Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, and my friend, Larry Kissell, who is doing a wonderful job representing the District that Bill Hefner loved and whose people loved Bill Hefner, I came to Congress in 1981. Bill had been here for 6 or 7 years when I got here. He was on the Appropriations Committee; I went on the Appropriations Committee not too long after coming here. Bill Hefner has been regaled by all of his friends from North Carolina. And I know Chairman Obey, who served with Bill on the Appropriations Committee as I did for well over a decade, can tell, I'm sure, numerous stories late into the night about Bill Hefner. And what warm memories I have of Bill Hefner sitting on the aisle back here. And all my colleagues remember he would sit on the aisle and you would go by and Bill would sort of look up with a twinkle in his eye and he would tell you story after story after story. I remember one night I was going to give a speech and I wanted a few jokes, so I called Bill Hefner up and he gave me a couple of jokes, and I used them, and they worked very well. So I can say Bill Hefner was my writer, I suppose. But he was a wonderful, wonderful representative, and he was a representative in the best sense of that term. He represented his people. He represented North Carolina. He represented his country. He represented the men and women in our Armed Forces whom he loved and whom he served with great fervor and affection. Bill Hefner loved his country, he loved his colleagues, and his colleagues loved Bill Hefner. It's been talked about how he loved to play golf. I like to play golf as well--I'm not very good, but I love to play, like so many other hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people in this country who like to say we play golf. We play at it, I suppose. But Bill was a good golfer. And he had a tournament down at Pinehurst every year. And I used to go down and play at Pinehurst with Bill. And you not only went down to play golf, you just went down to have this warm, gracious, outreaching human being make you feel good about serving with him in the Congress and make you feel good about North Carolina and your country. Bill Hefner was a great resource of North Carolina. He then moved further south and became a county commissioner for a little bit, my good friend is telling me. Bill Hefner will be missed. Bill Hefner used to tell me, he said, You know, Steny, I was elected in my district; it was a safe district then, and I've worked very hard and I've turned it into a marginal district. I think you all heard him say that. That was one of his favorite sayings, Larry. Now, the good news for you, Mr. Kissell, is you're going to do the opposite. You're going to take a district that could have gone either way, and you're going to turn it into a safe district. I appreciate that, but nobody would have appreciated it more than Bill Hefner. My friend Brad Miller, a friend of Bill Hefner's and a colleague from North Carolina, told a story. Bill Hefner was a singer. He was a real talent. He loved to sing, and he loved to entertain, and he loved to be a comedian, and he loved to make people, as I said, feel good. He accomplished that with great frequency and with great ability. We'll miss Bill Hefner. Bill Hefner was what's good about our country, which he loved so dearly. As I said, he loved the men and women who served in the Armed Forces, and he served them so well as chairman of the Military Construction Committee. I remember I had the opportunity to travel to Germany and to some other NATO allies in Europe with him in the 1980s, and it was clear that he was extraordinarily knowledgeable about the needs of our men and women stationed overseas in terms of the quality of their lives. He mirrored Ike Skelton or Ike Skelton mirrors Bill Hefner in terms of his commitment to our men and women in the Armed Forces. So I am pleased, Larry Kissell, to join you, your colleagues from North Carolina, my chairman--I served on the committee for 23 years-- Chairman Obey, and my good friend Chet Edwards, who now chairs the same subcommittee that Bill Hefner chaired. Bill was also a member of the Armed Services Committee, of course. So I thank you for letting me know that you were doing this Special Order to rise in memory, respect and deep affection for a wonderful American, for a wonderful advocate of his faith, for a wonderful family man, and for a wonderful Member of this body. God blessed America when he gave us William G. Hefner. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to mark the death of a good friend and of a good friend of America--Svend Auken--who died last month after a long struggle with cancer. Svend was the first Vice President of the Danish Parliament, the Folketing, and he was a political legend in his country. I had the opportunity to meet and work closely with Svend on many occasions, most recently when he was one of my gracious hosts on a trip to Denmark this May. Each time, I was impressed by the vitality, the sense of humor and the idealism of this man who devoted his life to public service from the day he entered politics at the age of 28, right up to his death a few weeks ago. Svend was a kind, wise and insightful friend, and I will miss him. Today, I rise to offer my condolences to his wife, Anne, to his children and to other friends and family whom he left behind. I also, of course, rise to pay him tribute. Svend's country is home to a proud political tradition. It stretches from the solidarity Danes showed when they protected their Jewish