Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. You have gone much longer than your caucus wanted to go. I understand that. But the conference wanted to go for 6 months. I thought it was such an interesting proposal because it meant ``we will go just long enough until we really do appropriations and when it really means something.'' Too often, ``hypocrisy, thy name is ourselves.'' I say it on both sides of the aisle. Now, I'm for, as everybody knows, congressional initiatives. But I am for paying for them. When we quadrupled them, we borrowed for them from the Chinese, from the Germans, and from the Saudis. As a matter of fact, this President, as my friend knows, has borrowed more money from foreign governments than all of the other Presidents combined. Trust but verify. Every year that I have been here, ranking members have risen, one of whom is now the chairman of the OMB, and told me what a bright future it would be if their budgets were adopted. Now, the problem is that sometimes they can't get agreement between Senate Republicans and House Republicans on what that beautiful budget ought to be. We passed a budget last year. We lived within that budget last year. We need to do so this year. And we are trying to pay for things. We had a stimulus we didn't pay for. Some of us were concerned about that, but you can't stimulate and depress at the same time. So my colleagues in the House, Republicans and Democrats, vote for our children and future generations today. Vote for the John Spratt Democratic budget. Reject this budget that pretends it's going to bring you balance but has never done so once, not once in the 27 years that I have been here. Vote for the Spratt budget. It is good for our country. It is good for our people. It is good for our future. Let me first thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, John Spratt of South Carolina, for all of his hard work, patience and intelligence in producing this Democratic budget resolution--which is nothing less than a blueprint of our values and priorities. Let me also thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus for offering their important budget alternatives-- alternatives that reflect our shared commitment to the American people and a stronger America. Now, before I discuss what I believe to be the vastly superior and realistic Democratic budget, let me briefly address the Republican budget substitute that we are now debating. I both like and respect the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan. He is a thoughtful, diligent Member. And, I believe that were it up to him, he might actually try to implement the provisions in the Republican budget substitute. But the problem, of course, is that he would be fighting a lonely, losing, untenable battle. This we know: many, many Republicans would not support the deep, draconian cuts to domestic programs called for in their own budget. The fact is, this Republican budget only reaches balance in 2012 by slashing funding for mandatory programs by $412 billion. This Republican budget would cut Medicare and safety-net programs; cut Medicaid, thereby jeopardizing health care for more than 50 million children, parents, seniors and disabled Americans; cut--and possibly eliminate--the recently enacted increase in Pell Grants; and cut funding for military retirement and health care. Furthermore, the Republican budget implies very deep cuts in discretionary programs, devastating public health, education, safety net and infrastructure programs. This Republican budget fails to reflect the values and priorities of the American people. In contrast, the Democratic budget continues to move our Nation in a new direction and to clean up the fiscal train wreck caused by failed Republican economic policies over the last 7 years. Remember, in just 86 months, Republicans have turned projected budget surpluses into record deficits--including a projected $386 billion this year and another $340 billion next year--and added more than $3 trillion to the national debt, which today stands at $9 trillion. Our Democratic budget restores fiscal responsibility, adhering to pay-as-you-go budget rules and bringing the Federal budget back to balance by 2012. It rejects the drastic funding cuts in the Republican substitute and the President's budget, which includes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, State and local law enforcement programs, and environmental protection. It strengthens our economy, providing crucial funding for our innovation agenda, efficient and renewable energy programs, education, and infrastructure. It provides tax relief for hard-working Americans, including a reconciliation instruction that provides offsets for a new one-year patch of the alternative minimum tax. And, our Democratic budget makes America safer, providing for a robust defense, boosting homeland security funding, and rejecting the President's cuts to first responder programs. This is a budget that we can be proud of. And, it stands in stark contrast to the irresponsible fiscal policies of the current administration and former Republican majorities in Congress. I urge all of my colleagues: Vote for fiscal responsibility, and a bright future for our children. Vote for the budget that reflects our values--and meets the needs of the American people. Vote for this Democratic budget.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on his last point?

