[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2430-H2436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         RAISING THE DEBT LIMIT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, tonight we want to come again before the 
body and talk about raising the debt limit.

                              {time}  1930

  It is fascinating, having been around this place for now almost 23 
years, to hear and to see how various Members of this body react to 
certain situations that come up, depending on whether they are in the 
minority or in the majority. And there is no question that we have a 
serious problem facing our Nation coming up beginning this week, and 
then about June 28 it becomes of crisis proportion. Treasury Secretary 
Paul O'Neill has formally requested Congress to increase the statutory 
limit on the publicly held debt by $750 billion, and that is billion 
with a ``b,'' up from the current level of $5.95 trillion to $6.7 
trillion.

[[Page H2431]]

  Just today, Secretary O'Neill wrote the Congress again telling us 
that he will use up our borrowing authority by the end of this week and 
that we will have to begin juggling with the books in order to avoid a 
default, and by the end of June, at the latest, he will run out of 
maneuvers.
  Last week, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report indicating 
that revenues are coming in much lower than expected and the deficit 
will be much higher than they projected earlier this year. It is likely 
we will borrow the entire Social Security trust fund and then some and 
still have a deficit of over $150 billion this year.
  The need for an increase in the debt limit of the magnitude requested 
by the administration cannot be explained by the economy and cost of 
the war. The administration projects that under the President's budget 
policies the national debt will be roughly $2.75 trillion more debt 
than was projected at the beginning of last year, before the 
President's budget policies and this body enacted them. The cost of the 
war and the downturn in the economy explain roughly $800 billion of 
that increase in projected debt, which leaves nearly $1.9 trillion more 
debt than was projected a year ago that is not explained by spending on 
the war on terrorism or the economic downturn.
  In fact, the administration acknowledged prior to September 11 that 
the debt limit would need to be raised much earlier than it projected 
when the President submitted his initial budget proposal in January. 
Last August, the administration indicated that it expected that the 
debt limit would have to be increased in 2003, 5 years earlier than 
they projected when the budget was submitted. Well, a year ago, the 
administration indicated that we would not need to raise the debt limit 
for 7 years and actually claimed that there was a danger that the 
government would actually pay off the debt held by the public too 
quickly.
  The Blue Dogs warned about the danger of making long-term commitments 
for tax cuts or new spending programs based on projected surpluses and 
proposed setting aside half of the on-budget surplus for a cushion to 
protect against unforeseen changes. In fact, we supported a budget here 
about a year ago that would have been much more conservative than the 
budget that passed and was signed into law; but we, being in the 
minority, lost.
  It is interesting when one listens to the leadership of this body, 
and here let me give a little quote. When President Clinton asked for a 
new bill to increase the debt limit, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey), now the majority leader of this body, said: ``He will get it, 
but with conditions.'' That was January 23, 1996. The same majority 
leader of this body, responding on April 9, called the debate over 
raising the debt limit ``an academic question'' and described the whole 
idea of a debt ceiling as ``political.'' He said, ``My recommendation 
is to take the President's number and move it. Whatever number that is, 
I don't care.'' On January 23, 1996, the majority leader said, ``House 
Republicans insist that any increase in the debt limit must be tied to 
substantial concessions by the White House in talks over balancing the 
Federal budget.'' On April 10, 2002, the same majority leader of this 
body said, ``Congress and the House of Representatives should quickly 
approve President Bush's request for a $750 billion increase in the 
on's borrowing authority.''
  Now, I agreed with Majority Leader Armey 6 years ago when there was a 
Democrat in the White House that was not putting forward a plan that 
would bring us into balance as quickly as we needed to. I agreed with 