fellow citizens from the onslaught of the Holocaust to the foresight Denmark proved by becoming entirely energy independent. Svend Auken was a real humanitarian and a visionary political thinker who was worthy of his proud heritage. As leader of the Social Democrats and as a long-serving minister for the environment and energy, Svend left a powerful mark on his country and on Europe, and he became an inspiration to leaders around the world who are struggling to confront common threats such as global warming. As a leading Danish paper wrote, ``The country's landscape, specked with the thousands of windmills that have become a symbol of Denmark, can be traced back to Auken's efforts.'' Svend deserves credit for his country's secure retirement system as well. Svend's friendship wasn't just meaningful to me on a personal level; the relationships and respect he cultivated on both sides of our political aisle helped to cement the powerful friendship between America and its key NATO ally, Denmark. As a Danish-American myself and as a Member of Congress, I have been proud to support and nurture this key alliance. I chair the Congressional Friends of Denmark Caucus, along with my friend Howard Coble, and I meet frequently with visiting Danish leaders, whose inquisitive and analytical approach in meetings is always very notable. Though Svend is gone, I know that the progress he made for his country and the friendship he helped sustain with ours will be among his lasting legacies. I also know that he lived a full, committed and creative life. As Svend said when he announced his decision to continue serving despite his cancer, ``The amount of time you have left to live, be it short or long, is life, itself, and you shouldn't squander it.'' Svend did not squander his life. I believe that Svend died secure in the knowledge that he made everything he could of the time he was given, and there is no better end than that. I pay respect to a friend, a colleague, a great Danish leader, a great European leader, a great international citizen--Svend Auken.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, and I thank Chairman Emeritus Dingell, Chairmen Waxman, Pallone, and Stupak, and Representatives DeGette and Sutton for their hard work to bring it to the floor today. This bill gives the Food and Drug Administration the authority and resources it needs to ensure that all Americans can be confident that the food they are putting on their family tables is free of contamination. A string of recent food safety scares shows that this bill is overdue--from the discovery of E. coli in spinach to salmonella in peppers and peanut butter. In fact, Time magazine reports that contaminated food causes 5,000 deaths and 325,000 hospitalizations each year. Unsafe food does not only put health and lives at risk; it undermines confidence across the board and poses a real threat to Americans' trust in our food industry. And that lack of trust is harmful to both families' peace of mind and the food industry's economic future. So it is in the interest of consumers and industry alike to see safety regulations faithfully enforced. This bill speeds up the inspection schedule, ensuring that the FDA checks up on high-risk food facilities every six to 12 months, and on lower-risk facilities at least once every 18 months to three years. It requires all food facilities operating in the U.S. or exporting to the U.S. to develop and submit food safety plans. It strengthens safeguards against unsafe imported food products. And it provides for a faster, more effective FDA response in case we do see a food emergency: with an up-to-date registry of food facilities, better traceability of contaminated food, and stronger authority to quarantine and recall dangerous products, the FDA will be empowered to take quick action that can nip outbreaks in the bud and save lives. These steps, and more, combine to make this what many have called the most sweeping reform of food safety laws in 50 years. One only needs to watch the news to see that this reform is highly needed. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be laid on the table.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The status of the health bill, I think as the gentleman probably knows, is it's still in the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Energy and Commerce Committee has not reported out that bill. I don't know the Speaker's commitment, but certainly the Speaker and I both had the hope that we would be able to pass the health care bill by the time we left here on the 31st of July. My view is at this point in time, that may not be possible. However, that does not mean necessarily that we won't be here perhaps longer. I hope that's not the case; but if it proves to be necessary, we may be here a little longer, either on the Saturday or the 3rd or the 4th. I don't want anybody to be planning on that at this point in time. But currently the status of the bill is it's still in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. HOYER. I said, as I said, I believe we will be considering the defense bill under rules similar to those which have led to the passage of the other 11 bills. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the Republican whip, for yielding. On Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. In addition, we will consider the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act; also H.R. 3269, the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009; and H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.

