[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11834-11846]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      INCREASING PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 462, I call up 
Senate bill (S. 2578) to amend title 31 of the United States Code to 
increase the public debt limit, and ask for its immediate consideration 
in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of S. 2578 is as follows:

                                S. 2578

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

       Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``$5,950,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$6,400,000,000,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
462, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, more than a month ago, this House passed H.R. 4775 by a 
vote of 280-138, a clear bipartisan majority. That bill created the 
ability to address the debt limit. For over a month, the Senate has not 
responded to addressing the debt limit.
  However, recently the Senate sent to the House S. 2578, a bill to 
raise the debt limit. Debt-limit bills usually originate in the House. 
In fact, the last time this situation faced the House was in 1946. In 
1946, the Senate sent the House a debt ceiling bill. On the floor of 
the House then-majority leader John McCormick referred that bill to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The House did not consider the attempt by 
the Senate to initiate debt-limit legislation.
  So today, in the act of considering a Senate-initiated debt-limit 
bill, we are in a situation which, based upon the data provided to me 
by the Parliamentarians, could be considered to be an unprecedented 
situation. But given the circumstances surrounding the way in which we 
are required to take this bill up, it should not be considered a 
precedent because for over a month we could have been engaging in the 
historical usual pattern of addressing debt limit.
  It is quite true that that measure that was presented to the House in 
1946 was a Senate bill to lower the debt limit, not to raise it. That 
is why the House, in attempting to preserve its prerogative, felt 
comfortable in referring the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary 
from which it never surfaced. But a bill to lower the debt limit, as 
Members appreciate, does not contain within it the need to act, as does 
a bill that increases the debt limit.
  The failure of the Senate to act on the invitation to address the 
debt limit by the House means that the Senate has successfully run down 
the clock by which we could utilize the House initiation of addressing 
the debt limit. So as far as the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means is concerned, the measure before us should not be considered a 
change in the historic relationship between the House and the Senate 
over the origination of debt-limit legislation; but, rather the action 
taken today is a one-time acknowledgment of the exigencies of the 
circumstances facing the House. We are dealing with this purely to 
facilitate the movement of this bill to the President's desk, and it 
should not be interpreted as a precedent-changing situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  A lot of strange things are happening on the Republican watch as the 
Committee on Ways and Means loses all of its jurisdiction. I was just 
about to blame the Republican leadership; and, lo and behold, it is the 
Senate that is responsible. Every time I get ready to be critical of 
the Republican leadership for bypassing the House rules, by creating 
rules to pass legislation, I hear my distinguished and talented and 
intellectual chairman say, ``This is not unprecedented. This is just 
the first time it is happening because what is unprecedented is what 
the other body is doing. Shame on the other body.''
  Let me tell you this. We are the keepers of the tradition of the 
House, and these rules are being violated each and every day. Who would 
think at a time of war when our Nation is still in recession, where we 
are trying to bring our wounds together, where we recognize that, sure, 
we lost 5 or $6 trillion in the surplus, it was not the Republicans' 
fault, it was because the economy let us down. But now that we are 
asked to increase the debt ceiling, we are no longer Republicans and 
Democrats, we are Americans, and we are going to say, yes, let's do it.
  Why? Because Republicans are trustworthy? Of course we cannot say 
that. Because we come together when the full faith and credit of the 
United States is at stake. When that flag goes up, then we have no 
choice except to increase the debt ceiling. It is just the same as 
finding out at home that when you find out that your credit has run 
out, you can start pointing fingers, but if you need an extension or 
the mortgage is going to be foreclosed, then you have to get the 
extension.
  All we want to know is, what did you do with the money? How are you 
going to spend the additional money that you are going to borrow? And 
if the Senate is so irresponsible, why did the House not act sooner? 
Why did the Committee on Ways and Means not come together in a 
bipartisan way and bring something to the floor?
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate may have a lot of things that they are doing 
in an unprecedented way, and they should be subject perhaps to a lot of 
criticism. But the inadequacy of the House leadership and the fact that 
my historically prestigious committee is losing jurisdiction each and 
every day under Republican leadership, let us not blame that on the 
Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am trying to understand how the Committee on Ways and Means is 
losing jurisdiction when the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member are debating a bill brought to us by a rule which allows no 
amendments, exactly the way in which legislation coming from the 
Committee on Ways and Means is always dealt with.
  I think if you have really followed this debate over time, you will 
understand the dynamics of the debate. If we do not do it, we get 
criticized. If we do do it, we get criticized. If in fact the measure 
before us, which originated in the Senate and is the work product of 
the Senate leadership and the gentleman from New York finds the 
Senate's language and structure unacceptable, then his problem is with 
the leadership of the Senate, not of the leadership of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a senior

[[Page 11835]]

member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I always am impressed by the chairman of 
the committee's use of words. He said that we are out here because of 
the exigencies of circumstances. What he means is, we made a mess and 
we got to fix it. It is a mess that did not have to happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I refer to an op-ed of Sunday, February 11, 2001, by 
Robert Rubin that is called A Prosperity Easy to Destroy. It says in 
short:

       The proposed tax cut of roughly $2 trillion--$1.6 trillion 
     of tax cuts plus $400 billion of interest on debt that would 
     otherwise have been retired--would substantially diminish the 
     fiscal position of the Federal Government, and would create a 
     serious threat of deficits on the nonentitlement side of the 
     Federal budget.

