The Office of Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer

Hoyer: The Cuts In The Farm Bill Are Not Worthy Of The Morals Of This Nation

aott — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:52:23 +0000

For Immediate Release:

June 18, 2013

“I thank the Gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his work and I thank Mr. Lucas for his work. We struggle in this Congress to try to bring bipartisan legislation to the Floor. It's a shame. I've normally voted for the farm bill, for reasons I'll express here.

Tue, 2013-06-18

Transcript:

“First of all, the farm bill is an important piece of legislation. It sets federal policy in a range of areas that deeply affect the lives of farmers, their communities, and consumers. But it also makes a huge difference in the lives of those who rely on food assistance to avoid hunger, especially children. It's a shame that we could not consider the farm bill on its merits without undermining its credibility with what we clearly believe are not reforms and not the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse.

“It's so simple to say that. I've heard that, for all the time I’ve been here in Congress, ‘let's cut out fraud, waste, and abuse.’ Everybody wants to cut out fraud, waste, abuse. But cutting out assistance for hungry people is neither fraud, nor waste, nor abuse. Well, it may be abuse.

“The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP as it's called, protects over 46 million Americans who are at risk of going without sufficient food. Nearly half of those are children. Are there some reforms that are needed? Perhaps. And the Senate has made those reforms in a moderate, considered way. The average monthly benefit per participant last year, according to the USDA, was $133.41. I challenge any member of this House to live on $133.41 for food – $4.45 a day. Four dollars and 45 cents per day.

“At a time when millions remain out of work, struggling to support themselves and their family as they seek jobs, it would be irresponsible to make the kinds of cuts that are proposed in this bill. No one in the richest country on the face of the Earth should go hungry – in this country. Yet, that's exactly what this bill would do: slashing $20.5 billion from the supplemental nutrition program and putting 2 million Americans – 2 million of our fellow Americans – at risk.

“Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked. Give shelter to the homeless. That's not a political policy; that's a moral policy. Our faiths teach us that. While we have cut millions in funding in this bill, this Congress has done nothing to advance legislation that will help create jobs or opportunities to help expand our middle class. While it's important that Congress provide certainty to the agricultural community, which I support, this unbalanced bill takes the wrong approach on these cuts to SNAP.

“I'm disappointed. This ought to be a bipartisan bill. Mr. Peterson wants it to be a bipartisan bill, and many of our people, as a matter of fact, the majority of our people, supported it in committee. I think the Chairman wants it to be a bipartisan bill. I understand he has to deal within the framework of his caucus, like every Chairman has to do, on either side of the aisle. I understand that. But it is a shame, in a bill that ought to be bringing us together, for people who provide this country with food and fiber – and indeed provide a lot of the world with food and fiber – that we have put this almost-poison pill – I don't know whether it's going to be a poison pill, but almost-poison pill – in it. I regret that.

“It's not worthy of our country. It's not worthy of the morals of this nation. But I thank the Chairman, and I thank the Ranking Member, for their efforts to try to bring us together. Whether they've done so or not, we'll have to see.”

Hoyer Floor Remarks in Support of Closing Guantanamo, Other Amendments to Defense Bill

aott — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:05:49 +0000

For Immediate Release:

June 13, 2013

Thu, 2013-06-13

Transcript:

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the Gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this rule, as it fails to make in order several important amendments, including ones from Representatives Speier and Gabbard that would have continued a critical debate on the urgent problem of sexual assault in the military. The previous speaker has pointed out how important an issue this is. If it's such an important issue, it really deserves broader debate in this House, fully. Unfortunately the Rules Committee sought fit not to allow those amendments in order.

“But I want to thank the Rules Committee for making in order the amendment by the Ranking Member, Mr. Smith, to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I have been to Guantanamo. I don't know how many of my colleagues have been there, but I have been to Guantanamo. And Guantanamo is a significant drain on the Department of Defense's resources. There are other reasons to close Guantanamo, which I will speak of, but the numbers speak for themselves.

“It costs us $1.6 million per detainee. That's versus $34,000 for federal prisoners. $1.6 million per detainee. $247 million authorized in this bill to replace temporary facilities at Guantanamo. Overall, $264 million a year to keep this facility operational for 166 people. For every dollar spent on a detainee, we spend one less dollar on our troops in the field. At a time of great fiscal uncertainty, it is astounding that this facility stays open.

