to the gentleman from south carolina with first introduced the legislation calling for the pay-go rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. miller: i rise in strong support of this legislation to help restore fiscal responsibility. i salute president obama and the majority leader hoyer for their leadership on this important issue. listening to this debate might leave the american people confused about republican values. republicans regularly declare their fidelity to controlling federal spending and claim also that they want to fix our broken health care system. . and they oppose our historic health care reform bill. my question is simple. when they controlled the house, senate and white house, all of our government for eight long years, why didn't they control federal spending? why didn't you reform the health care system? but what you did when you got

power for the first time was you made your highest priority a tax cut to the richest people in this country without paying for it. the rest of us have been paying for it forever. and in 2001, you did it and in 2002 you did it, turning the budget surpluses into massive deficits. why is it they added a record number of earmarks to the appropriations bill, running the deficit bill even further? why in that eight years they never ever made health care reform a priority? not ever. not ever in those eight years. meanwhile, americans' health care bills keep rising, insurance companies deny care and the number of uninsured continue to grow. eight years of all-republican government, spending the taxpayers' money as a drunken sailor and with full apoll guys to the sailor. raising deficits to historic levels and inaction in health care of any kiped of reform, but

they made rhetoric a priority and made politics as usual a priority. now that they're out of power, they speak about controlling deficits and reforming health care, p but they state they hope our president fails. the hope for our nation is that our president fails. i have been a supporter for pay-go budgeting when i first introduced the bill, when liberals and conservatives worked together with president clinton to adopt the pay-go rules, they had deficits left over from the 1980's and 1990's and we recorded surpluses and ran them a number of years in the row. president bush and the republican-controlled congress aerased it and repealed the law and now what we see is the interest on that debt is crowding out the national priorities. in 2007, democrats made pay-go part of our rules again and legislation today strengthens

that by making it part of the law so the senate and the house will have to abide by it. our bill says congress should not cut taxes or increase entitlement without first deciding how you can afford and pay for these new costs. pay-go requires difficult decisions about national priorities and about how to afford them. we can't pay for tax cuts or entitlement we can't afford them. pay-go will strengthen the economy by helping to reduce interest payments on our debt and modernize energy policy and college affordability. our health care bill will not increase the deficit one dime. it's paid for. our new college affordability is not only paid for, but returns $10 billion in reductions. the democrats are working hard to ensure going forward we can exercise fiscal discipline that hard-working americans need and expect from this congress.

i urge my colleagues to vote yes on pay-go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield 30 seconds to comment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. ryan: on the last speaker's point. he is saying that the last majority did spend too much money. a number of us criticized us and a number of us came to the floor with budget enforcement legislation, a minority of the majority voted against it and all but a few in the then minority voted against it. but more to the point, spending did grow by too much in the prior eight years, but look at it now, mr. speaker. if you thought spending was fast then, holy cow. with that, mr. speaker, i would like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to a member of the budget committee, mr. mchenry. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mchenry: i thank the ranking

member for yielding. i rise in opposition to the democrats' so-called pay-go scheme. it sounds good, but the reality is far different than the sound of it. it does nothing to control out-of-control spending. the proposal does nothing to hold accountable discretionary spending, which is 40% of the budget. as american families face difficult decisions about every dollar they spend, the majority of this congress believes that 40% of their budget should be exempt from fiscal discipline, because congress must show the for titude to resolve these spending issues and control reckless spending i support the republican alternative. it sets discretionary spending caps for the next decade. the caps would not impact defense, veterans or social security and to adequately fulfill our obligations, discretionary spending would be allowed to grow at the rate of inflation, unlike the majority

of this congress, our proposal would have reduced budget deficits in the years to come. it's noteworthy this pay-go scheme has been the rule of the house for the last three years. well, what's happened in the last three years? federal spending went from $2.7 trillion to $3.6 trillion, a 25% increase, mr. speaker. why? well, simple. the democrat majority chooses to waive the rule when it's invenalt and spend like drunken sailors. it's unforpt. in order to have fiscal discipline and reign in reckless spending and the debt it fuels, we need to focus on these issues and have spending caps. it is counterproductive for this congress to spend so much because it will hurt our economy, yet the folks in charge of this congress are spending, spending, spending. and i think that's going to have a negative impact on our economy .

the nation's finances is on an unsustainable path. the pay-go scheme does nothing and misses a great opportunity for us to reign in spending. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from texas, mr. edwards, who has been a prime mover behind this bill and -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. edwards: we have a moral obligation to not drown our children in a sea of national debt. that is why i am strongly supporting this pay-as-you-go legislation. history will show one of the worst mistakes made by the republican-led congress in the past decade was not to extend the federal pay-go pay-go rules. the facts speak for themselves, we went to a deficit of $4.5 trillion, an astounding $10 trillion fiscal u-turn.

it's time to correct that mistake and to see that it never happens again. the pay-as-you-go principle is one that families and businesses understand. it's common sense, and they get it. unform, some of the members of congress who were the arc texts of the largest deficits of american history, the deficits they rail against on a daily basis, don't get it. speech after speech they sing the song of fiscal responsibility, but today they will vote against the commonsense pay-as-you-go law. i'm proud to make this a permanent law and not a temporary one. the pay-go principle makes sense for this congress and all future congresses. had it been made permanent in the 1990's, our national debt today would be trillions less and our children's future far brighter. we cannot correct irresponsible fiscal decisions over the past

decade, we will begin the important process of reducing deficits and balancing the federal budget. that, more than any speech, is what our children and our country deserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i will say -- yielding myself for 10 seconds. i will say the majority passed a budget resolution under the pay-go regime that triples our debt in 10 1/2 years. i yield to the gentlelady from wyoming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lummis: our deficit will sore to $1.8 trillion. the budget will triple our debt in 10 years and still be pay-go comply ant. that is how disinagain youous this bill is. they didn't even allow it to go through the budget committee for

fear, perhaps that the distinguished chairman of the budget committee might come up with something more reasonable. instead, it is the ranking member that had to come up with something more reasonable. families in wyoming and across the nation don't have the luxury of exempting 40% of their budget from balancing, but this pay-go bill does. 40% of the budget is off the table. it doesn't have to play the pay-go game. this is slight of hand. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill, which falls short of its goals. let's slow entitlement growth and control congress's appetite for spending. let's pass the paul ryan amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: i recognize mr. van

hollen. mr. van hollen: i rise in strong support of this legislation. on the day he was sworn in as president, president obama inherited huge deficits and exploding debt in this country. the previous administration wanted to put everything on our national credit card and ask future generations to pay for it. it's time to put an end to this and this bill is the beginning of the end of irresponsible spending. it's the end of sweeping our problems under the rug and saying we are going to put them off for another day and we have seen the impact this kind of budget mechanism can have. we saw it in the 1990's, during which we had a pay-go rule in place and saw our deficits and debts go from record deficits to record surpluses. and when we abandoned that, when we abandoned that fiscal discipline rule in 2002, we saw our federal debt explode. as we dig ourselves out of this economic ditch we find ourselves in, it's important to put our economy on a long-term,

sustainable basis, and this legislation is part of doing that. it will require that policies that result in revenue reduction or increased mandatory spending be offset over the next five and 10 years. that will require us to take a hard look at our national priorities and require us to look at the tradeoffs we have to make, just like every family in america has to make those hard decisions. we say let's apply that rule to the united states congress. unfortunately, as we saw from the last administration, there was a lot of talk, but no action. mr. speaker, what this does is say this isn't just going to be a house rule, this is going to be a matter of the law of the land. and while it can never be a total substitute for our ability to mufter the political will to get things done, history has been a clear guide that this helps us get the job done. i commend leader hoyer, mr. spratt and the others for bringing this important legislation to the floor. let's say to our children and grandchildren, we're going to

take some responsibility. the buck stops here. let's stop passing on our problems to the next generation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i would like to three minutes to the the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, when i returned to this house chamber in 2005, it was obvious to me that we were spending too much money on the federal level. it was obvious to me that uncle sam needed a diet at that time. but at this time, it is even worse. we need what i would call a gastrobypass. and instead, what do you bring to the floor? you bring us cosmetic surgery and fiscal face lift. it looks good, but there's nothing behind the mask. look at the figures. since my friend from south carolina has been chairman and

his colleagues on the democratic side have been allowed to be called chairwoman, chairmen, since they have been charge, what has happened to the spending? it's got even worse. you complained and you put the patient on a diet of milk shakes. we are in real trouble today and everybody knows it. what dw we do last week? we decided the fiscal situation was so bad, we needed to have a new program for wild horses at a cost of $700 million, $700 million. millions of more acres closed up for that purpose, but $700 million dropped on the laps of the american taxpayer and this week you are trying to sell us a story that somehow you're concerned about overspending. the american people are a little bit sharper than that.

they understand that when you complain about overspending and yet in the first opportunity you have to have your president in the white house, to control both houses, we pass the magic trillion dollar mark. yes, we had and in the very same week for the first time in our dictionary earmarks listed, is a word that is now conventional language. in that same week, we set the record, $1 trillion deficit in a single fiscal year haven't --:after a while, you can keep looking back and keep pointing in the mirror and saying look at what those guys did, but you have to man up. you have to actually say you're responsible for the actions taking place right now and those actions have given us the largest deficit in the history of the world. we are going to double all of the debt that we have garnered

from george washington to george w. bush in five years and we're going to triple it in 10 years. i know that's not the intent of the the gentleman from south carolina for whom i have great respect. it is a heavy burden to try and carry this democratic proposal and the administration's proposal. and i understand he probably would not -- he would rather not be in this position, but he finds himself in this position, mr. speaker. and all i can say to my good friend on the other side of the aisle is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: i'm so sorry you have to do this. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: i'm glad to bring this to the floor. i think it's going to work again. it's not a panacea, but it's a useful device to have in our arsenal of weapons to deal with the recession. by the way, the recession we're in, which has caused us to

suffer a huge swelling in the deficit, starting in december of 2007en the bush watch. wall street fell apart in september of 2008. the tarp program was initiated in response to that. that, too, happened in the bush watch. we're in the backwash of many fiscal and economic policies which happened on that watch and we're suffering the consequence of them. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. spripe the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. welch: sometimes the american people don't pay attention to an awful lot of what we say here. frequently when they don't, they're right. if this debate is really about accusations and counteraccusations about who is responsible, we're not going to get anywhere. the american people know we have to pay our bills. we have to as a government just like they do individually. we have honest debates about what should be our priorities. i've been an admirer of the

gentleman from wisconsin in his persistence in talk about fiscal responsibility. i disagree with the gentleman from wisconsin that the weight of fiscal prosperity is by radical reduction of taxes for very wealthy people. that's a fair and honest debate. on our side, there's some folks who think the worthiness of the goal of health care for all americans is its own justification and a way to pay for it. i disagree with that. if it is a worthy goal, we have to turn aspiration into affordable reality by paying for it. and on the health care bill, which is a major priority for president obama and for members of congress, we are going to bring to the floor a health care bill that is paid for and does not pay for the budget. or does not add to the budget deficit. one of the major reasons that we should do this legislation is so that there is discipline on those of us who are advocating either for tax cuts, because they believe that will

be good for the economy, or for reform in health care so that before we spend an extra dollar of our taxpayer money, we kick the tires of the system that we're affecting, like health care, and we have come to the conclusion on our side that to achieve one of our greatest goals, health care for every single american, that we've got to kick the tires of the health care system and kick them hard to squeeze out savings we can. this legislation where we're accepting the burden of responsibility to pay for those programs we think are essential to the welfare of the american people, we have the obligation of paying for it and before we even look at taxes, we want to look at how we're wasting money. a dollar saved by cutting down waste is a dollar avoided in taxes. so this legislation, whatever its characterized as a machine for spending, which frankly is absurd is a machine for

responsibility. whether or not our colleagues want to characterize this politically or not there is a reason on our side that we believe fiscal responsibility is a burden we should accept and we will with this legislation. i thank the budget committee for its leadership on this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wimbing. mr. ryan: may i inquire as to how much time remains in the two sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 16 minutes remain, the gentleman from south carolina has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. ryan: the gentleman said 16? e speaker pro tempore: 16 for the gentleman from wisconsin and 13 1/2 for the gentleman from south carolina. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield two minutes to mr. garrett of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: i come to the floor today thrilled that the majority has finally decided to focus on their own recklessness, their out of control spending. by bringing a statutory pay-go

bill to the floor, we can conclude if they were left to their own devices, the democrats would run this country's finances into the ground. i think it's an admission of guilt on their part that they cannot help themselves. i find it disingenuous that the majority is are now raising the ban over fiscal responsibility after hearing on this floor that the republicans were reckless when we were voting against the $800 billion stimulus bill. it's hard to listen to their calls now for spending, 4 1/2 months after the democrats passed a $410 billion omnibus appropriation bill that contained over 9,000 earmarks system of lest we forget, earlier this year, the democrats ram through the a budget through this congress to double the national debt in five years, triple it in 10 years. this is spending that is already on the books and pay-go will do nothing to stop it. furthermore, their proposal is

seriously flawed. first of all, it only applies to increases or reductions in tax rates or any new and expanded entitlement programs. it does nothing to address the tidal wave of entitlement spending we all know is coming in the near future. it also does nothing to address the waste, fraud, and abuse of the taxpayer dollars we have seen through the discretionary appropriation process. basically, enacting their pay-go at this point is a little bit like closing the barn door after the horses have all gotten out. still in conclusion, i want to come to the floor and say, i applaud the democrats for their new found interest in fend regular straint. if we truly want to do this and work in a bipartisan consensus on this issue, i think we'll achieve what we all seek. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i thank leader hoyer and chairman spratt for their leadership on budget enforcement. the issue is simple. congress must pay for what it spends. pay as you go budget enforcement rules in the 1990's helped balance the budget and project a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus, all while tough decisions were being made by the congress and the clinton administration in a decade of increasing defense, health care, and infrastructure cost. our new majority renewed pay-go a great step toward fiscal responsibility but not enough by itself. we need statutory authority to guarantee pay-go is enforced. while the minority is quick to blame the administration and our majority for the current state of the federal budget, it is important to remember we didn't get here overnight or by biaccident. when pay-go is allowed to expire by the republicans in 2002 is also did budget discipline. the administration and

republican congress made conscious decisions to enact the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy while fighting two wars and expanding entitlements without paying for them except by expanding the deficits. this turned the surplus into the $1.3 trillion annual deficit president obama inherited on the day he took office. over the -- over the last several months we have been forced to invest to arrest an economic collapse but we must quickly return to sound fiscal discipline with pay-go as a firm pillar of our economy. this is confirmed by our president and leadership to pay for the health care reform, highway bill and other priorities working their way through the congress. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.