the majority leader then, but I disagree with him tonight; and I 
disagree with the leadership of this body in refusing to put forward a 
plan to get us back on a balanced budget for our country.
  That is what the Blue Dogs wrote the Speaker of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), last Friday. The leadership of 
our Blue Dogs sent a letter to Speaker Hastert in which we offered in 
good faith to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
to put together a blueprint, a new budget, if you please, that would 
get us back on a path of balancing our budget and getting out of the 
Social Security trust funds.
  Now, I do not know why the leadership of this House has suddenly 
taken such a turn that we have seen taken over the last several years 
in which very seldom are ideas from this side of the aisle ever taken 
into serious consideration. Just last Thursday, we had the defense 
authorization bill on this floor, supported tremendously in a 
bipartisan way, as they always are. But we had a situation there that I 
do not recall seeing in previous years, in which Members on this side 
of the aisle had amendments but were denied the opportunity to have 
their amendment taken up and voted on on the floor of the House.
  My colleague who will join me in just a moment, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), had a couple of not unreasonable amendments. 
He felt very strongly that this body, the Congress, and the House of 
Representatives in particular, should have had an opportunity to debate 
whether or not we are going to have a new base closing commission. Not 
an unreasonable request. We had amendments that were allowed that had 
10 minutes, 20 minutes; but the gentleman from Mississippi was denied. 
He exercised his right to express himself, and I hope the leadership of 
this body listened to what the gentleman was saying last Thursday.
  What the gentleman was saying is, this body, the House of 
Representatives, has been the envy of most of the rest of the world 
since our very creation, in which individuals have the right and the 
opportunity to bring up their ideas and have them discussed on the 
floor of the House and voted upon. What is so unusual about that and 
what is it that seems now that in most cases we do not have the kind of 
committee hearings, we do not have a rule that allows various Members 
to express themselves on this floor?
  Well, tonight, we take this hour to talk about our willingness on 
this side of the aisle to work with our colleagues, if there are any on 
the other side that are interested, in restoring fiscal sovereignty, 
fiscal strength to the budget of the United States of America. We say 
this and we are prepared to offer some suggestions. In fact, it is 
interesting, there are very few of these suggestions that are new. They 
have all been tried. It matters not which side of the aisle. So this is 
what we want to talk about tonight.
  We would like to see, before we vote to increase how much money our 
country can borrow, we would like to see a new plan, because the 
current plan is now telling us that we will have deficits as far as the 
eye can see. And as one Member who has spent a good part of the last 6 
years trying to work in a bipartisan way, in a bicameral way on Social 
Security reform, it pains me quite a bit to see that we cannot even 
bring that subject up and talk about it. I hope that changes also.
  Tonight we just want to again renew our offer, our plea to the 
majority of this body that before we increase our debt ceiling, let us 
take another look at the budget plan that we are operating under. If my 
colleagues on the other side want votes on our side, we have already 
said we will give those votes to increase the debt ceiling, but not 
$750 billion with a blank check.
  We are perfectly willing to give an increase in the debt ceiling that 
will get us to September 30 of this year. Let us wait and see how the 
CBO reestimates the spending and the revenue that are going to be 
coming in; and then let us take that new estimate and when we come back 
in September, let us pass a new budget, one of the better things we 
could do for the economy of this country.
  And in so doing, then we would be prepared to offer another short-
term debt ceiling increase to get us to next April or May. Again, let 
the new Congress come back, the new Congress that will be elected in 
November, and let us see what our economy is doing come January and a 
new round of budget discussions and budget debates. It seems to us that 
that makes sense. But it seems to the other side of the aisle that, no, 
we passed a budget last year, and we are going to stay with it no 
matter what.

