Rules of the House

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule not for small reasons of this rule or that rule but because it authorizes trillions of dollars of new debt without paying for it.

There are two ways to create debt: You can buy things and not pay for it, or you can simply cut revenues and make yourself unable to pay for things. Statutory PAYGO was designed to accomplish the objective of having us do what is difficult to do--pay for what we buy. If we are honest with one another, it doesn't matter whether you want to spend or simply cut revenues. If you don't do both--cut spending and either maintain or cut revenues consistent with your cutting of spending--then you will inevitably create new debt.

Now, all of you have heard about my three children, my three grandchildren, and my one great-granddaughter. They, frankly, won't care how the debt was created, whether it was created because we cut revenues but didn't cut spending, which is what happened, of course, in the 2000s, or what happened in the eighties, where we incurred trillions of dollars of additional debt. During the Clinton administration, we didn't do that, and we restrained spending. Our Republican colleagues were very helpful in doing that, obviously, and we continued to pay for what we bought. We created 4 years of surplus. So I oppose this rule because of the trillions of dollars that it will authorize, be incurred in new debt.

Secondly, I oppose this rule, as do my friends from the various territories, from Puerto Rico, from the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and the Pacific Islands. We talked about, during the course of the campaign, listening to people. We have almost 5 million people who are American citizens. How do we listen to them? We listen to them when their Representatives put their green or red on the board.

I will be introducing a resolution tomorrow, which will be referred to the Rules Committee, and I hope you will consider it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady.

I was telling my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, congratulations to him for his obtaining the chairmanship. A thoughtful and hardworking Member of this House will chair the Rules Committee. I am going to be introducing an amendment to the rules that, my presumption is, we will adopt today which will return this symbol of respect, this symbol of inclusion, this symbol of colleagueship, if you will, to our six representatives of American citizens.

I hope my friend will hold hearings on that. I would like to testify on that issue.

And I say to my friends that I hope we reject these rules so that we can correct both the trillions of dollars of exposure that it creates and to ensure the inclusion, in a real and meaningful way, but not constitutionally objectionable way, our friends who represent the District of Columbia and our territories.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Well, that's true, so I'll be very respectful.

I've heard that argument that you just made made in 1981, in 1989, and again in 2001. I tell my friend, my experience has been that it hasn't worked, and we have incurred substantial trillions of dollars of debt pursuing the Rules Committee philosophy that is represented in your rule.

On the other hand, a bill that you opposed, and every member of your party opposed in 1993, which you say was pursuing a job-killing policy, in fact created more jobs than any other administration since you and I have served here, some 22 million jobs and, additionally, balanced the budget. Did we work together to do that? We did.

But I will tell you my experience and yours has been that we did, in fact, balance the budget on the philosophy of statutory PAYGO.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source