  This was all predicted in February of last year. We came out here, 
and we have been told, ``You can spend all you want, you can give it 
all away, you can do all these things.''
  He actually even predicted that there would not be any money for a 
prescription drug benefit. Ha. Mr. Rubin knew very well. He is the guy 
that brought us out of the mess that you created between 1980 and 1992. 
Two Republicans, Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush, they dug the hole, we dug us out 
of it, and now you are back into it and you call it the exigencies of 
circumstances. Why do you not admit you have made a mess? You cannot 
get the votes for your prescription drug benefit because it is 
inadequate and everybody knows it. You are privatizing Medicare and you 
are trying to hide this debt raising right underneath the prescription 
drug benefit.
  If you are lucky and you can squeeze the votes out of your people, 
the press tomorrow will talk about Republicans pass inadequate drug 
benefit. They will never mention this business about the mess you 
created fiscally in this country. You ought to be ashamed of yourself 
bringing it out here like this.
  The article referred to is as follows: [From the New York Times, Feb. 
11, 2001]

                      A Prosperity Easy To Destroy

                          (By Robert E. Rubin)

       I had not intended to get involved in the public debate on 
     fiscal policy at this point, but I feel so strongly that a 
     tax cut of the magnitude proposed is a serious error in 
     economic policy that I felt a need to speak.
       The proposed tax cut of roughly $2 trillion--$1.6 trillion 
     of tax cuts plus $400 billion of interest on debt that would 
     otherwise have been retired--would substantially diminish the 
     fiscal position of the federal government, and would create a 
     serious threat of deficits on the non-entitlement side of the 
     federal budget. That, in turn, could increase interest rates 
     and recreate the loss of consumer and business confidence 
     associated with the deficits of the late 80's and early 90's.
       Over the last 20 years, our nation has seen the benefits of 
     fiscal discipline, and also the adverse consequences of a 
     lack of fiscal discipline. Big tax cuts are a fast way back 
     to deficits and economic stress. From these experiences, 
     there are lessons that should guide policymakers. First, we 
     gain greatly when our nation is clearly committed to 
     budgetary discipline and lose greatly when it is not. Second, 
     it is wise to be prudent--we should avoid committing 
     ourselves to dramatic courses of action that are hard to 
     reverse in the face of the inherent uncertainties of any 
     projections. Third, we have a duty not to pass on burdens to 
     the next generation when we can act today. The size of the 
     proposed tax cut fails all these tests.
       Instead, the fiscal discipline that was so central to the 
     remarkable economic conditions of the past eight years is the 
     best path for both our short-term and long-term economic 
     well-being. A brief look back can provide very useful 
     guidance for going forward.
       In 1992, the unemployment rate was over 7 percent, the 
     fiscal deficit was $290 billion and projected by the 
     Congressional Budget Office to grow to over $500 billion in 
     2001 from there, the federal debt had quadrupled over the 
     preceding 12 years and was projected to double again by 2001, 
     and the prevailing view was that economic conditions would 
     remain mediocre well into the future.
       The economic transformation that followed included massive 
     job creation, rising incomes, low inflation, unemployment now 
     at 4.2 percent, and today's large current and projected 
     surpluses. Many factors contributed to this transformation, 
     including globalization, new technologies, vast corporate 
     restructuring and our flexible labor and capital markets. But 
     I think there is no doubt that key and indispensable to this 
     was the restoration of fiscal discipline, beginning with the 
     deficit reduction program of 1993.
       Just how dramatic a change in economic policy this was is 
     evidenced by the vituperativeness of opposition, with 
     strident prediction of vast increases in unemployment and 
     recession.
       Instead, fiscal discipline contributed greatly to lower 
     interest rates and, very, very importantly, restoration of 
     confidence by consumers and business after deficits had come 
     to symbolize a much broader set of concerns about our ability 
     to manage our affairs. The result was increased demand; 
     increased investment, especially in the new technologies; 
     increased productivity; and sustained growth in gross 
     domestic product, jobs and incomes.
       We are now in the process of unwinding the excesses that, 
     in my view, inevitably develop after an extended period of 
     good times. To minimize the difficulty and duration of that 
     unwinding and to best realize our very favorable longer-term 
     prospects, we should continue with our hard-won fiscal 
     discipline and not adopt a greatly outsized tax cut that 
     seriously threatens the federal government's fiscal 
     soundness.
       There is broad agreement amongst virtually all mainstream 
     economists that a tax cut this year is unlikely to provide 
