[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2832-H2833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            BUDGET PROPOSAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise out of a deep concern for our country 
and its ability to sustain investments in growing our economy and 
making opportunities available for our people.
  Our country suffered the longest government shutdown in its history 
just a few months ago. For 35 days, 800,000 Federal employees and their 
families were forced to go without paychecks. Our economy was burdened 
by uncertainty and a lack of confidence in our leaders.
  That shutdown was the direct result of the Trump administration's 
confrontational approach to governing and its irresponsible decision to 
insist on a position that Congress had already rejected.
  I would have hoped that they learned from that experience, but it 
appears that that is not the case. Now President Trump and Mick 
Mulvaney--a former colleague of ours who voted not only to shut down 
the government, but against the wishes of the Republican Speaker, voted 
against opening government up--have sent to Congress a budget proposal 
that ramps up confrontation and sets up an even more difficult impasse.
  Their budget proposal rejects 6 years of governing consensus 
enshrined in three 2-year budget agreements to raise the caps put in 
place by the Budget Control Act in a bipartisan way and according to 
the principles of parity, fairness, and equality.
  Adhering to that path and working together to raise the caps 
responsibly and at the same rate for defense and nondefense investments 
would be, in my view, the best way to ensure that appropriations for 
next year proceed on a bipartisan basis so that we can do the job of 
funding the government and avert another unnecessary, dangerous, and 
harmful shutdown in October.
  The administration's proposal of using the overseas contingency 
operations account to avoid negotiating with Congress on responsibly 
dealing with the BCA caps and hiding increases in defense funding is a 
massive gimmick.
  Who said that? The Republican majority said that a number of years 
ago.
  It is more than just an accounting sleight of hand, with real 
implications for our national security planning and long-term strategy.
  The OCO account, again, overseas contingency operations account, was 
created to fund imminent defense priorities outside of the normal 
Pentagon budget planning cycle.
  Now Mr. Mulvaney wants to use OCO at the rate of some $175 billion-
plus as if Afghanistan, in which we have been involved for some 17 
years, is a contingency. It is not a contingency. It is an operating 
expense.
  If OCO were used in the way the administration intends, it could 
cripple multiyear planning by our military by calling into question 
every penny shifted into that account in future years.
  It is also disingenuous for them to demand that Congress pour money 
into defense through what Mr. Mulvaney himself has called a ``backdoor 
slush fund.'' That is what he called OCO in 2015 when he was a Member 
of Congress.
  And now that same Mr. Mulvaney, the Acting Chief of Staff and, 
frankly, I believe, also, the Acting OMB Director, proposes to use what 
he called a backdoor slush fund without acknowledging the need to 
compromise elsewhere on the ledger.

                              {time}  1015

  This is fiscal irresponsibility at its worst, because it is a veneer 
of concern

[[Page H2833]]

for fiscal discipline used to hide the ugly truth of fiscal 
recklessness and brinksmanship. The Trump-Mulvaney budget is, to put it 
bluntly, a fraud.
  It is the Congress' job to move ahead with good faith efforts to 
agree on raising the caps. We have a procedure called sequester that, 
if we do not amend the caps, will go into effect 15 days after we 
adjourn this session and cut to levels that no Member of Congress, in 
my view, believes is reasonable, rational, or responsible. It would 
automatically occur if we do not pass a caps bill.
  That is indicative that there is bipartisan agreement, which has 
happened over the last 6 years in 2-year cycles, that the caps required 
by the sequester bill were irrational. I think there is a consensus. 
So, as opposed to confrontation, and to avoid a shutdown in October, we 
ought to come to an agreement. The President, of course, needs to be 
part of that agreement, because he would need to sign legislation 
amending the sequester act.
  Appropriators need guidance, also, to begin the hard work of writing 
funding bills. They need to know what the agreed spending level will 
be. We call it a 302(a). What it really means is: How much money are 
you going to spend on discretionary spending for defense and nondefense 
objectives?
  Now, I am an appropriator. I haven't served on the committee for some 
years, because I am in the leadership, but I am on leave. I understand 
as well as anyone how important it is to have agreed-upon top-line 
numbers in order for the committee to do its work effectively on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I will tell my Republican colleagues, as I have told my Democratic 
colleagues, it is my intention, as majority of the House of 
Representatives, to provide for the passage of the appropriations bills 
through the House of Representatives by the end of June.
  The Budget Act requires us to do it by June 30. We have never done 
it. We haven't done it on our side; the Republicans haven't done it on 
their side. What inevitably happens is we don't get our work done, and 
we had a shutdown last year and this year of historic proportions and 
of historic cost and of historic undermining of confidence in the 
United States of America here and around the world.
  We need to get to work; we need to get to work together; and we need 
to get this job done. Let's strive to achieve that which I know is 
achievable.
  I have talked to Ms. Granger. I have talked to the ranking member of 
the Budget Committee here in the House,   Steve Womack, a good friend 
of mine. I have talked to Senator Enzi, the chairman in the Senate. And 
I have talked to Senator McConnell. I haven't heard from anybody who 
doesn't think we need to get caps established so that we can do our 
work for the American people and reestablish confidence in the rational 
operations of the Congress. It won't be easy, but it is necessary.
  Let us not delude ourselves into believing, just a few weeks removed 
from the longest government shutdown in our history, that the 
administration's shortsighted approach will lead to anything but 
another shutdown at the end of the fiscal year. Divided government need 
not be confrontational government.
  I tell people on a regular basis that the Congress is less than the 
sum of its parts. What do I mean by that? I mean the individual Members 
have integrity and a willingness to work together, but, as a body, we 
have found ourselves unable or unwilling to do just that. We are less 
than the sum of our parts, less than the sum of our Members' intellect 
and willingness to act responsibly.
  We can disagree on details, but we must try to reach agreement on the 
caps in order to assist appropriators, promote fiscal responsibility, 
reduce uncertainty, and protect the ability of our military to plan its 
budget over the long term with confidence.
  If OCO is relied upon, in terms of billions of dollars, they cannot 
do that. It is undermining our national security, as well as 
undermining the ability to meet our domestic needs.
  The Trump-Mulvaney budget proposal was, sadly, a missed opportunity 
and more of a fiscally irresponsible charade.
  I say to my friends on both sides of the aisle: Let us strive to not 
miss our own opportunity to meet in good faith and produce a budget 
caps agreement that promotes fiscal sanity, upholds the principle of 
parity, and allows us to invest in a better future for our country. 
Certainly, we ought to expect no less of ourselves, and, certainly, 
that is what our constituents expect of us.
  Then, let us proceed to achieve a realistic, fiscally responsible 
path toward a real, sustainable budget agreement worthy of our duty to 
our country and constituents and to future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to come together, to reason 
together, and to establish a plan to proceed, not just for this year, 
but for a decade to come, that is fiscally responsible, meets the 
challenges that we have, and seizes the opportunities that are in front 
of us.

                          ____________________