[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 65 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2554-H2557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1150
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady) for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the week to 
come. Mr. Brady, as I understand, is the designee of the majority 
leader, and I welcome and appreciate his participation.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. First, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the 
Democratic whip, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 2 p.m. in pro forma 
session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 
p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. 
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning 
hour and at noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will 
meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are 
expected no later than 3 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions on Tuesday and 
Wednesday, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of 
business tomorrow.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, I expect the House to consider H.R. 45, a 
bill sponsored by Representative Michele Bachmann, to fully repeal 
ObamaCare.
  We will also consider H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability 
Act, authored by Representative Scott Garrett. This bill requires the 
SEC to conduct cost benefit analysis on any rulemaking to ensure that 
the benefits outweigh the costs.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information and, again, I 
want to thank him. I know that the majority leader could not be here 
and he's filling in, and I appreciate the fact that he is doing so.
  Mr. Brady, I notice that there is not on the notice for the schedule 
for next week any reference about a motion to go to conference on the 
budget. As you know, the Senate has now passed a budget, which it had 
not done for some years. Your side, in particular, but all of us wanted 
the Senate to pass a budget. They have now passed a budget. We passed a 
budget. We would hope on this side of the aisle that we would now go to 
conference.
  I'm wondering whether the gentleman can--in light of the fact that it 
is regular order that two sides pass, now try to compromise the 
differences that exist between the two Houses--can the gentleman tell 
me whether or not there is a plan to go to conference and, if so, what 
that schedule might be? And I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you. As you know, Chairman Ryan and 
Chairman Murray are in discussions about the budget. It is I think 
encouraging that for the first time in 4 years this is actually 
occurring, the Senate has finally passed a budget.
  But we know both sides take a considerably different view toward our 
financial budget future. These talks are aimed at sort of narrowing 
those differences. We certainly don't want to short-circuit those 
discussions because we're all encouraged.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the fact that you're encouraged. Frankly, our 
side has not heard an encouraging word. In fact, we continue to hear 
discouraging words, as the song says.
  I'm very hopeful we can bridge the gap that exists, which is about 
$100 billion, as the gentleman knows. The Senate marked $1.058 
trillion, which of course was consistent with the Budget Control Act 
that we agreed upon, we voted on, and passed. The President signed the 
Budget Control Act, including that figure for the fiscal year '14 
budget. The Ryan budget, as you know reflects a $966 billion 302 
allocation; that is, general discretionary spending levels.

  I'm wondering when you say you're encouraged, do you know whether 
there's been any progress toward trying to bridge that gap? Obviously, 
as a former appropriator, many times it's 50/50 you come to the middle, 
which would be about $1 trillion or a little more than that. I'm 
wondering whether or not the gentleman knows whether any progress has 
been made on that? And I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you for yielding. As you know, there are 
significant differences. The Senate budget includes over $1 trillion in 
new tax hikes on small businesses and families, which would be very 
damaging for the economy. The Senate Democrat bill adds I think about 
$8 trillion to the deficit and doesn't take what we think are critical 
steps to saving Social Security and Medicare over the long haul. That's 
why these discussions, I think, are so critical.
  Again, I'm encouraged that both sides are discussing them, trying to

[[Page H2555]]