“Guantanamo costs us not only in economic might but in moral might, as well. We are a nation of laws, and it is our continued adherence to the Founders’ vision of a lawful society that allows us to lead the world in confronting threats to peace and stability. I urge all of my colleagues to think about the damage Guantanamo's continued operation causes to our national security: as our moral might slips, as terrorists continue to use Guantanamo as a recruitment tool, and as our allies grow leery of cooperating with us - for fear that a transferred detainee could end up at Guantanamo.

“I also urge all of us to remember that hundreds of terrorists – hundreds – have faced justice in civilian courts and are currently serving time in prison in the United States. Among them are Faisal Shazhad, the Times Square bomber; Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; and Zacharias Moussaoui, who conspired to kill nearly 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11 – all of them in our prisons here. We don't have to worry about these individuals, because our system works. Not a single terrorist, not one or anyone else, has ever escaped from one of our maximum security prisons. Not one.

“Since 9/11, 494 terrorists have been convicted in our civilian court system. In stark contrast, there have been only seven terrorists convicted by the military commissions at Guantanamo. Five of these, by the way, were pleas.

“To quote General Colin Powell from 2010 – quote: ‘We have 300 terrorists' - it's now [more] - 'who have been put in jail not by a military commission but by a regular court system… We ought to remove this incentive that exists in the presence of Guantanamo to encourage people and give radicals an opportunity to say, “you see, this is what America is all about.”’ That's Colin Powell.

“We should be proud of our nation's long history of bringing to justice those who commit crimes that threaten the peace and freedom of innocent people around the world. Guantanamo is a stain on that record. It should be closed. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

“Additionally, let me say there are a few other amendments that I hope members will support. One is an amendment from my friend, Jim McGovern. His amendment says that, as a sense of Congress, that this body should have the right – indeed, the duty – to engage in a debate about the continued path forward in Afghanistan. I urge my colleagues to support that amendment.”

Hoyer: As We Mark Six-Month Anniversary Of Newtown Tragedy, Congress Has A Responsibility To Act

aott — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:13:09 +0000

For Immediate Release:

June 13, 2013

“I rise to join the Leader. I rise to join Congresswoman Esty and Congressman Thompson in recognizing this sad anniversary.

Thu, 2013-06-13

Transcript:

“I rise to join the Leader. I rise to join Congresswoman Esty and Congressman Thompson in recognizing this sad anniversary.

“Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that we mark the six-month anniversary, tomorrow, of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. On that day, as has been repeated and must be remembered, Americans were united in shock and grief at the senseless murder by a crazed gunman of twenty-six innocent people – twenty innocent first graders and six courageous school staff members who tried to protect them and helped save the lives of others.

“Since that day, approximately 4,500 – the Leader mentioned 5,000, but a figure in excess of 4,500 – Americans have died as a result of gun violence, according to the Newtown Action Alliance. Mr. Speaker, this is not just a tragedy; it is a epidemic – one that Congress has a moral responsibility to address. When nine out of ten Americans support stricter background checks to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness, there is no reason why Congress shouldn't be able to take swift and decisive action to enact tougher protections.

“I was deeply disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate failed to move forward with legislation to protect Americans from gun violence by enacting effective background checks that safeguard the constitutional rights of responsible owners and safeguard Americans. The American people are demanding action, and the House now has a chance to succeed where the Senate failed.

“Demonstrating that commonsense proposals to reduce gun violence can indeed command bipartisan support, Democratic Representative Mike Thompson of California, who chairs the House Democratic Task Force on Gun Violence, and my friend, Republican Representative Peter King of New York, have joined together to introduce legislation in this chamber similar to that which was blocked in the Senate. There is not a single provision in their bill that should be worrisome to those concerned about our long-standing tradition of protecting Second Amendment rights. Not a single provision. And it will help us keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous and mentally unstable individuals likely to do harm to others or themselves.

“Will it keep all of us safe all the time? It will not. We know that. That is the tragic fact of life. But will it help? It will. And if we can help, should we? And the answer is an emphatic yes.

“This proposal contains commonsense proposals that I strongly support and that most Americans have supported as well. Congress has the opportunity to get this right by considering the Thompson-King legislation in the House and sending it to the Senate for consideration.