mr. ryan: i misspoke earlier when i had said a few democrats voted for the budget control act. i was wrong. no democrats voted for the budget control act when we had it here on the floor. not a single democrat voted in 2004 when we had the opportunity to pass real budget reform. unfortunately, some members of my party voted no as well, that's why it didn't pass. mr. speaker, this is a fiscal facade. nothing can change the fact that what this bill does is it basically is a situation where we commit all the fiscal crimes then outlaw them after they've been committed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: i yield myself an additional 10 seconds. we sweep under the rug a new stimulus, new cap and tax system, then a brand new health care bill. this is a bitter pill to swallow for the american taxpayer. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. whitfield: i thank the gentleman if for yielding and the great work he does on the budget committee. almost every economist today will tell you they're very much concerned about the future viability of america, primarily because of the ever-increasing debt we face in this country. i am pleased today that we are simply here discussing pay-go though because it is such an important concept. i would also point out that the reason that i'm not supporting the democrats' pay-go recommendation is primarily because it exempts 40% of the budget, all of the discretionary spending from pay-go rules and requirements. it's also important for us to realize that in the 110th congress, the pay-go rule was waived 12 times, exempting $420 billion from nonoffset deficit

increases. i look forward to the gentleman from wisconsin's substitute bill that will be debated later today but i would like to point out i introduced this afternoon a resolution that would change the house rules and require a point of order on any waiving of a pay-go rule by the rules committee so that if a bill comes to the floor and it has waived pay-go, any member could make a point of order and they would require a vote on the house floor before that waiver could take effect. in coon collusion, i would simply like to -- in conclusion, i would simply like to say, i can't think of a more important subject to be debating today than pay-go because the major challenge america faces today is our long-term debt and ever-increasing debt we face. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina.

mr. spratt: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. boyd. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. boyd: ladies and gentlemen, i rise today in favor of the legislation before the house. the pay-go bill is a piece of legislation of which i've been an advocate for years. it brings me great satisfaction to see this bill with such broad support here in the house of representatives. i'm always intrigued, mr. speaker, by the language used here and the words and the rhetoric and i heard the word used earlier by the gentlelady from wyoming that some were disingenuous. mr. speaker, i don't believe that my friend mr. ryan is disingenuous. i think he's a great american and i think he believes that he opposes this legislation because it would create an automatic pay-for for tax cuts and he just thinks that is wrong. and i don't understand how we can consider paying for the

great military we have, the medicare programs, all of the issues that made this country a great place. i assume that they believe we can go overseas and borrow that money from the chinese like we have for the last six or eight years, but mr. speaker, sooner or later we'll be buried under that mountain of debt and when our creditors figure out we can't pay it back, the house of cards will crumble. my blue dog colleagues and i for years have introduced pay-go legislation requiring the government to pay for new programs it creates. throughout the bush administration it was difficult to get an audience. thankfully, the first bill the obama administration sent to congress was the pay-go bill. further, the speaker of the house, speaker pelosi and majority leader hoyer have taken up the cause whole heartedly. i want to thank the budget chairman john spratt for his leadership who worked with me in the creation of the fiscal

2010 budget that conditioned the enactment of major policy this is year on action of pay-go in the house. these leaders are responding to the deficit situation we find ourselves in after years of reckless spending policies, after the original bipartisan pay-go was allowed to expire in 2002. as you may have heard today, pay-go was a tool used in the 1990's to help bring this country to record surpluses, mr. speaker. given our current budgetary outlook with the debt growing faster than our economy we know we must act. the president and our democratic colleagues understand we cannot continue business as usual the last eight years in washington on a number of levels, including our budget. the enactment of this legislation is necessary to ensure our national security, our quality of life and slow the drain on our economy. the world is watching to see if we are serious about turning this country's fiscal sinking ship around. .

the narcoticment of pay-go in the 1990's was a bipartisan act. pay-go should not be a partisan issue. fiscal responsibility should not be a partisan issue. we have an interest in making sure that our fiscal policies are sound. mr. spratt: i give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boyd: we can't live on credit forever. this bill is the first step we need to restore fiscal sanity to washington. every one here wants to lead the prosperous country with a better standard of living. i urge my republican colleagues many who stood up and supported pay-go in the past, to support this responsible legislation today. i furthermore challenge the senate to share equally in our goal to balance our budget and ensure new programs are paid for. i urge a yes vote. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california plrks campbell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. campbell: i thank the gentleman from wisconsin for yielding. pay-go is a sham. now that's a very strong word, but the facts to support it are equally strong. in the last congress, since democrats took control and pay-go was enacted, $420 billion of new spending was exempted from its provision. over the last few weeks, this house has passed nine new spending bills. every one of those new spending bills increased spending over last year by as much as 22% a not a single dollar of those spending increases was paid for. every one will add to the deficit, add to the debt and about 46 cents of every one of those dollars will be borrowed prime mearl from the chinese, indians and other foreigners. the deficit has gone from $160

billion to nearly $2 trillion since pay-go started. how does that make this a good thing? how is that an example of how this has worked to control spending and be fiscally responsible? and spending increases don't have to be paid for, but tax cuts do. and there is nothing in here to deal with our massive debt. mr. speaker, pay-go is nothing more than a public relations effort to make the most provely gait congress ever appear to be less profligate. the american people are not buying it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: i yield two minutes to mr. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moore: when i came to congress in 1996, our national debt was at $5.6 trillion and our country faced a different

situation than what we have today. fiscal restraint and budget enforcement tools helped turnaround a dire situation and produced surpluses during the last two years of the clinton administration. the pay-go requirements that have brought about responsible budgeting were allowed to expire in 2002. our national debt increased and almost doubled in the past six years. the national debt now stands at $11.4 trillion. today with h.r. 2920 we have a chance to help restore fiscal discipline in washington and put our country on a sustainable fiscal path. our country live as most american families. i have nine grandchildren and it is wrong, immoral to mortgage their future and the future of other children and grandchildren and our country. we should vote and pass h.r. 2920 for future generations and

our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. ryan: let me recap what's happening here, mr. speaker. this bill has good intentions. the gentleman bringing the bill to the floor has the best of intentions. he's a good man. this bill, however, mr. speaker, is a fiscal facade. it doesn't work. it's not like the bill that occurred back in the 1990's. this bill has no spending caps, for example. this bill exempts 40% of all the spending we have in place today. how can you say that this makes the federal government work just like the family budget when you exempt 40% of the budget? families don't get to do that. if a family is already living beyond its meansf a family is spending on credit card money, if a family is spending more

than it takes in, that is an unsustainable budget. this does nothing to change that. the federal government is already living beyond its means. the federal government is already on an unsustainable fiscal course. the federal government already has a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. it is passing an 11% increase in all domestic agencies' spending. the federal government already has a $62 trillion debt unfunded liability. what does this pay-go do about it? nothing. not a single thing about all of those fiscal problems. this is not a bill to get congress to live within its means. this is a bill to give congress he men and women to put out a press release out to make it look like they are fiscally responsible in the most irresponsible congress of all time.

next week, congress will create a new entitlement, unfunded entitlement that the congressional budget office tells us will grow a lot faster than any spending cuts or revenue increases. we will create a new entitlement next week for health care on top of the other ones we already have, which are about $58 trillion in debt. we're going to do this bill after we've already spent 11% increase on domestic spending programs, after we borrowed $1.1 trillion for stimulus and passed a bloated omnibus appropriations bill. this is p.r. politics. this is press release. this is not fiscal conservativism, fiscal responsibility. and what is so unfortunate about this, mr. speaker, is i would like to think we could have had a bipartisan agreement to fix this. if we actually brought the blue

dog bill to the floor which included spending caps like we are proposing, we could have something we could have supported. the leadership has bypassed the committee and rammed this thing to the floor so they can get the press releases out before they create a brand new entitlement next week. it's sad, cynical and wrong and the american people aren't buying it, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, mrs. schwarz. mr. schwarz: i rise in support of the statutory pay-go act that we are going to pass today. pay-as-you-go or pay-go rules, as we talk about them are fairly straightforward. congress should pay for any new spending. there is strong bipartisan history for support for pay-go. as a result of statutory pay-go, this country saw record deficits

transformed into record surpluses. sadly when those statutory pay-go provisions expired in 2002, the former administration with support from the republican-controlled congress ignored the common sense of paying for new spending and turned our surpluses into mounting national debt, doubling the debt in eight years. but democrats are serious about fiscal responsibility. in 2007, the democratically-controlled house set pay-go rules making a commitment again, any new spending would be budget neutral. and this year we reafffirmed our commitment to these rules and determined to meet the president's goal of cutting the annual deficit in half in four years. and now, with the support of the current administration, we are reinforcing our commitment to fiscal responsibility by giving pay-go the force of law. as vice president of the house budget committee, i know how important it is to make wise targeted investments for our

future and energy independence, health care and economic growth, but we must do so in a deficit neutral way. we must ensure that any new spending is paid for and that is what we have done when we passed the energy bill and we will do on health care reform and will be doing as we move forward on appropriations bills. the statutory pay-go is smart budgetary policy. it is common sense, and most importantly, it will guarantee our nation's fiscal security. i urge support for fiscal responsibility for the future of our country and for our debt reduction by voting yes on statutory pay-go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: may i quire the gentleman of how many speakers he has. we just have one left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina? mr. spratt: we have one more speaker, mr. andrews, and then we'll close.

