[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 133 (Thursday, November 18, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H9966-H9974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 2986, INCREASING THE PUBLIC DEBT 
                                 LIMIT

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 856 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 856

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (S. 2986) to amend title 31 
     of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit. 
     The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to commit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of

[[Page H9967]]

this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 856 is a closed rule that 
provides for consideration of S. 2986, a bill to increase the public 
debt limit. The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill. Finally, the rule provides 1 motion to 
commit.
  Mr. Speaker, the debt limit increase bill that will come before this 
body is a necessary step in order to avoid a shutdown of our 
government. The Federal Government has never before defaulted on our 
obligations, but without our immediate action today we will simply be 
unable to pay our bills.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill increases the statutory debt limit 
in order to protect the full faith and credit of the United States. It 
is necessary and not an unusual step to ensure that the Federal 
Government is able to pay its bills.
  It is important to note that the level of debt subject to limit is a 
function of past decisions made by decades of administrations and 
Congresses. It is equally important to note that increasing the debt 
limit does not increase the deficit.
  As Robert Rubin, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary noted, 
``Passage of the debt ceiling is totally unrelated to deficit 
reduction.'' And in testimony before the House Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, he further noted that ``The debt limit is about 
meeting obligations already incurred, while future deficits can only be 
reduced so actions taken in the budget process itself.''
  While the publicly-held debt has increased more rapidly in recent 
years, it is a result of the ongoing war against terrorism, an effort 
that began after the horrific attacks on our Nation on September 11, 
2001.
  Without passage of the underlying bill today, vital programs such as 
Social Security, medicare, unemployment insurance benefits, veterans' 
care, and military retirement are all put in jeopardy.
  We risk not providing food, clothing, ammunition, and other necessary 
resources to our brave men and women engaged in the war on terror. 
Highway funding, disaster assistance, the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, all will be at risk.
  In addition, if we do not act today, taxpayers will be further 
burdened with higher interest rates, and we risk the disruption of 
financial markets at a time when our national economy continues to grow 
at a strong pace.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and this underlying legislation is necessary 
to keep the government operating, ensure the continued delivery of 
vital services for our citizens, and provide the equipment, supplies, 
and munitions our troops need to continue our fight in the war on 
terror.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1015

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, the national debt hit 
$7,444,423,020,967.95. It translates to over $25,000 owed by each and 
every one of us. The national debt is growing so fast, $1.6 billion 
every single day, that the last seven digits on the national debt clock 
in New York City are flipping faster than can be seen by the human eye.
  No one is spared this heavy economic burden, not even America's 
children. In fact, today every child born in America comes into this 
world owing a birth tax of $25,255 which is their share of payment on a 
national debt that they had no part in creating.
  To my friends on the other side of the aisle that fought with such 
fervor and passion against the so-called death tax, I ask, where is the 
moral indignation when it comes to the birth tax which is levied on 
this Nation's most innocent Americans, its children?
  This is a moral issue. The Federal Government cannot continue to 
borrow 20 cents of every dollar it spends, run up historic deficits, 
and add to the Federal debt without seriously harming the economy for 
generations yet unborn.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a measure to raise the 
debt ceiling for the third time in 3 years. The debt ceiling is a 
statutory limit, imposed by law on the total amount of debt that the 
United States of America can incur. It currently stands at $7.384 
trillion. At the beginning of President Bush's first term, Congress was 
told that the debt ceiling would not need to be raised until the year 
2008 at the earliest. However, if we count the $800 billion increase 
provided for under S. 2986, the bill to be considered later today, the 
debt limit will have been raised by more than $2 trillion since 
President Bush took office.
  On this day, with Americans coming together in Little Rock, Arkansas, 
to open the Bill Clinton Presidential Library, I find myself waxing 
nostalgic for the budget policies of the 1990s: the PAYGO rules, the 
spending caps and other critical budget policies that set our Nation's 
budget on a path to historic surpluses and allowed us to pay down the 
national debt for 7 straight years. It was not easy but it was the 
right thing to do.
  Last night in the Committee on Rules, my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson), offered an amendment to S. 2986 to help 
us get on the path of fiscal discipline. The Thompson amendment, co-
authored with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), one of this 
body's most thoughtful Members on budget issues, would have allowed 
this body to restore the PAYGO rules and spending caps that were 
allowed to lapse in 2002. Regrettably, the Thompson amendment was 
rejected and my colleagues are being denied the opportunity to restore 
some budget discipline.
  Mr. Speaker, our national deficit keeps hitting historic highs, $413 
billion by the end of September, and no end in sight, particularly as 
we are spending $5 billion a month on the war. At this rate, deficits 
will continue for years to come, adding several trillion at a minimum 
to the colossal debt we have already incurred. In fact, the 
Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates that at the current rate 
of deficit spending, by the year 2014 the debt ceiling will have to be 
raised to $14.5 trillion.
  Chronic budget deficits also undermine the economic security of 
Americans. As the government's appetite for money increases and it 
consumes more and more of the capital available in credit markets, more 
Americans will face higher interest rates and find it harder to finance 
their homes, their education, and their businesses.
  Moreover, there is cause for alarm when we look at how this debt is 
being financed. I have serious concerns about how this Nation will 
maintain its sovereignty as foreign governments and nationals continue 
to bankroll us.
  Today, the Japanese hold over $600 billion in U.S. debt paper and the 
Chinese hold between $225 and $275 billion. When 90 percent of new debt 
is purchased by the likes of the Bank of China and Japanese interests, 
how can we be sure that we have the resources to provide for the 
national defense? How do we ensure our independence when foreign 
governments who do not share our Nation's values or views on foreign 
policy issues buy up our bonds?
  I strongly believe that the level of foreign holdings is a grave and 
gathering threat to our Nation's sovereignty.
  Mr. Speaker the closed rule before us today only allows an hour to 
debate the national debt. That is simply not enough time to debate an 
issue that affects every man, woman and child, living and unborn, in 
this country. Moreover, the majority's refusal to let the Simpson-
Stenholm PAYGO amendment come to the floor for a vote is foolhardy. 
Without a major change in course, we are on the path to debt for 
generations to come.