Mr. HOYER. As I said, I think we'll have a rule similar to the ones that we have considered the previous 11 bills under.

Mr. HOYER. You're certainly going to have good faith on our side, as you've had all along. On the Defense Appropriations bill, it is my understanding there are well over 100 amendments that have been filed. Clearly, if we did that under an open rule or allowed all 100 amendments--which, by the way, are by one Member. There are over 100 amendments by one Member--we would never finish the bill if we stayed through August. Having said that, I have talked to the chairwoman, and it's my belief that Mr. Flake, who has filed over 100 amendments, will be given, certainly, ample opportunity to choose which amendments he wants to offer at the time that we consider the bill. I don't know the other amendments. Notice has been filed. I don't know the other amendments and don't know what the Rules Committee is going to do. But I will tell the gentleman, as I'm sure he knows, the bill will come under a rule. We believe that your side of the aisle has had most of the amendments that have been offered, clearly, and Mr. Flake and others, Mr. Hensarling were given the opportunity to offer a number of their amendments on earmarks, which I know are of great concern to both sides of the aisle. So I say to the gentleman, we do expect to take the Defense bill up under a rule similar to those under which we have operated, which have facilitated, by the way, as the gentleman knows, all 11 of the 12 appropriations bills having passed. And while I was not sure of what was going to happen on the health care bill, we will achieve our objective of passing all 12 appropriations bills in a timely fashion. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We think the bill that is pending--we are not sure that your premise is correct. As a matter of fact, we think your premise is probably not correct. We think the majority of people on this floor want to vote for a health care reform bill. We think a majority of people on this floor will vote for the bill that is currently pending as it becomes more perfected. So I'm not sure that--I'm not only not sure, I don't accept your premise that there aren't a majority of votes for the bill that is being considered in this House. Having said that, however, my point was that we want to give appropriate notice. If we can't give appropriate notice by the 31st of July, it is possible, I'm not saying that we're going to be doing this, but it is possible that we would move on to either Saturday, the 1st, or Monday and Tuesday the 3rd and 4th, if need be, if that was appropriate. It may or may not be. I don't want to say at this point in time, but I do want to give Members some notice that that is a possibility.