mr. ryan: well close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: the proposition before the house today is rather direct and here's what it is. if the house is going to vote for automatic spending for a proposition that spends the taxpayers' money every year without a separate vote, then it must offset that spending either by raising more revenue or cutting other automatic spending. if the house is going to reduce taxes on people, if the house is going to say we're going to ask less of the american people on a given tax, then we must raise some other source of revenue or reduce some other automatic spending in order to pay for

that. i don't know why this is controversial in the sense that it seems logical if we're locking ourselves into higher spending or locking ourselves into lower revenue, whatever the purpose of that may be, that we should only borrow the money to do that under extraordinary circumstances. the education committee yesterday gave a good example of how this ought to work. a lot of members of the house want higher pell grant scholarships and less expensive student loans, and so we passed a bill yesterday that does that, but we paid for the bill by reducing spending that i believe is corporate welfare to the banking system. so here's what we did. we reduce that corporate welfare, increase pell grant scholarships, lower the cost of student loans and did some other things in education and had $10 billion left over to reduce the deficit. that's what pay-as-you-go

yields. rather than reducing taxes, it forces us to do what the sensible and rational thing to do and that is pay as you go. this is not a democratic or republican idea but a commonsense idea and all members should vote yes. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield to the the gentleman from texas, vice ranking member of the committee, the rest of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 6 3/4 minutes. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, it is a sad, sad day yet again on the house floor. i do want to add my voice, though, in agreement with some of my other colleagues talking about the bipartisan respect that we have for the chairman of the budget committee. and i suppose it was because he has bipartisan respect as opposed to partisan respect that

the speaker of the house decided to bypass him in the budget committee in bringing this legislation to the floor. perhaps it was an opportunity to actually enact commonsense legislation. unfortunately, we'll never know that. we'll never know that, mr. speaker. and so what i've heard is speaker after speaker on the democratic side of the aisle tell us that pay-go just means, quote, when you spend a dollar, you save a dollar. i believe i heard the distinguished chairman say that. and the president of the united states in adding his support for this proposition said quote, congress can only spend a dollar if it safes a dollar elsewhere. mr. speaker, the use of the term pay-go suggests one thing. the practice of pay-go is something completely different. mr. speaker, you can see from this chart exactly what pay-go

means in practice. these are the spending increases that were subject to so-called pay-go in the 2009 fiscal year. 2%. 2%, mr. speaker of all spending was subject to pay-go, this commonsense proposal. i'm not sure it's common sense to the american people to tell them that you are going to be fiscally responsible and then exempt 98% of all spending. i don't believe that's coon sense, mr. speaker. i don't believe it's common sense at all. and once again, what it tells us is, we don't have a serious policy for fiscal responsibility or fiscal sanity. we have fiscal interim flam. we have a bumper sticker slogan that substitutes for a policy that needs to save our children and grandchildren from a sea of

red ink. all of this spending is either exempt or somehow pay-go gets magically waived. under this proposal, mr. speaker, nondefense discretionary spending is going to increase 9%. pay-go is not subject to it. overall discretionary spending increases 8%. pay-go doesn't apply to it. all of our entitlement programs that are just exploding, exploding, mr. speaker. guess what? they are exempt as well. social security grows 5%, medicare grows 4.3%. so the slogan, the slogan doesn't match the policy. . i have the greatest amount of respect for the distinguished chairman and for our president. but mr. speaker, if you were a private company selling a product called pay-go and you told the american people that it means, quote, when you spend

a dollar, you safe a -- save a dollar, you'd get sued for false advertising. you'd be fined for saying that. it is not a real policy. let's say it was a real policy. we know it's not, but what if it was. what if those who brought this legislation really designed legislation that did what it said it was going to do. unfortunately, under this democratic congress, we know that spending is out of control by any standard known in the history of mankind. already, since the democrats have come to control the white house and congress, we've seen an administration sign into law a $1.1 trillion government stimulus plan, costing every american household $9,810, including $10 million for urban canals and $100 million for a new after school lunch program,

snack program. we've seen them pass a $410 billion omnibus bill, costing every american family $3,434, including $150,000 for lobster research, $143,000 to develop and expand a comprehensive online encyclopedia. we see them continue the cycle of bailouts. $13 billion for chrysler, $14 billion for g.m., $30 billion for a.i.g. and the list goes on. what we have seen, mr. speaker, is now a budget that is going to increase, increase, the federal debt by a factor of three. it's going to triple -- triple -- the federal debt in 10 years. more federal debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220. we see all of this spending that is out of control, so we

say, ok, if you want to control this spending, or if you want to have pay as you go and you're unwilling to control the spending, mr. speaker that just leaves us with one other option. that is a 60% increase of income taxes on the american people. so either one, which is it? is it false advertising or do you really want to increase income taxes on the american people by 60%? which is it? again, what's happened since we've had this vaunted pay-go? what's happened to deficits? i don't know how they managed to do it, mr. speaker, but in just two years under democratic control, we've seen the deficit go from $161 billion to over $1 trillion. first time in our nation's history over $1 trillion, on its way to $1.8 trillion. that's already with having pay-go in place. before we get the statutory version. i can't imagine how much worse it's going to be once this gets

enshrined. so again, you know, what this is, is an effort to put a bumper sticker on a huge problem. it's the democrats going to the american people and saying, please stop us before we spend again. we just somehow, we just somehow can't control ourselves. so this is supposed to be a band-aid on a fiscal, life-threatening wound. the american people deserve better, mr. speaker. they deserve the republican alternative that puts real caps on spending and will save the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. spratt: 3 1/2 minutes? the speaker pro tempore: thanks. mr. spratt: let me respond to some arguments made. first of all, the sequestration base, the programs which are subject to across-the-board cuts or abatement in the event there is a deficit on the scorecard.

why is that in our selection of programs? because it's a cross-section of programs, purposely intended to reach a number of different constituent groups so we will not use sequestration, neither the president or the congress would want to use a meat cleaver like that. we instead, knowing it could happen, we default in doing anything else, young people, old people, farmers, miners, a huge cross-section of our constituents are represented in the sequestration base to make it clear we would never resort to that particular base for making the across-the-board cuts to put pay-go back in balance. secondly, there's been repeated talk about, you passed pay-go in the last congress and look what happened. the truth of the matter is, our republican colleagues have never wanted to vote for pay-go

because it was double edged the way we proposed it. it would apply to mandatory spending increases and tax cuts because both have an adverse impact on the deficit, bottom line. they would never vote for the second edge of the double edged southward and consequently have to come up with another explanation as to why they do not support it. so they fall back on the economy itself and say the economy, look what happened to the economy after the adoption of the pay-go rule in the 110th congress. but come on, this is a case where we have a coincidence maybe, but not a correlation. the pay-go rule had nothing to do with what happened to the economy. the bush administration's economic and fiscal policies had to a lot to do with -- had a lot to do with what happened to the economy. the fact that the bush administration inherited a surplus and turned it into a

projected deficit of $3 trillion had an impact on the economy. the addition of $5 trillion to $6 trillion to the national debt had an impact on the economy and don't forget the recession officially started in the bush administration, december of 2007. that's when it started. when it really got bad, when wall street nearly went under in september and october of 2008, that, too, was the bush administration. we voted up the tarp and that's one reason the troubled asset relief program, $700 billion program, when we voted that up, the bush administration was still in office. 10 there's the answer to the -- so there's the answer to the charge that somehow or another the pay-go rule didn't do anything to affect the calamitous economic situation we find ourselves in. the reason we're seeing the largest deficits in our history since the great depression is

we're in the longest recession since the great deprefplgs it's having a profound impact on us. the incubation of those situations came about in the bush administration. we had a good budget and the convergence of a good economy when the pay-go rules were used before. we put the budget back in balance by the year 1998. the facts speak for themselves. the budget process rules worked before. they'll work again if we vote for the statutory pay-go. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. ryan: i have an amendment in the nature of a substitute. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute, printed in house report 111-121, offered by the gentleman from

wisconsin, mr. ryan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan and a member opposed each will control 30 minutes. mr. ryan: as we mentioned, we're offering better ideas. we think it's incumbent on us in the big issues of the day if we don't think the majority is going in the right directions, it's not enough for us to criticize and say we're against what we're doing we owe it to our employer the american people, our constituents, offer an alternative. that's what we're doing right here today. i want to first say, thank you to the majority leader and the chairman for making it such that we can offer this alternative. normally in the minority, one would expect to offer a substitute. unfortunately, that's not the norm these days. i appreciate the fact that the majority leader an chairman were true to their word and made it so the minority cowl offer a substitute so we, too, can say we think we have a better way forward.

let me explain what our bill does. three basic components to our substitute bill. caps on spending. so what we think ought to happen here is let's fix the problem. let's focus on the problem. what is the problem, mr. speaker? spending. deficits, and debt are out of control. first off, we propose caps an discretionary spending. yes, caps on discretionary spending. when this was combined with pay-go in the 1990's, it worked. it helped pave the way for surpluses. it's an idea that's enjoyed bipartisan support until now. so if you take a look at who really controls deficits, the deficits urn our substitute or the deficits under the majority's plan, our deficits are far lower, still higher than i would like, but our deficits take this deficit down to no more than 3% of gross domestic product, which is what

all economist says is a minimum. if your deficits are above 3%, the debt spirals out of control. unfortunately, under the democrats' plan, their pay-go bill, the deficits always stay above 3%, spiraling out of control, according to any economist if you ask them. second, we think we ought to have caps and total spending. let's keep in mind just how big the federal government is relative to our constituents in the economy's ability to pay it. so we propose a cap to keep the size of the federal government relative to where it has been in history and no larger. meaning, don't let the government grow faster than the economy. don't let the government grow faster than our constituents have an ability to pay for it. don't let the federal budget grow faster than the family budget. what we also do is we have a cap and federal spending as a percentage of g.d.p., gross domestic product. with what we are showing here is -- what we are showing here

is that, yes, spending goes down and stays in control. we keep spending historically where it has been, slightly above 20% of g.d.p. what does the democratic pay-go rule do? nothing. it allows spending to grow far in excess of where it's been before. meaning what this democratic pay-go plan does is it locks in place the growth of the federal government so that it will grow faster and higher than it ever has in the history of this republic. what does the future look like under their version of fiscal control? versus our version of fiscal control. here's what the federal government looks like. under the democratic pay-go bill, the federal government keeps growing forever and ever. look at the moment in the middle of the chart. that's when my children, 4, 6, and 7 years old, are my age. what the democratic pay fwow bill says is the government will be twice as big for them at that time. under our bill we put the

federal government on the pathway of sustainability. it's really about this. the question is, are we going to fulfill the american legacy or not? are we going to face up to the challenges confronting this generation so that we can make the next generation better off? that is, after all, the lessons we were taught as americans. we own up to the challenges confronting us so our children and grandchildren can have a better tomorrow. unfortunately, under the democratic pay-go bill, that's not the case. the democratic pay-go bill severs that tie. it breaks the american legacy. here's what i mean when i say that. for the last 40 years, the size of our government has been relatively the same in that it's been consistent. about 20% of g.d.p. has gone to the government. about 20 cents out of every dollar made in america have been spent by the federal government to run the federal government. well, by the time my kids are my age, according to the current plan that we are on, 40

cents, 40 cents of every single dollar made must go to the federal government just to keep this government going for my kids at that age. i ask the congressional budget office, what would the tax rates on my three children, whour 4, 6, and 7 years old have to be when they're my age, in their late 30's, if they are going to have to pay taxes to pay for all the government they're consigning them too here's -- consigning them to. they said, the 10% bracket must go up to 25%. the middle income tax brackets, that middle income americans pay, will have to go to 66%. they said the top income tax bracket in america, the one small businesses pay, the job creators pay would have to go to 88%. these are the tax rate this is a have to occur for the next generation if we don't fix this problem. these are the tax rate this is a will occur on the next generation if you pass the democratic pay-go bill.

if you pass the republican substitute, we are putting the kinds of rules in place, the kind of tools in place, the kind of enforcement and discipline in place to make sure that doesn't happen. to make congress face up and fix these problems. . we have three different spending caps. belts and success peppeders to make sure that congress fixes this fiscal train wreck. the question before us, mr. speaker, is will this generation, will the people right now elected by americans face up to this reality? and this is the key question, mr. speaker, the sooner we do it, the better off everybody in america is, the sooner we tackle the spending that's out of control and take ourselves off the reliance of debt purchases by india, china and everybody else, the sooner americans can be in control of their own

destiny and economy. the sooner we reform government and the entitlement programs that are presented us with the $62 trillion unfunded liability, the more likely we can prevent people who are depending on these programs, will not have disruption in their lives and the kind of changes that must happen can be phased in gradually. but every year we delay, every year we punt and pass bills like this democratic pay-go bill, the more likely people will see severe disruption in their lives and will have crushing tax increases, massive borrowing and unsustainable deficits and the more likely we won't be able to sell our bonds and our interest rates will go up, the tax rates will go up, and lose jobs and competitiveness. every year we delay, we add about $4 trillion of debt to our children and grandchildren.