Mr. HOYER. I'm always interested to listen to some of the representations made on this floor. I have been here some time, as all of you know. Ronald Reagan said ``trust but verify.'' For 27 years, all but 8 of those with Republican Presidents, I have heard representations from the floor by Republicans about what their deficits were going to do. For every one of those 27 years that Republicans were President of the United States, every one without exception, we ran huge deficits. And this year will be no different. The Republicans have had monopoly on policy-making in this town for essentially 7 years. This past year, we had some authority because the American people wanted change. But clearly, the President of the United States would not agree with us, and we had to do what the President would agree to so that, essentially, without restraint, the Republicans have had, for the last 7 years, the authority to do whatever they wanted to do. The first 8 years I was here, Ronald Reagan was President. He ran $1 trillion in deficits. Then George Bush became President, a little over $1 trillion. This President, a little over $1.6 trillion. President Clinton was President for 8 years, only 8 years that we have had the Presidency, and America ran a net surplus. So when you hear the protestations of the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee and the gentleman who just spoke from Texas, listen to them, but verify. Look at the record of Republican fiscal irresponsibility undiminished in the 27 years I have been here. Mr. Ryan, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I have very substantial differences on how you get from here to there, is he correct that we need to look at our entitlement system? He is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, as he knows, I went to the Senate and testified on behalf of a resolution that does that. There is a resolution here that does that, as well. We have to do that. There is no alternative. Have they done that over the last 7 years of this Presidency? They did not. Did we do it in 1983 with Ronald Reagan as President, Tip O'Neill as Speaker of the House? We did. And we made Social Security secure for the next 60 years. But when we were running up those deficits that Ronald Reagan said we were not going to run up, the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid crisis that confronts us was decades away. Today, the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. It is years away. However, the solution is not to cut medical services for senior citizens and to cut education for our college students. The solution is not to put the car in reverse. The solution, as Ross Perot said, is to lift up the hood and fix it. And that is what the Spratt budget is doing. The Spratt budget is saying to all the Members of this House and to this Congress, we must act responsibly. Responsibly is not only acting fiscally responsibly, but also investing responsibly in the future of our country. I would urge my colleagues to reject this tired, tired, tired shibboleth about ``the biggest tax increase in history.'' Frankly, the biggest per capita real tax increase in my tenure was under Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan in 1982. And then, of course, George Bush was defeated, presumably because he tried to help balance the budget. And in fact, George Bush made a significant contribution because it was the George Bush agreement on pay-as-you-go, the 1997 Newt Gingrich-Bill Clinton agreement on pay-as-you-go that got us those 4 years of surplus of which I have spoken. John Spratt was involved in the leadership of that effort. Tom Kahn of the committee was involved in that effort. And as a result of that effort, we brought surpluses, 4 years. Surprisingly, one of those years was a real surplus. And when I say ``real surplus,'' notwithstanding the Social Security income that we are counting to get to either balance or surplus which is really not what we should be doing, I agree with that, on either side of the aisle. But ladies and gentlemen, John Spratt's budget meets the test of verification. It meets the test of reality. It meets the test of saying we need to pay for what we buy and not pass it along to our children and grandchildren. The budget vote is one of the most important that we make. Not because the American people really will look closely at the budget or because they think it has great consequence in their lives. It is very difficult to see the consequence of the budget because the budget then needs to be carried out in appropriations, authorizations, and policy. But ladies and gentlemen of this House, we know that it speaks to whether or not we have the courage of our appropriations. The gentleman that spoke before me from Texas talked about earmarks. I am always interested to hear Republicans talk about earmarks. They came to Congress and quadrupled, quadrupled, four times, the number of earmarks.

Mr. HOYER. I am always pleased to yield to a friendly point. Do I get to make the judgment as to how friendly it is?

Mr. HOYER. It is too late to ask you to yield, I take it, on the employment issue.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. That is my expectation.

Mr. HOYER. I think that's accurate.

Mr. HOYER. Yes.

Mr. HOYER. If this is approved, my expectation is there probably will be no further votes tonight.

Mr. HOYER. The answer to the question is you will all be receiving from the leader and the whip's office on your e-mails notification of the time and you will get sufficient notice. It is contingent upon how long it takes those that have the responsibility to do so. But you will be getting your e-mails in a time frame that will allow you to get back notice.

Mr. HOYER. Yes.

Mr. HOYER. I presume, I tell the gentleman from Ohio, that it certainly will relate to the legislation that we will then be considering probably at this point in time tomorrow.

Mr. HOYER. I can't tell you that because I don't know.

Mr. HOYER. Clause 9. Excuse me.

Mr. HOYER. That's what the consent agreement is, pursuant to our discussions.

Mr. HOYER. Certainly.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, at the request of, and after discussion with, the distinguished Republican whip, I ask unanimous consent that at a time designated by the Speaker on the legislative day of March 13, 2008, the House resolve itself into secret session as though pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVII; secondly, debate in such secret session proceed without intervening motion for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority whip; and, thirdly, at the conclusion of that debate, the secret session shall be dissolved.

Mr. HOYER. My presumption is that we will not debate the legislation in secret. Not only is that my presumption, I think we will clearly have public debate tomorrow on the bill. The minority whip came to me indicating that there were things he thought the Members ought to have knowledge of that he was of the opinion could not be divulged in public debate. There is a provision under our rules to accomplish that objective. After discussion with him and limitation on the time so that we could, in fact, get to a vote on what we believe is very important legislation, we have agreed to this arrangement. Again, it's limited, but we did not want to be nor are we in the position of saying to the minority whip if he has such information that we want to preclude that from being offered, because we want no indication that any information is being withheld. That is appropriate, obviously. There are going to be restrictions, obviously, even in the context of the session.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. In responding to him, I believe, and I'm not, frankly, absolutely positive, and I am hoping that somebody perhaps on the Intelligence Committee staff or others in the House knows, but I believe that during the early 1980s, 1983, on Contragate there was such a session.

Mr. HOYER. Contragate.

Mr. HOYER. The contemplation of this unanimous consent is that there will be no business done in the sense of ``doing business'' as taking legislative action. Nobody contemplates that.

Mr. HOYER. Yes.

Mr. HOYER. I don't know the answer to that question.

Mr. HOYER. If you will yield to Mr. Blunt, he may be able to offer some information.

Mr. HOYER. I think the answer is that, within the framework of the unanimous consent, I've requested there is not such a limitation. I think the gentleman is correct on that. However, as I said, my expectation and my discussions with the whip ares that the purpose of the session is to offer information that might not otherwise be appropriate to disclose in public session. My expectation is there is going to be a fulsome debate, as there has been, tomorrow on the legislation itself. So my expectation, given the shortness of the time that we are talking about, 30 minutes per side, we will have the Intelligence Committee here and the Judiciary Committee here to comment, obviously it is going to be a little difficult, because if there is information brought up that there may be comment on that information, and very frankly, the parameters of the debate tomorrow may, although not disclosing that information, may obviously be perceived by many of us as relating to whatever is discussed. It is very difficult to know specifically because I do not know the specific information that that request was made for.