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2004]

                            Soaring Ceilings

       This week the lame-duck Congress will have to raise the 
     federal debt ceiling. For several weeks the Treasury 
     Department has

[[Page H9968]]

     been doing the governmental equivalent of scrounging for 
     spare change in the couch cushions to pay its obligations. 
     Now, with the election safely past and Treasury at the limits 
     of its ingenuity, lawmakers will do the inevitable and 
     increase the government's borrowing authority by as much as 
     $800 billion--raising the debt ceiling to more than $8 
     trillion.
       This will be the third time in three years that the debt 
     limit has been increased, for a grand total of more than $2 
     trillion during President Bush's first term. The last hike 
     was nearly $1 trillion, but it took less than 18 months for 
     the government to hit the newly raised ceiling. By way of 
     comparison, the entire federal debt in 1980 was less than $1 
     trillion;
       There will be some noisy debate about this, only partly on 
     point. The debt limit, as now defined, both overstates and 
     understates the problem of the national debt. It overstates 
     the problem by including not only what an ordinary person 
     would think of as ``real debt''--the $4.3 trillion the 
     government has borrowed--but also money the government 
     essentially owes itself. These are the ``trust funds'' to 
     finance future obligations, such as Social Security and 
     Medicare, that the government ``borrows'' from to pay its 
     current bills. To the extent this reflects a debt, it's of a 
     different sort from a Treasury bond. But if this is a debt, 
     the ceiling understates the problem because the trust fund 
     IOUs the government issues to itself don't come close to 
     reflecting the full cost of its future commitments to those 
     programs.
       This much is beyond question: The government is living far 
     beyond its means. The deficits it racks up year after year 
     impede economic growth, burden future generations and force 
     the United States to rely on foreign governments and 
     investors. Since Mr. Bush took office, foreign holdings of 
     U.S. debt have grown from 30 percent to 43 percent of the 
     total, and 90 percent of the new debt has been purchased by 
     foreigners. Meanwhile, as the government has to pay more 
     interest on its debt, it has less for health care, education 
     and other programs. According to the Congressional Budget 
     Office, the government's interest payments are expected to 
     more than double between 2003 ($153 billion) and 2010 ($319 
     billion); interest costs will account for almost 10 percent 
     of federal spending in the next decade.
       ``We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now,'' 
     Mr. Bush said in his first State of the Union address. He was 
     speaking about his plan to pay off over the next decade the 
     entire $2 trillion in government debt held by the public. 
     Now, instead of being eliminated, debt held by the public--
     real debt--is on track to reach $6.5 trillion by 2011. How do 
     Mr. Bush and all the lawmakers who have enabled his 
     irresponsibility plan to explain that to the grandchildren?

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to just clarify the record that 
while public debt is held by foreign interests, foreigners invest in 
the United States because we have a sound economy and we provide a safe 
place for them due to our low risk of default.
  The market for U.S. Treasury securities is the largest, most liquid 
and transparent financial market in the world.
  It is also important for our colleagues to know that our debt limit 
increase is not an unusual function if we just look at the 21st 
century, but I think we kind of have to look at the last half of the 
20th century.
  The level of outstanding debt is subject to a limit and a function 
that is past decisions made by previous administrations and Congresses 
over decades, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, as well as current 
and past levels of economic activity and should not be subject to 
political gamesmanship.
  As we look at the debt limit increase measures, there have been 83 
since 1940, Mr. Speaker, seven during the 1940s, six during the 1950s, 
13 during the 1960s, 18 during the 1970s, 24 during the 1980s, 13 
during the 1990s and two far this decade. So it is not an unusual 
function or an unprecedented function or a Republican function or a 
Democratic function. It is a function of keeping the government 
running.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I want to begin by saying that I suspect that this may be the last 
rule that will be managed by our good friend from Buffalo, New York 
(Mr. Reynolds), as he is going to be taking the position that the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) is giving up as a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means representing the State of New York on the 
Committee on Ways and Means. So I want to say that rarely have we seen 
the kind of passionate eloquence when it has come to management of 
rules on the House floor that we have from my friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reynolds). And I want to congratulate him and thank 
him for his stellar service to the Committee on Rules and to this 
institution overall.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It is the 
fiscally responsible policy for us to increase by $800 billion the 
national debt limit. One might say, how can that be fiscally 
responsible for us to all of the sudden increase that burden which has 
the potential to increase interest rates and do all of these other 
things that obviously we bemoan increases in spending.
  Well, the reason it is the fiscally responsible thing for us to do is 
that if we do not, there are tremendous obligations that the Federal 
Government has that could potentially be jeopardized. Not that they 
will be jeopardized or not, but potentially be jeopardized. One of the 
things that is important for us to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that if we 
look at the question of the auction of our Treasury bills that is on 
the horizon, we know one thing full well. If we do not take this action 
now as expeditiously as possible, get this done, we will increase the 
already-high interest costs that the American taxpayer will be 
shouldering.
  Now, this issue is a wonderful issue to demagogue, and I will tell 
you that I probably in my quarter century here have been guilty of 
having done it in the past. I will say that clearly increasing the debt 
ceiling is something that it is easy to cast a ``no'' vote on it, but 
it is not the responsible thing to do.
  Now, we listen to people decrying a number of things. Obviously, 
there is talk about how this President inherited a wonderful surplus 
and today many of our colleagues are in Little Rock, and we 
congratulate President Clinton on the opening of his library; but let 
us remember that as we looked at the surplus that was created during 
the decade of the 1990s, Mr. Speaker, it was done so because of the 
fact that we Republicans came to majority in 1994. And we came to 
majority focusing on a couple of things. Yes, trying to restrain the 
growth of Federal spending, but at the same time we had our attention 
on the issue of economic growth. And we know that we brought about that 
economic growth because of the fact that we were able to reduce taxes 
to stimulate the economy.
  Now, one of the things people say when we talk about the problems of 
increased spending that has taken place over the past 4 years, one of 
the things we need to recognize is that even if we did not have the 
horrendous attacks of September 11, 2001, against the United States of 
America, even if we did not have the war and the costs of that war in 
Iraq, we still would be dealing with deficit spending. We still would 
be faced with the challenge of increasing the debt ceiling. Why? 
Because it was the fact that we saw an economic slow-down that really 
began as every economist, virtually every economist has recognized, 
every nonpartisan economist has recognized, began in the waning, waning 
months of the year 2000, before George Bush was even elected President 
of the United States. We saw this economic slow-down. And that economic 
slow-down obviously diminished flow of revenues to the Federal 
Treasury.
  Now, what is it that we have done? Fortunately, with the policies we 
have put in place, Mr. Speaker, we have actually seen an increase to 
the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury and the last projection 
showed actually an unanticipated $108 billion in revenues have come 
into the Federal Treasury. Why? Because of the fact that the economy is 
growing.
  So we are on a path toward greater economic growth. And now that this 
election is behind us, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we also need 
to realize is that we have the potential to make permanent the tax 
cuts, to bring about reform of Social Security, which is a very high 
priority, and a wide range of other things, like market-opening 
opportunities which will help us.
  The other thing that was just raised by my friend from Buffalo that I 
think is important for us to talk about is this wringing our hands over 
the fact that