so we are saying, let's fix what's broken. and what is broken is spending. what is broken is spending is out of control. both parties contributed to that. let's face up to that. both parties should come together to fix it. and that's what we are proposing to do. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who rises in opposition to this amendment? the gentleman from south carolina, you are recognized. mr. spratt: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. spratt: so everyone will understand what the gentleman is proposing that we rewrite the budget resolution that we passed in the house and senate and go back to square one and begin all over again, because we will have to change all the work we have done to get our appropriation bills passed by the end of july. we will have to take $48 billion out of those bills to comply

with the numbers that mr. ryan proposes in his alternative budget resolution today. i have to say when i told mr. ryan we weren't going to have a hearing or markup and going to bring this matter straight to the floor, i also told him out of a sense of fairness he could have a substitute and i would support a substitute. i had no idea he would offer a brand new budget resolution as a substitute. i thought maybe a cap on discretionary spending, so this came as a surprise. there is a cap on discretionary spending, but there's no pay-go provision. you've left it out completely. that's the way we read it over here. i can't find anything in there. in addition, since i thought ours was pretty dense and i read some of your draftmanship. the procedure required to produce the spending reduction shall be calculated by o.m.b. by

adding budgetary resources of the government and reducing that amount by an amount to equal or lower the level of outlays set forth in the guideline period. i'm telling you, i'm not quite sure what this says, except it does propose a new budget resolution and will become a budgetary statutory resolution if we pass it as part of this particular bill -- ryan would the chairman yield? mr. spratt: sure. mr. ryan: i will be quick and brief. three caps, the discretionary cap is set at inflation. the percent of g.d.p. cap brings us to historical growth and size of our government and brings our deficits down to no higher than 3% of g.d.p. and that's the result of what you're reading. mr. spratt: there is no pay-go rule. mr. ryan: instead of having a pay-go system in place which

puts it in favor of raising taxes, we ought to have the beist in controlling spending and that's the difference. mr. spratt: you set levels for all of those things and if they turn out to be wrong, if we had a downturn in the economy and wanted to change those numbers, you would have to have a 2/3 vote in each house to do that. mr. ryan: that's correct. mr. spratt: there would be cumbersome conditions on the house if we find ourselves in economic reversal. mr. ryan: we need to have a tough enforcement regime so a simple regular majority doesn't waive these spending caps. may i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 22 minutes remaining. the gentleman from south carolina has 27 minutes remaining. mr. ryan: i yield myself one minute. the reason we have a super majority vote in congress to

break these caps is we want to make it very difficult, you can never fully tie the hands of future congresses. we want to make sure we put this in place, a system in place with binding caps that are tough to circumvent, backed up with sequesters so congress makes the tough choices, congress prioritizes spending and we live within our means and we have a process in place that forces us to focus us on the problem. the problem is spending is out of control, deficits are out of control, borrowing is out of control. and we do not want a process which we believe your pay-go system does to simply always going to raising taxes. the american people are paying more taxes. we don't need to raise their taxes anymore. we will sacrifice our economic livelihood and make ourselves less competitive if we keep

raising taxes. spending is a problem. that's why our substitute focusing on spending. i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. campbell: i thank the gentleman from wisconsin. you know, americans know they should save for their retirement, but it's tough because you have to put money away now for later and there are things to spend it on now, a nice dinner, vacations, tv or car to buy. so what do we do? i do it. probably many people listening to us do it, your employer takes it out of your pay check so you never see it and it goes straight to your retirement so you can save it and you know it will be there when you need it. what that needs is an external discipline making us do the thing we know that is right for us to do, but as human beings we

have a hard time doing ourselves without that external discipline. mr. speaker, this bill is that external discipline, because members of congress are no different than anybody else. when we have money, we spend it. and you know, when republicans were in charge, we spent too much money. we overspent by hundreds of billions of dollars. now the democrats are in charge and overspending by trillions of dollars. but whether it's hundreds of billions or trillions, whichever majority has been in this congress, we have spent more than we have taken in. i can't remember the exact figure, but i think 43 of the last 45 years that this congress has spent more money than revenue that has come in and run a deficit regardless of who was in the white house or who was in charge. we can't do that and what this bill says is you can't increase spending faster than people's income, it's that simple.

if the federal government spends more money, increasing people's income, borrow it or increase taxes. and if we continue to do it, we continue to borrow and we continue to increase taxes until we will have no economy and no growth left. and mr. speaker, that's where we are right now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. campbell: could i ask for an additional 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. campbell: we don't want to wait 10, 15 years or whatever. we are in that position now. the american people are taxed too much and we are borrowing way, way too much. this bill, this discipline, this republican substitute will bring that to an end. and i urge us all to support it. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman

from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. schrader: i'm a proud co-sponsor of this pay-go legislation. it will bring back fiscal responsibility once again. i'm surprised that my republican colleagues aren't interested and help stop the bleeding that is occurring. respectfully i think we have lost our way. in january, 2001, the united states had a projected 10-year budget surplus. eight years later, the 111th congress opened the national debt in excess of $10 trillion and single budget deficit we have inherited. what has changed? lack of bipartisanship. during the 1990's, republican-controlled congress worked together to balance the budget and produce record surpluses. in 2002, the bush administration chose to allow pay-go to lapse

and move away from that fiscal discipline. it's important for pay-go to be enacted to make sure that we live up to our fiscal responsibilities, unlike the mere rules that we have, the statutory pay-go bill now before the house does not expire, cannot lapse and is not easily waived. i'm concerned about the alternative offered here by the gentleman from wisconsin because it moves away from the pay-as-you-go principles and gets rid of pay-go. and it is an and brogation of our legislative responsibilities. the alternative does not establish that pay-go measure that gave us great results not too many years ago. the arbitrary deficit limits are returning to the past that led to the pay-go legislation in the first place. and frankly, with the nonspecific and arbitrary spending limits, it leads to probably the republican budget's

version of what we should do to reduce spending and that means cuts to education, health care and public safety. frankly it virtually eliminates all opportunity to do the health care reform, declare our energy independence and build on a 21st century education system that we fought to do here in the united states congress. mr. speaker, as a small business owner and father of five, i know how important it is to live within our means. i worked hard to make sure i spent only what i could pay for. the american people expect the same responsibility from their federal government. while families are tightening their belts, the measure sends a strong signal that congress plans to do the same. however as ranking member averts, statutory pay-go is not a panacea by itself. our choices remain as our economy recovers, we must cut spending, pay down the national debt.

i support statutory pay-go as a critical first step towards fiscal responsibility and i invite my colleagues to support statutory pay-go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from indiana, mr. hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. hill: thank you, mr. speaker and i thank the gentleman from south carolina, where i went to school, for yielding this time on pay-go. this is a proud day, especially for people like myself who is a member of the blue dog coalition, who has this issue of pay-go as its signature issue. finally after years of working towards compromise, we finally have this day before us where we will be voting on statutory pay-go. there's a lot of people to

thank, but one person i would like to thank is former congressman charlie stenholm, who i hope is listening today. he was a member of the blue dog coalition and worked day in and day out to make sure that this day has arrived. charlie, if you are listening out there, i'm sure that you have a big smile on your face right now. i want to thank the speaker and the majority leader and entire leadership in the democratic party in embracing the concept of pay-go as well. and i would like to thank the president of the united states who has also embraced the concept of pay-go. pay-go as has been mentioned is not a complete solution, but it worked one time. what we're voting on today was in place during the 1990's. and you recall it was those pay-go rules that were in place that got us to a point where we actually had surpluses for the first time in over 40 years. so it works. it has a history of working.

and so to the detractors who say this is not the solution, it was the solution back in the 1990's and has a history of working. if it worked then, it can work now. . we had discretionary spending caps. so pay-go is just a start. we must finish the job. i have a granddaughter that's a little over 30 days old, and i don't want to be passing on this debt that we've accumulated here recently and in the last 10 years to her. when this decade began, we had a sour economy, and we've had to do some unusual things in order to try to revive this economy. it's caused spending to go up, but i along with the president and members of congress now feel like this is the first step to get us back on track to making sure that we get this spending under control. i've heard from the other side who have a different idea of

how pay-go should look like. but as i said before, this pay-go that we have now was in place in the 1990's and it worked. it provided surpluses for us. and it will work in this century as well. so i applaud the authors of the bill. i applaud the people who introduced this today. it's a happy day. let's pass pay-go and get on with the task of making sure that we get spending under control. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: may i inquire as to how much time remains on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from south carolina has 21 minutes remaining. mr. spratt: 21? the speaker pro tempore: 21. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves at this time? mr. ryan: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: mr. speaker, it's my honor to yield to the speaker of the house, the gentlelady from san francisco, california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from san francisco, california, the speaker of the house, is recognized for one minute. the speaker: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his masterful leadership of the budget committee. he is indeed a great american. he's put forth earlier this year a budget which is a statement of our national values, about what is important to the american people as being manifested in our priorities in that budget. it's a budget that is designed to reduce the deficit, to create jobs, to give tax cuts to the middle class, and to have three of its pillars to turn the economy around, education, health care and energy. and today as part of that framework of fiscal responsibility under his leadership this legislation is coming to the floor. i'd also like to acknowledge

our distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer, for being relentless in his pursuit of this legislation. he has long supported it, and i don't think we would be here today without his determination. we just heard from mr. baron hill, an author of the legislation, a leader of the blue dog coalition in the house. the blue dog coalition came together with the organizing principle of fiscal responsibility. we all owe them a debt of gratitude because it has become the mantra of the congress. we will not increase the deficit. mr. hill spoke as a policymaker and as a new grandfather, and that is a very important perspective as a grandfather. as a grandmother of many grandchildren for a long period of time, i know that we have a moral responsibility not to heap mountains of debt onto our grandchildren.

and today we will be able to put into place as a statute, not just as a rule of the house, which we did when we took control of the house as democrats, but now as a statute. i want to pay also homage to mr. george miller, a progressive democrat, leader in the congress for many years. long before i came to congress i was reading about mr. miller introducing pay-go legislation in the congress. now, i'm talking about 30 years ago, and i do remember going in 1982, not as a member of congress, to the democratic convention in philadelphia. this was a mid term conference. in between nominating conventions for president. and mr. miller at that 1982 convention introduced as a resolution a pay-go resolution which succeeded at that convention, became part of the democratic platform, and then again, as i say, introduced that legislation into the congress. it wasn't until a number of

years later that it was implemented. and during the clinton years, the pay-go formula was what took us out of the debts of the reagan and bush years and into a trajectory of surplus into the future. the last four clinton budgets were in surplus. now we're back in deficit of the excesses of the bush reckless economic policies. we must dig our way out again. we must sweep up behind. and this is a way, statutory pay-go legislation is a way to get that done. i reiterate, when the democrats took control of the congress, we made it a rule of the house that we had to abide by pay-as-you-go. now we have a president of the united states committed to sign this legislation, and we are able to pass it, not as a rule

of the house, but as a statute, as a law of the land. and i thank mr. hill, mr. baron hill, mr. george miller, steny hoyer, and you, mr. chairman, for making all of this possible. it's a very important day for our country because it is a day when the congress of the united states says to the american people, we will be accountable. we have said it, we have done it and now we will make it a statute of the law of the land. so, again, i urge our colleagues, i hope we have a good strong vote across the political spectrum. and the democratic party from right to left and hopefully across the aisle so that we can have all of those who claim to support fiscal responsibility placing their vote behind this important legislation. if we want -- if the idea is that you want to persuade the

nation that cutting taxes is a way to grow our economy, those tax cuts must be paid for. if we want to say that we want to increase entitlement spending, we must pay for that. and if we do not, there are consequences. there are consequences. and that is what is important about this legislation. we either pay as we go or as we say go into sequestration, have across-the-board cuts, a draconian measure that must be avoided, and here is the way to do it. so i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support statutory pay-go, and as a tribute to those who fought this fight for so many years and as an obligation to our children and our grandchildren. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin.

mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise this afternoon to speak in support of the ryan substitute and against the underlying bill, the statutory pay-as-you-go act of 2009. you know, mr. speaker, the actual name of the underlying bill should be how to give cover for spending like a teenager with an unlimited credit card. now, congress receives a lot of criticism for not reading the bills before we vote on them. this is not a very heavy lift. this bill is 23 pages. you can print it off, read through it. the first two pages is a list of co-sponsors and the table of contents. in the underlying bill you have about eight pages of actual regulation. and nen the last half of the bill, over 10 pages, are exceptions to this statutory law that the speaker just described to us. yes, it's statutory law and in the statutory law are statutory exceptions. a long list of exceptions in

this -- in the underlying bill give the democrats a talking point of saying they are going to address the wild spending of congress without actually having to make any choices, not just the hard choices, they don't have to make any choices at all. now, some of the exceptions are necessary, some of them are acceptable. we should be concerned about our veterans. we should be concerned about our seniors. we should be concerned about our children. exceptions to pay-go to ensure that our veterans get the health care they need, the seniors get the long-term care they've earned or our children are healthy -- and our children are educated, not going hungry should be protected and not subject to politics. but for those members who grew tired of reading the bill, on the last page of those exceptions, the second to the last third of the sentence are exceptions to pay-go for tarp. now, we all remember tarp. it passed last september -- failed last september, passed last october under a democratic congress, i might add.

we're going to validate that vote for tarp today by now elevating tarp as to the same level of protection as medicare, medicaid, social security, veterans and child hunger? now, yesterday neal -- might i have one minute? mr. ryan: i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: the special inspector of tarp said before a committee that tarp could ultimately cost the american taxpayer $23 trillion, trillion dollars, most of us can't begin to fathom that money. as of yesterday, the cost to the american taxpayer from tarp was $2 trillion. $2 trillion that we didn't have, which we borrowed from china and foreign countries that don't have america's best interest at heart. and we gave them to banks who recently recorded record profits. goldman sachs is going to have

profits this year after taking out bailout money. mr. speaker, they don't need to be protected in this pay-go statute. now, in the past few weeks i've been involved in the greatest debate of my elected career. i've been working on a commonsense approach to health care and to lower medical liability laws in this country. we spent a few days in that committee -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. burgess: and that's a about what we've given to tarp, $2 trillion. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. spratt: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for three minutes. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding and proud to be here today to associate myself with the comments of speaker pelosi, who spoke just a few moments ago in strong support of this pay-as-you-go legislation. as i do rise in opposition to

the republican substitute that's offered by my colleague, mr. ryan, which i see it as completely -- really abolishes the pay-as-you-go rules. it replaces them with unrealistic and feasible restrictions that do nothing to address the long-term budgetary challenges that we face. the statutory pay-as-you-go act, offered by majority leader hoyer, will restore fiscal discipline through the most basic principle of responsible accounting, every dollar spent must be offset by a dollar earned or saved. this is the way that american families balance their checkbooks and it's the way that we should balance the federal government. statutory pay as you go in the 1990's turned out record surpluses. unfortunately, when our republican majority let it expired in 2002 our fiscal accountability went with it. now today we have a chance to turn that around. we saw what happened when we had these kinds of fiscal disciplines in place.