Mr. HOYER. I didn't say it in so many words. But I have indicated and the Speaker has indicated that we're going to do 48 hours' notice, as required, or at least as we would hope to do. This is a very important bill. It is a bill that is of great consequence to all Americans, and we are going to meet those targets of notice. So in that context, in light of the fact the bill is still in the committee, it may be impossible to meet that commitment and get the bill on the floor on the 31st. As a result, my view is the probability of doing that bill by the 31st is very small.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise to support this Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, and particularly to call attention to a program that is close to my heart and vital for so many communities: full- service community schools. Full-service community schools are public schools that do much more than educate: they coordinate a wide range of social service programs for students and families, in partnerships with community organizations and the private sector. They provide students, families, and neighborhoods a seamless web of academic, health, and personal development services, all of which combine to expand opportunity in the communities that need it most. Full-service community schools can offer everything from health and dental care, to mental health counseling, to career advice, to literacy programs, to adult classes, to nutrition education. These schools quickly become the center of their communities, staying open long after school hours and on the weekends, as well. Over the last decade, research has consistently shown that full- service community schools mean better outcomes in student achievement, attendance rates, student discipline, parental involvement, and access to preventive health services. That's why they're supported by so many education professionals, including the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the Coalition for Community Schools, and the National Association of State Boards of Education. My late wife, Judy Hoyer, introduced me to full-service community schools. She was an early childhood educator, and at the Early Childhood and Family Learning Center in Adelphi, Maryland, she helped bring to life an innovative vision for education and community services, working together. Today, thousands of Maryland children benefit from the ``Judy Centers'' that operate across the state. But full-service community schools can succeed in any state. That's why I'm glad that this legislation provides $10 million to fund grants that will help local education agencies work with community organizations and implement the community schools model. I believe that the result will be healthier and more successful students, more involved parents, and stronger communities. I urge my colleagues to support this appropriations bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal 2010 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act. This bill takes great strides to help the neediest Americans secure shelter in trying economic times. It also makes important investments in strong and user-friendly transportation systems, including our highways, airports, passenger rail lines, and transit networks. But I particularly want to thank Chairmen Obey and Olver for including in this bill $150 million to fund vitally needed capital and preventive maintenance improvements for the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority, in accordance with legislation we passed last year authorizing $1.5 billion for WMATA over the next 10 years. It has long been clear that America's Subway deserves a strong federal commitment. After all, it serves the millions of visitors who come to visit our nation's capital, and it is the primary public transportation system servicing the federal employees who keep our government running. But with a ridership that continues to grow, WMATA's General Manager made it clear that the system requires more than $11 billion in capital improvements from 2011 to 2020 to keep running. Without those funds, the system's aging infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. The bill includes language directing WMATA to use the funds to first address immediate safety shortfalls identified by the National Transportation Safety Board, which include, but are not limited to, the improved crashworthiness of the agency's rail car fleet and the maintenance and modernization of WMATA's signal and automatic train control systems. The importance of those systems was vividly and painfully demonstrated in last month's Metro crash, which took the lives of nine commuters. For the sake of all those who rely on Metro, we must ensure that its safety meets the highest standard. I urge my colleagues to support this strong appropriations bill and make clear our commitment to the efficiency and safety of America's Subway.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. This motion is designed, obviously, 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 that we did not do a good job. I want to say to Ed Lorenzen, who has worked with Charlie Stenholm on this proposition for over a decade, thank you for the work that 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 MTR. Vote for this statutory PAYGO. Let us get back on the road of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for whom I have a great deal of respect. I said the other night that he was my friend, but friends have disagreements. And on this, on fiscal policy, we clearly have had a very significant disagreement. I've heard a lot of speakers on this floor talk about how this bill doesn't get us to where we want to get. I've heard a lot of people talk about how we have four exceptions in this bill. Most of the people that have talked about the four exceptions in this bill have repeatedly talked, over the last 4 or 5 years, as to how this was current baseline spending, and certainly we didn't have to pay for current baseline