If that's the status quo, then I suggest to the gentleman he is not going to get to $100 billion, which he represented and his side represents they want to get to. We will see whether or not they are prepared to do that. But I will tell my friend, if that's the position, then I think we will not be able to reach agreement because there appears to be no ability to compromise in that context. The gentleman counted the $41 billion during the course of the campaign. The gentleman counted that $41 billion when he made a representation to his caucus as to why you were offering a $32 billion cut because, together, given the fact that it was halfway through the year, that that would, in fact, be tantamount to. But again, in each one of those instances, the gentleman counted the $41 billion. He is now saying, oh, no, that is the status quo. Does the gentleman know of any budget that President Bush signed in '01, '02, '03, '04, '05, and '06 that maintained either the status quo or cut below the so-called status quo, when your side was in charge of both the House and the Senate and the Presidency?
Editor's note · Context
Hoyer discusses budget cuts and the inability to reach an agreement on proposed spending.
Share
More from Steny Hoyer
Let us be clear: America does not abandon our allies. America does not shrink from the fight. Democracy will not yield one inch to tyranny.
Every day, I hear from constituents who are struggling to afford basic necessities under an administration that prioritizes the President’s billionaire friends over hardworking families.
We’re glad to see the Court acknowledge this fact, ruling that the Trump Administration’s actions are unlawful and void.
Instead of tackling the growing affordability crisis plaguing our nation, President Trump has created an elaborate distraction campaign by instigating foreign conflicts and obsessing over birthright citizenship.