the country was on much more sound fiscal footing. this bill is not a panacea, of course, for budgetary challenges. the fiscal health of our nation will ultimately depend on a thriving economy. however, this is an important step to restoring budgetary discipline, force tough choices on taxes and spending and bringing down the deep deficits that we face. we have a moral obligation to pass this legislation, and we instill the kind of fiscal discipline that we need to see not only for now but for the future. we have an obligation to do this not only for our children today but the children of tomorrow. without reducing the deficit, we cannot invest in vital priorities like health care, education, clean energy, which are critical to our economic future. mr. speaker, it's time to get our fiscal house in order. i'd like to thank leader hoyer, chairman spratt, my colleagues on the budget committee for their exceptionally hard work on this legislation. i urge my colleagues to reject

the ryan substitute and support passage of the statutory pay-as-you-go act in its current form. it's the right thing to do and the time has come. i thank the gentleman and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the time? the speaker pro tempore: you may. the gentleman from wisconsin has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from south carolina has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. ryan: i'll let the gentleman from south carolina catch up. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina, do you reserve? mr. spratt: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. tsongas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding to me. as a member of the budget committee, i know that passing pay-go is critical to puts us

on the path to fiscal responsibility. i co-sponsored the president's pay-go bill in june, and i'm happy to say that the bill before us today is even stronger. instead of sunsetting in five years, our bill is permanent. it closes certain loopholes making it harder to use budget gimmicks to hide true costs. it also prioritizes tax relief for the middle class. unfortunately, instead of attempting to further strengthen the bill, our republican substitute would gut it. while the underlying pay-go bill addresses both sides of the equation, spending and taxes, the republican substitute takes a dangerously lopsided approach, focusing only on one part of the problem. while our bill makes a permanent change for fiscal responsibility, the republican substitute makes a temporary show of responsibility without limiting congress' ability to pass reckless tax cuts in the future. . the communities of my district have unemployment in the double digits, almost twice the

national average. yet in the middle of a deep and painful recession in which families are struggling to make ends meet and many are dependent on the social safety net, the republican substitute will stall the economic recovery in its tracks. but the republican substitute does more. it threatens our national security as well. as a member of the armed services committee, i have strong concerns that the republican substitute, if enacted, would create large gaps in our defense budget at a crucial time when we face numerous threats to our security from around the world. some have argued that pay-go doesn't go far enough. they're right, it does not. it won't balance the budget and restore responsible government, but it is a critical first step. gutting pay-go and replacing it with a short-term, one-sided approach offered by the republican substitute is a step backwards.

we must take the needed steps to put our financial house in order. i urge a no vote on the ryan substitute and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, i would like to three minutes to the house republican conference chairman, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: i'm sorry i missed ms. pelosi's remarks, but i do have a copy of what she said in january of 2007. after years of historic deficits this new congress will commit itself to a higher standard, pay as you go, no new deficit spending. our new america will provide -- under the democrat majority, we have seen a congress that's presided over the most unprecedented spending spree in history. the nation's deficit has

exploded by a factor of 10, $162 billion, we are at $1 trillion and headed for $1.8 trillion. the national debt is set to triple by 2019 under the democrats' budget, including pay-go i understand. the president had to move his press conference from 9:00 to 8:00 tonight because the popular tigs show "america got talent" is on at 9:00. and it should be "america's going broke" at 8:00. and there's nothing in this pay-go that's going to do anything about it. discretionary spending that amounts to 40% of all the spending is being increased at 8%. and completely excluded from this. emergency legislation, mandatory spending is not subjected to

hundreds of mada tower programs. we are hearing about a lot of putting our fiscal house in order, but when democrats say pay-go, that means you go and they -- you pay and they plan on spending. thanks to the great leadership of congressman ryan, it will focus on spending. the fundamental problem is spending and deficits. targets problem areas by sequestering certain discretionary spending. protects retirees, troops and veterans. no automatic tax increases. reduces the deficit and takes a straightforward approach and i commend my colleague for bringing it forward. i urge my colleagues to get real. no more slogans, no more pre -packageed talk. the american people want us to come together in real and meaningful and bipartisan ways to get spending under control

here in washington, d.c. and the ryan substitute is a powerful and important step in that direction. and i urge its support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. mr. kind: i thank my friend from south carolina. as a former member of the budget committee i rise in proud support of this statutory pay-as-you-go rule. it is time to get real. and it's time to get real with the realities we face today. we can argue all day long and point fingers back and forth about who caused what and why, but the fact remains that we face a huge american challenge that's going to require a unique american solution to pull ourselves out of the fiscal hole that we find ourselves in today. this legislation that we have

before us today has history on our side. when we had pay-as-you-go budgeting rules in effect in the 1990's, it helped instill fiscal discipline. and with the help of the american people, it led to budget surpluses. we were paying down the national debt and having a conversation about a lock box for social security trust funds. and then for whatever reason in 2001, it expired. and the discussion then was whether to re-institute it. and the fear at that time was that we may end up paying down our national debt too fast, which would be destabilizing. how i would love to see a return of those days. instead, it led to a fiscal course of action that doubled the national debt in eight short years. now, this legislation isn't going to be the cure-all. we have a lot of work to do. we have the opportunity before us today to reform the health care system, to deliver system

reform that will rein in rising costs, which if unchecked will bankrupt everyone. and we have work to do to make that change. i still believe in the merits of an outside independent commission on entitlement reform that would report back with recommended changes so we can address the rising costs of entitlements. but let's go back to what works in the time of fiscal crisis that we face. the 1990's showed us the way to do that, with four years of surpluses. and we were able to start to turn the corner and provide a more financial system for our country that was squandered over the last eight years. i reject the proposed amendment and let's get to work and making some tough, but necessary decisions for future generations so we don't end up leaving a

legacy of debt for my two little boys or to future generations. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield three minutes to the vice ranking member of the budget committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we were honored earlier when the speaker of the house came to speak on this legislation. i tried to listen to her very carefully. i think i heard, quote, we will not increase the deficit, which is now the congressional mantra. that's interesting, i haven't studied them in the past, but what i do note is that since the democratic majority has been the majority in this institution, the federal deficit has gone from $161 billion to over $1 trillion for the first time in our nation's history, on the

way, according to the national congressional budget office to a $1.8 trillion deficit, a ten-fold increase in just two years. so i would say, with all due respect to the speaker of the house, apparently the mantra is not working very well. i also believe i heard the speaker of the house say, quote, we have a moral, moral responsibility not to heap deficits on our children. well, i take that very seriously. as a father of a seven-year-old girl and a five-year-old boy, i think every single day about the deficits that are being heaped on our children and grandchildren. so i guess i would ask the speaker of the house, who i know is no longer present on the floor, if we have a moral responsibility not to do it, why did you do it?

why have you increased the deficit ten-fold? why is it that you brought a budget to the floor and passed it with the democratic majority that will triple, triple the national debt, triple the national debt in the next 10 years and create more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220? i would say, madam speaker, why did you do it? now, i know she also spoke with great pride of re-instituting the pay-go rule when the democrats became the majority. well, it sounds nice, again it makes for a nice bumper sticker slogan, but, mr. speaker, facts are pesky things. when the democrats came into congress and instituted the pay-go rule, all we see is a sea of red ink as far as the eye can

see, deficit upon deficit upon deficit, trillions of dollars of deficits. it's not exactly a plan, mr. speaker, i would take great pride in. i must observe the only thing that exceeds the federal deficit is the credibility deficit that democrats have on the issue of fiscal responsibility. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from north dakota, mr. pomeroy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pomeroy: i follow a member of the republican party who just said that the democrats have a credibility problem on budget. i would remind the gentleman that it was, indeed, under republican control of this chamber and the senate chamber and the executive branch that

pay-as-you-go discipline on budget deficits was ended. why did they end? because they had no intention of living within their means. don't take my word for it. look at the record. national debt tripled, percentage of the national debt we had to borrow from other countries, tripled. national debt doubled, percentage financed by other countries, tripled. that's the record of the minority party. in fact, i believe it's that record that got them from the majority to the minority. you might think that given the economic crisis that their very fiscal policies helped bring about, we would have the opportunity to work together in a bipartisan fashion to put in place this foundation of fiscal

responsibility, pay as you go. it has happened before. in 1991, president george h.w. bush, convened a budget summit. he was concerned about deficits, deficits much smaller than what president obama inherited from his predecessor. they agreed across the party aisle to install pay-as-you-go. in 1993, i was a member of this body when we passed it on a party-line vote. in 1997, that pay-as-you-go budget discipline was enshrined in a bipartisan budget agreement and continued for another five years. it's time for us to work together. it's time for us to rein in these deficits. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin wish to yield time? mr. ryan: i do. i yield myself four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes.

mr. ryan: mr. speaker, our distinguished speaker of the house came to the floor a minute ago and gave a nice speech and said with passage of this pay-go bill, the deficit won't go up any more. wow. let me say that's not true. here's what the deficit path is by the democrats' budget that passed earlier, democratic budget that passed earlier. it's up to $1.8 trillion now and that is from unforeseen circumstances, tarp and other things. goes down and like a rubber band, goes back up. under the deficit path that the majority passed with their own budget resolution, the deficit goes back up to $1 trillion. huge, huge increase in the deficit, to the point where the deficit stays above 3% of our economy the entire time, above $600 billion. unsustainable deficits.

unsustainable borrowing. here's the problem, mr. speaker. one of these days, we're not going to be able to keep borrowing all this money. one of these days, our bond finance rs, japan, china and india, they won't leaped us this money because we aren't getting the fiscal house in order. we have an unfunded liability and that means we are making promises to spend $62 trillion for people in this country today that we don't have. . this year we're borrowing half our budget, borrowing. i went to the bureau of public debt last week and i watched a bond auction. i watched the treasury department borrow $40 billion in about four minutes.

we had very talented people sitting around a room of flat screen tv's and laptop computers sipping coffee as if it was just another day at the office. $40 billion 40 minutes. we're doing something like this every day these days. $2 trillion of our $4 trillion budget effectively is being borrowed this year. there's going to come a moment when they will not lend us this money. there will come a moment when we won't be able to have an auction succeed. there's going to come a moment where we're going to have to pay these people, these governments a lot more money to lend us their money. that moment is a fiscal day of reckoning for america. that moment is a moment when our interest rates go up. that moment will happen faster, sooner rather than later if we don't fix these problems. what is the problem? spending is the problem. spending is the problem.

spending in excess of what we tax is what creates deficits. it's what's creating this unprecedented level of debt. and so what does this pay-go bill do? it just says raise taxes effectively if we want to build more programs, if we want to spend more money. what are we proposing? let's cut spending, let's control spending, let's cap spending, let's make the american federal budget work like a family budget so we actually control and cap how much money we spend. i know around here that sounds like a novel idea but it isn't. every american family inevitably must do this. if you love beyond your means someday you have to make up for that fact. the question is whether this congress will do that so that the next generation won't get hit with this tab, so the next generation doesn't have this inferior standard of living that we know quantifiably,

irrefuteably, demonstrablely -- i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ryan: only to say, mr. speaker, we have real solutions here that has real spending control. so we get to real deficit reduction, so we really get on to the process of paying off our debt by reforming how much money we spend. that is not what the democrats are doing. they are paying -- passing a fiscal facade so they can do with the right hand while on the left hand they're spending money out the door. a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, $1 trillion stimulus package. next week, $1 trillion new health care entitlement which even the congressional budget office is telling us is going to grow at unsustainable rates faster than even medicare and medicaid. let's stop this fiscal insanity, let's pass real spending control, let's pass the republican substitute that actually controls and caps spending.

with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. two words echo in my mind, that is history and huts pa. let's talk -- and chutzpah. let's talk history. as we talk about spending and it's a novel idea, darn right it's a novel idea. when they controlled this white house and this chamber they did three big things. they put in place one of the largest entitlement programs with a pharmaceutical benefit in medicare. they fought two wars at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. and they cut taxes on the very wealthiest people in this country. two massive increases in spending and a severe reduction in revenue. guess what, structural deficit. facts are stubborn things.

the fact is the minority took a surplus and while they controlled this chamber put it into a $1.3 trillion and now they have the chutzpah to look to this side of the room and to criticize our efforts. the pay-go legislation we are talking about today is a restoration. it is a restoration of the discipline that prevailed when bill clinton was in the white house and we had real statutory pay-go and he we created those surpluses. and we're trying again. is it perfect? no, it's not perfect. does it have some exceptions i'd rather not see as exceptions? yes, it does. but it is a very, very constructive step in the right direction and it will take us back to where we were in the 1990's when we actually got the budget deficit under control. it's a step in the right direction. the amendment that they are proposing that we support is not a serious effort.