  The budget that was passed last year assumed 100 percent of the 
projected surplus and left no margin for error. We put ourselves on a 
course to run up our debt. Now that circumstances have changed, the 
projected surpluses have disappeared. And while we agree that

[[Page H2432]]

the unforeseen war on terrorism and economic downturn have had an 
impact on the budget in the short term, we do not believe that these 
events should be used to justify a return to chronic, long-term 
deficits or hide a $750 billion increase in the debt ceiling.
  The leadership of this body has indicated that they plan to slip 
language into the supplemental appropriation bill that will allow them 
to hide an increase in the debt limit in an omnibus conference report 
without any debate or vote. We do not believe that we should use a 
spending bill to fight the war on terrorism to hide or justify a long-
term $750 billion increase in the debt ceiling absent a plan to improve 
our long-term fiscal position.
  Members on the other side were very willing to stand up and take 
credit when we were passing legislation that put us into the situation 
we face today and made an increase in the debt limit necessary. They 
should be willing to stand up and be counted now that it has come time 
to pay the bills by raising the debt limit.
  We need a plan. Before Congress votes to raise the debt ceiling by 
$750 billion, the President must work with Congress to put the fiscal 
house back in order, just as a family facing financial problems must 
work with a bank to establish a financial plan in order to get approval 
to refinance their debts. We will not vote to approve an increase in 
the debt limit to allow the government to continue on the current 
course of deficits as far as the eye can see.
  Let me quote another leader of our House, my fellow colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), when he said, ``We said from the 
beginning of this Congress that we want to negotiate with the 
President. But we cannot negotiate with a President that does not want 
to balance the budget. We do not want to negotiate over whether to 
balance the budget or not, we want him to submit a budget that balances 
by CBO, which he called for. We will negotiate with him in the 
parameters of a balanced budget and negotiate over the priorities 
within that balanced budget. But if the President cannot submit one, 
how do we negotiate apples with oranges? You know, the saying goes, if 
at first you do not succeed try, try again.''
  Here again, this is one Member that agreed with the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) back when he was talking to a different President. We 
agree tonight. And I do not believe that we should have a confrontation 
with this White House over this matter. I think the confrontation is 
right here within the House of Representatives. And that is what the 
Blue Dogs are offering again, the willingness to work with our friends 
on the other side of the aisle to come up with a new budget plan that 
does get us back into balance.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Speaker, with those opening remarks I turn to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and yield to him to continue this discussion.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) will note that in the 6 years that our Republican 
colleagues have controlled the House, despite the talk of desiring a 
balanced budget, they have scheduled but one vote on a balanced budget 
amendment. I regret to say they are not as serious about a balanced 
budget as they promised the American people. But then again, they make 
a lot of promises that they do not keep.
  I remember this one in particular. I remember flying up from my 
district in 1995 around Christmas when there was a government shutdown 
going on. The children of folks who had a mom or dad in a veterans' 
hospital were concerned. People in the shipping business wanted to know 
if the channels were going to get dredged. Americans were worried about 
illegal immigration and if the staff of a veterans' hospital were going 
to show up. There were a lot of concerns about shutting down the 
government.
  One of the ways that the Republican leadership tried to mislead the 
American public that everything was fine, they ran this ad. This is 
Haley Barbour, the former head of the Republican National Party, a 
fellow Mississippian. It starts off, heard the one about the 
Republicans cutting Medicare, and he is holding a check for a million 
dollars, your name here.
  It says, the fact is the Republicans are increasing Medicare spending 
by more than half. I am Haley Barbour, and I am so sure of that fact 
that I am willing to give you this check for a million bucks if you can 
prove me wrong. Sounds simple, right?
  So here is the challenge. Here is why you have no chance for the 
million dollars, and it is a form to be filled out. It says, ``The 
Republican National Committee will present a cashier's check for $1 
million to the first American who can prove the following statement is 
false: In November, 1995, U.S. House and Senate passed a balanced 
budget bill. It increases total Federal spending on Medicare by more 
than 50 percent from 1995 to 2002 pursuant to the Congressional Budget 
Office standards.'' Responses must be postmarked by December 20, 1995.
  I guess I am one budget wonk, I do follow these things, and I knew 
from the minute that he printed that ad, that it was a lie. You see, 
the budget that passed in 1995 was projected to be $200 billion in 
deficits; and let us remember, we are not talking a small amount of 
money. A lot of Americans pay $1,000 a month on their house or rent 
note. If you made that payment 1,000 times, you have spent a million 
dollars. If you made that payment a thousand more times, you have then 
spent a billion dollars. The budget that he is calling balanced was 
$200 billion in deficit.
  So I called the Congressional Budget Office, and I got a copy of 
their budget projections; and I went over to the Republican National 
Committee and left a letter for Mr. Barbour saying you have misled the 
American people. As a matter of fact, it is false, and I would like the 
million dollars. And since I used my office to do this research, I do 
not think it would be fair for me to keep the money, so I am going to 
give it to the University of Southern Mississippi to train people to be 
better mathematicians than you are. That was in December of 1995.
  At the time Mr. Barbour said this, our Nation was $4.973 trillion in 
debt, but he promised the American people to have passed a balanced 
budget bill. At the end of that year, their budget added $250 billion 
to the deficit. A year later, $190 billion more. A year later, $113 
billion more. A year later, $146 billion more; all of the way up to 
year 2000, another $20 billion.
  What particularly irks me is after answering Mr. Barbour's challenge, 
and about 80 other folks around the country did so, the Republican 
National Committee, instead of saying gee, we misled you or maybe 
admitting they made a mistake, they sued us. I had to hire a lawyer to 
defend myself for filling out their form. The case is still now in 
court, interestingly enough. But Mr. Barbour, not only did you not 
balance the budget, but since the passage of that bill, we have added 
over $1 trillion to the national debt.
  See, like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I was appalled 
when a year ago a lot of my colleagues, the Speaker of the House, the 
majority leader, the majority whip were running around saying 
Washington is awash in money, huge surpluses as far as the eye can see. 
We do not know what to do with the money; therefore, we have to pass 
these tax cuts.
  When the President said that a year ago right now, our Nation was 
$5,661,347,798,002.65 in debt. Since the passage of the tax cuts, the 
debt has increased by $323 billion. For those following this debate, I 
am going to do something a little different than what the Speaker or 
the majority leader and the President of the United States did. I am 
going to ask Americans to check my numbers. They are available to every 
American at www.publicdebt.treas.gov/, and see for yourself just how 
broke America is.

  What is particularly galling, for those with teenagers who have a 
job, and who look on their pay stub and say, What is this FICA?, that 
is your Social Security taxes; and they are taken with the solemn 
promise that they are to be spent on nothing but Social Security.
  If we could find the mythical lockbox that a lot of presidential 
candidates talked about, and opened it up, all that would be there is 
an IOU for $1.260 trillion.
  Further down on the pay stub we see money is deducted for the Federal 
health insurance program, Medicare. In that lockbox all we would find 
is $263

[[Page H2433]]