[[Page H9969]]

there are nations like the People's Republic of China that might 
consider investing its dollars in the United States of America. What 
better signal of the strength and confidence that the world has for our 
economy than to see them invest in our economy? I see that, Mr. 
Speaker, as a positive for us as a Nation.
  So it is very clear, some people who want to politicize and say, oh, 
well, let us not increase the debt limit. Well, it is very important 
that we do this. Increasing this debt ceiling will save U.S. taxpayer 
dollars because if we do not, we will see an even greater interest 
burden shouldered on the U.S. taxpayer. So let us vote for this rule. 
Let us vote for the rule as it is reported out because of the fact that 
any kind of delay would delay action over in the other body, and we 
need to move as quickly as we can on this and then let us vote for the 
package itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, that did not take long. On just the third 
legislative day after the election we are yet again confronting a need 
to raise the Nation's debt limit. It is interesting that even though 
this problem has been apparent for months the Republican leadership 
chose to wait until after the election to bring this issue to the 
floor, interesting but not at all surprising.
  Once again, the historic fiscal mismanagement of this Republican 
Congress and the Bush administration is on display, and, once again, we 
are reminded that we are passing on a massive, unpaid credit card bill 
to our children and our grandchildren, and the numbers are staggering.
  In 2002, the Bush administration came to Congress asking for a debt 
limit increase of $450 billion. In 2003, they asked for another 
increase of $984 billion, an unprecedented increase, and this year's 
request will increase the debt ceiling by another $800 billion. 
Amazingly, this increase is only expected to last the Treasury 1 year, 
which means that unless this Congress gets its act together we will be 
back here next year debating yet another multibillion dollar increase 
in the national debt limit.
  In the last 18 months, this Nation's debt has gone up by nearly $1 
trillion, $1 trillion. Today's debate proves once again that the 
promises made by the Bush administration when they came into office 
were nothing more than empty rhetoric.
  They promised under their plan the debt ceiling would not be reached 
until 2008. Instead, because they continue to insist on massive tax 
breaks for the wealthy that are not paid for, the debt limit will have 
to be raised for the third time in 3 years.
  On January 29, 2002, George Bush stood in this Chamber and told the 
Nation our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term. 
I guess he misspoke.
  But this debate is about more than numbers, Mr. Speaker. It is about 
priorities. It is about the kind of country we are leaving for future 
generations. How will our children be able to afford things like 
education and health care, homeland security and national defense? How 
will they be able to pay for us when we retire?
  These massive deficits, this huge debt will mean higher interest 
rates, and that means that the American people will have to pay more 
for a college education or a new car or a new home. Reckless fiscal 
policy is not a value. It is a vice, and it has to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, the fiscal irresponsibility of the majority and the 
administration is magnified by the Republican leadership's refusal to 
institute budget reforms requiring Congress to pay for any new 
spending. PAYGO simply is a responsible plan that says if you want to 
increase spending or if you want to give tax cuts to your rich friends, 
you have got to pay for it.
  In the Committee on Rules, several members offered, and I supported, 
an amendment to increase the debt limit and reinstate the pay-as-you-go 
spending policies, and it was rejected.
  Now I know what my friends on the other side of the aisle are 
thinking, the next election is not for another 2 years. They think the 
American people will forget about this fiscal irresponsibility that 
they are pursuing. Well, maybe they might and maybe they will not, but, 
in the meantime, they are undermining our economy and they are passing 
on to our kids a big fat credit card bill and it is shameful.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and vote no on 
the underlying bill so we can have a real debate on the gross fiscal 
mismanagement of this Congress and this administration and institute 
real budget reforms that will provide pay-as-you-go for increased 
spending and these tax cuts.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is important, after listening to my colleague and fellow 
member of the Committee on Rules, that we point out that tax relief did 
not cause the deficit. We would have triple-digit budget deficits today 
if taxes remained at the historically high levels of 2000. The tax 
policies that were put in place helped our economy out of a recession 
that began in the Clinton administration and was in the early Bush 
years.
  Without our tax policies, the economy would not have recovered as 
quick and as well as it has. More Americans would have lost their jobs. 
A less robust recovery from recession would have had the adverse 
effects on revenues and the budget deficit, and healthy revenue growth 
continues even with tax relief. The recent decline in the deficit is 
largely a result of revenue increasing faster than anticipated because 
of strong economic growth.
  After 3 years of declining revenue in the wake of September 11, 
revenue is now growing more robustly than expected. Just since July, we 
have seen the deficit projections for this year drop by $32 billion. 
While I cannot predict what the next election will be, I do know the 
President ran on those tax cuts, as did the majority in this Congress, 
and both the President will serve another term and in the 109th 
Congress the Republican majority will continue in being the majority in 
this body
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just refer him to CBO's report in which 
it concludes that the tax cuts are the largest legislative contributor 
to the negative debt that we have right now. I mean, so it runs 
contrary to what the gentleman is saying.
  All we are suggesting here is that when my colleagues pass these tax 
cuts for their corporate friends and for wealthy people that they pay 
for them, pay as you go. That is the responsible thing, so we do not 
pass this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in the time of the 
last 2 years of this Congress we have had a great debate. A guy from 
the left that believes that there should not be tax cuts, or to have 
some kind of message for middle America to feel that they might get a 
piece of it.
  I am a guy that believes if you pay taxes, you ought to get a tax 
cut. We took that referendum, I guess, to the public, and they have 
ratified an opportunity for this majority to remain.
  Now, I also understand majority/minority politics, and I guess if I 
look through the years of 1940, 1950, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 
2000 when we would find that Republicans controlled the place or 
Democrats controlled the place, I am sure that there were a few that 
made the debt reduction or the aspect of all of that debate at the same 
time they looked at the debt limit.
  But also in my opening remarks we heard from Secretary Rubin who said 
that the aspect of raising the debt limit was not the aspect of 
addressing the deficit. It was the budget itself. And I will quote him.
  As Robert Rubin, then Treasury Secretary under the President said in 
November of 1995 in that quote, Passage of the debt ceiling is totally 
unrelated to deficit reduction. The deficit can only be reduced in the 
budget process.
  He reiterated this truth 1 month later in testimony before the House 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services when he said, The debt 
limit is about meeting obligations already