“I congratulate Congresswoman Esty in particular, as well as Congressman Thompson, for their leadership and efforts in this regard. After the backlash many senators received for opposing expanded background checks, I suspect that a number may be ready to reconsider.

“Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to come together as Representatives Thompson and King have done to advance this bipartisan solution to this pressing challenge facing our nation, not just the Congress, but every American. It should not take – it must not take – another tragedy such as Newtown for us to act. We have a responsibility to keep our neighborhoods and our schools safe, and I urge Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor to allow this bill to come to the Floor for a vote.

“The Speaker often says that he wants to allow the House to work its will. That's why the people of Newtown sent Congresswoman Esty to Congress. That's why the people of my district and every district represented in this House, people sent them here to vote on policies. Policies to make their country better. Policies to make their country more safe. The memories of those children, the memories of those teachers, the memories of those twenty-six – yes, the memories of those 4,500 plus, who since the Newtown tragedy have lost their lives to gun violence – their memory, Mr. Speaker, demands and deserves action by their Representatives.”

Hoyer: Sequester Continues as Republicans Refuse to Take Action

aott — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:59:36 +0000

For Immediate Release:

June 12, 2013

Wed, 2013-06-12

Transcript:

“Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with the fifteenth 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, rental assistance for low-income families. How shameful.

“This follows the passage of two appropriation 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, and I quote: ‘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, and I quote: ‘Republicans are coping with the shortfall by slashing across a broad swath of domestic programs, forcing cuts in the range of 20%, 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% 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, etc. – 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's now been over seventy 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's unable to do so as a result of a severely divided caucus.

“The Washington Post reported on June 3 that the House Republicans had, and I quote: ‘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. There 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's 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. The majority of Democrats certainly would, and I believe a substantial number of Republicans who are concerned about our fiscal future. 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.”

Hoyer: Reject This Rule And Reject The Sequester

aott — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:57:36 +0000

For Immediate Release:

June 4, 2013

“Mr. Speaker, what's before us is before us. What's before us is a rule. Not the Mil-Con bill, not Homeland Security.

Tue, 2013-06-04

Transcript:

“Mr. Speaker, what's before us is before us. What's before us is a rule. Not the Mil-Con bill, not Homeland Security. What's before us is the bill. And what does the bill do? It doesn't have an open process. It doesn't allow us an amendment.

“Mr. Van Hollen wanted to have an amendment and say 'let's go to conference on the budget. Let's decide what these numbers ought to be'. No – it's ‘our way or the highway.’ You've passed a budget, you're going to stick with those numbers; they won't work. You know they won't work. That's why you don't go to conference. Because Mr. Ryan knows he couldn't make a deal that he could bring back to this House and your side would vote for, I tell my friend on the Rules Committee.

“So what's before us is before us: a ratification of sequester, which starts with ‘S,’ which stands for stupid. It is a terrible process. It is an irrational, commonsense-defying process. And yet my Republican friends continue to demand that we mark to figures that were contrary to the understanding, agreement – deal, if you want – that we made. In August of 2011 we made a deal, and we said: ‘these are going to be the numbers.’ And the ink was not dry on the paper until such time as you violated that agreement. And the Ryan budget violates it once again. It is $91 billion, almost 9%, less than the deal we made.

“What's before us is before us, the Gentleman [Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL)] says. What's before us is the rule to ratify this sequester. Now, your side blames the President for it. The President doesn't want the sequester. We don't want the sequester. Mr. Van Hollen, who is sitting here, doesn't want the sequester, and he's trying to offer amendments to obviate the sequester and hasn't been allowed to have those amendments on the Floor, I tell my friend, on the Rules Committee. And I congratulate him for his position, but he ought to allow the Van Hollen amendment so the House can, in fact, work its will. So that we can, in fact, have a process that will work.

“Now, my friend says he's been here for some time, and he's participated in another legislative body. Well, I’ve been here for a long time myself, as the Gentleman knows: some thirty-three years – and twelve years in the Maryland Senate, President for the last 3 years I was there. So I’ve been around for some years myself.

“The fact is, I will tell the Gentleman, there is no possibility you're going it consider all twelve bills. Because, as the Gentlelady [Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY)] said, you're going to run out of money. Why? Because you're front-loading that which you like, and that which you're not too happy about is going to be not only breaking the agreement we made, but far below your own budget numbers. Because you didn't want to mark to your $966 [billion] with this bill. Why? Because you want to make sure the veterans were taken care of. God bless you – I agree with that. But there is only x number of dollars in that pot, and somebody's going to lose.

