[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1179-1187]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.J. RES. 45, 
           INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1065 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1065

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory limit on 
     the public debt, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a 
     motion offered by the Majority Leader or his designee that 
     the House concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate 
     amendment shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their designees. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion. The 
     question of adoption of the motion shall be divided between 
     concurring in the matter preceding title I of the Senate 
     amendment and concurring in the matter comprising titles I 
     and II of the Senate amendment. The first portion of the 
     divided question shall be considered as adopted. If the 
     second portion of the divided question fails of adoption, 
     then the House shall be considered to have made no 
     disposition of the Senate amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1065.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of the 
Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 45, the debt limit and statutory PAYGO 
resolution. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the majority 
leader or a designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The 
rule waives all points of order against the motion except those arising 
under clause 10 of House rule XXI and provides 1 hour of debate on the 
motion. The rule divides the question between concurring in the matter 
preceding title I of the Senate amendment and concurring in titles I 
and II of the amendment. The first portion of the question shall be 
considered as adopted. If the second portion fails, then the House will 
be considered to have made no disposition of the Senate amendment.
  Madam Speaker, this vote is both historic and difficult. It is 
historic because it is reinstating the pay-as-you-go law, or PAYGO. 
This is one tool in the effort to reduce the deficit and return fiscal 
common sense back to our budget. And it is difficult because this 
resolution includes a $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit.
  Now, let me begin with the debt limit. None of us are eager to 
increase the debt limit. But we have a responsibility to take action. 
The Treasury Department has informed Congress that the United States 
will reach the current statutory limit on the national debt on February 
11. That is next Thursday. If the debt limit is not increased before 
that date, Treasury will not be able to meet the obligations of the 
U.S. Government.
  Simply, Madam Speaker, if we don't act, then we will default. Now, I 
can't think of a more reckless or irresponsible act. Defaulting is not 
an option. If the United States defaults, investors will lose 
confidence that the U.S. will honor its debts in the future. They would 
likely demand higher interest rates to compensate for the higher risk 
of purchasing Treasury securities. And this would increase the cost of 
Federal borrowing, result in even greater budget deficits, and require 
higher taxes and fewer government services. A greater portion of U.S. 
wealth would be transferred to overseas creditors, to China, India, and 
Saudi Arabia. And it is also possible that those creditors would demand 
that the U.S. borrow in other currencies rather than dollars, putting 
in peril the very value and stability of the American dollar.
  It is clear that the responsible course of action is to raise the 
debt limit. It is also clear that we are in this position because of 
the policies that have been implemented over the past decade. Ten years 
ago, Madam Speaker, we had a budget surplus. Since then, our country 
was attacked and the worst recession in our lifetimes took a severe 
economic toll on our Nation's economy. But we also had two wars that 
were unpaid for, tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, that were unpaid 
for, and a prescription drug benefit that was unpaid for. Yes, 
Republicans and Democrats have had to increase the debt limit because 
of these policies and events. And unfortunately, we have to do it again 
today.
  Now, I know there will be those who want to use this vote as a way to 
demagogue this issue. There will be those on my side of the aisle who 
will detail how the policies of the last 8 years put us in this 
position, and there will be those who use this debate to claim that the 
recession is the fault of the Democrats. We can have that debate, and 
we will have that debate. But at the end of the day, Madam Speaker, it 
is my hope that nobody in this Chamber would put our Nation at such 
financial and economic risk simply because of politics.
  My friend from Massachusetts and my colleague, Congressman Richard 
Neal, said it best in the Rules Committee last night: ``If you voted to 
go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you voted for the tax cuts that 
went mostly to the wealthiest in this country, or if you voted for the 
Recovery Act, then you have to vote to raise the debt ceiling.'' Simply 
put, the American people want us to solve our Nation's problems. And 
increasing the debt limit is the responsible action. But it doesn't 
address the underlying problem. And that is the problem of the deficit.
  That is where statutory PAYGO comes in. Statutory PAYGO requires all 
new policies be offset. That means paid for. In plain English, we have 
to pay for what we buy. While it is not the only step we can take, this 
is a solid step towards fiscal discipline.
  Now, why is PAYGO so important? It is important because our fiscal 
health and long-term economic prosperity depend upon it. We must find a 
balance between short-term deficit spending to speed along our economic 
recovery with longer-term fiscal discipline.
  Dick Cheney, Madam Speaker, famously said that deficits don't matter. 
Well, I believe that they do matter, and I am glad to hear that my 
Republican friends now agree with Democrats that deficits do matter. I 
trust that at the

[[Page 1180]]