[[Page H9970]]

incurred, while future deficits can only be reduced through actions 
taken in the budget process itself.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is the third time under this 
administration that we have raised the debt limit, and what we were 
asking for last night in the Committee on Rules and what we are asking 
for today is that, before we do this again, that we institute the 
necessary budget reforms that require pay-as-you-go so that we are not 
going down this path of fiscal irresponsibility, so we are not passing 
down to our kids and our grandkids this massive credit card bill.
  My colleagues denied us that ability to be able to vote up or down on 
a pay-as-you-go bill today, and that is what we are urging here today. 
That is why we are opposing this rule, and that is why I am going to 
vote against increasing the debt limit. Because there is no reason to 
believe that my colleagues' bad habits are not going to continue into 
the next Congress.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, a couple things.
  One, in the finger pointing of this 21st century of deficit and debt 
limit increases, again, I will put on the record, we had seven during 
the 1940s, six during the 1950s, 13 during the 1960s, 18 during the 
1970s, 24 during the 1980s, 13 during the 1990s and two so far this 
decade. So we are not into a new venture, and we are not into a 
Republican venture. We are into a congressional decision of whether we 
keep the government moving or whether we do not, and there were 83 debt 
limit measures that have been enacted into law.
  I believe the gentleman from Texas will come up and talk about the 
PAYGO amendment that was offered before the Committee on Rules last 
night, and I think that it will be important for us to listen to him, 
and I believe that the issue of PAYGO will have bipartisan support if 
and when it comes to this floor.
  But I also want to caution my colleagues that this is a Senate bill 
that we are taking up, and further delay once again results in this 
body jeopardizing our trust funds such as Social Security, Medicare, 
highways, and we further jeopardize veterans' care and military 
retirement.
  So when we put our military at risk, at not having the necessary 
resources of food and clothing and ammunition, we also endanger 
unemployment benefits and disaster assistance, low-income home energy 
assistance programs.
  The debate on PAYGO I believe should happen and will happen. It is 
not necessarily that it has to happen when we are looking at debt limit 
for a number of reasons, including the quotes of Robert Rubin of 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my 
Republican colleagues for bringing this bill to the floor today, clean, 
up and down. There is a certain amount of justice to this because those 
who have built up these deficits should have the courage to vote to 
increase the debt ceiling for the policies of which they have been very 
successful, and that is commendable.
  I sincerely say that, even though my opposition to those policies 
help contributed to my defeat. Because I have stood on this floor many 
times, Mr. Speaker, asking that PAYGO be reinstated, but it was never 
the right time, and, according to the Committee on Rules, it is not the 
right time today to bring up pay-as-you-go.
  But we can talk about these deficits and debt and my friends on the 
majority side can continue to explain them as they really do not matter 
anymore. It does not matter that we have borrowed $570 billion in the 
last 12 months, that we borrowed $1.5 trillion in the last 3 years, 
that we are going to borrow who knows how much more, continuing to fund 
the same policies. Because I assume if one was elected on these 
policies they will continue them. That means, based on most economists, 
the deficit is going to explode into the next year, 2, 3, 5, 10 years.
  I hope I am wrong. I want to say here today to my friends on this 
side of the aisle, I sincerely hope they are right because our country 
will be so much better off if they are right than if they are wrong, 
because I detect in today's motion a reluctance to change anything.
  I have come to the conclusion now that politics are not going to 
change my colleagues' policies. They have got the majority in the 
House. They have got the majority in the Senate. They have got the 
White House. Therefore, they are going to do what they believe is in 
the best interest of our country.
  I just do not share the belief that deficits do not matter. I just do 
not share the belief, and I never dreamed I would be a member of the 
party of fiscal responsibility, which my party has become.
  Based on historical records, they talk about a trillion and a half is 
not much money, $800 billion, not much money. Well, it took our country 
204 years to borrow the first $1 trillion. Today, we are going to make 
it possible to borrow another $800 billion, and it probably will occur 
in the next 12 to 18 months.
  It is not politics that is going to ultimately decide this question. 
It is the market that is going to decide this question, and I would 
encourage my friends on this side of the aisle to start paying 
attention to the market.
  It was not insignificant that 2 months ago the Japanese, for the 
first time since 2002, chose not to increase their holdings of United 
States Treasury notes. It is not of some insignificance that the 
European community is concerned about the fall of the dollar.
  Much of what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has said I 
agree with him on. I agree with Mr. Rubin, Secretary Rubin. I agree 
with him 100 percent. I am glad the gentleman repeated it twice for the 
Record because more Members of this body need to read that and 
understand that what he is talking about is exactly as he has restated 
it.
  This is not a budget vote. What we were talking about last night in 
asking my colleagues to make pay-as-you-go a part of this rule is 
changing the policy just a little bit in reinstating pay-as-you-go 
which worked in a bipartisan way in 1993 and 1997. But this bunch, 
those of my colleagues who control this House today, have said, nope, 
that is not any good anymore. We have got a new and better policy. Some 
of us disagree with that, and we just ask respectfully that we be 
allowed to vote on that today, but my colleagues said no, and this is 
their prerogative. That is their prerogative.
  To those of my colleagues who believe that the amount of deficits 
this country is running today and will run under the policies they 
advocate, if they are going to make the tax cuts permanent, if they are 
going to continue to have the reductions in the amount of revenue, if 
we are going to continue to fight to a successful culmination, which I 
hope we do, of the wars, if we are going to do that, I think there may 
be a little justice in this for the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds), and I hope you will be up to it.
  Going to the Committee on Ways and Means means the gentleman is going 
to be part of the ways and means of solving this problem, sooner or 
later, but not today, obviously. Sooner or later, the gentleman is 
going to have to be part of that, I believe.
  So, again, I conclude by congratulating my colleagues for bringing 
this bill up for a clean up and down vote. If they would have allowed 
pay-as-you-go, I would have been one of those votes, but I am not going 
to ratify a policy that I believe is going to drive this country to the 
brink of ruin, and the market will ultimately be the judge of this, not 
any vote in this body according to the majority today.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is true that in 2004, as we consider whether we increase the debt 
limit, the government is controlled by Republicans, a Republican 
President, a Republican Congress in both the other body and in this 
one. But I am reminded of President Bill Clinton's State of the Union 
address in 1996, and I quote him: ``And on behalf of all Americans, 
especially those who need their Social Security payments at the 
beginning of March, I challenge Congress to preserve the full faith and

[[Page H9971]]

