Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman and will end it with this: I am then to understand there will be no markup in the Appropriations Committee on the proposed cuts that will be brought to the floor? Am I correct in that?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. We can discuss it at a later time when we have more time.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me ask the gentleman, he mentioned on Thursday, is the gentleman confident we will be leaving by 3 o'clock or shortly thereafter on Thursday and doesn't expect to be here on Friday?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This resolution directs the House committees to review Federal regulations for their effect on our economy. I agree with this resolution and I will vote for this resolution. In fact, that is an oversight, of course, that committees should in fact be carrying out without this resolution. Democrats believe that it's important to vigorously review regulations to make sure they are keeping pace with the changing economy, and that's why President Obama has already issued an executive order that calls for such a review. Where regulations are duplicative, where they stifle innovation and entrepreneurship, where they hold job creation back without protecting consumers, they should be revised or ended. But let's also remember that Federal regulations keep our drinking water and our air clean, protect our children from unsafe toys and food, put a check on abusive practices of insurance companies and credit card companies, and help control the kind of Wall Street gambling that wrecked our economy just a few years ago. As a matter of fact, even though regulations were on the books, we know they were not enforced, which led to literally the loss of trillions of dollars by homeowners, individuals and businesses. We want regulations that protect Americans and foster economic growth and will call the committees to review regulations with both of those goals in mind. There is a reason that the Democrats have worked so hard to pass the Make It In America agenda, an agenda with which I am particularly identified. We need to in that agenda, if we are going to create the environment that I heard one of the Members on this floor talking about that will lead to businesses being able to make things in America and do so profitably, review regulations, review tax policies, and review other government policies to make sure we are competitive in the global marketplace. But we also want to make sure that we have consumers protected, as I said, and the environment protected, because there should not be a trade-off, but a complementary working of the two together. The new environment the Federal Government ought to work to create will promote growth, jobs, and success of the American people. Make It In America not only means manufacturing it, but it means succeeding in America, succeeding in global markets. I will, as I said, vote for this resolution. But the test will not be whether this resolution passes or fails. The test will be whether or not in fact we do the work that the American public expects us to do. The test will be whether our economy does succeed under the revisions we have made. I tell my friends on that side of the aisle, neither one of us have done perhaps the job we should have done.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Dreier has put additional pressure on me with his thoughtful remarks. Let me say that there is nobody on this floor who doesn't believe that the deficit is a very, very substantial problem that confronts us; and I would hope that there is nobody on the floor who believes that it's going to be accomplished in a simple fashion to bring this deficit under control. But I fear that there is too much simplistic--not simple--simplistic rhetoric with reference to this deficit. After borrowing trillions of dollars to finance tax cuts, a new entitlement, and two wars, our friends on the Republican side tell us they are now taking the deficit seriously. All of you have heard my comments about how under the Clinton administration the budget was balanced and how under the Reagan and Bush I and Bush II administrations it was not. If our Republican friends mean it, if they were interested in the deficit as anything other than a political issue, if they actually use their House majority to back up their words with action, then no one, in my opinion, would be happier than me and our party, the Democratic Party. Our deficit I think all of us should agree is too big for partisan politics. It cripples our children's opportunities. It makes it harder for them to pay for college education, buy a home, start a business, or plan a future. I want my Republican friends to take the deficit seriously. I want my Democratic friends to take the budget deficit seriously--to join President Obama in making the hard choices it will take to get out of debt. But, frankly, so far the opportunity to finally back up their words of fiscal discipline have been a record of disappointment. A rules package, and I tell my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the rules package provides for $5 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next 10 years--$5 trillion; a vote to repeal health care reform is another $230 billion of deficit; a pledge to cut spending by a hundred billion, which it has taken them less than a month to break; and, today, a one-page resolution with no numbers and no specifics. I think this resolution is unprecedented, certainly in the 30 years that I've been here, which gives to one person out of the 435 the opportunity and the authority to set a number that we will consider in this House. I don't think that's precedented. I don't think it's democratic. It's not transparent. And it's not an open process. Colin Powell has already been quoted, but we're still waiting for the answer of what is going to be cut. At a time when getting out of debt, growing the economy, and creating jobs are our country's defining bipartisan challenges, we need hard choices--not more political theater. Now, we passed a budget enforcement resolution which was criticized by the other side because we didn't pass a full budget. I think that's, perhaps, correct.