Providing for Consideration of Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I need that hour to correct so much misinformation. But I've got to say something to my friend from Texas, who has now left the floor, or is about to leave the floor, and just remind him: during the last 18 months of the Bush administration, we lost 4,491,000 jobs. Over the last 42 consecutive months, in the private sector, we have gained 7,452,000 jobs. That, my friend, is an 11.5 million turnaround to the benefit of workers. Have we done enough? We have not.

Now, let me speak to this perverse rule. Let me first say to my friend, Mr. Cole, who like so many of his Republican colleagues continues to say the President signed this cloture bill. He did. Why did he sign it? Because our Republican friends threatened, as they are doing today, to put the United States of America into default for the first time in history if he did not. That was the threat. It's the threat again today.

Mr. Cole, my friend, would not really support that policy, I am convinced. He does not have to have a colloquy with me, but he would not support that.

The sequester, however, he did support in the cut, cap, and balance bill that was totally voted on by Republicans, a few less than my hand of Democrats, who said that they wanted the sequester as the fallback position. They got it. They got it because that's the only deal they would make.

The President doesn't want sequester, I don't want sequester, and the chairman of his committee doesn't want sequester. Let me assert, without undermining his credibility, I don't think Tom Cole wants sequester. By the way, I have a quote here which indicates that Eric Cantor, the majority leader, doesn't think sequester is so hot either.

Here is what Hal Rogers said, however--and I would like to debate this for some period of time, but I don't have the time: With this action, we pulled the transportation bill. The appropriations process is broken, irrelevant, dismissed.

By the way, when they marked up their first three bills that they passed in the House, they didn't use their sequester number. They used the number that the Senate is marking to because they knew their number doesn't work, their number that is included in the bill that would be the result of this rule.

Mr. Cole, you are my friend and I have great respect for you and I think you believe that, but here is what Hal Rogers said: With this action, pulling the transportation bill, the House has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted just 3 months ago.

Mr. Rogers--conservative, Kentucky, Republican, chairman of the Appropriations--said: I believe the House has made its choice.

Sequestration and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts must be brought to an end.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. He then went on to say: The House, Senate, and White House must come together as soon as possible on a comprehensive compromise.

This bill represents zero compromise.

Come together on a comprehensive compromise that repeals sequestration, takes the Nation off this lurching path from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis, reduces our deficits and debt, and provides a realistic--realistic--top line discretionary spending level to fund the government in a responsible and attainable way.

I've been here for some period of time. I know about compromise. My side needs to compromise. There is no compromise yet on the other side of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen--none, zero. And I say lamentably, and I say this with great sadness, in my view, there are only about 60 on your side of the aisle who want this hard-line approach, this unrealistic approach, this approach that the Senator from North Carolina who served in this House and on the Appropriations Committee said was unreasonable.

Now, let me tell you what the chief executive of The Heritage Foundation said: We are pushing back on these gimmicks.

Who are the gimmicks? Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor, saying we'll pass it, we'll get a vote on health care. If they reject it, we will still fund government.

Your side wants to defund government. It may not want to shut the door on government. It wants to defund it badly and undermine our national security, our economy, and the operations of the government. Every member of the Appropriations Committee knows that to be the case. No member of the Appropriations Committee, in my view, Republican or Democrat, believes that the sequestration levels that are in this bill that this rule provides for are viable. They will not work. They will hurt Americans.

But what does Michael Needham say about these gimmicks and about pursuing this? He says: I think it's exciting. It's a game.

It's a game that will hurt America.

Reject this rule, reject this bill, let's have real compromise.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I might say not only have I read Bob Woodward's book; I invited Bob Woodward into my office and we discussed this assertion that you and others like to refer to ad nauseam, very frankly. Does the gentleman agree that before that was ever suggested by Jack Lew to Harry Reid as a possible way to getting us not to default on our debt that you and the overwhelming majority, all but eight of your colleagues, voted for your cut, cap, and balance bill which had within it in July of 2011 a sequester so that this was a proposal that you put in legislative action?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source