find a way to narrow them, and we ought to give them time to be able to 
continue those discussions.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Just let me observe that on our side we think it would be useful if 
the American public had the opportunity to, in effect, see the 
discussions in a conference. I've been here long enough to remember 
when we had conferences on the Appropriations Committee. They were open 
to the public. They were reported on. We had discussions about the 
differences that existed, as one would expect, from people elected from 
different parts of the country and with different views. But we think 
it would be very helpful if those discussions were held, because the 
differences are pretty profound and pretty significant, that it would 
help the public to have a better understanding of the process.
  In addition, as the gentleman knows, of course, there was some 
discussion about the President's coming down late with his budget. We 
should have been through the budget process by now so that the 
Appropriations Committee could proceed with its allocations to its 12 
subcommittees.
  In that context, I would ask the gentleman, does the gentleman have 
any idea when the appropriations bills might be marked up and brought 
to the floor? As you know, under regular order, for the most part, we 
have brought appropriations bills to the floor starting in mid-May or 
the last week in May so that we could get through that process in June 
and July and send those bills to the Senate so that we might have 
conferences and complete our work by October 1.
  And I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you for yielding. I agree with you about 
the importance of moving our appropriations bill.
  The majority leader has announced we will begin the process of 
funding our government in June through an open appropriation, and 
through those appropriation seasons will work with the Appropriations 
Committee to determine which bills will come to the floor in June, as 
we have continued to do for the last number of years.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I appreciate that and I look forward to the 
consideration of the appropriations bills on the floor.
  I want to say that for the most part you have followed open rules, 
which we did as well in 2007 until we just couldn't get the bills done 
in a timely fashion. Hopefully, we can do that, because I think that, 
again, it gives the public the opportunity to see the priorities of not 
only each Member but both sides moving forward. I think that's 
appropriate in a democracy. I appreciate the fact that the majority 
leader intends to bring those bills to the floor starting in June. I'm 
not sure whether we can finish all 12 in June, but perhaps finish those 
in July.
  We did not bring, as the gentleman knows, the Labor and Health bill 
to the full committee in the last cycle, much less to the floor. That 
bill will be tough.
  Chairman Rogers--I know the gentleman is on a committee that he 
believes is more important. He and I may differ in that perception. 
He's a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I was a former member of 
the Appropriations Committee. But, nonetheless, Mr. Rogers has made the 
observation, in terms of the dollars allocated in the Ryan budget for 
discretionary spending, both on the defense side and nondefense side:

       I suspect there will be some who will be shocked. I don't 
     think people yet understand how severe the numbers will be.

  Those numbers refer to the $966 billion in discretionary spending, 
which will require deep cuts in almost every program on the national 
defense side and on the discretionary side.
  So, the sooner we get to that, because I think it's going to be a 
difficult process, the better. And I appreciate your information with 
reference to the majority leader's intent to bring them to the floor.
  Now, I also did not see on the schedule, Mr. Brady, anything that 
deals with the sequester. I do see the Affordable Care Act repeal on 
the floor next week, which has been, of course, on this floor some 33, 
34, 35 times before, to repeal it. We're having another repeal vote 
coming up. I think honestly you believe, as I believe, that that bill 
is not going to go anywhere, other than perhaps through the House of 
Representatives, but, beyond that, it won't go anywhere.
  However, the sequester continues to be an ongoing challenge to our 
country, to our government, and to our people. We dealt with it in a 
sort of surgical fashion dealing with the FAA, but we have not dealt 
with any of the other concerns. As the gentleman knows, I have concerns 
about the fact the sequester may result in 70,000 children not being on 
Head Start. They are only 3 or 4 years of age once.

                              {time}  1200

  The Social Security Administration may have to furlough payments, 
which will slow down payments of Social Security. There are 4 million 
fewer Meals on Wheels for seniors. There are 600,000 people who have 
been dropped off the Women, Infants, and Children program. There are 
125,000 fewer HUD rental assistance vouchers for people who are 
homeless or who are struggling to keep a home. Unemployment insurance 
has been cut 11 percent for 2 million out-of-work Americans. We now 
have no safety net for them. The FDA will have 2,100 fewer food safety 
inspectors--that's down 18 percent--obviously, putting at risk our food 
safety; and we will furlough an equivalent to 1,000 fewer Federal 
agents, FBI--we know from the Boston Marathon bombings how critical the 
FBI was--and border security. One-third of combat air units have been 
grounded.
  I mention all of those simply in the context of those consequences of 
the sequester. I see it's not on next week, and we have a week after 
that that we'll be in session. Does the gentleman have any information 
with reference to whether or not we will deal with trying to ameliorate 
these adverse consequences of sequester before we leave here for the 
Memorial Day break?
  And I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you for yielding. As you may remember, the 
President proposed this sequester originally in discussions about the 
budget and has threatened to veto any legislative efforts to turn off 
that sequester. Perhaps that's why Republicans, Democrats, and the 
President recently signed legislation that locks in those lower 
spending levels for the remainder of the budget year, and Congress has 
provided the administration the flexibility to cut funding from the 
nonpriority provisions, areas, of the budget so we can prioritize those 
important areas that you discussed.
  As we all remember, what the sequester did was take, in effect, a 
500-pound government and insisted that it lose 10 pounds. That's what 
the sequester does--a minor amount but important because this Nation is 
running such dangerously high deficits.
  So, clearly, there is bipartisan agreement on the spending levels for 
the budget for the rest of the year. I think that's the regular 
appropriations process that Chairman Rogers is bringing forward in 
which we'll have a chance, Republicans and Democrats, to amend it, to 
get our ideas to the floor. I think that adds extra importance to that 
process.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments; but I do want to 
observe that the President of the United States has offered a budget 
which eliminates the sequester and gets to a budget deficit reduction 
and fiscal sustainability in an alternative way which we think is much 
more positive.
  I would also remind the gentleman that Chris Van Hollen, the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee, offered an alternative which gets rid 
of the sequester, which all sides agree is an irrational process in 
that it cuts the highest priority and lowest priority the same. The 
sequester, as the gentleman knows, was put in a bill to force action 
with the specific belief and premise that the sequester was so bad, so 
irrational, so lacking in common sense, so negative in its impact that 
it would never be adopted. Sadly, it was adopted.
  I want to say also that the gentleman and a lot of his colleagues 
like to mention that this is the President's suggestion. With all due 
respect, Jack Lew brought it up with Mr. Reid, and everybody has read 
about that in Mr. Woodward's book. He brought it up, however--and the 
gentleman probably recalls this--days after sequester, as a policy, was 
included in the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill for which 229 Republicans 
voted for as a policy. I want to