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the additional 1 minute. We were criticized; but in that budget enforcement resolution, we had a number, and when you voted on the rule, you knew the number you were voting on as a House of Representatives. Here you have no idea what you're voting on. You could be voting for 2008 numbers or anything less than that under this resolution.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his generosity. But let me say to the gentleman, it may be unprecedented times; but it does not warrant this unprecedented abdication of democracy in this House in setting what is probably the most critical question that confronts government: How much are you going to pay for it? I think we all agree on that. That's what is at issue here. And this resolution does not allow Members of Congress to engage on that. It simply gives to one person the ability to set that number. It's not only unprecedented; it, in my opinion, is undemocratic--with a small ``d.'' It does not provide the transparency and the openness of which the gentleman has correctly spoken and I hope we pursue. And I hope that we oppose this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank Congressman Murphy for yielding, and I want to join him in the remarks that he has made. I had the opportunity to attend a memorial service and speak at a memorial service for my friend, Bill Ratchford. Bill and I first met in the early 1970s. Bill had been speaker of the Connecticut House and was serving as president of the National Conference of State Legislatures. I was about to be president of the Maryland Senate, and another former Member, Martin Sabo, was the speaker of the Minnesota House. The three of us became very good friends. Later in the week, the next week, we lost an extraordinary American, Sargent Shriver. I had the opportunity to speak at his wake last Friday night. The reason I mentioned Sarge Shriver, Bill Ratchford and Sarge Shriver were both extraordinary public servants who believed that service to others was their most important role in life in terms of their public service. Now, privately, they were both also representatives of extraordinary family leaders, revered by their families. And his sons, Bill Ratchford's sons, and Sarge's sons spoke at their memorial services. Shaun, Scott, and Brian spoke movingly of a father who was fully engaged and adored by his sons. Of course his wife, Barbara, a very close friend of mine for some 40 years, as was Bill, was revered as a mother. So these two families, two extraordinary leaders that we have lost recently, represented the best in America. Bill Ratchford was my friend. Bill Ratchford brought honor on this institution by his service. Bill and I had the opportunity to serve on the Appropriations Committee together, which was arguably, at that point in time, the most bipartisan committee in the Congress of the United States. I am not sure that's still true, but it certainly was then. Bill Ratchford was respected on both sides of the aisle for his decency, his intellect, and his commitment to making America a better country. I am pleased to join my friend Chris Murphy, who has been such a giant himself at a young age, but at an age when Bill Ratchford was becoming a major leader in their country. I thank Bill Ratchford and his family for what they have contributed to this country. We lament his loss, but we celebrate his life, which was an extraordinary life well lived and a blessing to all who knew him and to his country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to call to the attention of my colleagues, as the four of you have done so well tonight and in nights past, we just had a very significant conference on the eastern shore of Maryland. In that conference, we discussed the agenda that we call Make It In America. Make It In America, as I am sure you explained earlier in the evening, I heard much of what you had to say, not all, but Make It In America is about succeeding in America, making it. There are a lot of Americans who are not sure that they, or at least their children, are going to make it. In addition, Americans overwhelmingly respond, and we hear a lot of talk about listening to the American public, I think that is something we ought to do, but they overwhelmingly respond that their belief is in order for us to continue to be the great economic engine for opportunity in this country, it will be necessary for us to continue to make things in this country. To make it in America, whatever ``it'' is. In addition to that, to grow things in America, as we do so well, and sell them not only domestically but around the world. That's the President's focus on doubling our exports. He knows, as we know, that if we are not making things, the possibility of doubling our exports is zero. I believe that people around the world respect and want to buy American products. Unfortunately, we are not making as many products as we used to. The President has asked Jeffrey Immelt of GE to head up a task force which looks, in effect, to enhance our ability to make it in America, to grow jobs in America, to grow good paying jobs with good benefits in America. The American people understand that if we don't do that, 20 years from now the United States of America will not be, as it is today, the economic engine of the world. It is true our competitor in some sense in China is growing, but they still have a far way to go before they match the United States' ability to produce goods and services. The founder of Intel, Mr. Grove, has written an article about how we need to make it in America; his point being that we are the center of innovation, inventiveness, and development in the world. But his point is then made that in too many instances we are inventing products, innovating how they can be used, developing them, but then