it would impact severely our armed services and many of the people who rely on to government for their education, for their housing, for all the things that is as a decent society we feel as an obligation to provide. i'm proud to be one of the co-sponsors of this bill and to say it is imperative we pass this legislation today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on appropriations, i present a privileged report for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 3288, a bill making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, all points of order are reserved. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, may i inquire among the chairman how

many more speakers he has remaining? might i inquire among the chairman how many speakers they have remaining? mr. spratt: certainly. i plan to use the time left. mr. ryan: so the chair and the majority leader? mr. spratt: is mr. hoyer here? how much time, may i inquire of the chair, how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina has 8 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has four minutes remaining. mr. ryan: i'll reserve the balance of my time and be the last speaker on our side. mr. spratt: i yield myself six minutes to save a minute and a

half, am i correct, with my arithmetic? the speaker pro tempore: 6 1/2 will yield himself 1 1/2. mr. spratt: i yield myself six minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for six minutes. mr. spratt: what the minority proposes is to take this resolution, this bill and add to it a budget resolution for 2010 and years thereafter way outside of the established procedure of the house to do at this point in time. we have strived mightily to finish up all of the appropriation bills by the time we adjourn for the august vacation, and it looks as though we are going to be successful in our pursuit, and i think we all deserve credit for having accomplished that. were we to adopt this resolution, we would have a completely different set of

numbers. at least $48 billion would have to be reallocated within section 302-a because there is a cut immediately in discretionary spending. if you hold constant and inflate the amount of money provided for overseas contingency operations, military operations, the amount of money that would have to be extracted from other programs that is basically already been distributed, already been allocated, already been cut, would be around $70 billion. that's a lot of work that would have to be done again. we would basically have to go to square one and start over again. and so that is the first problem we have with this bill, and that basically is enough reason for anyone who is concerned with finishing our timely business here in the house for the summer before adjourning, that's enough to vote against the substitute that the gentleman is offering.

if that's not enough for you, read onward. get a copy of the resolution and see what's being proposed here, because what the gentleman proposes to do is to fix spending, total spending, discretionary spending and deficits as a percentage of g.d.p. for a period of five years after which will be fixed at the level it reaches at the end of the five-year period of time. this would have profound consequences for the budget. we've never budgeted like that. not over that period of time. and furthermore, the gentleman says we're going to put these in place. this is a resolution that he understandly under the circumstances was coupled together in a few days is proposing something that would be binding for five years. and if there were a reversal in the economy for the worse and we needed to engage in countercyclical economic intervention this would be a huge stumbling block because 2/3 of the house would have to

agree to any daveiation from the spending limits that this resolution or this substitute would impose. 2/3 of the house. a determined minority of 1/3 could block any kind of action. that's not good policymaking. we have not done that before. it would be a mistake to do those now. for all those reasons, i'd say to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, read the resolution, read the substitute. i think you'll see this is something we do not want to do at this particular point in time. we do not want to go back to square one, do the appropriations bills all over again, we don't want to cast a rigid cast around the budget resolution so if we do have a downturn in the economy, the budget resolution itself would be -- the budget would be pro-cyclical. we try to have countercyclical things in our budget. this budget resolution, this budget substitute would actually be pro-cyclical.

it would worsen the downturn in the economy if it would take that turn at this point in time. so for all of these reasons i would urge all members on both sides of the aisle, mine in particular but the other side as well, look carefully before you cast this vote and vote no on the substitute that has been offered by mr. ryan. at this point, mr. speaker, i yield the balance of our time to the distinguished majority -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: the gentleman should reserve the balance of his time because he has the right to close. mr. spratt: i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, how much time do i have remaining? mr. ryan: four -- the speaker pro tempore: four minutes. mr. ryan: i yield myself the remainder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: our substitute says we should rewrite the budget

resolution. yes. what does the incumbent budget resolution that the majority passed do? it doubles the national debt held by the american public by five years. it raises taxes by $1.5 trillion. it chases ever higher spending with those ever higher taxes and those taxes never catches up with the spending increases and thus an unprecedented level of debt increases. so, yes, we think we should do something else and go another path. what are we proposing? we're proposing instead of a system in place that ignores discretionary spending, instead of ignoring entitlement spending, instead of putting a system in place that will inevitably lead to higher taxes, we want spending discipline. we want to cap spending. and here's what our bill accomplishes that the majority bill does not. under our bill, the deficits go down. under under the majority's bill, the deficits go up.

under our bill for future generations, we keep the size of our government in check so that we can give the next generation a higher standard of living so that we don't send to them an unsustainable burden of debt and taxes. under the majority's bill, they don't do that. they increase debt, they increase taxes, they increase spending, they decrease the standard of living for the next generation. now, i find it fairly ironic and almost comical that the gentleman from massachusetts just came through here and filed an appropriations bill. the appropriations bill increases this year, this year by 25.1%. so during this debate on pay-go, during this debate on fiscal responsibility, this fiscal facade press release debate we are having right now, they just filed a bill to increase discretionary spending on one bill for just one year by 25%. .

pay-go has nothing to do with that. so we can bring a bill here to increase spending on these few government agencies in this bill by 25% and this pay-go has nothing to do with it. you know why, mr. speaker? because 40% of the budget including where this spending comes from is exempt from pay-go. we don't think that's the right way to go. and i have heard all these talks about the 1990's and how successful they were, and yes, there were periods of success. you know why? because we had spending caps. we had discretionary caps in place that the blue dogs themselves have been advocating time and again which we agree with, which we will be advocating later in this debate that were part of the reason for that success. success in 1997 was because republicans and democrats came together and put together a budget agreement, which led to those surpluses.

wouldn't it be nice to get back to those kinds of days, where we come together, not bypassing committees, rushing bills to the floor, cramming things through congress and actually came together for real fiscal discipline. the pay-go bill that the majority is offering is a fig leaf, not true, not real, doesn't work, doesn't even affect discretionary spending, doesn't even deal with the unsustainable pathway of our current entitlement programs, which right now, give us a $62 trillion unfunded liability. we say let's tackle those problems. you need to have artificial budget enforcement on congress. i would love to see that congress, under our own discipline, would be able to control spending, but you know what? we can't. both parties can't. that's why you need artificial discipline. that's why you need spending caps and that's why you should pass the ryan substitute. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. spratt: one question, where were you when we had first iraq and then afghanistan and came to paying for those endeavors which account for by far the biggest growth in spending in the discretionary accounts thrfment were no spending caps at that point in time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from south carolina yield? mr. ryan: working in the budget committee to make sure that the war was inside of the budget and not outside of the budget as the bush o.m.b. was proposing. we were proposing that that funding be done within the budget, not outside the budget. mr. spratt: i now yield the balance of our time to mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the chairman for yielding. i want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, for

whom i have a great deal of respect. i said the other night he was my friend, but friends have disagreements, and on this, on fiscal policy, we have had a significant disagreement. i have heard a lot of speakers on this floor talk about how this bill doesn't get us to where we want to get. i have heard a lot of people talk about how we have four exceptions in this bill. most of the people have talked about the four exceptions in this bill, have repeatedly talked over the last four, five years as to how this was current baseline spending and certainly we didn't have to pay for current baseline spending, i.e. continuing taxes in place. you argued that was straight line baseline funding and didn't need to pay for it. we have taken the position we needed to pay for it and paid for the a.m.t. through the house. we paid for the tax extenders through the house. unfortunately our breath ren on

the other side of the capitol did not pass. i voted against the a.m.t. extension. i was a small minority in the house because it wasn't paid for. if we're going to have discipline, we need discipline. there is only one real discipline, having to pay for what you buy. and doing the -- we paid for what we paid for what we bought. during the 1980's, we didn't and during the 2000's, we didn't. and there was an inevitable result, deficits exploded for the 20 years that republican presidents were in office and we didn't pay for things. the gentleman talks about spending and he talks about caps in his substitute. the gentleman knows full well that during the clinton years, spending rose about 3.5% per year on average of discretionary

spending. the gentleman knows full well that for the eight years of the bush administration, it rose at the average of about 7% or twice as high as it rose during the 1990's. so in terms of caps, spending, which are in the budget, we ought to have budget caps and we ought to stick with the budget caps. and, in fact, the democrats, under the rule he said that we adopted, stuck with that rule even when it had consequences that were tough for us. he remembers the district of columbia vote by adding a member. it cost a little over $1 million. we had to pay for it and opened it up for n.t.r., which was a problem. but let me speak to the substance of this bill. the gentleman is correct. we have incurred extraordinary debt during the first six

months. why? because the economic program and the fiscal policies that were argued for by the republicans and put in place by the republicans with little, if any democratic support, but they had the presidency, the house and the senate. led to the worst economy that this country has seen in 75 years. so according to mr. bernanke and others, we had an economic crisis confronting our country and if we did not act, we could possibly be in a depression, not just a severe recession. so we inherited the worst recession in 75 years when we took office. having been urged by the republican administration to put $700 billion on the fiscal tab in the last congress, urged by the president, by secretary paulson and by ben bernanke.

the gentleman and i voted together on that bill. it was a tough bill. no one wanted to vote for it, but we believed there was a crisis and it was necessary. so we find ourselves having passed because we were still falling into a deeper recession in january and february of this year and responding to that with the recovery and revifment -- reinvestment act. i believe it has been helpful. the stock market is up 1,000 points since the start of this administration. housing starts have been higher for the last three months. the dow is up. nasdaq is up. very substantially. in addition, we have lost 2 00,000 less jobs per month on average during the last three months than we lost during the last three months of the bush

administration. is it what we want? no it's 33% less loss of jobs than we had in the last three months of the bush administration. we want to be at zero and growing. the economic policies that were pursued by my friend and on the republican side of the aisle created 4,240 per month over a 96-month administration of the policies pursued by my friends on the other side of the aisle. the economic policies that were pursued in the 1990's with the opposition to a person of the republicans created an average of 216,000 jobs per month. that's a pretty stark difference. matter of fact, two million jobs created during the last year of the clinton administration and three million jobs lost during

the last year of the bush administration. that's a five million turnaround. is there any wonder why there is so much stress among families and individuals. now, ladies and gentlemen, maybe you have heard the first rule of holes, when you're in one, stop digging. that's what this bill does of the the fact is that our nation is in a deep hole. the deficit for this fiscal year is $1.7 trillion. that ought to be of great concern to every one of us. we differ on why we have that deficit. we believe we have it because the economic program supported by the republicans was such a failure, factually in terms of every indication. our debt has never been higher unless we do something to remove ourselves from this hole, the future of our children and grandchildren will be severely constrained and interest payments will crowd out nearly all of the investment americans

know are vital to their future, from education, clean energy and health care. the energy bill, there's no tax in the energy bill. there is no tax in the energy bill, but so many of you come and say there's a tax in this bill. that's not honest. you ought to know that. there's one thing to make a mistake and another thing to not tell the truth. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: no, if you want to say on your own point in time, there is a tax in the bill, you can point it out to me. are there consequential costs in actions we take? there are. the worst scenario of fiscal meltdown is a nightmare toll both parties. for republicans, the prospect that taxes will be forced through the roof -- i understand

that concern, i suggest to you there is a constraint on that. voters throwing people out of office who do that to them. hopefully voters will return to office who have the honesty to say if you want it, we will pay for it. you didn't do it for the war, i understand that. for democrats, the prospect that the programs we value will be slashed and the weakest and leefert powerful will suffer most. but there is a way out. reclaiming the principles of responsibility that have served our country so well. we are in this hole because the last administration set responsibility by the wayside. they waived pay-go. it was inconvenient to pay for things because you couldn't do your tax cut and pay for them. that's why we waived pay-go because you wanted to do something because you would not pay for.

the recent "new york times" analysis tells us that 890% of our deficit can be attributed to bush administration policies. the extension of those policies and the economic crisis that the administration left behind. but whatever we think brought us to this point, i'm confident that we can agree on a tried and tested plan for a new beginning. it is a simple one. the principle that from here on out, this country will pay for what it buys. it's called pay-as-you-go or pay-go. it will turn deficits into surpluses, once and can be part of that objective again. essentially this pay-go bill requires congress to find savings, to balance out the dollars it spends so that all new policies that reduce receive news or expand entitlement spending are fully offset over five and 10 years, an improvement over the president's bill. in 1990, a similar pay-go rule was enacted as part of a budget

agreement between a republican president and a democratic congress. in other words, in a bipartisan agreement, we reached a consensus on paying as we go. what was the result? the result was an administration that for the first time and only time in the lifetime of anybody in this chamber, we had four years of surplus. now it wasn't the president alone or democrats alone, because in 1997, we reached another bipartisan agreement to extend this principle of pay-go when speaker gingrich and president clinton, which i voted for, reached agreement. and by forging congress -- forcing congress to make difficult choices between taxes and spending and scrutinize subsidies and loopholes and weigh the real cost of tax cuts, pay-go was instrumental in creating a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

that was squandered. the economy that was supposed to grow so well under your economic policies didn't do so. created less than two million jobs, less than 10% of what was created during the 1990's. its repeal in 2002 paved the way for the fiscal excesses of the last administration. on winning the congressional majority in 2006, as the ranking member has pointed out, democrats made it part of the house rules. and today, we have the chance to give pay-go the force of law. with this law in place, advocates of spending will have to find ways to offset the the costs. that's the discipline, that's the constrapet. advocates of tax cuts will no longer be able to finance them with debt. instead, they will have to tell us which programs they will have to cut.