“What the President is saying is: let's consider them all together. That's what we ought to be doing. Reject this rule. Reject the sequester. Reject this deeming resolution, and let us have a rule that makes common sense for our country.”

Hoyer: Let's Have A Vote On A Balanced Alternative To The Sequester

aott — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:18:44 +0000

For Immediate Release:

May 22, 2013

Wed, 2013-05-22

Transcript:

“Mr. Speaker, as the sequester's effects continue to place our economy and national security at risk, the news that 650,000 civilian defense workers will be forced to take unpaid leave ought to alarm all Americans who are concerned about our military readiness and national security. These furloughs will affect thousands who live in my district and thousands who live in the districts of every member here.

“After Congress voted earlier this month to end furloughs for air traffic controllers that had caused flight delays, one would have expected there would be an unanimous outcry for the rest of the sequester to be replaced. The best way to do that, of course, Mr. Speaker, is with a big and balanced agreement. But, instead, Republicans in this House don't seem interested.

“It's not just Democrats who are taken aback by their silence. Republican Senator and former presidential nominee of the Republican Party, John McCain, said on May 14, just a few days ago, about these furloughs for civilian defense employees – and I quote: ‘Nobody seems to care. It's amazing. It's one of the most amazing things I have seen in the years I’ve been in the Senate.’ So said John McCain.

“Democrats continue to call for the sequester to be replaced with a balanced approach to deficits that restores fiscal discipline, preserves our ability to pay for our military readiness, and invests in a strong economy. The sequester on its own is not a solution. It has been, however, Republican policy all along that's now in effect, because they refuse to compromise in a bipartisan way to find a real solution.

“If you go back to July of 2011 and look at the Republican offer of the ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ bill, you will see that sequestration is in there. It is the alternative that Republicans put forth as policy – 229 Republicans voted for that policy. Well, they got what they wanted.

“On April 27, a report in The Hill said – and I quote: ‘GOP leaders in the House said they have “no plans” to bring up fraud legislation to replace sequestration, according to a leadership aide.’ The men and women who are hard at work supporting our troops and protecting our nation are said to be furloughed for 11 days this year. An unfair, unplanned, undeserved pay cut while, frankly, the leadership of this House sits idly by and takes no action to replace the sequester.

“The same thing goes for the other terrible effects sequestration could have: 70,000 eligible children kicked off Head Start; 10,000 teachers' jobs at risk; retirement disability claims delayed; 4 million fewer Meals on Wheels for seniors; 125,000 less rental assistance vouchers; 2,100 fewer food safety inspectors. Surely if those were on the Floor for a vote – most of us wouldn't vote for them, but that's what's happening as a result of the sequester.

“We know, Mr. Speaker, what the Republican plan is for these defense cuts. To pass appropriation bills in the House that shift those cuts so that domestic programs – those education, Head Start, food safety, that I’ve just mentioned, basic biomedical research – are cut more deeply than the parties agreed to in the Budget Control Act in 2011. We also understand, Mr. Speaker – and everyone recognizes – that the domestic cuts Republicans want to impose instead couldn't even pass the House, let alone make it through the Senate or survive a certain veto.

“So, again, Mr. Speaker, we have only one reasonable option before us, and that is to work together to set our differences aside for the good of our country and to achieve real compromise. A big, balanced, bipartisan approach that replaces the entire sequester is the only way to protect our defense workers against these furloughs and end the uncertainty that they and their families are facing.

“Let's have a vote, Mr. Speaker, on a balanced alternative. Not another vote to repeal health care reform that's not going anyplace. Not another vote to roll back the rights of workers. Not another vote to strip away safety standards or environmental protections. Let's stop wasting time and get to work on the most pressing challenge we face and make the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal stability and invest in our economy and in our national security.”

Hoyer: Republicans Are Wasting Time With 37th Vote To Repeal Affordable Care Act

aott — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:01:41 +0000

For Immediate Release:

May 16, 2013

"Mr. Speaker, apparently the Republicans are opposed to Obamacare. I know that comes as a shock to America, so we need to tell them one more time, or 37 times, or maybe a 38th or 39th or 40th or 100th time.