credit of the United States, to honor the obligations of this great 
Nation as we have for 220 years, to rise above the partisanship and 
pass a straightforward extension of the debt limit. Show them that 
America keeps its word.''
  That rang true when a Democratic President spoke to a Republican 
Congress; it rings true today as we consider the debt limit.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 second just to say that 
President Bush, in his first State of the Union said, ``We owe it to 
our children and grandchildren to act now,'' speaking about his plan to 
pay off in the next decade the entire $2 trillion in government-debt 
held by the public.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we are here because the Secretary of the 
Treasury has warned us that he has run out of tricks. Five times he has 
written the leadership of the Congress and told us that he was 
approaching the legal limit which Congress has imposed by law on how 
much debt the United States can incur. We call it the debt ceiling. Now 
he has told us that he is out of tricks and he is having to do things 
he does not regard as prudent unless we increase the debt ceiling. So 
it is right that we are here to do just that.
  But it is also right that we take an hour or two to ponder what 
brings us to this juncture, to raise the debt ceiling again by $800 
billion, when we have already raised it twice in the last 3 years.
  Let us go back to January 1, 2001. The Bush administration takes 
office, and the fruits of our labor in the last two administrations of 
the Clinton years are laid before him. They look out and see surpluses 
of $5.6 trillion and decide that this warrants huge tax cuts. We warned 
them against buying into a blue-sky projection which might not be 
obtained, and surely enough, that happened.
  They told us, nevertheless, that even if we adopted their tax cuts, 
they would not have to be back to request an increase in the debt 
ceiling due to the fantastic surpluses they foresaw, until the year 
2008. In truth, they were back in 2002 asking for $450 billion. And 
then on May 26, 2003, just 18 months ago, the second request from the 
Bush administration was passed raising the debt ceiling by $984 
billion. And now we have the third debt ceiling increase in 3 years, 
equal to $800 billion, before us.
  Let me just take a minute to go through some charts which will 
explain more graphically why it is we are here and what it is we need 
to do at this point in time.
  This was the debt ceiling when Mr. Bush came to office in January 
2001, $5.950 trillion. This first increase took it to $6.4 trillion. 
The next, where we are today, $7.384 trillion. That was a $984 billion 
increase just 18 months ago. Today, they would like to take that up 
another $800 billion because they have rung up $984 billion in debt in 
the last 18 months.
  Just consider that. Every 18 months the government of the United 
States under the Bush administration is incurring $1 trillion in 
additional debt. Every 18 months. That is the rate at which we are 
running right now. This next increase will take the debt ceiling to 
$8.2 trillion, up from $5.950 trillion. That is quite a statement about 
the fiscal policies of this administration.
  Now, the administration assured us that they would not need to come 
back until 2008; that we could cut taxes by immense amounts not only in 
2001, but 2002 and 2003, because there have been three tax cuts, and 
even more, and still enjoy an increase in revenues. This was the path 
they plotted when they sold their tax cuts to the Congress of the 
United States showing that tax revenues would rise from a little over 
$1 trillion to $1.118 trillion, individual and corporate income taxes.
  Instead, the revenues of this country have followed this descending 
path here, and we can see the gaping hole, the difference of $300 
billion today between what they predicted and where we actually are. 
This is an underlying cause.
  In addition to that, there have been things that have taken their 
toll on the budget: defense. Much larger than anybody anticipated in 
2001. Homeland Security. We did not even have a heading called Homeland 
Security 3 years ago. And the 9/11 response. But the increases in 
spending that have affected the bottom line of the budget have all been 
sought by the Bush administration. Ninety percent of the increases in 
spending over and above current services have been things they have 
sought and we have appropriated because they were urgently needed.
  So where are we? A $450 billion increase in the debt ceiling in 2002. 
In 2003, we had a $984 billion increase in the debt ceiling. And today, 
an $800 billion increase in the debt ceiling. That means this 
administration has had to come to Congress and ask for the debt ceiling 
to be raised by $2.234 trillion. Let me say that again. It is so 
fantastic: $2.234 trillion to accommodate its budgets over the last 4 
years. That is the bottom line. It is inescapable.
  And how much is $984 billion, the last increase we had 18 months ago? 
Well, $984 billion is more than the entire debt of the United States in 
the year 1980-81 when Ronald Reagan came to Congress. The last increase 
18 months ago exceeded it.
  Let me just wrap up by saying that this calls for action. Sure, the 
