[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8727-8728]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      THE EFFECTS OF THE SEQUESTER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with the 15th week of the 
Republican policy of sequester, this House continues to avoid taking 
the steps it ought to be taking to replace the entire sequester with a 
balanced alternative.
  Instead, House Republicans have fully embraced the sequester's 
draconian cuts, which slash funding from our highest and lowest 
priorities equally and put our economic recovery and national security 
at risk.
  Last week, they approved a rule deeming the Ryan budget's caps for 
next year, which locks in the sequester cuts. This is a blatant 
violation of the Budget Control Act agreement reached between the two 
parties in August of 2011.
  Now we're about to consider a defense authorization bill that shifts 
$54 billion in sequester cuts from the Pentagon onto domestic programs 
which were already cut by sequester, like Head Start, Meals on Wheels, 
and rental assistance for low-income families. How shameful.
  This follows the passage of two appropriations bills last week as 
part of a strategy from Republicans we've seen before. It came as no 
surprise that they chose to consider two of the most popular bills 
first, those that fund programs that protect our homeland security and 
provide care for our veterans. I'm glad there's bipartisan consensus 
that these bills represent important funding priorities.
  But let me quote from an Associated Press article from June 4 which 
sheds some light on their strategy:

       The boost for veterans came even as Republicans controlling 
     the Chamber marched ahead with a plan that would require most 
     other domestic programs to absorb even deeper cuts next year 
     than those in place now after the imposition of across-the-
     board spending cuts.

  This refers, of course, to the sequester. The article continues:

       Republicans are coping with the shortfall by slashing 
     across a broad swath of domestic programs, forcing cuts in 
     the range of 20 percent, for instance, to a huge domestic 
     spending bill that funds aid to local school districts, 
     health research, and enforcement of labor laws.

  The article goes on to say, ``The GOP strategy is to, early on, 
advance popular bipartisan bills''--for which almost all of us voted--
``and then bring up bills making deep cuts later in the summer, if at 
all.''
  In fact, I predict that they will not bring up most of the bills, 
notwithstanding their discussions about regular order.
  By insisting on budget numbers that not only include the sequester 
but cut even further into domestic priorities, in clear violation of 
the Budget Control Act and the agreement that we reached between the 
two parties, Republicans are torpedoing any chances of reaching a big 
and balanced solution to deficits.
  The longer we wait, Mr. Speaker, to forge a compromise that can 
replace the entire sequester with a balanced alternative, the more pain 
will be felt across our economy and the greater the risk will be to our 
national security. Just ask the joint chiefs, not us.
  Let me review just some of the sequester's many effects: 70,000 kids 
kicked off Head Start; 10,000 teachers' jobs at risk from title I cuts; 
furloughs to cause delays in processing retirement and disability 
claims; 4 million fewer meals for seniors; 125,000 less HUD rental 
assistance vouchers; emergency unemployment past 26 weeks cut 11 
percent for 2 million Americans out of work; 2,100 fewer food safety 
inspections; longer waits to approve new drugs; furloughs equivalent to 
1,000 fewer Federal agents, FBI, Border, et cetera, on the job.
  We talk about border security while, at the same time, slashing 
border guards.
  One-third of combat air units are grounded in America.
  It has now been over 70 days since the House passed its budget and 
since the Senate did the same. Regular order. Yet, Speaker Boehner, who 
claims to wish regular order for this House, will not appoint 
conferees. Or shall I say, he is unable to do so as a result of a 
severely divided caucus.
  The Washington Post reported on June 3 that the House Republicans 
have ``disintegrated into squabbling factions no longer able to agree 
on, much less execute, some of the most basic government functions.''
  It seems what matters is only a commitment to deep austerity and a 
weakened government. This ideology has achieved a dangerous 
manifestation in the sequester, which has been the Republican policy 
all along, and which, as I have pointed out in the past, was included 
in their Cut, Cap and Balance bill passed in July of 2011, when 229 
Members of their caucus voted for sequester as an option.
  Now we have further evidence the sequester is their policy, as 
Republicans double down on these irrational cuts and refuse to 
negotiate.
  There is, however, Mr. Speaker, an alternative. That is a balanced 
bill that will replace the sequester entirely. The ranking member of 
the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, has put forward a proposal that 
deserves a vote.
  The Speaker so often says, ``Let the House work its will.'' In fact, 
he has asked for a vote on it six times, Van Hollen has, and will ask 
for a seventh time at the Rules Committee today, but Speaker Boehner 
and Republican Leader Cantor have so far said, no, the House cannot 
work its will; the House cannot consider this option.
  The American people deserve to see where their representatives stand 
on a balanced alternative to the sequester, and they deserve a Congress 
where real compromise proves stronger than partisan maneuvering.
  If the Van Hollen alternative were to come to the floor for a vote, I 
would hope that a majority of Members would vote for it. A majority of 
Democrats certainly would and I believe a substantial number of 
Republicans who are concerned about our fiscal future.

[[Page 8728]]

  Hal Rogers, in fact, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
has opined how much pain the sequester would be causing and how much 
dysfunction it would be causing. It's exactly the kind of compromise 
approach we need, the Van Hollen alternative.
  All we're asking to do, in the immediate term, is for Speaker Boehner 
to let the House work its will and have a vote on Mr. Van Hollen's 
alternative, and to follow regular order and agree to go to conference. 
That's what they said they wanted to do. That's what they said they 
would do, but they're not doing it.
  It's time for Democrats and Republicans to work together, in a 
bipartisan way, to rise to our budget challenges and set our country 
back on a sound fiscal path.
  Let us have regular order. Let us have a vote, and let us restore 
sanity to this House, and replace the sequester with a balanced 
solution.

                          ____________________