end of the day they will vote that way too. But whether you vote for 
this resolution or not, you must at least admit that President Obama 
and the Democrats are facing this problem head-on. We are making sure 
we responsibly meet our financial obligations. We are instituting PAYGO 
so that we pay for the programs that we are funding. And we expect 
President Obama to formalize a debt commission soon to make other 
recommendations to bring down our debt. These are important steps, and 
these are real steps.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, to vote for this rule and 
this resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, no surprise, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. 
The charade of Speaker Pelosi running ``the most open, honest, and 
ethical Congress'' is once again confirmed today that that's not 
happening. That is not happening here again on the floor, and it's 
related to this activity that we went through in the Rules Committee 
upstairs just yesterday.
  At a time of record deficits and record unemployment, my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle are simply trying to blame Republicans 
and George Bush rather than looking at their own responsibility of what 
they have done in the last year that has placed enormous, enormous 
financial strain on this country. Never once did they talk about that 
responsibility, that they led this country, saying, We must go and 
spend this money because it will lend itself to jobs. And we're going 
to have the stimulus bill. We're going to call it the stimulus bill.
  The President went all over the country and Members of Congress went 
all over the country and sold this. It didn't work it. It didn't work. 
It didn't work big time. I didn't hear any offer of, Whoops. As Vice 
President Biden said, We guessed and it didn't work.
  I think it would have been appropriate this morning for the gentleman 
from Massachusetts or anybody from the Democratic Party to stand up and 
say, You know, we did guess. I know those Republicans told us this 
wouldn't work, but we really guessed and we guessed wrong. The Vice 
President has the guts to say that. I think this body should say the 
same thing, rather than trying to blame this on George Bush.
  Today, we're here to raise the debt limit an additional $1.9 
trillion. Now, the first question is: My gosh, why so much? Because so 
much burden and debt has been added. The bottom line is we're only here 
because what our friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Party have 
done did not work. They took out a monster loan that is not paying off. 
But today, there is not even a vote. It's required, but not even a vote 
or a debate on the issue of raising the debt limit. In fact, the 
majority party has used deceitful procedural games to hide the fact 
that they are raising the debt limit again, for the sixth time, six 
times since they took control of the House. Why, you ask? Well, it's to 
give their members political coverage and a vote on statutory PAYGO 
again. I guess we're going to keep blaming George Bush, President Bush, 
for this.
  The bottom line is, Madam Speaker, as I speak to each of the Members 
here on the floor today, this is about raising the statutory debt limit 
$1.9 trillion. And my colleagues and I are going to spend the time 
today discussing the current economic climate, the reason why things 
aren't working. The majority's principles and priorities of spending 
and taxing and borrowing and the President's fiscal year 2011 budget--
$3.6 trillion--that was just released this week tell the reason why.
  Madam Speaker, we've told you over and over again, if you take the 
investor out of the equation, if you tax the American people, if you 
destroy job creators, if you go at employers and have a battle with 
them, they will get it. They will quit employing people.
  Our President seems to have, every time I watch him, he's always 
after somebody. He's always got a problem; the bankers, the doctors, 
insurance. Every time I look up, our great President, Barack Obama, has 
an ax to grind with somebody, and it's generally employers. And then he 
wants to turn around and say, How come we don't have any jobs? Oh, 
we're going to get those. We'll get those. This is America. We can do 
anything.
  But the policies are not creating jobs; they're creating debts. 
They're creating circumstances where this country has to again today 
borrow for the debt limit and pass a bill here today that says we're 
going to raise the debt limit $1.9 trillion so our government doesn't 
go belly up. Madam Speaker, that is over $46,000 per American family, 
just what we're doing now. Since September 2007, the year our friends 
the Democrats took control, over $3.8 billion, on average, has been 
added to the national debt every single day.
  The President's budget borrows too much, taxes too much, and spends 
too much. But what it does is it kills the goose that lays the golden 
egg. Then we wonder why we don't have jobs in this country.
  The $3.6 trillion budget represents nearly a 30-percent increase in 
total outlays since 2008. The budget includes more than $2 trillion in 
job-killing tax hikes, with nearly a 20-percent jump in the first year 
alone. I get it. I get it as an individual taxpayer, and that's why I 
virtually sold all my stock. I got out of the stock market because this 
administration and this Congress want to kill economic growth and 
opportunity, and I can't take that and everybody else can't take that. 
And so that's why you're seeing employers and others say, Enough is 
enough. That's what we're saying here today.
  This tax includes taxes on small businesses, investors, and families 
earning less than $250,000 a year, also. I thought we heard the 
President say that he was going to give everybody a tax cut. They keep 
talking about it. Boy, it's a great idea to float. Sure wish you'd 
deliver on that one. But let's also go to the high side. We need 
investors to be in the game, Madam Speaker. We need investors, and this 
bill taxes the stuffings out of them.
  Additionally, the President's budget runs up a record budget deficit 
again. We're going to vote on it again. Democrats, Yea, we support the 
President. All these great priorities. The national debt is predicted 
to double once again over 5 years and triple by 2019, and that's a 
mistake. Interest alone would set the American taxpayer back roughly $6 
trillion, just the interest over the next decade.
  The American people want Congress, want Washington to rein in 
borrowing, taxing, and spending. They don't want more of it. They want 
Congress to stop talking about what they will do about helping jobs and 
to actually make the environment better. There's still an experiment 
going on out there, Madam Speaker, and people are not buying it because 
they are concerned about Washington and what they're going to do next. 
Taxing, spending, and borrowing is not a way to start this new year.
  During last week's State of the Union, President Obama stated, 
Starting in 2011, we will prepare to freeze government spending for 3 
years. Great. Great, Mr. President. That was Thursday night. I went 
upstairs just yesterday and I offered an amendment in the Rules 
Committee on H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity bill, the first bill right 
out of the bag, and I took the President up on that and said, Hey, I 
think we ought to have an amendment added to the bill, since the bill 
doesn't do it, that would have frozen spending just on two programs for 
3 years. My amendment would have saved a paltry $47 million. That's 
all, just $47 million. I know it's not a lot. And you would not have 
believed the calls at me about how out of line I was and how this was 
the most important thing in the history of our country.
  This body is not prepared to make tough decisions. This body is not 
prepared even to cut $47 million after we clapped for the President 
just the other day. This Democrat majority continues to pursue 
initiatives and policies that will lead to more unemployment and bigger 
and more deficits. This administration and the Democratic majority

[[Page 1181]]