Thu, 2013-05-16

Transcript:

"There was an election in which this was one of the principal issues. And the proponent of health care for all Americans was elected by most Americans. Mr. Speaker, this vote, as we all know, is a waste of our time. It is, however, a political exercise.

"This will be the 37th vote to repeal health care reform since the Republicans took control of the House. It's exactly the same as the bill that we considered in July. That partisan bill was dead on arrival in the Senate, just as this one will be and everybody knows it.

"In fact, 'The New York Times' reported that since 2011, Republicans have spent no less than 15 percent of their time on the House Floor -- that's since 2011 - 15 percent of their time on this House Floor trying to repeal health care for all Americans.

"When President Obama was re-elected after campaigning on the Affordable Care Act as a major first-term achievement, with the unanimous opposition of our Republican colleagues, and after the Supreme Court said, yes, this is a constitutional exercise of the Congress' authority, Speaker Boehner said, quote, 'Obamacare is the law of the land.' I'd hoped that would be the end of wasted time and $52.4 million in taxpayer money on legislation to nowhere that would strip away benefits for millions and millions of Americans.

"Sadly, however, this vote is more of the same. It would increase out-of-pocket costs on preventive services for 105 million Americans, including 34 million seniors on Medicare and 71 million Americans covered under private plans. It would allow insurance companies to reimpose arbitrary lifetime limits on coverage for more than 100 million people. It would allow insurance companies once again to discriminate against and deny care to as many as 17 million children with pre-existing conditions.

"Now, Cantorcare tried to reverse that and had to be pulled from this Floor because even that, even a Republican-sponsored attempt at dealing with pre-existing conditions was rejected by our Republican colleagues.

"Mr. Speaker, the clock will not be turned back. Obamacare is the law of the land. Not my words - Speaker Boehner's. You say this vote is necessary so that freshmen members have a chance to get on record on a major issue. If they haven't gotten on record now, they are not going to get on record.

"If that is the standard for getting a vote on the Floor, then let us get a vote for replacing the sequester, which you have denied freshmen the chance to vote on all year. That is what we ought to be spending our time on: getting our country on a sound fiscal path, creating jobs and growing our economy. No, we tread water. We waste time. We continue to debate for the 37th time to repeal of health care for all Americans. I yield back the balance of my time."

Hoyer: Congress Ought To Focus On The Sequester Until We Find A Solution

aott — Wed, 15 May 2013 14:38:56 +0000

For Immediate Release:

May 15, 2013

“Mr. Speaker, this week the House will be voting for the 37th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Wed, 2013-05-15

Transcript:

“Mr. Speaker, this week the House will be voting for the 37th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This vote comes at a time when we are facing serious and pressing challenges, one of the most important of which is the operations of the sequester.

“Thirty-seven votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Let us set aside for a moment the important issue of how health reform is working and making quality care accessible and affordable for more Americans. I'll be speaking more about that from this Floor in coming days, as I know some of my colleagues will. What I find – and I believe most Americans find – incomprehensible is how this House could waste its time on such a blatantly partisan vote when the effects of sequestration are having a growing negative effect on our economy and on the lives of so many American families. That ought to be our focus this week and every week until we find a solution, Mr. Speaker.

“Speaker Boehner said this 37th repeal vote is justified because freshman Members have not had an opportunity to vote on that issue. If that is his view, then, by the same reasoning he should allow a vote on a balanced alternative to the sequester. Freshmen have not had a chance to cast their votes on whether to replace the entire sequester with a big and balanced solution to deficits. If the House proceeds with a vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that members deserve an opportunity to be on the record on such an important issue, surely, surely, Mr. Speaker, we also ought to have a vote on replacing the sequester, which we know is having adverse effects on our economy and on our national security.

“American families and businesses are facing greater and greater uncertainty as a results of the sequester and the unwillingness on the part of Congress to take meaningful, bipartisan action to stop it. With this uncertainty, businesses have showed slowed hiring and, in some cases, have even begun to lay off workers. This indiscriminant and irrational nature of the sequestration means that its ill effects will be felt across our economy and society without regard to our priorities. It also means that none of us – not one of us in this chamber – are immune in our own districts where constituents will see a reduction in services and dislocation.