bringing them to scale--that is, manufacturing them for consumption on a broad basis--overseas. His premise is, and I agree with him on this conclusion, that if we continue to do that, that our inventors and innovators will migrate to where the product is being taken to scale or, in other words, manufactured for large-scale consumption. I am hopeful that Republicans and Democrats can join together in this Make It In America agenda. We passed a number of pieces of legislation in the last Congress that were supported on a bipartisan basis, some of which have already been signed by the President, because on both sides of the aisle there is an understanding and I think a commitment to create an environment in which it is possible to make it in America and profit by doing so. I think we are all harkened by the fact that Ford has brought plants back from Mexico and China, that Whirlpool has brought plants back, that GE has brought plants back, as well as others, and decided to manufacture things here in America and do so profitably; that they can make a quality product here with skilled labor, well-educated labor that will produce a quality product, higher productivity, and therefore result in profits. I want to congratulate particularly the gentleman from California, a former State leader in California, still a great leader from California, but he has come to this body just a few years ago to succeed Ellen Tauscher, who became Assistant Secretary of State. He has done an extraordinary job in a very short period of time, and his focus on this Make It In America is unsurpassed, unequaled in this Congress. I want to thank him for his leadership and focus. And I want to thank Mr. Ellison and Mr. Pallone and Mr. Tonko for their focus, because I think we are on the right track on this. I think our Republican colleagues hopefully will join us as partners not to take partisan credit for this but, that America will be advantaged, America's people will be advantaged. The reduction of our deficit as we grow the economy will be advantaged, and we will see an America that is on the rise in terms of growing our economy, creating jobs, good paying jobs, and opportunities and future for our people. So I congratulate and thank the gentleman from California, the gentleman from New York, the gentleman from New Jersey, and the gentleman from Minnesota for their leadership and communication to the American people of what this Make It In America agenda is all about.

Mr. HOYER. I'll try to take a minute. Let me say what I think is so good about this agenda Make It In America. It is an agenda that, unlike some, brings us together and doesn't divide us. From left to right--Republican, Democrat--people all over this country understand that, if we are going to be a great country, as we are today, and if we are going to remain so in the future, it will be because we continue to be a manufacturing country, a country that makes it in America. I have talked to the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, and organized labor. This is an agenda item that will bring labor and management, business and workers together to cooperate so that America will continue, not only to make it in America, but to do so in an expanding way rather than in a shrinking way. We've been doing some growth in the last few months, in the last year, in the last 2 years, in the last 3 years, but not enough. We can do more. Make It In America is the agenda for the future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Good. I appreciate that response. Lastly, I ask my friend, one of the significant issues that will be confronting us in the coming months will be the extension of the debt limit to ensure that America continues to pay the bills that it has incurred and therefore maintain fiscal stability not only in this country but throughout the world. The Speaker and you have both made, I think, very positive comments on the fact that, as unwanted as such a vote may be, it is, nevertheless, as the Speaker pointed out, an adult vote--that I took to mean a responsible vote--to ensure the fiscal stability of our country. Does the gentleman anticipate a clean up-or-down vote on that issue when it becomes timely to vote on that issue sometime in March of April?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. HOYER. So would it be therefore accurate that the ``or less'' is superfluous and is not intended to give Mr. Ryan the authority to set a figure at less than 2008 levels?

Mr. HOYER. I want to thank the gentleman for informing us of the schedule for the week to come. I want to thank, at the outset, not only the gentleman but the Speaker as well for the respect and consideration they have given during this current tragic situation that confronted us in Tucson and the critical injuries sustained by our colleague, Gabby Giffords. I want to thank Mr. Cantor in particular for his very strong statement, as well as the Speaker's very strong statement, that an attack on any individual who serves is an attack on all of us irrespective of party or philosophy. I think we all have raised prayers for the victims who lost their lives, their families, prayers for those who are either in the process of recovering or are now out of danger, and of course for our beloved colleague, Congresswoman Giffords, as well. So I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and the Speaker's leadership in joining with our leader and myself in leading the House in what I thought was a very appropriate and united response to that tragedy. We are heartened by the progress that Congresswoman Giffords is making, and we look forward to her quick return. Now, Mr. Cantor, if I can, next week we are scheduled to leave on Wednesday. I know there has been an articulation of an intent to try to get out by noon on the days that we leave. Would you expect that to be the case this next week? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Given that response, can I ask the gentleman: Would he expect there to be an open rule with reference to that bill?

