Hoyer Remarks on House Republicans' Convoluted Rule Strategy for the FY 2016 Budget

WASHINGTON, DC - House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) spoke on the House Floor this afternoon in opposition to House Republicans' rule strategy to consider their budget for Fiscal Year 2016. Below is a transcript of his remarks and a link to the video.

Click here to watch the video.

“In parliamentary parlance what we have before us is termed a ‘structured rule.’ However, I would venture to say this is an unstructured rule. It is a rule put forward by a Majority with no clear structure to its strategy of how to govern this country.

“This rule will allow them to bring two versions of their budget to the Floor, as their deficit hawks and defense hawks continue to fight over what budget they should pursue. It is demonstrable of the deep divisions that we have seen displayed on a regular basis in the Majority party.

“We have now seen one example after another of this Republican Majority's being unable to assemble the votes from within its own ranks to pass important measures on its own. We saw it with funding to keep the Department of Homeland Security open. We also saw it last Congress when Republicans were forced to withdraw an appropriation bill for Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, when they didn't have the votes to support their sequestration strategy.

“Hal Rogers, the Republican Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said at that time that bill's removal meant that – and I quote: ‘With this action, the House has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted just three months ago. Thus, I believe,’ Chairman Rogers went on, ‘that the House has made its choice: sequestration and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts must be brought to an end.’ That was the Republican Chairman of the Appropriations Committee speaking, not Steny Hoyer, not a Democrat, but a Republican leader.

“So Mr. Speaker, today is not the first time that we're seeing the Majority plagued by dysfunction as it budgets in a partisan way. But today it has gone a step further with a rule that essentially acknowledges there is no consensus among Republicans as to how they ought to proceed. That's why Republicans are putting forward this convoluted amendment strategy.

“However, I tell my friends on the other side, the votes exist to pass a budget in this House, but only if it’s one that replaces both the defense and non-defense components of the sequester with a commonsense and fiscally responsible alternative. And I predict today, this [Republican] budget will not be followed – as previous budgets passed by the Republican Majority have never been followed and were not followed by them. Democrats would partner – I tell my Republican friends – to pass a budget that invests in the future and does not stifle the growth of jobs and opportunity.

“I urge my colleagues: we can do better. Reject this rule. Let’s go back to the drawing board. Let’s get it right.”

*  *  *

In response to Rep. Woodall:
“I thank my friend for yielding. The fact of the matter is: the reason I oppose this rule is because I think my Republican friends, whose budget will pass – that I wish you would go back to the drawing board, and I will tell my friend I will participate with you. Nobody believes, I think, that sequester is going to ultimately rule the day in our appropriation bills, because it is, as your Chairman said, ‘ill-conceived’ and ‘unrealistic.’ I would think it better policy for us to decide that now and then implement appropriation bills consistent with something that is reasonable and not ill-conceived, and I yield back the balance of my time.”