promised the American people they would aim for jobs and economic 
recovery, health care, cleaner energy, better education. That list goes 
on and on and on. And I will tell you what we've got for it: record 
deficits, record spending, and record unemployment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues are impressive. They're 
impressive in their ability to cover their tracks. They make a mess; 
they cover their tracks. They make a bigger mess; they cover their 
tracks. They drove this economy into a ditch. They're trying to cover 
their tracks. Well, that's fine for playing politics on the House 
floor, but the facts are a stubborn thing. The facts are that $4 
trillion of Bush tax cuts were unpaid, $4 trillion: $700 billion for 
the Bush prescription drug bill, unpaid for; $3.5 trillion in mandatory 
revenue costs of the Bush economic collapse that we had to endure 
because of the lousy economy; record job losses in the Bush economy.
  Now, the fact of the matter is that we are faced with difficult 
economic times, and I would like to think that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle would at least take some responsibility in 
helping to fix things. My colleague talks about the Recovery Act as if 
it meant nothing.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the 
Recovery Act is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs 
through the end of 2009. An analysis by the Council of Economic 
Advisers also found that the Recovery Act is responsible for about 2 
million jobs, and that's not counting the jobs that were saved. In my 
home city of Worcester alone, 500 teachers and support staff would have 
been laid off without the Recovery Act; 22 cops would have been laid 
off and 17 firefighters. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
would say, Fire them. Fire the teachers. Fire the cops. Fire the 
firefighters. That's irresponsible.
  So I also point out that former McCain advisor Mark Zandi said that 
the stimulus was key to the strong fourth quarter growth in the U.S. 
economy. We just heard the news from the Department of Commerce that 
the U.S. economy grew at 5.7 percent from October through December, a 
better than expected gain.
  And this is what Mark Zandi, the Republican advisor, said: I think 
the stimulus was key to the fourth quarter. It was really critical to 
business fixed investment because there was a tax bonus depreciation in 
the stimulus that expired in December and juiced up fixed investment. 
And also, it was very critical to housing and residential investment 
because of the housing tax credit. And the decline in government 
spending would have been measurably greater without the money from the 
stimulus, because the stimulus was very, very important to the fourth 
quarter. That's a Republican advisor, McCain advisor, Mark Zandi.
  Now, I would just say, Madam Speaker, that those of us who voted for 
the Recovery Act have a responsibility to vote ``yes'' on this rule. 
But I would also say that those who voted for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, wars that were not paid for, somehow it's okay to ask all 
of our men and women to sacrifice, but we do nothing. But those wars 
were not paid for. But if you voted for the Bush tax cuts, the $4 
trillion that was unpaid for, at least have the responsibility to come 
to the floor and do the right thing.
  So I would urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to vote for this rule 
and vote for PAYGO. During the Bush years, no one talked about the 
deficit except to say that it didn't matter. That was Dick Cheney and 
some of my other colleagues. It does matter. We need to get the deficit 
under control. We need to help grow this economy. Statutory PAYGO is 
one way to do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by the way, I like this PAYGO thing that 
my friends, the Democrats, are pushing. But when it comes down to it, 
they waive PAYGO on a regular basis.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Chico, California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
and to the underlying bill. Excessive debt helped bring about the 
current economic downturn, and the American people know it. Working 
families have to make difficult choices every day to balance their 
budgets, yet Congress still refuses to make the tough choices needed to 
balance the Federal budget.
  The legislation before us authorizes the Federal Government to go $2 
trillion deeper in debt. In place of real fiscal discipline, it offers 
a phony pay-as-you-go rule that is full of loopholes and exceptions and 
does nothing to tackle our government's long-term structural deficits. 
The good news is that we can take real action to start cutting the 
deficit today. At a time when our economy is hurting and Washington 
continues to pile debt on future generations, it's simple common sense 
to stand up and say enough is enough.
  By defeating the previous question and voting ``no,'' the House will 
have an opportunity to consider the End TARP Act, legislation I 
introduced along with Mr. Paulsen and Mr. Tiahrt that would finally 
bring TARP to an end and immediately reduce the amount of money the 
government must borrow. A vote for this rule is a vote in favor of the 
status quo in Washington. The American people have spoken, and it's 
time the House acts to reduce unnecessary spending.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from 
Massachusetts for yielding.
  The constituents that I listen to know that both parties are 
responsible for borrowing a lot of money. They know that we borrowed a 
significant amount of money in recent times. They also know that the 
minority party voted to borrow and increase the national debt by 70 
percent during the term of the prior President. They know that this is 
the worst economic times we've had since the Great Depression. They 
don't know this by reading the newspaper. They know it by reading the 
balance in their checking account or reading the foreclosure notice 
that came in the mail yesterday or reading the want ads because they're 
looking for a job. They know this.
  They know that us saying the Republicans did wrong and the 
Republicans saying we did wrong isn't going to fix their problems. So 
what they know is they want to hear us talk about what to do about this 
burgeoning problem of the national debt. Here is our answer: We first 
believe that the best way to reduce the debt and reduce the deficit is 
to get people back to work so that individuals and families are able to 
pay taxes and so that businesses are able to pay taxes off of their 
profits.
  The best deficit- and debt-reduction program is full employment. We 
have nothing like full employment, nothing like it at all. We've lost 
huge numbers of jobs, and our plan to do something about it has been 
this: First, we believe that we should cut taxes for middle-class 
families so they have more money to spend. That's what we did last 
year, and the President proposes to do it again this year. Second, we 
believe that we should cut taxes for small businesses so they can 
reinvest in their businesses. That's what we voted for last year. We're 
prepared to do it again. We believe that we should put people back to 
work, rebuilding our roads and our bridges, rail systems, clean water 
systems, clean energy. That's what we voted to do last year.
  We are a long way from succeeding in this effort, but here is what 
has happened: In the last quarter of 2009, nearly 800,000 Americans 
lost their jobs. Tomorrow we will hear the reports for the month of 
January. They won't be good. But they will be a lot better than 800,000 
people losing their jobs, which is what happened in the last quarter of 
the year before last year. We've seen growth in the fourth quarter at 
5.7 percent. That means nothing to you if you're still looking at the 
want ads,

[[Page 1182]]