“Because of the sequester, we are at risk of 70,000 young people kicked off Head Start. Ten thousand teachers' jobs at risk for Title I cuts. Four million fewer Meals On Wheels for seniors. Six hundred thousand women, infants, and children dropped off the rolls. Emergency unemployment insurance cut by 11% for 2 million out-of-work Americans. Twenty one hundred fewer food safety inspections. That's a drop of 18% to make sure that our food is safe. And one third of air combat units are grounded.

“The responsible path forward is for Democrats and Republicans to work together on a big and balanced approach to deficits that restores certainty to our businesses and families.

“Four times – four times – Mr. Van Hollen, the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, has offered an amendment to the sequester which would get to the same deficit reduction but in a way that was prioritizing those things that are important in our country and eliminating those that are not and raising some additional revenues as well. Four times – not only has that not been considered, but the Republicans have refused to allow that amendment on the Floor. Yet, we have the 37th time to repeal the health care bill. A 37th vote to repeal health care reform, which is already benefiting millions of Americans. It's not a responsible use of Congressional time.

“I urge the Speaker and the Republican Leader to cancel this repeal vote and get back into business by allowing us to consider a balanced alternative to the sequester this week. I also urge them to bring to the Floor a motion to go to conference on the budget.

“My Republican friends pleaded, pleaded, pleaded for the Senate to pass a budget. The Senate passed a budget. We passed a budget. Regular order is going to conference, where we could, in fact, come to an agreement on a big and balanced deal to replace this negatively impacting sequester. Nothing on the schedule to do that – either to repeal the sequester and change it or to go to conference. But a 37th vote that will go nowhere – and everybody knows that to be the case – is on the Floor this week. How sad.”

Hoyer Discusses the Sequester and Republican Partisanship on MSNBC

aott — Tue, 14 May 2013 22:37:51 +0000

For Immediate Release:

May 14, 2013

“The sequestration is an irrational, stupid policy that's having an adverse effect on our economy and on our national security.

Tue, 2013-05-14

Transcript:

“The sequestration is an irrational, stupid policy that's having an adverse effect on our economy and on our national security. I think the layoffs, the furloughs that you referred to, are not only bad for the individuals involved, but much more broadly than that, [are] bad from the standpoint of our national security. [Democrats] tried on a number of occasions, on four specific occasions, to offer amendments which would get to the same savings, the same debt reduction, over the next year, but do so in a way that would not require a sequester, would not require irrational cuts to high priority and low priority in the same percentage. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives would not allow us to offer those amendments, would not allow them to be considered by the representatives of the American people. As a result, we're confronted with, as I said, this irrational process which is bad for our economy and bad for our national security.”

“We've had nothing about job creation over the last five months that we've been in Congress. And nothing about how we're going to go from the sequester, which everybody, including every Republican leader, believes is an irrational process. But unfortunately, a large number of [the Republican] caucus want to slash government funding no matter what the impact of slashing that funding is."

“Frankly, it's time to put politics behind us, partisanship behind us, confrontation behind us, and come together as a Congress, Republicans and Democrats, and reach compromises that will move us forward. Nobody will think they're perfect, but that's our responsibility.”

Hoyer Discusses The Budget, Debt Ceiling And Immigration Reform On Bloomberg

aott — Sun, 12 May 2013 19:46:19 +0000

For Immediate Release:

May 12, 2013

“Pretending that you are going to take hostage the credit worthiness of the United States of America to get your deal done is irresponsible, not realistic, and we are not going to deal on the debt.

Sun, 2013-05-12

Transcript:

“Pretending that you are going to take hostage the credit worthiness of the United States of America to get your deal done is irresponsible, not realistic, and we are not going to deal on the debt. That does not mean we won't get to some agreement on issues that we differ on... We want to do that. But we're not going to be held hostage and forced to do so on a deal that we don't like because of the debt limit. The Republicans took this country to the brink of default and as a result, for the first time in history we were downgraded by one of the rating agencies.... We weren't downgraded because the United States doesn't have the resources to pay it's bills. We were downgraded because they weren't sure we had the political will to pay our bills. The Republican strategy of pretending they are going to take hostage the debt limit to get their priorities done is a bad one and harmful to our country and we're not going to buy it.”

“[Democrats] want an immigration bill. We want a comprehensive immigration bill that has a pathway to citizenship... I think the Senate is going to pass a bill. I think there is bipartisan support for that bill. And when it comes here [to the House] I am hopeful that we will put it on the Floor and I think it can pass.”