also notes that a piece of legislation was brought to the floor to ensure that we pay our bills. It was brought to the floor with the express intention by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that it be defeated, and of course it was defeated, and all of your members voted against it, although over half of my members voted to make sure we pay our bills so that we did not get to this position. The gentleman and I have been involved in efforts to reach agreement with the President, with the Senate, and with ourselves, with both sides of the aisle, so that we could not only provide for America paying its bills, which if it doesn't will have very serious consequences to every household in America, every 401(k) pension program in America--and the gentleman and I agree, and everybody at the table with the President agreed, that allowing America to default on its bills was not something that any of us believed was a policy that was appropriate. I say to my friend, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, we've been confronted with this challenge for a long period of time. It was my understanding that you were going to bring to the floor next week a balanced budget amendment, which was announced and which I thought was coming and which we had told our members was coming. You have now substituted for that, as I understand it, am I correct, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act? To my understanding, there is no text for that act available at this time. Is that accurate? Am I correct that there is no text yet available for that bill?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Given the fact, as the gentleman pointed out, that this crisis has been known to us for over 5, 6 months now, that we were going to confront this, I understand that in the Cut, Cap, and Balance pledge that has been put forward--I don't know whether it's going to be put forward in the legislation--but the pledge says that your side or-- excuse me--the people who sign the pledge, whatever side they're on, are going to ``oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:'' One, ``Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.'' It seems to me that we passed a budget through this House that does that. It doesn't reach balance, of course, until some 30 years from now. Secondly, it says, as a condition for voting for a debt extension, ``Enforceable spending caps that will put Federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.'' As you know, we've had discussions in the White House on caps and what they apply to, whether they are a percentage of GDP or they're actually caps in spending, which obviously escalate the denigration of the ability to deliver services over the years, depending upon the flexibility that's incorporated. I haven't seen the legislation, of course. And then thirdly, on balanced, ``congressional passage.'' Then in parentheses it says, ``not mere support.'' Now, I know there are some people on this floor who have signed this agreement, so I presume that they're not going to vote to make sure America pays its bills on August 3. ``Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.'' Now, I presume that that requirement will have to come, according to this pledge, to get votes which are included in this Cut, Cap, and Balance pledge. Does the gentleman believe that the second two at least--one could argue that we've already done the first in terms of making substantial cuts and that we've discussed agreeing on making substantial cuts, but that the second two conditions cannot possibly be met between now and August 2?

Mr. HOYER. I understand that.