spending, i.e., continuing tax cuts that were in place. Your side of the aisle has argued strenuously that that was current baseline funding and we didn't need to pay for it. We have taken the position that we needed to pay for it. In fact, we paid for the AMT through the House. We paid for the tax extenders through the House. Unfortunately, our brethren on the other side of the Capitol did not pay for them, sent them back. I voted against the AMT extension. I voted against the AMT extension, I was one of a small minority in the House, because it wasn't paid for. If we're going to have discipline, we need extrinsic discipline. There's only one real discipline--having to pay for what you buy. During the nineties, we paid for what we bought. During the eighties we didn't. And during the 2000s 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. In fact, 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 at about 3\1/2\ percent per year, on average, discretionary spending. The gentleman knows full well that for the 8 years of the Bush administration, it rose at the average of about 7 percent, or twice as high as it rose during the nineties. So, in terms of caps, spending, which are in the budget, we ought to have budget caps. We ought to stick with those budget caps. And, in fact, the Democrats, under the rule that he said 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, even though it caused us a problem, then opened it up for an MTR that was a problem. But, let me speak to the substance of this bill. The gentleman is correct. Other Republicans are correct. We've incurred extraordinary debt during the first 6 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, they had the House, and they had 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. Nobody wanted to vote for it. But we believed that there was a crisis and it was necessary. So we find ourselves having passed, because we were still, and frankly, falling into a deeper recession in January and February of this year, and responding to that with the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and we borrowed $787 billion to do that. I believe it's been helpful. The stock market's up 1,000 points since the start of this administration. Housing starts have now been higher for the last 3 months. The Dow is up. NASDAQ is up very substantially. In addition, we've lost 200,000 less jobs per month, on average, over the last 3 months than we lost during the last 3 months of the Bush administration. Is that what we want? No. Is it progress? I suggest to you it is. It's 33 percent less loss of jobs than we had in the last 3 months of the Bush administration. Now, that's not where we want to be. 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 jobs 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 nineties, with the opposition, to a person, of the Republicans, created an average of 216,000 jobs per month. That's a pretty stark difference. As a matter of fact, 2 million jobs created during the last year of the Clinton administration and 3 million jobs lost during the last year of the Bush administration. That's a 5 million turn around. Is there any wonder why there's so much stress among families and individuals? Now, ladies and gentlemen, maybe you've heard the first rule of holes. When you're in one, stop digging. That's what this bill does. It says stop digging. 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, demonstrably, 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 to clean energy to 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. There's another thing to not tell the truth.

Mr. HOYER. No. But I will yield to you if you want. But I am not particularly interested in your responding. If you, on your own time, want to say at some point in time that 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-case scenario, a fiscal meltdown, has a nightmare to offer both parties. For Republicans, the prospect that taxes will be forced through the roof, I understand that concern. I suggest to you there's a constraint on that: Voters throwing people out of office who do that to them. Hopefully, voters will return to office, however, people who have the honesty to say, you want us to buy something, then we will pay for it. You didn't do that. You didn't do it for the war. I understand that. I voted for that funding. For Democrats, the prospect that the programs we value will be slashed and that the weakest and least powerful will suffer most. But there is a way out, reclaiming the principles of responsibility that have served our country so well. I fully believe that we are in this hole because the last administration set responsibility by the wayside. They waived PAYGO. It was inconvenient to pay for things, and you couldn't do your tax cut and pay for them. That's why we waived PAYGO, because you wanted to do something that you could not and would not and did not pay for. In fact, a recent New York Times analysis tells us that 90 percent of our deficit can be attributed to Bush administration policies, the extensions 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 PAYGO for short. It was a key part of turning deficits into surpluses once, and it can be a part of that objective again. Essentially, this PAYGO bill requires Congress to find savings, to balance out the dollars it spends so that all new policies that reduce revenues or expand entitlement spending are fully offset over five and 10 years, an improvement over the President's bill. In 1990, a similar PAYGO 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 4 years of surplus. Now, it wasn't the President alone. It wasn't Democrats alone, because in 1997, we reached another bipartisan agreement to extend this principle of PAYGO when Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton, which I voted for, reached agreement. And by forcing Congress to make difficult choices between taxes and spending, to scrutinize wasteful subsidies and loopholes, and to fully weigh the real cost of tax cuts, PAYGO 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. It created less than 2 million jobs, less than 10 percent of what was created during the 1990s. 