i make that statement knowing full well if there is a crisis, an emergency, a war, katrina, economic meltdown, yes, we will waive this and borrow money to try to stem the existing crisis. however, generally speaking, we won't do that. pay-go won't make those debates go away and won't make those decisions for us. it means hard choices for all of us and for the citizens whom we represent. but continuing to shun hard choices is the road to fiscal ruin. . there are extensions of current policy on the tax cult passed in 2001 and 2002, and medicare payments to doctors. as a result, some have criticized this bill for not going far enough. but supporters of pay-go, including president obama, see

exemption as a concession to political reality and to the votes on your side of the aisle, who in at least three of those instances don't want to pay for them because they're current policy. you've made that argument over and over again, i've disagreed with it, but it is reality. it is clear there's a bipartisan support in congress for extending those current policies without offsetting savings. i told my friend, senator conrad, if he sends back from the senate any one of those four bills paid for, i will fight for them. i will advocate for them being paid for. i hope he can do that. that gives us two choices. on the one hand, we can pass an all-encompassing bill that is waived again and again, one that turn into what the nonpartisan center on budget policies calls a transparently phony fiscal responsibility promise. because we waived it. that's what we do, that's what

we have done. a promise, i would add that would weak then cause of financial responsibility as a whole. on the other hand we can make a promise we are prepared to keep. we're prepared to keep that to the extent that the speaker and i have indicated we will not put a bill on this floor, coming out of conference, on health care or other issue, coming out of those four, unless statutory pay-go is in the bill, statutory pay-go has been passed or it is paid for. the speaker and i both indicated we will not put a bill on this floor coming out of conference unless one of those three criteria is met. in other words, we have the choice between a satisfying but weak statement of ideals, or of action in the real world of politics. this bill makes the latter path. it draws a line before future budget-busting plans. this far, but no further. is that enough?

no, mr. speaker, it is not nearly enough. even if this bill is passed and signed, we will still be in our hole, there will be years hard work ahead of us. hopefully we can do that in a boinch basis before our heads can be aboveground we need to deal with entitlements further we need to deal with spending further we need to make sure we have vigorous efforts to rid ourselveses of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government and spending and other efforts we can take to put us on the path, again, of fiscal responsibility to once again get back to an era where we had clinton surpluses and clinton, 216,000 jobs per month creation. that's where we want to go. does this bill get us there? it does not. does it take a critical step toward that end? it does. i urge my colleagues to reject

the substitute, pass this bill, and to put us once again on the road to fiscal responsibility. i congratulate mr. spratt for his leadership and i want to thank mr. welch and mr. miller who was one of the early leaders on pay-go and mr. hill of the blue dogs for co-sponsoring this along with literally 180 or more democrats supporting this important step. i will tell my friends i would hope this was bipartisan. but the economic program we adopted in 1993 was not bipartisan either. it led to the best economy i have seen in my lifetime in this country. the principle reason for that economic well being in america was the chip. not government, the chip. where the information technology age exploded. provided extraordinary revenues for our country.

it is the private sector that drives our economy. it's the private sector that will give us wealth and that creates jobs. not the government. but the government can create policies within which the private sector and particularly venture capitalists can have a confidence we are managing our finances responsibly. that's what this bill does. vote for this important piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin, all his time has expired. mr. spratt: the gentleman's time has expired? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin's time has expired, the gentleman from south carolina has three minutes remaining. mr. spratt: i will say once again, using the balance of my time that every member voting on the substitute should understand its consequences. the consequences would be to undo completely the bill we're

trying to move now that a lot of us believe is a useful tool in disciplining our budget. it would be a shame to see us come this far only to falter on a resolution like the substitute offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. it will not be consistent at all and it's interesting to note that while we makes elaborate provisions for limiting spending and deficits, there's no provision whatsoever made for incorporation of the pay-go rule which has proved itself in the past to be successful. i say vote for the resolution, but first vote against the substitute being offered by the gentleman from wisconsin because if it's adopted, it will not adapt to, will not fit into the base bill before the house. instead it would undo its effectiveness altogether. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair in the future. pursuant to house resolution

6765, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended and on the amendment in the nature of the substitute printed in house report 111-217 offered by tred by the gentlema wisconsin, mr. ryan. the question son the amendment by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is -- for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. spratt: i request a recorded et. -- recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] atement of our national

values, about what is important to the american people as being manifested in our priorities in

that budget. it's a budget that is designed to reduce the deficit, to create jobs, to give tax cuts to the middle class, and to have three of its pillars to turn the economy around, education, health care and energy. and today as part of that framework of fiscal responsibility under his leadership this legislation is coming to the floor. i'd also like to acknowledge our distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer, for being relentless in his pursuit of this legislation. he has long supported it, and i don't think we would be here today without his determination. we just heard from mr. baron hill, an author of the legislation, a leader of the blue dog coalition in the house. the blue dog coalition came together with the organizing principle of fiscal responsibility. we all owe them a debt of gratitude because it has become the mantra of the congress.

we will not increase the deficit. mr. hill spoke as a policymaker and as a new grandfather, and that is a very important perspective as a grandfather. as a grandmother of many grandchildren for a long period of time, i know that we have a moral responsibility not to heap mountains of debt onto our grandchildren. and today we will be able to put into place as a statute, not just as a rule of the house, which we did when we took control of the house as democrats, but now as a statute. i want to pay also homage to mr. george miller, a progressive democrat, leader in the congress for many years. long before i came to congress i was reading about mr. miller introducing pay-go legislation in the congress. now, i'm talking about 30 years ago, and i do remember going in 1982, not as a member of congress, to the democratic

convention in philadelphia. this was a mid term conference. in between nominating conventions for president. and mr. miller at that 1982 convention introduced as a resolution a pay-go resolution which succeeded at that convention, became part of the democratic platform, and then again, as i say, introduced that legislation into the congress. it wasn't until a number of years later that it was implemented. and during the clinton years, the pay-go formula was what took us out of the debts of the reagan and bush years and into a trajectory of surplus into the future. the last four clinton budgets were in surplus. now we're back in deficit of the excesses of the bush reckless economic policies. we must dig our way out again. we must sweep up behind.

and this is a way, statutory pay-go legislation is a way to get that done. i reiterate, when the democrats took control of the congress, we made it a rule of the house that we had to abide by pay-as-you-go. now we have a president of the united states committed to sign this legislation, and we are able to pass it, not as a rule of the house, but as a statute, as a law of the land. and i thank mr. hill, mr. baron hill, mr. george miller, steny hoyer, and you, mr. chairman, for making all of this possible. it's a very important day for our country because it is a day when the congress of the united states says to the american people, we will be accountable. we have said it, we have done it and now we will make it a statute of the law of the land. so, again, i urge our

colleagues, i hope we have a good strong vote across the political spectrum. and the democratic party from right to left and hopefully across the aisle so that we can have all of those who claim to support fiscal responsibility placing their vote behind this important legislation. if we want -- if the idea is that you want to persuade the nation that cutting taxes is a way to grow our economy, those tax cuts must be paid for. if we want to say that we want to increase entitlement spending, we must pay for that. and if we do not, there are consequences. there are consequences. and that is what is important about this legislation. we either pay as we go or as we say go into sequestration, have

across-the-board cuts, a draconian measure that must be avoided, and here is the way to do it. so i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support statutory pay-go, and as a tribute to those who fought this fight for so many years and as an obligation to our children and our grandchildren. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise this afternoon to speak in support of the ryan substitute and against the underlying bill, the statutory pay-as-you-go act of 2009. you know, mr. speaker, the actual name of the underlying bill should be how to give cover for spending like a teenager with an unlimited credit card. now, congress receives a lot of criticism for not reading the bills before we vote on them. this is not a very heavy lift. this bill is 23 pages. you can print it off, read

through it. the first two pages is a list of co-sponsors and the table of contents. in the underlying bill you have about eight pages of actual regulation. and nen the last half of the bill, over 10 pages, are exceptions to this statutory law that the speaker just described to us. yes, it's statutory law and in the statutory law are statutory exceptions. a long list of exceptions in this -- in the underlying bill give the democrats a talking point of saying they are going to address the wild spending of congress without actually having to make any choices, not just the hard choices, they don't have to make any choices at all. now, some of the exceptions are necessary, some of them are acceptable. we should be concerned about our veterans. we should be concerned about our seniors. we should be concerned about our children. exceptions to pay-go to ensure that our veterans get the health care they need, the seniors get the long-term care they've earned or our children are healthy -- and our children are educated, not going hungry

should be protected and not subject to politics. but for those members who grew tired of reading the bill, on the last page of those exceptions, the second to the last third of the sentence are exceptions to pay-go for tarp. now, we all remember tarp. it passed last september -- failed last september, passed last october under a democratic congress, i might add. we're going to validate that vote for tarp today by now elevating tarp as to the same level of protection as medicare, medicaid, social security, veterans and child hunger? now, yesterday neal -- might i have one minute? mr. ryan: i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: the special inspector of tarp said before a committee that tarp could ultimately cost the american taxpayer $23 trillion, trillion dollars, most of us can't begin

to fathom that money. as of yesterday, the cost to the american taxpayer from tarp was $2 trillion. $2 trillion that we didn't have, which we borrowed from china and foreign countries that don't have america's best interest at heart. and we gave them to banks who recently recorded record profits. goldman sachs is going to have profits this year after taking out bailout money. mr. speaker, they don't need to be protected in this pay-go statute. now, in the past few weeks i've been involved in the greatest debate of my elected career. i've been working on a commonsense approach to health care and to lower medical liability laws in this country. we spent a few days in that committee -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. burgess: and that's a about what we've given to tarp, $2

trillion. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. spratt: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for three minutes. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding and proud to be here today to associate myself with the comments of speaker pelosi, who spoke just a few moments ago in strong support of this pay-as-you-go legislation. as i do rise in opposition to the republican substitute that's offered by my colleague, mr. ryan, which i see it as completely -- really abolishes the pay-as-you-go rules. it replaces them with unrealistic and feasible restrictions that do nothing to address the long-term budgetary challenges that we face. the statutory pay-as-you-go act, offered by majority leader hoyer, will restore fiscal discipline through the most basic principle of responsible accounting, every dollar spent must be offset by a dollar earned or saved. this is the way that american families balance their checkbooks and it's the way that we should balance the

federal government. statutory pay as you go in the 1990's turned out record surpluses. unfortunately, when our republican majority let it expired in 2002 our fiscal accountability went with it. now today we have a chance to turn that around. we saw what happened when we had these kinds of fiscal disciplines in place. the country was on much more sound fiscal footing. this bill is not a panacea, of course, for budgetary challenges. the fiscal health of our nation will ultimately depend on a thriving economy. however, this is an important step to restoring budgetary discipline, force tough choices on taxes and spending and bringing down the deep deficits that we face. we have a moral obligation to pass this legislation, and we instill the kind of fiscal discipline that we need to see not only for now but for the future. we have an obligation to do

this not only for our children today but the children of tomorrow. without reducing the deficit, we cannot invest in vital priorities like health care, education, clean energy, which are critical to our economic future. mr. speaker, it's time to get our fiscal house in order. i'd like to thank leader hoyer, chairman spratt, my colleagues on the budget committee for their exceptionally hard work on this legislation. i urge my colleagues to reject the ryan substitute and support passage of the statutory pay-as-you-go act in its current form. it's the right thing to do and the time has come. i thank the gentleman and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the time? the speaker pro tempore: you may. the gentleman from wisconsin has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from south carolina has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. ryan: i'll let the gentleman from south carolina

catch up. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina, do you reserve? mr. spratt: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. tsongas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding to me. as a member of the budget committee, i know that passing pay-go is critical to puts us on the path to fiscal responsibility. i co-sponsored the president's pay-go bill in june, and i'm happy to say that the bill before us today is even stronger. instead of sunsetting in five years, our bill is permanent. it closes certain loopholes making it harder to use budget gimmicks to hide true costs. it also prioritizes tax relief for the middle class. unfortunately, instead of attempting to further strengthen the bill, our republican substitute would gut it. while the underlying pay-go bill addresses both sides of the equation, spending and taxes, the republican substitute takes a dangerously lopsided approach, focusing only on one part of the

problem. while our bill makes a permanent change for fiscal responsibility, the republican substitute makes a temporary show of responsibility without limiting congress' ability to pass reckless tax cuts in the future. . the communities of my district have unemployment in the double digits, almost twice the national average. yet in the middle of a deep and painful recession in which families are struggling to make ends meet and many are dependent on the social safety net, the republican substitute will stall the economic recovery in its tracks. but the republican substitute does more. it threatens our national security as well. as a member of the armed services committee, i have strong concerns that the republican substitute, if enacted, would create large gaps in our defense budget at a crucial time when we face

numerous threats to our security from around the world. some have argued that pay-go doesn't go far enough. they're right, it does not. it won't balance the budget and restore responsible government, but it is a critical first step. gutting pay-go and replacing it with a short-term, one-sided approach offered by the republican substitute is a step backwards. we must take the needed steps to put our financial house in order. i urge a no vote on the ryan substitute and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, i would like to three minutes to the house republican conference chairman, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: i'm sorry i missed ms. pelosi's remarks, but i do have a copy of what she said in january of 2007.