but it means that there is reason to think that jobs are on the way.
  And what have we heard about this? The chief economic adviser to 
President McCain's Presidential campaign said that the key factor of 
that growth taking place was the recovery bill that we passed last 
February. Those are his words, not mine. The nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office, as Mr. McGovern said, estimates that as many as 2.4 
million jobs have been created as a result of the recovery bill. We 
have a long way to go. We have laid out our plan to get there. Frankly, 
the minority has not laid out a plan, and we look forward to them doing 
so.
  The second thing that you need to do is to restrain and reduce 
spending. Most people will agree that the number one spending problem 
is entitlements, and the number one entitlement problem is health care. 
There are two ways to reduce health care spending. The first way is to 
restrain spending right now in existing programs. That's what we did. 
In November, a bill came to this floor to reform the country's health 
care system that would have stopped what I believe are wasteful 
payments to health care providers and people making money off the 
system to the tune of $480 billion, real deficit reduction that we all 
voted for. No one--with one exception--on the other side voted to do 
that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey 
has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman. The second way to reduce health 
care costs is to change the health care system so there is more 
competition, so that insurance companies have to compete for people's 
business and keep costs down that way. We'll all have a chance to vote 
on a bill that does that next week.
  And yes, the third thing that I think you have to do is to raise some 
revenue. The President and most of us ran on this proposition. We do 
believe that couples who make more than $250,000 a year and individuals 
who make more than $200,000 a year should be asked to pay the tax rates 
that they paid before the Bush tax cuts of 2001. Now we heard in 1993 
that this would ruin the economy. It would cause calamity. It would be 
the end of the American economy as we know it. Mr. Gingrich said this. 
Others said this. They were wrong. After they said these things, the 
economy created 23 million new jobs. When we followed their way, the 
economy lost jobs in the succeeding 8 years.
  The American people want to know what we intend to do, and we've said 
what we intend to do. We know it can be better.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, it's a good thing we're here on the 
floor of the House where we're exempt from things like deceptive 
practices, because this body would be guilty today. Here we are with 
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. Madam Speaker, 32 pages of 
this 56-page bill are exemptions to pay-as-you-go. So 32 pages are--Oh, 
we say we're going to have pay-as-you-go--but 32 of the 56 pages are, 
I'm sorry, but it does not apply to the following items. Madam Speaker, 
that's deceptive.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son of 
Dallas, Texas, the gentleman Mr. Hensarling.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I 
heard one of my Democratic colleagues say that today is a historic day, 
that there is a historic opportunity. And yes, history is being made 
today because never in the history of America has the debt limit been 
increased to $14.294 trillion. Here we are again, just a few months 
later, enacting yet another increase in the debt limit. The new debt 
limit, again, $14.3 trillion, costing every American household over 
$120,000.
  What do I hear from my Democratic colleagues? Well, we hear the old 
blame game. That's the first thing that we hear. We hear a lot of names 
from the past. Well, facts are pesky things, Madam Speaker. Listen, 
there is blame to go around. My party spent too much money. I have a 
chart right here. It's Congress that controls the purse strings, as we 
all know. And when the Republicans controlled Congress--this is the 
blue--these were our deficits. They averaged about $104 billion a year. 
I'm embarrassed about that. It's much too high. Now in their 3 years of 
control by the Democrats, we have deficits that are averaging over $1 
trillion, $1.1 trillion. That's the difference. What was once our 
annual deficits have become their monthly deficits, Madam Speaker. 
That's totally unacceptable.
  More history was made earlier this week when the President submitted 
his proposed budget that so many of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle decided to embrace. It made history. It is breathtaking in its 
red ink. It spends $3.8 trillion. The largest budget in American 
history is being proposed. It proposes a $1.6 trillion deficit, the 
highest deficit in the history of our Nation, over 10 percent of our 
economy. We haven't seen debt-to-economy ratios like this since World 
War II. It triples the national debt in just 10 years. Yes, this is a 
historic day because, once again, we are here to accommodate the 
spending agenda of the Democrats with a historic new increase in the 
debt limit.
  Madam Speaker, I will just ask this question: Where are the jobs? We 
were told that if we went off and if we passed this government stimulus 
plan, that somehow unemployment would never go above 8 percent. What do 
we have? We have an extra $1 trillion in debt from that act, and we are 
still mired in double-digit unemployment. You cannot spend, borrow and 
bail out your way to prosperity.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman. Again, we have seen it. It's 
almost a year later, and yet the Democrats continue to try more of the 
same. Borrow, spend, bail out your way into prosperity. And what do we 
have? Again, an additional $1.2 trillion in debt, and over 3 million 
more of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs.
  Small businesses are wondering who's going to pay for all this? 
They're concerned about the $2 trillion takeover of health care. Who's 
going to pay for that? They're concerned about the threatened $800 
billion carbon tax, the energy tax. Who is going to pay for that? The 
omnibuses. Is it any wonder that jobs are not being created in America?
  I speak, Madam Speaker, to small businessmen and investors every 
week, and they tell me, We're too scared to create jobs in this 
environment. Are we going to have rapid inflation? Are there going to 
be huge tax increases? Are Congress and the President going to vilify 
us once again? And my colleagues wonder where, where are the jobs.
  You cannot borrow and spend and bail out your way to prosperity.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards), another member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, getting sailing lessons from the 
captains of the economic Titanic may be interesting but not very 
helpful. Let's get serious. Allowing the U.S. Treasury to default on 
our Nation's debt for the first time in history is not a responsible 
option. It would devastate our economy, our stock market, and our 
children's futures. Republicans know it, and Democrats know it. We all 
know it.
  The responsible action is to start getting control of our deficits 
today, and we can do that by passing the pay-as-you-go law. Pay-as-you-
go is a principle that citizens understand and live by every day. It's 
a principle that helped Congress in the late 1990s turn the largest 
deficits in American history, created by some of those who have just 
spoken, into the largest surpluses in American history.
  Unfortunately, the Republican House leadership killed the House pay-
as-you-go rule that had worked so well. It killed it in 2002. And what 
happened? The largest surpluses in our history turned into the largest 
deficits in American history. The Republican-led Congress passed 
massive unpaid-for tax

[[Page 1183]]

cuts and the largest expansion of Medicare without paying for a dime of 
that. Those two actions alone added $6 trillion to our national debt 
over a period of just one decade, $6 trillion, most of which was 
borrowed from the Chinese and other foreign governments. It's time to 
put some discipline back into our Federal budget processes, and that is 
what pay-as-you-go is all about.
  I am proud to have initiated the effort to make this law, this PAYGO, 
not a temporary law but a permanent law. Had we done that in the 1990s, 
we wouldn't be facing the terrible deficits that we hear decried today. 
Pay-as-you-go works for families, pay-as-you-go works for businesses, 
and then in the 1990s, it worked for the American people in the Federal 
budget. And when we pass this into law, it will work once again and 
help us get these intolerable Federal deficits back under control and 
preserve our children's futures.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, once again, a hyperbole that does not 
match the action. Out of the 56 pages of this bill, 32 pages are 
exemptions to pay-as-you-go, 32 of the 56 pages that our good friends 
are touting as the answer and the right way to do it. But most 
intriguing is that we've heard that the way to do it is the way it's 
being done here, because it's open and honest.