Mr. HOYER. I'm not sure the gentleman answered my question with condition two and three of the Cut, Cap, and Balance pledge. Again, I haven't read the legislation. So I see the pledge. I'm not sure what's in the legislation. I thank the gentleman for his observation that we need a meaningful and, I would say, robust addressing of the problem that confronts us. In fact, as you know, because we have discussed it at the White House for 4 days now, from Sunday night through last night--I guess 5 days-- the President of the United States has been indicating that we need--he calls it a ``big''--a grand design, if you will, along the lines that have been suggested by two of the commissions, which on a bipartisan basis recommended a grand design. That grand design would have reached at least $4 trillion in deficit reduction and debt reduction, and, in fact, that is a figure somewhere close to the budget that was passed through this House. I might say to the gentleman parenthetically that it's my understanding that the Cut, Cap, and Balance might get closer to the RSC numbers than your budget number that was passed here. The RSC number that I refer to, of course, was the amendment that was defeated on this floor by one vote. But I would say to the gentleman that the President wants to do a grand design to reduce that deficit not by $1 trillion or $2 trillion or $3 trillion but by $4 trillion. There was a commission or a group-- the ``Biden group'' we call it--in which the gentleman participated. There were other discussions between your Speaker and the President all looking at achieving a large deficit reduction. The gentleman at some point in time decided that was not something that he wanted to continue working on and suggested that it be, I suppose, pushed up the line, and it was. So I said, the President was for a grand design. The leader of the Senate, Mr. Reid, was for that. Mr. Durbin was for it. Ms. Pelosi was for it. I was for it, and the Vice President was for it. But unfortunately, we couldn't proceed on that discussion in a successful way, at least, because the gentleman observed and his colleagues observed that, as long as there were any revenues attached to that, it would not be acceptable to your side of the aisle, notwithstanding that every bipartisan commission that has dealt with this issue has indicated that it needed to be a balanced package, that it needed to include substantial cuts, that it needed to deal with discretionary spending, defense spending, entitlement spending, and that it needed to deal with tax expenditures. The gentleman says correctly that we want to balance our revenues with our expenditures. The problem is, if you keep cutting revenues, you're just going to be chasing yourself down. Obviously, you want to bring revenue rates down. I hope we can do that. But if we bring them down to a place where we don't have the money to pay for what we buy-- which is, of course, what happened in this past decade--then we will be confronted with a situation that the gentleman wants to avoid, and that is: raising the debt limit. What we have done over the last 10 years is buy more than we can afford; therefore, we have a debt. That's why the gentleman, as I say, voted for extending the debt limit. That's why I voted for it. I will tell the gentleman that I have a Gallup Poll here that says, ``Seventy-four percent of the Republicans agree that a responsible deficit reduction plan should include both tax increases and spending cuts, and 77 percent of independents believe the plan should include a mix of revenue and spending cuts.'' I say that so that I can elicit from the gentleman--I know there is sentiment on your side of the aisle; I know there is sentiment on my side of the aisle. And I told you--and you know the President of the United States believes this as well--that we have an opportunity, a critical time in our history, when we have the makings of a bipartisan agreement, the creation of a bipartisan consensus, that will move us in the direction that you and I know we have to move. What is holding us up, as I understand it, is that your side believes that these 77 percent of independents and 74 percent of Republicans are not correct, that revenues ought not to be part of this package. Clearly, we agree and have agreed that spending cuts need to be a part of it. So I ask the gentleman, is there any possibility that these 74 percent of Republicans are correct that, in fact, if we are going to have a successful package, it will be because it is balanced? Because my view is, I tell my friend, that, if we do this, it's going to really create jobs. Now, we haven't done any jobs bills, we believe, in this Congress. We believe the only jobs bill you really did so far was the patent bill. I know you are going to talk about all these bills that you did, but we don't think that, because you put ``jobs'' in the titles, it makes them jobs bills. But the fact of the matter is that, if we can create confidence in the market, if we can create confidence that we can deal with our fiscal situation in a responsible, bipartisan, collegial way, it will have an extraordinarily positive effect on every household in America, the confidence of America that we can work together in a bipartisan way, and we will stabilize the markets and provide for paying our bills and bringing our deficit and debt down. So I ask my friend, again, does he believe there is any possibility at this point in time that we can reach a balanced agreement on what is called a ``grand design'' along the lines of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission's recommendations?

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on that, because I didn't say that.

Mr. HOYER. It is not.