ceiling has to be increased, but we should not just increase the 
ceiling and leave the problem unattended. The very least we can do is 
reinstate the PAYGO rules which have worked so well and put the budget 
in surplus for the first time in 30 years in the 1990s. That is what we 
ask today, an opportunity to put up an amendment that would at least 
take one solid step towards stopping this head-long descent deeper and 
deeper into debt.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Reynolds) has 12 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
in yielding me this time.
  I heard the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules talk 
about how this is an easy issue to be a demagogue. Well, I would 
suggest what we heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was the antithesis of 
demagoguery. It does not require an emotional or irrational appeal to 
prejudice. They have been direct and straightforward in telling the 
consequences of the Republican approach to debt management and 
spending.
  I should amend that. It is not the Republican approach, because the 
gentlemen I just referred to from South Carolina and from Texas 
represent many Republicans, like I do back in Oregon, that do not 
subscribe to this; and it insults them to suggest this is the 
Republican approach to budgeting.
  The distinguished Committee on Rules member from New York talked 
about the mandate. Well, I would think the Republicans and the 
President would have a mandate if they had ever talked about this. I 
did not hear a single Republican talk about increasing the debt. I did 
not hear them talk about reckless spending on programs for special 
interests, divorcing it from reality. In fact, they employed tactics to 
disguise the fact that we had exceeded the debt limit. They have been 
borrowing from retirement and disability funds, for instance, we 
expired in October.
  No, if they had talked about this directly and honestly to the 
American public, I would accept the notion there is a mandate. And in 
fact I would suggest if they had done that with their plans, they would 
not have had a mandate, because they would not have won the election.
  The fact is we are incurring more debt than is necessary for weapons 
that do not add to security, for handouts to special interests that do 
not need them, and tax cuts for people who need them least, making them 
permanent regardless of the fiscal consequences.

[[Page H9972]]

  We are given a program from the majority party and the President 
that, if we approved it, would almost double this problem over the next 
10 years. I, for one, cannot go back home to campuses and look these 
young men and women in the eye and suggest that I was a part of 
approving it.
  I long for the day when we have a bipartisan effort to reduce the 
deficit and to deal meaningfully with our spending priorities. But 
unless and until that happens, I will vote ``no'' as the one way I have 
of protesting this bizarre divorce from reality, of the fiscal reality 
that all of us are going to have to live with.
  Mr. Speaker, would that their rosy scenarios come to pass. In some 
respects, I hope that they will. I do not wish ill on our country. But 
the fact is, the policies and the practices are leading us down a path 
that we will regret for years to come.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to correct my colleague from Oregon. I do not 
think I said I had a mandate on anything. I think I outlined the fact 
we had a great debate before an election and Republicans continue here.
  I also wonder if my colleague ever voted for a debt limit increase in 
his many terms of service, as we demagogue the issue today. As we come 
to a vote, it is going to get down to whatever excuse you find if you 
do not vote for it. But if you do not vote for it, you are actually 
putting the government in harm's way, which means the people are in 
harm's way. We have said that in repeated messages on the record today, 
and that still remains a fact as we look at consideration of the debate 
on the rule and then the underlying legislation following it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, last night I had the opportunity to testify before the 
Committee on Rules on behalf of my Blue Dog colleague, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who had proposed an amendment to reintroduce 
PAYGO into the rule. That proposed amendment would have reestablished 
one of the most basic, most responsible, and most successful principles 
of budget enforcement, the PAYGO rule.
  I am sad to stand on this floor today and say that this amendment was 
stopped. It was stopped by the majority on that Committee on Rules from 
being able to be part of this final resolve to this issue today.
  PAYGO was a provision in the original Budget Enforcement Act which 
this House allowed to expire in 2002. Prior to that time, not only were 
we forced to operate within the caps imposed on our discretionary 
spending; we had to offset all legislation that had the effect of 
increasing spending or reducing revenue. Put plainly, we had to pay for 
our bills as we passed our bills.
  Since the expiration of the Budget Enforcement Act provisions, PAYGO 
included, this Congress has not been operating with anywhere near the 
same level of fiscal responsibility.