[[Page H2556]]

tell the gentleman just for his future information, on our side, we are 
opposed to the sequester. We want to see the sequester changed.
  Mr. Van Hollen not only offered a budget, but he offered four 
amendments. Each time we considered the CR and other legislation, four 
times he offered an amendment to substitute the same savings so we 
would get to those budget deficit reductions to which the gentleman 
spoke, but would not do so in the irrational, across-the-board fashion 
that sequester requires.
  So I want to make it clear, if there was any confusion on your side 
of the aisle, we are not for the sequester. I voted for the CR to keep 
the government open, but I voted against the CR, when it left this 
House, which had sequester in there. I, frankly, thought shutting down 
the government was even worse than the sequester, but I think the 
sequester is having a harmful effect, not only on government, but a 
harmful effect on our economy. I think it's a drip, drip, drip. It 
wasn't a ``shut the door.'' It wasn't black and white. It wasn't 
overnight, but it is a drip, drip, drip that is harming our economy.
  I understand what the gentleman has told us, but I would hope that we 
would seriously consider trying to see if we could reach agreement 
either outside the context of the budget conference or inside the 
context of the budget conference that would give us an alternative 
which would be more rational, more positive, and more helpful to our 
economy.
  The next subject is simply the debt ceiling. We just passed a bill on 
the prioritization. We unanimously opposed that on our side. We think 
that is not a good policy. Obviously, there is a disagreement on that. 
May 19 is the date that the debt ceiling extension expires.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any proposal to act in the 
near future other than on debt prioritization, which will have no 
chance in the Senate and is roundly opposed by many Republican 
economists, as the gentleman knows, and by the former economic adviser 
to the Bush administration, who said that it would not work, should not 
work? Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any alternative plan, 
before we leave here for the Memorial Day break, to give confidence to 
the economy and to creditors and to the American people that we will 
deal responsibly with the debt limit extension?
  And I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Well, thank you for yielding. I was disappointed 
in today's action in the sense that I think it is dangerous to flirt 
with default. America ought to pay its debt, and we ought to reassure 
investors here at home--our local retirement funds that have bought 
U.S. Treasury, the Social Security trust fund, itself, that gets paid 
back interest, as well as other investors--that America will not 
default. I was disappointed this was made a partisan issue when, in 
fact, I think flirting with it and getting to the brink has really been 
damaging to our economy, and I think choosing for default was a mistake 
by your colleagues.
  I am hopeful that the Senate will take it up and that there will be a 
more bipartisan effort to assure that we are going to actually pay our 
bills and then focus on the real problem, which is dangerously high 
deficits, the fact that we're not acting now to save Social Security 
and Medicare--such critical programs.
  In the House, we've begun the discussions to identify what those 
priorities are to move us back toward a balanced budget without raising 
taxes on local families and businesses. We've begun the process of 
identifying good, positive ideas that would restore confidence in 
America's financial future, and we think it is important this moves 
along in a very deliberate, timely manner so that we don't end up with 
an 11th-hour issue.
  I think this is a reasonable, appropriate way to deal with a huge, 
dramatically larger debt borrowing amount than America has ever seen--
so many trillions piled up in the last few years and more piling up for 
the future. We don't think the answer is taking more of what people 
earn; it is Congress coming together, Republicans and Democrats, and 
finding a way to get our financial house in order, move back toward a 
balanced budget and act to save Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Of course, we did have a balanced 
budget, as you'll remember, for the last 4 years of the Clinton 
administration. Now, there was a Republican-controlled Congress; but in 
the next 4 years, there was a Republican-controlled Congress, a 
Republican-controlled Senate, and a Republican President, and we went 
deeply into debt.