Mr. HOYER. First of all, of course, I didn't say anybody wants their taxes raised, including me. I would like to have all the prices for things I buy cut in half, a 50-percent-off sale. We all like that. I like going and using my credit card--it's so much easier--and that's why credit cards encourage the economy. But you and I both know what happens when you use your credit card: At some point in time you get a bill. The people who sold you the goods or loaned you the money expect you to pay them. I will tell my friend that I understand what he is saying. We have just come through, arguably, the worst recession that we have experienced since the Great Depression, and it was consistent with economic policies which, by the way, started, as you know, in December of 2007 and in which we lost 8 million jobs. But the gentleman continues every time to say he wants to have policies which in 1991 and 1993 were argued were policies that were going to grow our economy, expand jobs and have those folks that you talk about do well. Now, the gentleman misrepresents our position. I want to make it very clear: We are not for asking people who are trying to make it in America. We are not for asking those who are struggling in America. We are not asking for those who rely on Social Security. We are not asking for those who rely on their Medicare benefits to pay the burden of the spending that we have been involved in over the last decade, which took us from $5.6 trillion of debt to over $10 trillion of debt. We are not asking for those struggling Americans which the gentleman raises as the specter of those we think ought to pay their fair share. Oh, no. We are asking for those who have done extraordinarily well over the last decade, who have made millions per year in the last decade, some billions of dollars over the last decade--oil companies that are now making the biggest profits they have ever made and others--to pay a little more so that we can stabilize the finances of America. So don't represent that it's Democrats who are asking those struggling small business people--we are not doing that--or those struggling working people in America who, by the way, have been stuck in the mud under the economic policies that were pursued consistent with the 2001 and 2003 economic programs, which have seen a growing disparity between working people and the wealthiest people in America. Now, we can continue on that path and put on the backs of those struggling people you talk about, my friend, the responsibility to pay for things or we can have a fair and balanced program. That's what the 74 percent in the Gallup Poll want. They don't want their taxes raised. What they want is a fair and balanced obligation, a fair and balanced participation in contribution to paying the debts of this country that we've incurred, and we've incurred them together. You're not all responsible. We're not all responsible. Now, on our side of the aisle, as you well know, this deficit was increased by almost 90 percent under the Bush economic policies, far less than that under the Clinton economic policies--as a matter of fact, about half. But that's not the issue. Under both, the debt went up. We're confronted with it; we've got to pay it, and you and I believe not paying it is not an option. The Chamber of Commerce says clearly that, first, it is critical the U.S. Government not default in any way on its fiscal obligations, and the President of the United States and our side have said, you bet, we don't want to do that. So let's ask all of us to come to the table, and those who can't afford it ought not to be asked, but those who can-- those who can--should be asked to do so, not to penalize them but to say we're all in this together. Those who are the best off in America, those corporations like the oil companies that are getting subsidies at this point in time which said they didn't need subsidies if oil was over $55 per barrel--they testified in Congress some years ago to that fact. It has been twice that, and we're still giving them subsidies. All we're saying is that doesn't make sense, and we ought to have a balanced program, and that's what those 74 percent and 77 percent of independents are saying. They're not saying they want their taxes raised. They're not saying we ought to raise taxes and incur more debt. They are saying we ought to pay our bills. They are saying that we ought to have a fair participation by all Americans in meeting this crisis that confronts us. And I would hope that over the next 3 weeks that we could get to a place where we could come together in a bipartisan way and ask all of us to participate. Those who are able can help us confront this: bring this deficit down and balance our budget. For those who can't but who are working hard to make themselves and their families live a quality of life, we'll help them out. Then I think, as I said, we'll stabilize the economy; we'll grow jobs and we'll have a better country. I would hope we could do that, Mr. Cantor, and I'm looking forward to it. Again, I don't know that this cut, cap, and balance will get us there; but as I said, we're not going to get there, clearly, under those provisions between now and August 2. I think the gentleman knows that, and I hope he has some other thoughts in mind, some other plan in mind. Obviously, there have been a number of plans talked about. The President gave a speech about his plan. That was rejected. The gentleman says it wasn't specifically line by line. That's right, because it was rejected before we got there. Mr. Boehner, your Speaker, discussed trying to get a construct. So perhaps you have a plan that is above and beyond the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act that we might see that would be a balanced plan that would help us. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his scheduling information. I want to pursue what I presume is the reason for not having the district work period that was originally scheduled. My presumption is that we are concerned about the impending arrival of the August 2 date on which America would be put in the position of defaulting on its obligations. I presume that's the reason, that we want to make sure that we are here to work on that issue. Am I correct on that?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that observation. I know the gentleman has said in the past that he believes it would be a very bad situation for our economy and for our country if we did not extend the debt limit. Am I correct that the gentleman still shares that view?