                              {time}  1100

  Deficits are growing. They are growing in size, they are growing as a 
percentage of our gross domestic product and, most important, they are 
growing unchecked because we have allowed provisions such as PAYGO to 
expire.
  The Stenholm proposed amendment would have returned us to the rules 
by which Congress operated during the 1990s, bipartisan rules. This is 
not a partisan concept. In its original form in 1990, PAYGO was part of 
a bipartisan budget agreement between the first President Bush and a 
Democratic Congress. In 1993, it was extended with a Democratic 
President and Congress, and again in 1997 it was extended with a 
Democratic President and a Republican Congress. One hundred ninety-
three Republicans voted for PAYGO when it was last extended. One 
hundred twenty-one of them are still serving in this House today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal budget should emphasize fiscal 
responsibility, saving the money necessary to keep both Social Security 
and Medicare solvent, and paying down the national debt, not increasing 
it.
  I do not like voting to increase the debt ceiling any more than 
anybody else in this body, but I am not opposed to it if it is 
accompanied by a plan that would put us back on solid fiscal ground. A 
good way to start is to reinstate the PAYGO rules. It would be 
irresponsible for this body to raise the debt limit without a plan for 
controlling this runaway spending.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for 
fiscal responsibility, to stand up for fiscal integrity and vote no on 
this rule and insist that we restore PAYGO.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a number of my colleagues, and I have 
been on the record repeated times. First of all, what came before the 
Committee on Rules last night was a Senate bill. The Committee on Rules 
made a vote and decision without having any further delay to bring 
forward the Senate bill for consideration on the rule that we are now 
in debate on, and later we will have debate on the underlying 
legislation.
  We can demagogue it and put on the record all sorts of messages to 
feel good or draw political lines or switch from when might have been 
responsibility for voting for debt limit and now not, and now PAYGO. We 
have had debate on that. But I want to make sure that we listen to two 
things when we talk about bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is a two-way 
street of working together.
  I suspect, as I said before my colleague from California entered the 
Chamber, I expect to see Republican support again for PAYGO. 
Republicans are looking at it closely. There is certainly support for 
consideration of that. My colleague from California outlined some of 
the votes in a bipartisan vote that came for PAYGO, and I addressed 
that I think, with the gentleman from Texas, that there is support.
  The question is, under the terms of the debate, we want it 
altogether, right now, right here, and that is the position we are 
carrying. Some of that has been now a Blue Dog position that has been 
laid out by a number of members of that caucus. But the reality is if 
we keep screwing around with this thing, we are going to shut the 
government down. We cannot have it both ways.
  Each of us has voted for something that makes the government run and 
takes credit for it when it is the fall of the election year, making 
sure that voters knew they were working hard to bring some of that 
Federal money back home.
  Any further delay will result in this body's jeopardizing our trust 
funds, like Social Security, Medicare and highways. We further 
jeopardize military care and retirement. We put our military at risk. 
We endanger unemployment benefits and disaster assistance and low-
income home energy assistance programs, programs many of us had in our 
messages back in our respective States and districts.
  We also talk about listening to presentations from 2000. At least 
twice I put on the record in this hour 83 different times over the last 
64 years has the Congress taken upon itself to increase the debt limit.
  I also put on the record President Clinton's 1996 State of the Union 
address where he asked for bipartisan cooperation to ask the Congress 
to do the right thing and increase the debt limit.
  So it is not a new thing, it is not a Republican thing, it is not at 
Democrat thing, it is a government thing. There will be a consequence 
if we do not keep the government running because, for the history of 
our Nation, we have never not made sure that we honored what needed to 
be done with respect to debt limit.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York talks about the 
great mandate the Republicans got in the election. Why did they not 
have the guts to bring up an increase in the debt limit before the 
election?
  This is no surprise. In fact, we technically reached default over a 
month ago. They have been borrowing Federal employees' retirement to 
keep the government floating, but now they say we