                              {time}  1210

  We escalated the debt during the Bush administration by 87 percent of 
GDP more than this President has escalated the deficit. In nominal 
terms, as Mr. Camp observed before, the dollars are higher. That's 
true. It's because we are bigger, spending more money, making more 
money as a country. GDP is up.
  During the Reagan administration, we increased the debt as a 
percentage of the national GDP by 186 percent; 55 percent under George 
Bush; 37 percent under Mr. Clinton; and some 40-plus percent under this 
President today.
  So I think the gentleman and I agree that we need to get a handle on 
the debt and the deficit, but we disagree on how this happened. It 
happened because we didn't pay our bills, and we jettisoned PAYGO in 
2003. As a practical matter, we jettisoned it in 2001.
  Not paying for things is what creates debt, not buying. If I buy 
things and I pay for them, I don't have a debt. If I buy things and 
don't pay for them, I have a debt.
  So it's not a question of what I buy, although clearly we need to 
restrain buying and we need to constrain spending, as I've said, all 
across the board--the gentleman has heard me--including entitlements, 
including discretionary defense and nondefense spending. But what we 
ought to do is manage our finances in a way that does not give pause to 
the American people or to the economy.
  I want to just read for you a quote. Keith Hennessy was George Bush's 
National Economic Council director who disagrees with your proposition 
that this prioritization will in any way stabilize--I don't think the 
gentleman disagrees with me that that bill is not going to pass the 
Senate. Here's what Keith Hennessy said:

       Payment prioritization doesn't stop payments; it just 
     delays them. Then the aggrieved party sues the government and 
     probably wins, and it turns into a bloody mess.

  Tony Fratto, who was the spokesman on economic policy in the Bush 
administration said this:

       Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really 
     going to be in the position of withholding benefits, 
     salaries, rent, contract payments, et cetera, in order to pay 
     off Treasury bondholders?

  We refer to this, of course, as the Pay China First bill. And China 
ought to be paid. We borrowed money from them; we ought to pay them.
  Here's what he concludes of the prioritization bill:

       That would be a political catastrophe.

  I suggest it would be an economic catastrophe, as well, to say to our 
armed services personnel, We're not going to pay you, but we are going 
to pay China for our debts.
  The fact of the matter is the United States is the most creditworthy 
Nation on Earth. We ought to pay all of our debts and not on a priority 
status. If we owe you as the United States of America, we're going to 
pay you. That's our proposition. We should not prioritize paying simply 
bondholders, but paying smaller contractors we are doing business with 
who offer us services and products and we don't pay them until after we 
pay our bondholders. We ought to pay everybody. That's what America is 
about.
  So I would hope that we could revisit this because your debt 
prioritization is not going to pass. You know it's not going to pass. 
We need to get to a responsible way of dealing with the debt-limit 
extension.
  Both parties, I will tell my friend, have demagogued on this issue. 
We demagogued on it when we had a Republican President; you've 
demagogued on it--not you personally. I cast no aspersions. But both 
sides have demagogued on it when the President was of the other party. 
It's a shame. It's not been good for our country.
  Ronald Reagan said that Congress continues to run us up. And we ran 
us up so close last time that for the first time in history, the United 
States of America was downgraded by one of our

[[Page H2557]]

rating agencies. I would hope the gentleman who serves on the Ways and 
Means Committee and I and others could work together so this doesn't 
happen again, that we make sure that the American people and that all 
of our creditors and people around the world know that the United 
States of America can and will handle its finances in a responsible 
fashion.
  If the gentleman wants to say anything further, I'll yield back to 
him; if not, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________