billion is owed. The money has been spent on other things.
  If you work for the Department of Defense and wanted to find their 
so-called lockbox, $167 billion is owed to it. The Civil Service 
Retirement Fund, a lot of people work for our Nation, border agents, 
people in the Customs Department, Coast Guard, $527 billion is owed to 
their trust fund right now.
  Mr. Speaker, you have been the Speaker for almost 4 years. You come 
from the party that claims to be for fiscal responsibility. Yet in the 
4 years you have been Speaker, you have not scheduled one vote on a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 
Almost every city has that.
  When I was a city councilman down in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, I 
remember the city attorney telling me next month we are going to put 
together the budget and it has to balance. If it does not balance, you 
and other council members are personally liable for the difference 
between what is collected in taxes and what is spent. I can assure 
Members, we balanced the budget.
  A couple of years later I was elected to the State senate. 
Mississippi has a balanced budget amendment to its constitution. Again 
we were informed that if we spent more money than we collected in 
taxes, that we could be thrown out of office. Those are good rules. 
They are very good rules because it prevents this kind of nonsense from 
happening.
  What is particularly distressing about this $5.984 trillion debt that 
the President wants to raise by another $750 billion, if the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) were on this floor on January 1, 1980, that 
number would have been less than $1 trillion. What is particularly 
disturbing is that the children of the greatest generation, if they do 
not change the way they are doing things, could be remembered as the 
worst generation. I do believe that my parents' generation was the 
best. They survived the Great Depression, got us through World War II, 
Korea, Vietnam, built the highway systems, the Intercoastal Waterway; 
and they did it all for less than $1 trillion in debt. As a matter of 
fact, if we went all of the way from the time George Washington became 
President until Ronald Reagan became President, our Nation was less 
than $1 trillion in debt. Now 20-something years later, we are almost 
$6 trillion in debt, and yet we cannot have a vote on a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I know you are a busy man, and I know the time on this 
floor is very busy. But you know what, today you scheduled a vote on 
the Nutria Eradication Act, and it is important to protect the 
marshland on the Chesapeake, it is important to those folks, and I know 
that they are doing a lot of damage to the marsh; but you scheduled 40 
minutes of debate on the Nutria Eradication Act, and yet we cannot have 
a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  You scheduled another vote on concessions maintenance and wildlife 
refuge repair, and wildlife refuges are very important to a lot of 
Americans and seeing that they are properly maintained is important. 
You scheduled 40 minutes of debate on that, and yet you cannot find 
time to have a debate on a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States.
  We found time to talk about the Waco Mammoth Site Area Study. They 
want to see whether or not they want to put a park there. You scheduled 
40 minutes of debate, yet you cannot find time to have a debate on a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  As a matter of fact, you found time for all of those things, yet you 
did not have time to let this body decide whether or not we wanted to 
vote to kill the whole base closure process.
  I particularly think base closures is a particularly dumb idea. It is 
not saving the taxpayers a dime; it puts a heck of a lot of people out 
of work. It has lost us vital defense installations like Cecil Field 
outside of Jacksonville, Florida. Three 8,000-foot runways, another 
10,000-foot runway. Right now our military is looking for a place to 
put the new Joint Strike Fighter, they are looking for a place to put 
the F-18 E and Fs, and they are going to spend billions of tax dollars 
to build a brand new field for them when Cecil Field would have been a 
perfect match. The problem is that a previous round of base closures 
closed Cecil Field, and we gave the property away.

  That was not done just once or twice; it was done over a hundred 
times around the United States of America. Places like the Presidio in 
San Francisco, given away. Places like Governor's Island off New York 
City, just a month ago the President gave it away. I was stationed on 
that island. It is probably worth half a billion dollars. The President 
gave it away.
  Time after time, the so-called savings of BRAC were not; but there 
was one thing they did not tell the American public, before they gave 
these properties away, they had to clean them up. And we spent over $13 
billion of money to clean up bases that were given away so that the 
local governments could do what they wanted with them. In many 
instances, they sold them, and their city reaps a profit.
  Mr. Speaker, you find time for a lot of fund-raisers and charitable 
events, and that I applaud. I would hope in the time remaining when you 
are Speaker, and you are guaranteed to be Speaker until December 31, 
that you would find time for this House to vote on a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution so this generation can start digging 
itself out of the label of being the worst generation.
  There is not one parent in America who would walk into the local 
Cadillac or BMW dealership and say, I want the most expensive car on 
the lot, and you can bill my 5-year-old 20 years from now when they are 
working, and let them pay the interest on it, too. There is not one 
American who would say I want the most expensive house in the county, I 
do not care what it costs because I have a 4-year-old grandchild, let 
them pay for it. But that is precisely what this generation of 
Americans is doing by running up $5 trillion worth of debt in the past 
22 years. There is no end in sight.
  Mr. Speaker, if you care about kids and grandkids, if you really care 
about the future of this country that so many other Americans 
sacrificed their lives for, why not schedule a vote to see that it is 
here for our kids and grandkids? What is so terrible is not only owing 
that money, but until it is paid off, every single day, $1 billion of 
the taxpayers' money is squandered on interest on that debt; and one-
third of that interest is owned to German and Japanese lending 
institutions.
  If the thought of two lending institutions of two foreign countries 
owning one-third of the American debt and being in a position to wreck 
our economy anytime they want, if that does not frighten the gentleman, 
I am sorry. It does frighten me.
  I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the Blue Dogs 
for writing the Speaker and asking for a vote on a balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am putting you on notice right now: I will not vote to 
raise the debt. Enough is enough.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank my colleague for that historic lesson there. I 
happened to remember one of the happiest days in my legislative career 
here in this body was in 1995 when Speaker Newt Gingrich did schedule a 
vote on the balanced budget constitutional amendment and it passed with 
the required two-thirds vote. I remember one of the saddest days 
standing in the back of the Senate a few weeks later and watching it 
lose by one vote. If it had passed the Senate at that time, we could 
not have passed the budget last year that we passed and we would not be 
here tonight talking about asking for a new plan, or increasing the 
debt ceiling.
  You could have borrowed money to fight the war. That is totally 
permissible. Emergency. But you could not borrow the money, $750 
billion, to give this generation a tax cut with our children and 
grandchildren's money. You could not do that, any more than State and 
local governments could who have to operate under a constitutional 
requirement.
  That is what we are here tonight to talk about, and lest we get into 
what I understand happened last week when our colleagues were here and 
the next speaker came up and started lambasting the farm bill because 
it spends too much and, therefore, it too is contributing to the 
problems that we have with our debt ceiling. Criticism