                              {time}  1215

  There is not even a vote on the debt limit; it's self-executed in the 
rule. So let's go and vote for PAYGO and talk about how responsible we 
are. Oh, at the same time, make sure we fund what we've done, $1.9 
trillion. The Rules Committee is pretty good up there, Madam Speaker. 
Know how to hide things. Know how to obfuscate the real facts of the 
case. The facts of the case are the American people know what's going 
on. They K-N-O-W what is going on. Over the last year, I've heard from 
constituents also, and they want a good economy and they want jobs. And 
the Democrat majority is simply not stepping up to this.
  I'm going to encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a 
``no'' vote on the rule when it's our time to get that done. Just so 
our colleagues understand this, we're going to have a vote on this one 
here today.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express great concern 
on behalf of our children and our grandchildren who are going to bear 
the burden of this expansion of our national debt. Today we're going to 
vote on the sixth increase in the debt limit in the past 2\1/2\ years. 
After today we will have added $4 trillion to the government credit 
limit. Who's going to pay this bill? Congress must address the root of 
this debt limit increase. It's the spending.
  I want to point to a chart here that the President the other night 
came and talked to us about his spending freeze. So here is the impact 
of the freeze on spending. I know it's a little hard to tell, but if 
you look real closely, you see that you get a 49.27 percent growth in 
spending without the freeze, but with the freeze you get a 49.01 
percent increase in spending.
  It's a gimmick. This whole PAYGO thing is a sham. We just had a 
gentleman in New York that was doing a kind of a sham transaction, and 
he's probably going to--in fact, he is in prison for a Ponzi scheme. 
That's what this whole situation is is a Ponzi scheme, because what 
we're doing is we're borrowing and spending and borrowing and spending; 
we're borrowing the money to make the interest payments on the debt 
that we already have. And what do the Democrats want to do? They want 
to borrow some more money.
  If you were serious about spending, I offered two amendments 
yesterday to the Rules Committee that would have put some caps on 
spending, would have begun to decelerate the growth of government. 
Those rules, are they eligible to be considered on this floor today? 
No, they were denied.
  You see, if we keep putting off and playing the Ponzi scheme game, 
we're going to keep running up the debt for our children and our 
grandchildren. What does PAYGO really mean, the PAYGO vote that we're 
going to have? It means the American people get to pay and the 
Democrats get to go spending, taxing and borrowing, just like they've 
been doing since they took control of this House 3 years ago. But they 
want you to think today that they have brought some real reform to this 
body. We passed PAYGO in 2007. Guess what we've done since we've passed 
PAYGO? We've raised the debt limit five times. And, in fact, in 1998, 
of the bills that came across this floor, 98 percent of the time, PAYGO 
was either waived or exempted from that.
  And as the gentleman pointed out a while ago, and I appreciate him 
doing that, a majority of the text of this bill isn't about how we're 
going to cut spending; it's about the things that we're going to waive 
that aren't going to be subject to PAYGO. So if we're serious about 
cutting spending in this country because we're serious about this debt, 
then why aren't we taking steps that really are going to address 
spending? The reason that they don't want to address spending is they 
don't intend to cut spending. They intend to raise taxes. I encourage 
my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this debate is laughable. During the 
Republican-controlled Congress and under President Bush from 2002 to 
2006 the debt limit was raised by over $3 trillion. That's just a fact. 
You can't deny that. Secondly, why are they so against PAYGO? Why are 
they so against being responsible? Because they have an alternative 
plan. And we saw the outline of that alternative plan in the Budget 
Committee the other day, and their plan is to try to reduce the deficit 
and balance the budget by going after Medicare and Social Security, 
privatizing Medicare, privatizing Social Security, letting Medicare 
wither on the vine, going after these programs, which is something they 
have tried to do time and time again.
  But let me just say this for the record: while the Democrats control 
this Congress, we're not going to let you destroy the two most 
important social programs that have ever been enacted in this country.
  At this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I find it interesting that our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, say that 
this is a sham. You know what? It was the law for a decade under the 
Clinton administration, and I guess it wasn't a sham because the first 
thing the Republicans did was to repeal PAYGO so that they could run up 
the massive deficits of the Bush years. We're asking to put this back 
in place because this is how we cleaned up the unsustainable deficits 
of the Reagan years. This is how we got, for the first time, a surplus 
for this country that evaporated in the Republican irresponsibility. 
PAYGO's not a sham. There's no more sacred cows.
  The fact of the matter is, you'll have to choose your priorities. Our 
priorities may be different, but you don't get to charge them off to 
the future. You're either going to pay for them, you're going to raise 
revenues, or you're going to cut something else. The fact is it worked 
and it worked and it worked and it worked and the deficit came down. 
And the fact of the matter is, I offered this in 1983, but it couldn't 
get to Congress because they thought it was too tough. Finally, under 
President Clinton we did it and the deficits came down, and we left you 
with an inheritance of $5 trillion that you squandered, you wasted. And 
now you want not to play by the rules. The rules are you should pay as 
you go.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I'd love to engage the gentleman if he 
would take the time; but I'd like to ask him, if he says it's so good, 
why are 32 of the 56 pages exemptions to PAYGO? And I would like to 
find out if this is so real----
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I'll be happy to respond because 
those were some of the same exemptions that existed in the law, and the 
fact is the deficit came down. We erased the $300 billion annual 
deficits of the Reagan

[[Page 1184]]