[[Page H9973]]

have no option but to vote for this today, and they have no plan.
  Let us distill it down to something Americans understand. Trillions, 
billions, they do not get it. This is the third time we are going to 
ask for an increase in our borrowing on our credit card limit in 3 
years under the Republican leadership, $2,000 per U.S. citizen. That is 
what they are authorizing today to borrow. Now everybody here is going 
to have to pay that back with interest. With interest. And they have no 
plan to stop borrowing into the indefinite future. No plan at all.
  They will not allow us to adopt a simple principle: If they want to 
increase spending, cut something else. If you want to cut income, 
decrease taxes, either get tax increases elsewhere or cut spending. 
That is all we are saying. It is a simple principle. It is something 
every American would have to do before their credit card company would 
give them an increase for the third time in 3 years. That is what they 
are doing here.
  They say, there is no time to do that. We are powerless in face of 
the Senate.
  Come on. Give me a break. Members want to talk about demagogues. You 
are a champion demagogue. You really are. We are borrowing $1 million a 
minute to run this government. They want to say let us cut spending.
  We can eliminate the entire government, the entire government, far 
beyond libertarians' dreams, and we would still have a deficit this 
year. Now we would keep half of the Department of Defense, but we would 
eliminate everything else the government does, and we would still have 
a deficit this year. That is how serious this problem is.
  And they are borrowing money in the name of the American people who 
are going to have to pay it back with interest. Our kids are going to 
pay it back with interest. Our grandkids are going to pay it back with 
interest. In their scenario, our great great grandkids are going to pay 
it back with interest to the Chinese and others who are now financing 
our government and our spendthrift ways.
  All we are asking for here is a little bit of fiscal responsibility, 
a plan, a plan to deal with this mounting debt, a plan that any 
American would have to have if they asked their credit card company for 
the third increase in 3 years in their credit card limit, and they were 
also cutting their income.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1996, we heard, as I put on the record, President 
Clinton's appeal to the Congress. I thought I might share a little bit 
of the appeal of our colleagues. The two I have come from the 
Democratic side of the aisle at that time who made the appeal for the 
debt limit to be rising.
  Barbara Kennelly of Connecticut stated, ``Lifting the debt limit 
should not be a matter of politics, but of governance. Ensuring that it 
is done should not be a question of partisan leverage, but of 
leadership.''
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), ``If the debt ceiling 
is not extended or is sent to the President in a form he cannot sign, 
the repercussions will be devastating. Already, the leaders of our 
European allies are warning of an international financial crisis should 
the United States default on its debt payments. Bond rating agencies 
are raising alarm that our Nation's triple A bond rating is in 
jeopardy.
  ``An actual default would cause interest rates on Treasury bonds to 
rise, making a balanced budget almost impossible to achieve. Home 
mortgage and business borrowing rates would increase, slowing economic 
growth.
  ``In the past, many clean debt limit extensions have been passed in a 
bipartisan manner by this House. It was the right thing to do then, and 
it is the right thing to do now.''
  I do not always agree with my colleagues on some of their viewpoints 
of getting government solutions, and I am sure that many do not agree 
with me on government solutions, but we have certainly had a history of 
administrations, Democrat and Republican, and 83 times this Congress 
since 1940 has said let us do it.
  Now I understand showmanship. I understand consumption back home. I 
understand we are still in November, so we have a little election 
spirit in us. But the reality is if we do not increase this debt limit, 
we are putting America's people in jeopardy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I might ask the gentleman how he himself 
voted.
  Mr. Speaker, the full faith and credit of the United States is not 
seriously at issue here. What is at issue is what we do not hear a lot 
about anymore. We do not hear the other side saying we can grow our way 
out of this debt. We do see the danger signs, the decline of the 
dollar, the rise in debt purchased by foreigners.
  How can we plunge ourselves back into debt so quickly? As President 
Clinton dedicates his library, I cannot help remember the halcyon days 
of surplus where the President imposed pay-as-you-go discipline. We can 
do this ourselves.
  Postponing a vote on the debt limit to get through an election is 
pathetically transparent. The moral bankruptcy of that postponement is 
deepened by the failure to even make a promise on PAYGO during this 
debate.
  Unless we move, this generation will be remembered as the generation 
that had a party at the expense of their grandchildren, so selfish that 
they gave themselves a tax cut, robbed their children's Social 
Security, and then charged it straight away to them. Let us do better 
than that. That is the very definition of a national moral issue.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will be calling for a no vote on the previous question so we can 
change the rule and add the Stenholm amendment to reinstate pay-as-you-
can-go programs in our budget process.
  This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night and 
defeated on a straight party-line vote. I want to emphasize that this 
no vote will not in any way prevent or block the consideration of the 
underlying bill to increase the debt ceiling, but a yes vote will block 
us in voting to restore the pay-as-you-go provisions in the budget 
process. I urge a no vote on the previous question
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress must honor our commitments and America's 
priorities. We must stand up today in support of our seniors and 
veterans and military and all citizens who will be harmed by our 
inaction. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support the 
rule and the underlying bill.
  I also look at the 109th Congress as an opportunity for those who 
want to look at PAYGO, Republican and Democrat, from those from the 
left to those on the right to come together in a bipartisan fashion and 
continue working through the will of the House to see those types of 
considerations debated in committee and debated on the floor of this 
great House.
  Before I yield back, I would like to quickly thank the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Dreier) and all of the members of the Committee on 
Rules and staff as this is most likely the last time I will manage a 
rule for this industrious panel. I have been honored to serve on the 
Rules Committee for the past 6 years.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          Previous Questions for H. Res. 856: Rule on S. 2986

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2986) to amend 
     title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public 
     debt limit. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; (2) the amendment specified in

[[Page H9974]]

     section 2 of this resolution, if offered by Representative 
     Stenholm of Texas or his designee, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read, and 
     shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to commit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of 
     this resolution is as follows:
       Redesignate section 1 as section 101 and before such 
     section add the following:

                 TITLE I--INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

       At the end, add the following new title:

      TITLE II--REINSTATING BUDGET ENFORCEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Purpose.--Section 252(a) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2009''.
       (b) Sequestration.--Section 252(b)(1) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2009''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 274 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2013''.

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

                          ____________________