[[Page H2434]]

has arisen that Congress has passed a budget-buster farm bill. Yet 
Congress has been passing ad hoc emergency assistance legislation for 
the last 4 years because direct payments to support farm income were 
fixed and did not increase when farm incomes fell. Ad hoc assistance 
has totaled $28 billion on agricultural programs, $36 billion when you 
include nutrition programs. I can show you CBO's estimates of the bill 
that passed and the President signed yesterday that shows that we will 
spend less dollars of our taxpayer dollars each year beginning this 
year, 2002, and each year through 2011 under the bill that the 
President signed yesterday. That is less dollars. That is not inflation 
increases. That is less dollars. Since farm prices declined in 1998, 
farm program spending has averaged $24 billion per year. We will be 
below $19.5 billion in each year projected currently under the farm 
bill that passed.
  Many will say that is too much money to be spent. On that we can 
argue. We can argue that, yes, it is too much money to be spent, but 
not if you live in farm country, not if you have been experiencing 
prices received at the marketplace that approximate Depression-era 
prices. Does this farm bill solve all of that? No, it does not. But one 
thing it does do, it gives predictability to our farmers and gives us 
an opportunity to answer the long-term problem, one of which I hope the 
Senate will soon do, and that is pass trade promotional authority so 
our President and his representatives can sit down and begin 
negotiating away the tremendous amount of subsidies that are present in 
the world today, including our own.
  The spending for this bill the President signed yesterday was 
approved in the congressional budget passed in 2001 that contained the 
$1.6 trillion tax cut. The spending for the ag bill was in the same 
budget. Congress has stayed within this budget in passing the bill. New 
estimates have shown both the cost of the legislation increasing $9.3 
billion and the cost of current farm programs increasing $8.3 billion. 
These estimates are part of the same economic changes that have 
contributed to the surpluses of 2001 becoming the deficits of 2002.
  I do not stand here tonight to say we shut our eyes to any part of 
the budget. The farm bill we passed last week fit within the budget 
resolution we passed last year. It is not fair to single out 
agriculture for being a budget buster when we complied with the budget 
resolution if we are not willing to revisit all other tax and spending 
items that were included in the budget resolution.
  That is why we have come here to argue that we need a new budget 
resolution that responds to the changes in the budget outlook which 
looks at the entire budget.
  We on the Committee on Agriculture are prepared to do our share in 
making tough choices to reduce spending on our programs if it is part 
of a comprehensive plan that puts everything on the table and makes 
tough choices across the board.
  This seems to escape a lot of people. There are those that believe we 
should not spend one penny in subsidizing our farmers. They completely 
ignore what is happening out there in the world. When other countries 
have the advantage of a weak currency compared to our strong dollar, I 
do not care whether you are producing cotton, wheat, corn, sugar, 
widgets, airplanes, you name it, it is very difficult to compete when 
we have as strong a dollar as we have and other countries have weak 
currency. That is a temporary phenomenon. It was kind of like seemingly 
that our income, our tax incomes were going to go up as far as the eye 
could see because we have come through a very, very good period of 
economic growth. The 1990s were unprecedented in economic expansion and 
growth in this country. Some believed, I guess, that it would continue 
to operate that way, but then, lo and behold, the stock markets quit 
going up and started coming down and tax revenues came down and it 
should not have taken a nuclear physicist to figure that out. But from 
the standpoint of agriculture we are still out there competing in the 
international marketplace and it is tough going right now.