administration. We did it over time, and we left you $5 trillion that 
you squandered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Good. I'd like the gentleman to address why are 32 of 
the 56 pages----
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It's the same law we had before.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Oh, we're going to blame it on Ronald Reagan now. I 
reclaim my time and I appreciate the gentleman for blaming this on 
Ronald Reagan. I tell you what, I would be very pleased to engage in a 
dialogue with the gentleman if you'll answer one question.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Why are you down on the floor, your party saying this 
is the real deal and yet 32 of the 56 pages exempt spending?
  Mr. ANDREWS. May I answer the question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would enjoy the gentleman doing that. I yield to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. ANDREWS. They do not exempt spending. Here's what they say. As 
the gentleman knows, the structure of this bill is that increases in 
mandatory spending or decreases in revenue must be offset. There are 
four exceptions, the so-called ``doctor fix,'' the SGR payments; middle 
class tax cuts; the estate tax fix, which I think both parties have 
tried to support.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Then why are we--we did the same thing but now it's 
okay for you.
  Mr. ANDREWS. If I may, I'm trying to answer. Would the gentleman 
yield so I could answer?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am engaging with the gentleman.
  Mr. ANDREWS. The pages the gentleman is talking about are what are 
called the sequestration rules; and what that means is, if the Congress 
violates pay-as-you-go, and it spends more than it should under those 
rules, then there is an automatic reduction in spending to make the so-
called score card balance out, to make sure things are brought into 
balance. Sequestration has happened once in the years that pay-as-you-
go were in effect. It was when Mr. Darman was Budget Director. It has 
never happened before. What these rules say is if there's a 
sequestration, there are certain programs that are off limits to the 
sequestration. But they're not exceptions to the PAYGO rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman. You know, I think the best 
evidence, and reclaiming my time, I think the best evidence that this 
is not working is the deficit rising from $161 billion in 2007, to $1.4 
trillion last year and $1.6 trillion this year; $161 billion in '07 to 
last year, $1.4 trillion and this year $1.6 trillion.
  I would say that the preponderance of the evidence does not support 
the hypothesis. Today, in this rule, we didn't really debate the debt 
limit about being honest about the vote; but we're going to go ahead 
and have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, when my colleagues vote ``no'' 
on the previous question, that we will be allowed to amend this rule to 
consider an end to the TARP Act to stop the bailouts which are a part 
of this problem. This act would immediately terminate the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program and reduce the debt ceiling by the amount of 
remaining authorized TARP funds, which is nearly now $200 billion.
  We cannot continue what we're doing, spending taxpayer dollars and 
having these bailout programs. This is an ineffective program.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, America is calling for fiscal 
responsibility. And I welcome the gentleman from Tyler, Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) to speak for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, we can agree on some things. Default is 
not responsible is one of them. It isn't responsible. But there are 
things that can be done to avoid defaulting other than raising the 
massive debt ceiling beyond anything anybody ever dreamed of before. 
And we keep being told that Clinton gave you a balanced budget. The 
President does not vote on a balanced budget. He signed, and wasn't 
real happy there at first about signing a balanced budget that was 
pushed over there by the Republican majority that was voted in in 1994 
because of the Democrats' irresponsibility.
  And so things went well as the Republicans did what they were elected 
to do for a time. But you are right: when President Bush got elected, 
9/11 happened, and the spending began anew, and it was not responsible 
as it should have been. And when I was elected in 2004, one of the 
things that we dealt with was too much spending. And it continued. And 
some of us fought to bring it down, but it was not enough.
  And as a result, the Democrats have been in charge since 2007. And so 
pay-as-you-go--let me tell you, I was asked earlier today by our whip, 
Eric Cantor. You know, we checked our records. You voted for this one 
of the times they brought it up last year. Why'd you do that? And I 
said, it was my mistake. I thought they were serious. But they keep 
waiving and exempting, keep adding it to bills, and here it is back 
again. They won't fool me again because I know they're not serious 
about it anymore.
  We heard from Art Laffer, who was the architect behind turning around 
double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit 
interest rates. How'd he do it? He cut taxes 30 percent. And Art Laffer 
2 weeks ago said you want to deal with this deficit? You have so much 
in the way of assets in the western part of the country. You own most 
of the country. Start selling some assets. That's what people do who 
are responsible.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. GOHMERT. What responsible people do, and I appreciate being 
lectured on responsible, is they bring down spending immediately. You 
don't have a President or a head of a household saying we're going to 
get responsible next year. Yeah, that's it. Next year. No, you do it 
now. You don't keep going on. And I'll give you a personal, very 
personal example. We have three kids who have been going through 
college. We owe a lot on student loans. We have a home that I'm not in 
4 or 5 days out of the week. I love that home. I hoped that home would 
be my home the rest of my life. But we're putting it up for sale 
because it's an asset; it will allow us to pay off debt.
  Let's start selling some of our assets. But instead, oh, no. Last 
week we voted to buy a bunch of the Virgin Islands. We voted in here, 
because of the majority, we're going to buy homes in foreign countries 
for rare dogs and cats. We're going to buy homes for cranes that don't 
live in this country. It's time to get responsible all right. Let's 
vote down this bill, and let's come back and be responsible 
immediately.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, again I remind my colleagues of $4 
trillion in Bush tax cuts that weren't paid for. And during the 
Republican-controlled Congress under President Bush from 2002 to 2006 
the debt limit was raised by over $3 trillion. I didn't hear any 
complaints at that time. My colleague talks about selling assets. The 
problem is the assets they want to sell are Social Security and 
Medicare, and we don't want any part of it.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
  If we roll the tape back, I can hear, as if it was yesterday, Alan 
Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed, testifying before this Congress--and 
right after President Bush was sworn into office--about the fact of 
this $5 trillion surplus and the opportunity to pay off the debt. We 
were having a discussion about whether it would be good for our 
economy--this is in the record of this Congress--whether it would be 
good for our economy to pay off all of our debt or rather we should 
leave some debt on the

[[Page 1185]]