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 PAYGO the force of law. With this law in place, advocates of spending will have to find ways to offset the new costs. That's the discipline. That's the extrinsic constraint. Advocates of tax cuts will no longer be able to finance them with debt. Instead, they will have to tell us which programs they would cut. I make that statement knowing full well that if there's a crisis, if there's an emergency, if there's a war, if there's a Katrina, if there's an economic meltdown, yes, we will waive this, and we will borrow money to try to stem the existing crisis. However, generally speaking, we won't do that. PAYGO 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. Exempted from this bill's PAYGO requirements are extensions of current policy on the alternative minimum tax, estate and middle class income tax cuts 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 PAYGO, including President Obama, see exemption as a crucial concession to political reality and to the votes on your side of the aisle, by the way, who on at least three of those instances don't want to pay for them because they are current policy. You've made that argument over and over and over again. I've disagreed with it, but it is reality. It is clear that there is bipartisan support in Congress for extending those current policies without offsetting savings. I've told my friend Senator Conrad that 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 turns into what the nonpartisan Center on Budget Priorities calls ``a transparently phony fiscal responsibility promise,'' because we've waived them. I think that's unfortunate, but that's what we do. That's what we have done. A promise, I would add, that would weaken the cause of responsibility as a whole. On the other hand, we can make a promise we are prepared to keep, and we're prepared to keep that to the extent that the Speaker and I have both indicated we will not put a bill on this floor coming out of conference on health care or any other issue dealing with those four unless statutory PAYGO is in the bill, statutory PAYGO has been passed, or it is paid for. The Speaker and I have 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 takes 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 still be years of hard work ahead of us. Hopefully, we can do that on a bipartisan basis. Before our heads can be above ground, we need to deal with entitlements further. We need to deal with spending further. We need to make sure that we have vigorous efforts to rid ourselves of waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government on spending and other efforts that 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 job-per-month creation. That's where we want to go. Does this bill get us there? It does not. Does this bill take a critical step towards that end? It does. I urge my colleagues to reject the substitute, to pass this bill, and to put us once again on the road to fiscal responsibility. I congratulate Mr. Spratt for his leadership. I want to thank Mr. Welch and Mr. Miller, who is one of the early leaders on PAYGO, and Mr. Baron Hill of the Blue Dogs for cosponsoring 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, and it led to the best economy I have seen in my lifetime in this country. The principal reason for that economic well-being in America was the chip, not government, the chip where the information technology age exploded and provided extraordinary revenues for our country. It is the private sector that drives our economy. It is 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 the confidence that we are managing our finances responsibly. That's what this bill does. Vote for this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, Marge Tracey, who retires this year, first came to work as a secretary at the AFL-CIO over 35 years ago. She has spent her working life at the AFL-CIO advancing the interest of America's working families. During that time, she has been an integral part of every fight over the last three decades on labor law reform, minimum wage, trade, health care, retirement security, and more. She has been witness to and a key part of many chapters of labor and Congressional history, often working behind the scenes, but always an integral part of progress. So on the occasion of her retirement, I join with her family, her friends, and all of her colleagues at the AFL-CIO in congratulating her and expressing deep appreciation for all of her dedicated work. Marge Tracey has lived a remarkable life of service to working men and women, and I wish her all the best in the years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this week the House will debate legislation and give the principle of pay-as-you- go, or PAYGO, the force of law. Quite simply, supporting PAYGO means that we agree to pay for what we buy; and it can be one of the most important actions we take for fiscal discipline in this Congress. PAYGO is essential because America faces unprecedented debt and a fiscal year 2009 deficit of $1.7 trillion. A New York Times analysis found that 90 percent of that deficit is attributable to the economic downturn, Bush administration policies, and the extension of those policies. However we got into this hole, it's imperative that we find a way out of it. PAYGO is not a cure-all, not a solution entirely to our deficits. But it is an important and valuable start, and it is a proven first step to deficit reduction. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration turned record deficits, accumulated by the two previous Republican administrations, into record surplus; and the PAYGO rule, supported on a bipartisan basis by Republicans and Democrats, was a key part in that fiscal transformation. As President Obama has recognized, and I quote, ``It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved to record surpluses in the 1990s and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt.'' Today we can once again use PAYGO to begin rolling back the dangerous fiscal situation that confronts us. Under statutory PAYGO, Congress will be required to find savings to balance the dollars we spend. On the one hand, it will constrain unnecessary spending and subsidies. On the other, it will force those in favor of tax cuts to explain exactly what they want to go without in return. In other words, pay for them. Of course none of those choices are easy, but it is exactly the avoidance of hard choices that saddles our children and grandchildren with the debt that confronts us. In addition, deficit reduction will mean fewer interest payments on our debt which, in turn, will help us make sustainable entitlements in the priorities that matter most to the American people, including education, clean energy and health care. The PAYGO law would apply to new policies that reduce revenue or expand entitlement spending. It will exempt extensions of current policy on the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax and middle-income tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and Medicare payments to doctors. Some would criticize these exemptions, but I see them as an important way of keeping PAYGO credible and enforceable. It is clear that there is bipartisan support in Congress for extending those policies without offsets. Now, very frankly, I would vote for offsets; but we have seen that that does not happen in the United States Senate; and there is an inclination not to do it here. A PAYGO bill that does not exempt them would have to be waived again and again, turning the cause of fiscal discipline into an empty promise. I find it much more sensible to make a fiscal discipline promise we can keep. I would also note that the exemptions in the House legislation are narrower than those sent to us in the President's original proposal. Most notably, they only apply to the middle-class tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and not to tax cuts generally. Mr. Speaker, pay as you go cannot remove us from our deficit hole in a single stroke, nor will it. That will take much hard work. PAYGO is not enough in and of itself, but it is absolutely necessary because it keeps us from digging the hole any deeper. It is tested and proven. We adopted this policy in a bipartisan way in 1990. We reaffirmed that policy in a bipartisan vote in 1997, with Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton reaching agreement on that proposition. Yes, it's tested and proven, as I said. I hope that all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, will support it when it comes to the House floor later this week.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thought it was since 1982 when Ronald Reagan was President.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I have been listening to this litany of ``Where are the jobs?'' I have been here long enough. Mr. Pence, you opposed the program in 1993. You said it would destroy this economy. You said it would blow deficits sky high. It created 216,000 jobs per month on average. You then supported an economic program in 2001. You said it would be a haven for jobs and small business and all that. You created not 216,000 jobs per month but 4,240. Those are the figures. I'm sure that you will all want to come here and say, ``No, Hoyer was wrong on those figures.'' Under the economic program we propose, 216,000 new jobs every month on average. Under your program for the last 8 years under the Bush administration, 4,240 per month. That is a very substantial difference between 20.8 million new jobs under the economic program that you did not support in 1993 that we proposed, passed, and President Clinton signed. So when you talk about jobs, you ought to talk about the experience that you've had under our program and your program. You failed. We succeeded. As a matter of fact, in the last year of the Bush administration, we lost 3 million-plus jobs. During the last year of the Clinton administration, we gained 1.9 million jobs. That's a 5 million job turnaround by your economic program. So keep talking. America knew the difference. America made a decision. They said what you had been doing was not what they wanted so they changed. In 2006, they changed the Congress, and in 2008 they changed the Presidency. And let me tell you something. We have lost 200,000 less jobs per month than Bush lost in his last 3 months in office, over the last 3 months. Now, is that where we want to be? It is not. But it is 200,000 better than the last 3 months in your administration. Those are the facts. Refute them if you can. Keep talking.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I know exactly what it is. It's not identical. There have been some changes which will be included in a manager's amendment. I will make sure that that manager's amendment is available no later than Monday. Essentially what it does is it ensures that it is consistent with the PAYGO rule that we have here in the House and it does somewhat modify it as to the tax cuts that will be effected, that will mirror the budget that was adopted by this House earlier this year. It also directs that CBO scoring be controlling so that we have a neutral arbiter, not an administration, whether it's a Democratic or Republican arbiter, as to what the costs are. Those are the major changes that I think make it more consistent with what the House's position has been in the past.

Mr. HOYER. That's very interesting. They weren't in in 1990, they weren't in in 1997, and they weren't in in any proposal you've made to date.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further, Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of House Resolution 469, the Clerk be directed to strike the words ``born and'' from the first whereas clause on page 1.