  But I made the argument last week when we passed that bill with 280 
votes on the floor of the House that perhaps it is not a bad investment 
for the American taxpayer to spend a few pennies of their hard-earned 
money to support an agricultural system that has given America the most 
abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply 
at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world, 
warts and all, subsidies and all, expenditures and all. No other 
country in the world's people are fed within 1.5 percent of the GDP, 
gross domestic product, in that country as well as Americans are, 
including the cost of the farm bill.
  Could we do better? I will never say that we could not do better. But 
I think that some of the criticism that we are receiving from that is 
criticism that should not be given with a full mouth, because many of 
those who are criticizing are completely ignoring the fact that our 
grocery stores are full, the prices at least as far as the farmer is 
concerned and, well, let us just be totally honest, as far as the cost 
of food to the American people, no other country in the world is fed 
within 1.5 percent of the gross domestic product, and I submit to you 
tonight that it is because of farm policy that we followed in the past.
  Things like the conservation title of this farm bill, the largest 
single increase in the history of our country in one bill. Yet some who 
purport to be environmentalists are criticizing it. It did not quite do 
it the way they wanted it done. There again, that is the American way. 
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
  The research, another strong part of this farm bill, continuing to 
put some investment of our taxpayer dollars into research in finding 
new and better ways and safer ways to grow our food.
  Rural development. Out in rural America, things are not all going 
real well. Whether it be health care, whether it be education, whether 
it be jobs, all are directly dependent upon a sound and healthy farm 
income and we do not have one. That is why I think almost two-thirds of 
this body and two-thirds of the Senate passed and why the President 
signed the bill yesterday.
  But I repeat, tonight we are talking about the debt ceiling and I am 
not about to stand on this floor and be as two-faced as some of the 
leaders of this body are when they say one thing when they are talking 
6 years ago and they say another thing today. Increasing the debt limit 
is serious business. Having a budget game plan for this country that 
will get us back into a surplus or balanced budget, not so much a 
surplus although I would like to see us run a surplus and pay down a 
little more of our debt, and I would like to see us address the 
problems of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and do that before 
we do some of the other things that we are now talking about doing with 
the current economic game plan. We are not tonight suggesting to play 
politics with the debt limit, and we are certainly not trying to force 
a crisis.
  Again, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we, at least a good number of us on 
this side of the aisle, are prepared to vote to increase the debt 
ceiling, but not $750 billion, and not until we have a new economic 
blueprint in place. We do not think that is unreasonable. It is exactly 
what you as the majority party were saying when it was a Democrat in 
the White House, exactly what you were saying then. You were right 
then. I repeat, you were right 6 years ago in forcing President Clinton 
to have a new economic game plan that ultimately came and brought us to 
the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. You were right then. Why are you 
insisting on being so wrong today?

  We are willing to support a temporary increase in the debt limit to 
meet the expenses of the war and allow government to meet its 
obligations, but hold off on a long-term increase in the debt until we 
have a plan in place. We do not want to force a default on the debt, 
but we do want to use this debate as an opportunity to reexamine our 
long-term budget policies. It would be irresponsible to provide a blank 
check for increased borrowing authority without taking action to 
protect taxpayers from even further increases in the national debt.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the need of 
scheduling another vote on the balanced budget constitutional 
amendment. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and others, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) on the other side of the aisle, 
are pushing for just that. I

[[Page H2435]]

hope we will see that vote later this year. We also would like to see 
some strong budget enforcement rules. They are just as important a 
component in restoring fiscal discipline and making sure the budget 
remains in balance once we have done the hard work necessary to bring 
it back into balance. The provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act of 
1990 expire this year. Unless we renew our budget discipline, Congress 
will continue to find ways to break its own rules and pass more 
legislation that puts still more red ink on the national ledger.
  Enforceable spending limits will serve as a fiscal guardrail to keep 
our spending within the Nation's fiscal means. The Blue Dog ABC's plan 
includes legislation introduced by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hill) which would extend and strengthen the provisions of the Budget 
Enforcement Act that are set to expire this year. This legislation is 
similar to budget enforcement legislation introduced by Budget 
Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, but extends budget enforcement for 5 
years and adds several provisions to improve enforcement of budget 
rules and increase accountability in the budget process.
  I know what Chairman Nussle wants to do. I think there are some areas 
that we can in fact have some bipartisan support for because having 
meaningful caps on discretionary spending, all 13 appropriations bills, 
meaningful so that we live within them, is something that is good 
budget policy and will help be a significant part of this new budget 
plan that we have talked about.
  Again, I repeat, those of us on Agriculture do not ask for an 
exemption. Far from it. We believe that we should be part of any 
changes in the budget process, including the criticism that is coming 
of our farm bill from some of our foreign friends, competitors. We have 
no intention, at least the bill that the President signed yesterday, 
there is certainly no intention by the President of the United States 
and no intention of the House Committee on Agriculture that we would 
not live up to the agreements that we have signed and agreed to live 
within and under in previous trade negotiations. What we said this 
time, though, is that we intend to have our negotiators negotiate from 
strength. We are allowed to spend in support of our agriculture in this 
country $19.1 billion per year. We do not intend to spend $19.11 
billion, or less if necessary, and I hope it is necessary that we spend 
less, because one thing I hope the general public understands, the only 
reason we are having spending at the level that we are today in support 
of agricultural products is the fact that we have Depression-era 
prices.