books. That is what was projected. It was said at the end of the Bush 
Presidency, we can be an entirely debt-free country. Well, here we are 
today in a much different situation.
  Now, if you want a balanced budget, then you should follow those 
people who know how to get us there. Democrats led the way under 
President Clinton, and we had a surplus. We had a balanced budget. We 
were paying down national debt. And that is where we are returning our 
country to, which is a responsible fiscal policy.
  And as we see the economic turnaround, gross domestic product, 6 
percent in the negative a year ago. We saw $700,000 lost in January a 
year ago. What we see now is a 5.7 percent increase in gross domestic 
product. We see purchasing orders up, manufacturing up, in today's 
report, by 1 percent, which is the second month in a row. We see home 
sales up. We see a country on the rebound.
  And the fact of the matter is that PAYGO, as structured under this 
rule, not only says that you have to pay as you go, it also directs the 
Government Accountability Office to look for duplicative programs in 
the Federal budget that can be cut.
  Now, I am going to be offering additional legislation next week on 
dealing with the debt that has been accumulated by the Republican 
President and the Republican majority over the last 6 years of the Bush 
administration, and we can do even more.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I could engage Mr. McGovern for the 
purpose of letting him know that I am down to my final few minutes, I 
have two additional speakers. He has a lot of time remaining. I would 
ask that he engage his speakers and his time as we roll it down.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire how much time is left on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls 3 minutes, 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts controls 9 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 2 minutes, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, we don't even need lectures from the Republicans on 
fiscal discipline. We did it, and we're going to do it again. And the 
President and the leadership here of this House has outlined how we're 
going to do it.
  But I want to point out that my colleagues on the other side don't 
like statutory PAYGO. They don't want to pay for tax cuts for rich 
people or for corporations or for big oil companies because they have a 
different plan, and their plan is to reprise the Bush-era proposal to 
privatize Medicare and Social Security.
  In the Budget Committee the other day, the ranking Republican 
introduced his plan, which makes it very clear that he wants to 
privatize Social Security and Medicare. Ezra Klein of The Washington 
Post writes, This proposal would take Medicare from costing an expected 
14.3 percent of GDP in 2080 to less than 4 percent. That's trillions of 
dollars not going to health care for seniors. The audacity is 
breathtaking.
  The Congressional Budget Office said of that proposal that starting 
in 2021, new enrollees would no longer receive coverage through their 
current program but instead would be given a voucher with which to 
purchase private health insurance. CBO says traditional benefits would 
be reduced below those scheduled on the current laws for many workers 
who are aged 55 or younger in 2011.
  Peter Orszag, the Director of OMB, says, The proposal takes the 
Medicare program and, for those 55 and below, turns it into a voucher 
program and that it introduces individual accounts privatizing Social 
Security.
  Madam Speaker, we have some challenges before us, but I would like to 
think that we can all agree that balancing the budget by letting 
Medicare wither on the vine and privatizing Social Security and 
destroying two of the most important social programs in the history of 
the country is not the way to go. And so that is the choice.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  We do what's fiscally responsible and enact the statutory PAYGO and 
pay as you go. If you want to increase education programs or programs 
for health care, you have to find an offset. You have to cut another 
program to find additional revenue. If you want to give tax cuts to 
rich people, you've got to pay for it. But I think that's the 
responsible way to go. Going their way, going after Medicare and Social 
Security, is the wrong way. We've seen this movement before. We don't 
want to go there.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, spin zone. I love it. The gentleman is 
talking about all these Republicans want to privatize Social Security 
and Medicare. We're responsible. Well, what the gentleman forgot is 
it's the Democrats' proposal that takes $400 billion out of Medicare, 
$400 billion. Those are not only talking points from the 1990s that the 
gentleman is hung up on, it's not truthful.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) 1 
minute.
  Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this self-
executing rule which will raise our national debt to nearly $2 
trillion. That's 12 zeros. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that we can immediately have the House consider 
H.R. 4566, the END TARP Act, that will end the TARP bailout program 
once and for all, saving taxpayers about $200 billion.
  In the most recent report, the Special Inspector General of TARP 
himself said the program has failed to boost bank lending and it's also 
failed in halting the spread of home foreclosures. If the program isn't 
helping small businesses, if the program isn't helping homeowners, two 
of its major goals, why do we consider to throw hundreds of billions of 
dollars of taxpayer money at it?
  It's time we got serious about fixing our national fiscal house and 
spending problems. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that they can bring up the END TARP Act. We can end the 
bailouts once and for all and not raise the debt ceiling by nearly $2 
trillion.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I again inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls 
6\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from Texas controls 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, we have had an enlightening debate here today, and I 
guess the difference between Democrats and Republicans couldn't be 
clearer and this debate couldn't come at a better time.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that we should 
balance the budget by going after Medicare and Social Security. They 
introduced an alternative budget in the Budget Committee. It's there in 
black and white. It's easy to understand. No one denies it. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who was on the floor earlier was 
on MSNBC talking about the need to ``reengineer Social Security,'' 
which is a code word for privatization.
  My colleagues on the other side say they don't support PAYGO and they 
don't support increasing the debt limit. I guess that means they'd 
rather play politics than act responsibly to fix the problems that this 
country faces.
  President Obama said that fixing this economy would not be easy and 
it would not happen overnight, and that's clear. He took office and he 
implemented a bold plan to jump-start the economy, and in the fourth 
quarter, we saw the U.S. economy grow at a 5.7 percent rate. Mark 
Zandi, the cofounder of Moody's Economy.com and former McCain economic 
adviser, said, We're headed in the right direction. The recovery has 
begun. I think prospects are that job growth will continue and we will 
have enough job growth to bring up unemployment and then good things 
will happen. That's a Republican economist.
  Instead of working together to fix the economy, my Republican 
colleagues have decided to try and use

[[Page 1186]]