after years of historic deficits this new congress will commit itself to a higher standard, pay as you go, no new deficit spending. our new america will provide -- under the democrat majority, we have seen a congress that's presided over the most unprecedented spending spree in history. the nation's deficit has exploded by a factor of 10,

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 169, the nays are 259, the amendment is not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to reinstitute and update the pay

as you go requirement of budget neutrality and new tax and spending legislation, and on the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from wisconsin rise? mr. ryan: i offer a motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempe: the clerk will re-- the gentleman is opposed to the bill? mr. ryan: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will read. the clerk: mr. ryan moves to recommit h.r. 2920 to move the bill forthwith, with the following amendment. at the end of the bill, add the following new sections. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. members will please take their seats. members will please leave the aisle and take their conversation from the floor. is there any objection to dispensing with the reading? without objection, so ordered. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. ryan: the republican motion to recommit adds three germane

provisions from the fiscal honesty and accountability act of 2009, which is the blue dog pay-go bill introduced by mr. hill and 53 democratic co-sponsors. it adds this to the underlying bill this motion to recommit does not strike or amend any provision in the underlying bill. the three provisions taken ver bay tim from the house blue dog bill and added to the underlying pay-go bill are, number one, discretionary caps from f.y. 2011 to f.y. 2013 at the levels the blue dogs set out in their bill. number two, a requirement that c.b.o. report the interest costs of legislation. number three a requirement that c.b.o. score conference reports. mr. speaker, i still think the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. members will take their conversation from the floor. members will please leave the aisles and take their seats.

the members on the right side of the chair will please stop their conversations, take them from the floor, take their seats. the gentleman may continue. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. let me read from the minority views of the spending control act of 2004, presented by then the minority ranking member mr. spratt on behalf of house democrats with respect to discretionary spending caps. quote, democrats believe that a set of discretionary spending caps arrived through bipartisan gaucheuation is an important

part -- negotiation is an important part of budget. if spending caps are to work effectively, they must be established as part of the boinch approach. it should serve as a model for budget reform today. we agree. we agree the bill would be far more effective if discretionary spending caps were added to it. given that this bill was bypassed from committee we want to offer our colleagues one more chance at bipartisan success here. we are saying to those who are here who call themselves blue dogs, we want to work with you. you hold the keys. you control the fate of not only this provision, but you'll also hold the keys of next week's provision which will create a new unfunded liability in health care.

mr. alder, currie, childers, cooper, fattah, gordon, harman, holden, mish showed, mitchell, murphy, peterson, scott, space, taylor, wilson, at mire, barry, bowen, boyd, chandler, davis,le ellsworth, griffith, herseth sandlin, kratovil, melancon, tanner and thompson, all we're asking you to do is vote for the bill you co-sponsored. that's all this does. vote for what you've co-sponsored. put your votes with your -- where your co-sponsors are. we can make this bill better and make it bipartisan. we will help you deliver the margin of victory. let's do this together. let's have that vote. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

all members are reminded to please address their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. spratt: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. spratt: this resolution is too clever by half. our colleagues across the aisle have not had some sudden epiphany and decided this bill is something they could embrace. this is an effort not to push the bill across the finish line but kill it before it gets past the house. we worked for months to get statutory pay-go to this point where we can put it over the top and put it into the statute books of the united states of america. if we vote for the resolution, if we vote for the motion to recommit, we'll put that at jeopardy. this is a procedural device to defeat a bill they cannot

defeat on the subject of the marriage of the bill itself. we won the argument on the substitute marriage they want to take it back by a procedural device to insert in this bill some numbers -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman makes the point the house is not in order, they're correct. the gentleman will suspend. members will take their conversations from the floor of the house. mr. spratt: insert in this bill numbers that were inserted and used in a blue dog publication that was issued last january. seven or eight months ago. the numbers have changed. they're dramatically different from what they are in the conference report. the concurrent budget resolution we finally adopted. as i said, we've been through an arduous budget process to determine these details. if we now begin undoing those details, everything will come unraveled, including the bill before us. i urge every member on this side to stick together, we're

on the verge of passing it, i yield to mr. hill, one of the authors of the bill. i yield one minute. i yield one minute to mr. hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may not yield blocks of time he may yield to the gentleman from indiana to speak. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. hill: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to award an a for the republicans over here for cleverness. it's a very clever thing to do. but it's not the right thing to do. based upon what mr. spratt has already talked about. these are old january numbers. this bill is now outdated. the practical thing to do is to do what we're just about to do with mr. spratt and that bill. now look, we finally are too to the a point where we can have pay-go and there's been a delicate balance to get to where we are right now, including negotiations with people in the senate, so i urge my colleagues to vote no on an

outdated motion to recommit and vote yes for mr. spratt. mr. spratt: i yield the balance of our time to the distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you, i rise in opposition to the motion. -- in opposition to the motion to recommit. this motion is designed to kill the bill. generally speaking, my friends on that side of the aisle don't support the underlying bill. i understand that. it constrains you in cutting taxes because it makes you pay for that, just as it makes us pay for any increases. that's why this is so good. because it affects both sides of the proposition. the spending side, and the revenue side. this constrains all of us. none of us like constraints. but if we don't have constraints, our grandchildren will look to us and say we did not do a good job.

i want to -- i want to say to ed lorenzen who worked with charlie stenholm on this proposition for over a decade, thank you for the work you have done. i want to say to my blue dog friends, thank you for your leadership. and i want to say to my progressive friends who understand the ramifications of spending deficits that adversely affect the most vulnerable in our country, vote against this m.t.r., vote for this statutory pay-go, let us get back on the road to fiscal responsibility. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. spratt: i yield back the

balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. ryan: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 240erk15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will b followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, motions to suspend the rules on h.r. 3119, house resolution 534, and house resolution 2972. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 196, the nays are 234 and the motion does not prevail. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to

reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. spratt: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker: on this vote the yeas are 265, the nays are 166. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker: the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3119 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3119, a brill to designate the facility of

the united states postal service located at 867 stockton street in stockton, california, as the lim poon lee post office. the speaker: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 426, the nays are zero. zero recorded as present. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 534, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 534, resolution supporting the goals and ideals of national children and families day.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this vote will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 427, the nays are zero. zero recorded as present.

2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to -- snoop the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 429, the nays are zero, zero recorded as present.

2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, to suspend the rules and pass house resolution 2972, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2972, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 115 west edward street in erath, louisiana, as the conrad derouen jr. post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning madeossible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this votes, the yeas are 424, the nays are zero, zero voted

present. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection you should clause 8 of rule 20. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i move to suspend the rules and agree to h.res. 464. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house resolution 654, honoring the organization for security and cooperation in europe mediterranean partners and for cooperation. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida, mr. klein, will control 20 minutes. mr. klein: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous

material on the matter under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. klein: i rise in support of h.res. 664 honoring the organization for security and cooperation in europe for its cooperation with mediterranean partners. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i pish with wish to thank my good friend for from florida, -- from florida, mr. hastings, for introducing this legislation. i thank him for his many years in the helsinki -- >> the house is not in ordered. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is in ordered prosm seed. mr. klein: thank you, mr. speaker. the important relationship between the o.s.c. -- the osce and its mediterranean partners dates back to its founding in

1975. it recognized the deeply rooted geographical, historical, cultural ties between states in this region. in particular, egypt, jordan, morocco and tunisia has been active partners in this partnership. since the osce parliamentary assembly was established in 1990, it has called for enhanced collaboration between members of parliament from the participating states and mediterranean legislators in order to promote regional stability and economic cooperation. the house of representatives is pleased to welcome the representatives of the osce mediterranean partners for cooperation in washington, d.c. later this week for a seminar on further strengthening ties between the osce and this region. in addition, the european union, in addition to the european unions,

euro-mediterranean partnership, and nato's mediterranean dialogue this provides another valuable forum in which israel and its arab neighbors can discuss issues of regional concern formally and informally. it gives them an opportunity to learn firsthand about neighboring europe's ongoing security needs and to benefit through example from europe's hard-won success in establishing viable security structures looking to the day when a peaceful middle east will perhaps want to establish its own osce-like security architecture. in closing, mr. speaker, i wish to commend the oombings sce for its efforts to engage more closely with the mediterranean region and to encourage the partners for cooperation to further their efforts to enhance trade, security, and economic development. i strongly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, is recognized for two 20 minutes. mr. poe: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: i rise in support of this resolution which highlights the efforts of the organization for security and cooperation in europe and its mediterranean partners for cooperation. 20 years ago, the osce and its mediterranean partners for cooperation recognize that an increasing globalized world, the security challenges confronting them in their respective regions were increasingly linked. as a result, they agreed to formalize a diplomatic mechanism to facilitate closer cooperation on a range of issues, including the development of a model strategy to address 21st century security threats and improve stability in the mediterranean region. the efforts toward this cooperation have borne fruit with issues such as migration

and integration and best prack dayses -- practices to develop strategies to reduce feelings of exclusion and estrangement among immigrant populations which as we've seen can contain the potential to motivate some individuals to embrace extremist ideologies. i note the representatives of the osce and its mediterranean partners will meet this week to discuss further expansion of relations and hold a dialogue on shared concerns, dialogue on these complex but critical issues is a meaningful way to enhance the stability and economic growth of both the osce member states and the countries in the mediterranean region. i support the resolution which represents the endovers undertake bin the o -- endeavors undertaken by the osce. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. klein: i yield one minute

to the gentlelady from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute ms. jackson lee: let me thank the distinguished gentleman from florida, there are two distinguished gentlemen from florida, the manager of this particular legislation, my dear friend who has been leading the organization for security and coppings for a number of years. i rise to support this resolution in honor of the efforts by the organization for security and cooperation in europe mediterranean partners for cooperation, because i believe as a member of the foreign affairs committee, the efforts of collaboration we have addressing the questions of peace and security are crucial. i'd like to acknowledge some of the aspects of the osce's work, the 1999 istanbul document, the participating state encouraging the mediterranean partners to draw on the expertise in setting up structures and mechanisms in the mediterranean

region. as well, you can also believe or manage to see that the osce provides the kind of bridge of cooperation that is very, very important. we welcome the representatives of osce that are here. i want to thank mr. hastings for his leadership in this effort and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. smith: i rise in strong support of the resolution today which honors the osce mediterranean partners of morocco, tunisia, and algeria and i want to extend gratitude to alcee hastings for his ground breaking work with each of the partners. he now serves as special representative on mediterranean affairs and is trying to bring

the helsinki process, the three baskets of the helsinki final act which emphasize economic issue, human rights issues and security issues and to bring that good, positive process that has worked wonders over the years in election reform, mr. hastings has observed, how many is it now, alcee? 11 different elections overseas as usually -- usually as the head of the delegation and we're trying to inculcate those kinds of values and to say to our partner, learn from the helsinki process, it works, it's yielded tremendous results and processed in the area of human rights. i want to again thank him for his work and the resolution. i'd also like to welcome the president of the parliamentary assembly as well as lynn marcer, the immediate past president of the parliamentary assembly, our good friend from

canada who is also here, who has done oweman's work, again, -- yeoman's work, again, everybody knows about nato but in the united states don't necessarily know about the good work the osce has ha done. the parliamentary assembly was formed in the 1990's to be the voices of members of parliament in the 56 countries that make up the osce. we have become friends. i was chairman of the helsinki commission for 12 years. i've been on it since my second term in 1983 and now serve as ranking member and mr. hastings and others are serving as co-chairs. this is a remarkable organization that again far too few people know the contributions that it makes, particularly in the area of human rights. again, i want to thank mr. hastings and wish him great success with the conference that's under way rks but especially for the hard work

that -- and very underappreciated work in reaching out to those partners in the mediterranean to say learn from the osce and maybe even provide insights to us as to how we can improve our work as well. i yield back to mr. poe the balance of my time. mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent that mr. smith from new jersey may manage the rest of this resolution and the remainder of the foreign affairs resolutioning. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. does the gentleman reserve the balance of the time. mr. poe: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. klein: i yield four minutes to the sponsor of the bill, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hastings: i thank my good friend and geographic soul mate, our districts abutt each other in south florida. i'm especially grateful to my i'm especially grateful to my good friend from new jersey for