                              {time}  2015

  Cotton is selling for 30 cents a pound and less; wheat, less than $3 
a bushel; and corn, about $2 a bushel. These are the same price levels 
that we saw back in the 1950s. If one's salary was 1950s vintage, one 
had better be a lot more productive today than you were then, or you 
would not be making too good of a living today. That is why, if prices 
go up, the amount of subsidization goes down.
  Certainly I think the whole world would be better off if the amount 
of subsidization goes down, not up. We are perfectly willing, in the 
next round of negotiations, assuming the Senate will get on with doing 
their job in passing the trade promotional authority and we can get on 
with the negotiating, to reduce the amount of eligibility of 
subsidization in the United States on a par basis with other countries. 
The same is true on the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Phelps), let me just conclude by saying that there are a significant 
number of Democrats who would be willing to support an increase in the 
debt limit as part of a responsible plan to restore fiscal discipline. 
The approach outlined by the Blue Dogs, an immediate, temporary 
increase in the debt limit with a larger increase allowed as part of a 
plan to put the budget on a path to balance, accompanied by strong 
budget enforcement legislation, provides a road map for a bipartisan 
solution to our fiscal problems and gridlock on the debt limit.
  That is our offer. We think it is a reasonable offer. We would like 
very much to be included in being part of the solution, because 
borrowing another $750 billion on our grandchildren's future is not the 
best option for us to be considering in this year of 2002, one of those 
years divisible by 2.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
The experience and wisdom that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), 
my good friend, brings to this body is invaluable, and I have watched 
him very closely since I have been a Member of Congress, almost 4 years 
now, and I have followed his lead as a member of the Committee on 
Agriculture and our standing leader and ranking member there, and one 
cannot go too wrong if one follows the reasoning and the thinking of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). So I thank the gentleman for 
his input tonight. As a member of the Blue Dog organization and one of 
the leaders of that group that the gentleman founded, I thank the 
gentleman for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight on such an 
important issue.
  I know that we have been here week after week, night after night as a 
group to try to drive a message home, one that many times is not all 
that popular and not easy to accept. But when we took our oath of 
office I, for one, took it very seriously to make sure that the 
citizens in my district, in my State, and in this Nation absolutely 
understand the truth and the numbers that we are dealing with and that 
the decisions we make each day reflect what accuracy is all about, and 
that we project that on to the taxpayers, to the voters, to the general 
public.
  The Blue Dogs have consistently focused on fiscal discipline, having 
always advocated honesty and responsibility in the budgeting process. 
When Congress considered the budget last year, the Blue Dogs warned 
about the danger of making long-term commitments for tax cuts or new 
spending programs based on projected surpluses. Now, in less than a 
year's time, we have seen a dramatic reversal of the once promising 
budgetary outlook. We now face projections of deficits and increasing 
debt for the rest of the decade that go far beyond the temporary impact 
of the economic downturn or cost of the war on terrorism, which we all 
support and which we must address and do it quickly and effectively.
  Congress and the President, as the gentleman from Texas said, need to 
sit down, roll up our sleeves, and have an honest discussion about what 
we need to do to put the budget back in order, starting with the 
program that the Blue Dogs have outlined over the last several weeks, 
the ABCs of Fiscal Discipline. Remember, we are here to deal with the 
truth. The numbers that come into the Capitol's coffers, to the U.S. 
Treasury should be clear. There should not be all that much confusion 
on what we have on hand, what we have obligated to spend, and what we 
are thinking about embracing for future costs.
  Now, there are a lot of things that have happened in the last year, 
in the last several months that have been unpredicted. Who would have 
thought we would have had the horrific events of September 11 that hurt 
our Nation in many ways, and it impacted us in an economic way. But we 
have other things that have happened: the recession, the tax cuts, and 
other spending that has been proposed and on the table now that we can 
control, that is within our control, and that is why I think people 
send us here to Congress to represent them.
  My father is 81 years old, sitting out there now just recovering from 
a heart attack not quite 2 weeks ago. I remember his words and his 
generation, the elders of my church and the people that I think deal 
with wisdom more so than many of us in this generation. If you do not 
stand for something, you will fall for anything. Little did I know that 
a country music artist would come along and make $1 million on that. If 
I had known that, I would have written the song if I had thought of it, 
I say to the gentleman. But it is so true. If one is not solid on 
something that is very important, a matter of one's convictions, and 
one does not try to pursue that goal in all the honesty and the 
fortitude that one can muster up, things go wrong. A lot of things come 
along that sound good and will divert you this way and that way, 
distract you from the real goal, from the real truth.