this recession for political gain. They've obstructed and opposed all 
efforts to jump-start the economy. They voted against the Recovery Act, 
which put millions of people to work and saved millions of jobs. They 
would have rather fired cops and firefighters and teachers. They would 
have denied new emerging industries the important money to hire more 
people. They voted against the jobs creation bill and, except for one 
brave vote, against the health care bill that, according to CBO, would 
reduce the deficit. Instead, they have dusted off the tired old 
standbys: corporate tax cuts and privatization of Social Security and 
Medicare. Unfortunately, they're stuck in the past and are simply 
repeating the mistakes that put us here in the first place.
  Madam Speaker, we were elected to do responsible things, to do what's 
right. We were elected to solve problems and to make this country a 
better place. Democrats say we cannot default on our debt and that we 
will reduce that debt through PAYGO, bending the cost curve of health 
care and freezing spending.
  I believe we need to look at all parts of Federal spending, including 
wasteful and unnecessary spending at the Defense Department, but it's 
clear we need to prioritize our spending. In fact, Democrats say we're 
going to cut capital gains--something that Republicans have been 
touting for years--but Republicans are opposing that, too, simply 
because President Obama is proposing it.
  Madam Speaker, there is a time and a place for politics, and I get 
that. But to paraphrase John McCain, sometimes you have to put the 
country first. It's unfortunate that my Republican colleagues would 
rather play politics instead of acting responsibly to attack our 
country's problems.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, in the remaining time, I would just like 
to say that I think the American people are watching and they are 
listening, and they heard a good debate here on the floor about these 
corporations that Republicans try and get all of these tax breaks for. 
I'd like to remind the gentleman those are called employers, and 
employers in this country have the second highest tax rate of any 
country in the world.
  Darn right Republicans are trying to cut taxes, because we want the 
American people to get employed again, and attacking employers is the 
key thrust of what the Democratic objective is all about. No wonder 
we've lost jobs. We're attacking employers, attacking employers. The 
President, the gentleman Mr. Hoyer, the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, attacking 
employers. No wonder we've got an unemployment problem.
  But this budget is filled with reckless spending and unsustainable 
debt. Don't blame that on somebody else. Accept the responsibility 
yourself. This is the biggest budget we've ever had. And for the 
President to come and say, as a takeaway, Just as you know, American 
people, we're going to start this spending process to where we freeze 
spending, it's really a joke.
  The bottom line is the American people know what the problem is. 
They've clued in on it. They even know the pages of the bills where 
they have seen the majority party try and take advantage of the 
taxpayer, rip health care out from their advantage where they could 
have their own health care, take dollars away from their employers and 
tax them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will tell you, the Republican Party is going to stand 
up for jobs again today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls 
3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Before I yield to our last speaker, let me again just remind my 
colleagues what this debate is about. It is about whether we should pay 
as we go. That is what families do. That is what we should do here. I 
don't know why that's a radical idea in the Republican Conference, but 
it's the responsible thing to do.
  My friends on the other side are responsible for creating this 
economic mess. They should share that responsibility with us now to get 
this economy out of the ditch.
  And one final thing, Madam Speaker, trying to balance the budget by 
going after Social Security and Medicare is the wrong way to go. These 
are important programs that provide important benefits, mostly to our 
senior citizens, and we should not allow them to wither on the vine and 
be subject to a Republican budget that would basically take a meat-ax 
to those programs. That is the wrong way to go.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, again, I would remind my colleagues that we are facing 
tough times, but tough times require tough decisions. And statutory 
pay-as-you-go to basically pay our way is the responsible thing. We 
can't keep on adding to our deficits and to our debt. We have 
responsibility to our kids and our grandkids. I would ask my Republican 
colleagues to join with us. If they don't want to do it, then I guess 
we will have to do the responsible thing on our own.
  Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the rule.
  I yield the remaining time to our distinguished majority leader, Mr. 
Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The last time we voted on this issue, the floor was packed on both 
sides of the aisle. And I observed at that time that, and I repeat 
today, I really doubt that there are any of the 435 of us, Madam 
Speaker, who believe that this matter that is included in this rule 
ought to be defeated. I would hope that's the case.
  The gentleman who represents the minority party on the Rules 
Committee has confronted this issue in the past. He confronted it in 
2002. He confronted it in 2003. He confronted it in 2004 and again in 
2005. On each of those occasions, he voted to increase the debt limit. 
His party was in charge. Unfortunately, my party voted against it at 
that point in time because we weren't in charge.
  The point I make is that the American public too often believes that 
we do not do what we think is the responsible thing for our country but 
what we think is the right thing to do from the perspective of our 
party. They are not impressed by that kind of action. In fact, not only 
did Mr. Sessions vote to increase the debt limit on numerous occasions, 
many of us voted against it essentially for the same reasons, because 
we said the other party had incurred liabilities with which we did not 
agree. In fact, I'm sure all 435 of us could say we incurred certain 
liabilities in which we did not agree.
  But the fact of the matter is that America, voting through its 
representatives in the House and in the Senate, incurred those 
liabilities. Creditors throughout the world relied on the fact that the 
United States of America, the world's wealthiest Nation, would, in 
fact, pay its bills.
  I will say that in the future when this issue comes up, I will not 
repeat again the mistakes that I made in the past. I said that last 
time. And if it so happens at some time in the future the other party 
is in control and we come to the necessity of ensuring that America can 
pay its bills, it will be my intention to vote with the majority party 
to increase the debt limit--not because I want to see us deficit spend; 
I don't. I voted for constitutional amendments to balance the budget to 
constrain the spending of this body.
  In a few minutes, I will speak strongly in favor of adopting 
statutory PAYGO, which is made in order by this rule. Statutory PAYGO 
will be a constraint on the spending that this Congress votes for, a 
restraint to bring in line spending on mandatory items with the 
revenues and abilities that we have.
  And so I say to both sides of the aisle, this is not a vote about 
party.

[[Page 1187]]

This is a vote about country. There is no one in this room, no one who 
has raised his or her hand to defend and protect the Constitution of 
the United States, not one of us who honestly can say that it is an 
alternative available to us to not ensure that America can pay its 
bills. That's what this is about.
  That's why my friends on the Republican side, when you were in 
charge, you voted, in some cases almost to a person, almost 
unanimously, to increase the debt five times under President Bush.
  Very frankly, I tell my friends on the Republican side, when 
President Bush was in office, we did the same thing you're going to do 
today. We pretended that somehow because we did not agree with the 
policies that had led us to the place where we had incurred those debts 
that somehow we would take no responsibility for paying those debts. 
Ladies and gentlemen, our creditors around the world on whom we are now 
relying in order to fund our government don't really care about our 
partisan politics. They do care, however, about the will that we have 
to meet our responsibilities to pay our bills and to meet our 
obligations to them.
  Everybody understands that if we did not increase this debt limit, at 
some point in time, not too long thereafter, checks to Social Security 
recipients would have to stop, checks to veterans would have to stop, 
and checks to employees who work for the government would have to stop. 
No one thinks that's a rational alternative. We may think there ought 
to be less or more, but no one thinks that we ought to have none.
  And so I say to my colleagues this is a vote for American 
responsibility, not Republican responsibility or Democratic 
responsibility, but for American responsibility.
  Both of us--both of us have pursued politics in this matter. The 
American public is hopeful, as we all can see, that at some point in 
time we all realize that playing politics is not the policy that 
Americans want us to pursue. They want us to pursue the well-being of 
our country and of our citizens. We've incurred debts. We expect people 
to pay the debts they owe us, and they, in turn, expect the same. 
That's what this vote is about.
  And so there are not a lot of Members on this floor. I hope a lot of 
Members, Madam Speaker, are watching, because I hope when they come to 
this floor to vote for this rule, which will deem the authorization of 
the ability of America to meet its responsibilities, that they will 
vote for their country, for our citizens, and for our responsibility. 
It's the right thing to do.
  Every one of us on each side of the aisle, Republican or Democratic, 
knows it's the right thing to do. Let's do the right thing. I urge 
support of this rule. I urge support of the statutory PAYGO provision 
made in order by this rule, which will say that, notwithstanding the 
fact that we have authorized additional debt, we are also, at the same 
time, going to constrain the incurring of additional debt beyond that 
which we are prepared to pay for. That's what families have to do. 
That's what we need to do.
  Vote for this rule. It's the right thing to do.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

                       Amendment to H. Res. 1065

                        Offered by Mr. Sessions

  At the end of the resolution, add the following new section:

       Sec. 2. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 4566) to terminate authority 
     under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and for other 
     purposes. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairmen and ranking minority members 
     of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on 
     Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit. Clause 1(c) 
     of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 
     4566.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________