[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.
____________________