[[Page H2436]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is hard to accept sometimes what the real truth is, 
but the fact of the matter is, we have a huge debt, and we have to 
assure the American people that we will be honest and accountable. 
People out there that work hard and play by the rules every day, 
surely, surely their elected officials such as us that are here in this 
body can afford them accountability and honesty in dealing with the 
numbers.
  The Congressional Budget Office has reported numbers; the Office of 
Management and Budget, the administration's fiscal reporting group, 
offer some other numbers. Remember, I come from the State of Illinois, 
but make no mistake, I live almost 400 miles south of Chicago. So it is 
really a different world which I represent, largely rural, small 
farming area, coal mines, small businesses, people that are just 
dedicated to generational hand-me-down crafts and work ethic that is 
invaluable and immeasurable. But when I served 14 years in the Illinois 
House, I saw the same thing happen there, the frustration of here is 
the Economic Fiscal Commission reporting how much money they predicted 
would come in or projected revenues or what is on hand, and then the 
Bureau of the Budget, the Governor's reporting office. Well, guess 
what? The Bureau of the Budget reported a year or so ago, almost 2\1/
2\, 3 years ago when the Governor took office in Illinois that we had 
over $1 billion in surpluses. Guess what they all can agree on now? Mr. 
Speaker, a $1.5 billion hole in the Illinois budget, and they are like 
a lot of States scrambling to try to come to the rescue to know what to 
do. And then the decisions that they were elected to make become even 
tougher decisions.
  What can we do? Well, I think we need to avoid what is always 
obvious. How would we in the world agree to the rosiest projections of 
5 to 10 years on the very best of what can happen, rather than 
preparing for what could be the worst? That is, to me, beyond reason 
and comprehension. So budget enforcement. Unless we renew budget 
discipline, Congress will continue to find ways to break its own rules 
and pass more legislation that puts still more red ink on the national 
ledger. Enforceable budget restraints will shine a light on deceptive 
practices and construct a fiscal guardrail, keeping our spending within 
the Nation's fiscal means, which is what we ask of the American people 
and families to do every year, every day, and what they do is stay 
within their means. Those that are not staying within their means have 
the credit card debt stacked up; they have marriages falling apart 
because of financial problems that they brought on themselves. What I 
have found in life is that most of the problems that come their way are 
not from some uncontrollable force; they are self-induced. We bring 
them on ourselves. That is what we have done here. Maybe it has taken 
decades and generations before us, other people that have served, and 
other administrations, but we collectively, all of us, have to take 
responsibility. So now collectively, let us admit we have problems. We 
had September 11, we had recession, and we had tax cuts that gave 55 
percent of the surpluses or more back, and now we have a problem. Where 
is the new plan? Where are the people that want to be responsible 
enough to step forward and say, let us sit down together as reasonable 
people on both sides of the aisle or Independent, whatever one claims 
to be, and work out of this mess. Not hope for the best and keep our 
blinders on, but what shall we do?
  Well, we need a balanced budget constitutional amendment, which I 
have signed on as a cosponsor and feel should require the President and 
Congress to submit and to enact a budget that is balanced, without 
using the Social Security surplus. This amendment could be waived, of 
course, in special times of war or military conflict or threats of 
national security. But for the first time, all of the other balanced 
budget constitutional amendments have been presented without addressing 
whether or not we would use Social Security. This one we intend to 
bring forth to say we should not use the Social Security Trust Fund. We 
should balance the budget, and if we borrow from our children and our 
grandchildren, then we get ourselves in a deeper mess.

  So I hope that the Balanced Budget Amendment, constitutional 
amendment, excluding the Social Security Trust Fund, would be one way 
that we can show, one way that we can have a plan as to how we intend 
to get our fiscal house in order.
  I could say much more, there are so many other parts of the ABCs, but 
in order the give time for other Members before we close out our time, 
I will yield back.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be a member of the fiscally 
responsible Blue Dog Coalition and to be fighting with the gentleman, 
along with my other Blue Dog colleagues, for simple common sense in 
budgeting. A lot of people think there is a lot of complications and 
complexities with respect to how we budget in Washington, but the way 
we do it should be no different than any household in America budgets, 
how any small business budgets. We have to make sure that we have the 
revenues. We have to make sure that the books are balanced. We have to 
make sure that the checkbook is reconciled at the end of the month. If 
we do not have revenues, somehow we increase them. I voted for every 
single tax cut we could because the American people need that kind of 
tax relief. Some say we have to cut expenses. What is there to cut? Are 
we going to cut prescription drugs? Are we going to cut Social 
Security? Are we going to cut defense budgets? Nobody supports that. 
Others say we should borrow the money.
  But there is another thing that we can do. We do not want to borrow 
the money. We do not want to ask our children to shoulder the burden 
for the fiscally irresponsible decisions that we make in Washington. 
There is another alternative. Once again it was brought to our 
attention in today's New York Times in a story by Paul Krugman called 
The Great Evasion. We are losing about $70 billion a year in revenues 
by irresponsible and unpatriotic American corporations who rush off to 
Bermuda, open up mail drops in Bermuda, say that they are now doing 
business as foreign corporations and do not have to pay their fair 
share of taxes. They wrap themselves in the American flag to sell their 
products and then renounce their American citizenship to do business 
abroad and do not pay their fair share of taxes.
  Now, there are colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have had 
enough of this kind of irresponsible behavior. Rather than increasing 
taxes, which so few of us want to do, and rather than gutting important 
programs, which so few of us want to do, it is time for the 
administration to step up to the plate and say, enough is enough.

                              {time}  2030

  We are not going to allow American corporations to run to these 
Bermudan tax havens, flee their fair share of taxes. No American family 
is permitted to do that. No American family was able to register 
themselves in Bermuda to escape their fair share of taxes. We should 
not allow American corporations to do that as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

                          ____________________