Mr. HOYER. Not only do I recall that as being a fact, I also recall it as an answer that I used to give the gentleman on a regular basis. But I am certainly hopeful, as he was hopeful, given the representations of transparency and openness, that there would be opportunities to amend. I know that Mr. Van Hollen spoke to that in the Rules Committee, and I would hope that we could see that policy which has been expressed by your side pursued in this instance as well as future instances. I thank the gentleman for his response. Let me ask the gentleman: There was some criticism raised when we passed a budget enforcement resolution that we hadn't passed a full budget. In that budget enforcement resolution, as you recall, A, we articulated a specific number; and, B, that number was voted on by the entire House. It is my understanding that the proposition that will be put before the House next week will provide and give unilateral authority to the chairman of the Budget Committee to set a number and that that number will not be voted upon by the House pursuant to the authority granted in that resolution. Is that an accurate reading of that resolution?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response. I do not want to be argumentative, but I have just received your amended copy of the resolution, and as I read on your second page, it says ``the remainder of fiscal year 2011 that assumes non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less.'' The implication in that, it seems to me, is that Mr. Ryan unilaterally can set a number which has not been agreed to by the House, but under the power granted in this resolution would bind the House to a number to which it had never agreed. Is that an accurate reading of that? Could, in fact, under this resolution Mr. Ryan set a number that is less than, as your resolution says, 2008 numbers?

Mr. HOYER. The point that I am trying to make, and perhaps not as clearly as I need to make it, is that what we are in that resolution giving is to one person--one person--in this Congress the authority, without consideration by this House, to set the number, without hearings, on what we will, as you articulate, cap spending levels at for fiscal year 2011. As I understand it, there have been no hearings by the Budget Committee, no hearings by the Appropriations Committee, no hearings by the Ways and Means Committee, or by any other committee involved in fiscal matters as to what the ramifications of that cap will be to individual programs or individual Americans. I share the gentleman's view and have voted consistently, as I voted for the balanced budget amendment, as the gentleman knows, last we considered it, to bring our fiscal house into order. I think neither party can necessarily take sole responsibility for doing so or not doing so when it comes to fiscal balance. But I do tell my friend that, with respect to transparency and openness and to the inclusion of all the Members of the body, it is, I think, not consistent with that objective to give to one person, however brilliant that person is--and I happen to have great respect, as the gentleman knows and as I have said so publicly in the press, for Mr. Ryan, who I think is a very positive, effective, important Member of this body; but I am not for giving any one person in this body the authority to unilaterally set the number at which we will fund America's government for the next 7 months. I yield to my friend to see if he might have a response to that because, in his responses to me--and I understand the cap--but at any number below that, at 2007, 2006, 2005 levels, it seems to me this resolution authorizes Mr. Ryan to set such figures as he unilaterally determines is an appropriate figure. In his mind, that may be an appropriate figure; but it is not necessarily the same figure that this body voting in a transparent, open way might select.

Mr. HOYER. Let me ask the gentleman: Is the gentleman representing to me that this resolution will, in fact, result in 2008 levels of expenditure so that Members, who are being asked to vote on this, will have a certitude of the number on which they are voting--that's my only question--so that they will know on what authorization they are giving, what budget direction they are giving, to the members of the Appropriations Committee?

Mr. HOYER. I understand that, and I thank the gentleman. I know that he has indicated that we are going to be considering what I believe to be a $52 million cut--that's important money--to reach your $100 billion. However, if you do it at that level per week, of course, you will take approximately 50 years to get to $100 billion if we consider one every week that we are in session. My presumption is that you will be informing us of those opportunities to cut as well, giving us opportunities on our side. There may well be Members on our side who want to join in making sure that we spend our money as effectively and efficiently as possible. But we also know and the commissions that have reported know that while these types of expenditures are important to review, I don't know that there have been any hearings on this YouCut. I know that this has been in response to the Web page question that you have propounded to people--I don't know how many responses you have received to that. But are you intending to have hearings in relevant committees on future propositions to cut?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And let me ask again, does the gentleman intend, once the committees are up and running--I understand in a transition it takes some time-- that the cuts that you are going to propose on a weekly basis will have been subjected to committee oversight and hearings, with the public having an opportunity to testify on the consequences of those cuts?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. It's my understanding, from the gentleman's response, that if in the eyes of you or Mr. Boehner or your side of the aisle serious spending cuts have not been effected, that you would oppose the extension of the debt limit. Is that what I hear you saying?