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

Mr. HOYER. I am pleased, as the gentleman knows, to hear that you want to stop the spiraling deficits that confront our country. I will repeat again because the gentleman keeps mentioning this, and I have enough experience to know what has happened: In the 30 years that I've been here, of course we've had some few years of the Obama administration, but we had Mr. Reagan's administration, Mr. Bush I's administration, Mr. Bush II's administration, and we ran up--and I know the gentleman knows these figures--over $6 trillion of deficit during that period of time. However, in the 8 years that Mr. Clinton was President of the United States, we had a $62.9 billion surplus. Now, the gentleman makes the point that spending is out of control. The fact is, as the gentleman clearly knows, when you were in charge of the House and the Presidency and the Senate, you increased spending by more than was increased during the Clinton administration by a percentage on an annual basis. So I'm glad to hear that your side now, without fail, talks about spending being out of control. Very frankly, I have the feeling, if your side were spending 5 cents, you would think that we would need to cut an additional 5 cents in revenues so that we could not pay the bills, because that's why we ran up $6 trillion in deficits: you did not pay for what you bought. Now, I'm one of those who very strongly believes we ought to pay for what we buy, but I also believe that we ought not to put this country on the brink of financial chaos and bring us down in the eyes of the world because we don't extend our debt. Very frankly, I think we ought to pay for what we buy. We call that ``taxes''--whether it's defending America, paying our FBI, paying people who are researching cancer, heart, lung, diabetes issues. Those are Federal expenditures for which the American people pay through taxes. If we are going to be responsible, we make a very simple judgment: if we want to buy it, we ought to pay for it. That $6 trillion of deficit was incurred during those Presidencies, and the President is the only person in America who can stop spending-- the only one. You can't do it and I can't do it. We need 217 other votes in our House. Over there, they need at least 60 votes to do anything. The President can do it himself. Ronald Reagan never had a veto overridden of a bill that said we spent too much money. George Bush I never had a veto overridden in which he vetoed a bill saying we spent too much money, and George Bush II never once had a veto overridden so that we spent money that he did not sanction. So I say to my friend, we did meet at the White House, and the President of the United States, the leader of our party, and I and Mr. Reid and Mr. Durbin all said, yes, we need to get a handle on this spending; yes, we need to get a handle on the deficit; and, yes, we need to bring down the debt. We need to come to the table together with everything on the table, and we need to pay for what we think we ought to buy. Frankly, we ought to ensure that the United States of America, for the first time in history, doesn't fail to pay its bills. I tell my friend that we've had a lot of commentary over the last few days, people on Wall Street, people in business--large, medium and small--and I will tell you that if the United States doesn't, by August 2, agree to pay that which it owes, that which it has incurred--not what we're going to incur, but those debts that we've incurred in the past--everybody in America is going to be hurt. Every economist that I talk to says that interest rates are going to spike, the stock market is going to be at risk and, very frankly, millions of people who have pension funds and who have interest in their pensions are going to be adversely affected, the housing market, which is struggling, is going to be hurt, the economy that is struggling is going to be hurt. So I would hope that my friend and I will go to the White House on Sunday, we will sit with the President of the United States, and we will be for a large deal that is euphemistically referred to as a ``comprehensive solution'' so that we can in fact--not in the short term, not temporarily, but in the long term--bring fiscal discipline to the operations of our country. Our country needs that. I think the international community expects that of us. And if we don't do that, I tell my friend, I think we will not have fulfilled our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and serve the general welfare of our country and our people. Now, some in your party of course have suggested there is no need to raise the debt. Does the gentleman agree with that proposition? I'm not going to go through the quotes, but as you know, one of your candidates for President has indicated there is no need to worry about raising the debt. She serves in this body, as a matter of fact.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a wonderful day of celebration. Today we celebrate the 85th birthday of an extraordinary American, an American who has served over five-eighths of his life in this House, an American whose father served before him, an American who has been sent to the Congress after Congress after Congress after Congress, a Member who has made an extraordinary contribution to the legislative history of this Congress and to the welfare of this country. John Dingell today is 85 years of age. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to now yield to somebody who has not served with him for 85 years, but has served with him for a very significant time on the extraordinarily important Energy and Commerce Committee, my friend from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. HOYER. Those of you who are new to this body, what Mr. Barton has just said, if you want an example of a truly great legislator, a legislator who has year after year sat down with both sides of the aisle, with all the different interest groups that are represented in this Congress, and worked together to bring consensus to quality legislation, you could have no better example than John Dingell. So I am pleased to rise, Mr. Dingell, and express great admiration, respect, and deep affection for you, which I know is shared by all of your colleagues. I yield back the balance of my time.