     meaningful economic stimulus to deal with whatever adverse 
     circumstances may occur this year. Moreover, if a tax cut is 
     desired for short-term stimulative purposes, the vast 
     preponderance of the one proposed--which affects later 
     years--is largely irrelevant. Instead, a front-end-loaded, 
     moderate tax cut, or even a special rebate aimed at working 
     people with the highest propensity to spend, would maximize 
     current economic impact. The point would be to achieve 
     increased short-term demand without causing a level of fiscal 
     deterioration that would, on balance, damage confidence.
       The serious threat of the proposed tax cut to fiscal 
     soundness becomes apparent when you look at the numbers a 
     little more closely. The surplus of $5.6 trillion as 
     projected by the C.B.O. is roughly $2.1 trillion after 
     deducting Social Security and Medicare surpluses--as many 
     members of Congress in both parties have advocated--and 
     making realistic adjustments to better represent future 
     spending on current discretionary programs and tax revenues. 
     Since the proposed tax cut would cost $2 trillion, or $2.2 
     trillion if an alternative minimum tax adjustment is 
     included, it would entirely use up the remaining surplus, 
     with no additional debt reduction. And that leaves nothing 
     for special programs that already have broad support, like a 
     prescription drug benefit or a greater increase in defense 
     spending for a missile defense system, or other purposes or 
     additional tax cuts, all of which are almost sure to happen 
     this year or over the next few years. These spending 
     increases and the additional tax cuts could well cost between 
     $500 billion and $1 trillion, leading to a deficit under this 
     analysis of the C.B.O. projections.
       Moreover, five-year budget forecasts, to say nothing of 10-
     year forecasts, are highly unreliable--just look at the 
     forecasts that were made five or 10 years ago. Thus, even if 
     you favored a very large tax cut as the preferred use for 
     available surplus--which I emphatically do not--even a 
     moderate degree of prudence would suggest waiting a few years 
     to see whether or not the projected surpluses are actually 
     occurring, meanwhile paying down debt. That would also be in 
     plenty of time to deal with any concerns about the uses that 
     might be made of the surplus after the debt is retired. The 
     suggestion that tax cuts could be rescinded if projected 
     surpluses don't materialize seems unlikely politically.
       The political impetus in Washington is toward tax cuts and 
     spending. Real progress has been made over the past decade 
     toward a political mindset of discipline, but that is always 
     highly vulnerable, and a very large tax cut is a significant 
     step back to the political mindset that produced the deficits 
     and quadrupling of the debt form 1980 to 1992.
       The imperative for maintaining our fiscal discipline and 
     not taking a risk of losing the current opportunity to retire 
     the publicly held debt of the federal government is increased 
     by the importance of putting the federal government in the 
     best possible position to meet the Social Security and 
     Medicare requirements of future generations, when the federal 
     budget is projected to be in deficit again.
       All of this is independent of the question of how best to 
     use the surplus available on a fiscally sound basis. My own 
     preference would be to divide this between debt reduction, a 
     more moderate tax cut predominantly favoring middle-income 
     and lower-income people, and special initiatives in important 
     areas like education and health care. Others have different 
     views. But we should all agree that it would be profoundly 
     unwise to seriously risk the hard-won fiscal discipline that 
     has brought so many benefits to our nation.
       We have had a remarkable eight years after a far more 
     difficult period, including a recession in 1990. We should 
     learn from experience and stay with a landmark change in 
     strategy that worked, not take the path that experience 
     suggests poses a real threat to our economic well-being.

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), one of the outstanding Members of the House.

[[Page 11836]]

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to make it very clear that this side of the aisle has been 
in favor of raising the debt ceiling clean since at least March. We 
have made repeated offers. What we are not in favor of doing is 
increasing the debt ceiling with a blank check to continue to borrow 
money without changing our economic game plan.
  I join with Chairman Thomas in his opening remarks because it is in 
the same spirit that he referenced back to 1946 that we attempted to 
have an offer of an amendment today to lower the amount of debt ceiling 
from $450 billion to a $150 billion increase. That is exactly the same 
spirit in which it was done in 1946. We asked for that to be made in 
order, but the rule once again denied the minority an opportunity to 
have a clean up and down vote on an alternative.
  I do not understand why we continue to have the inability to have 
debate on issues as important as the debt ceiling is. I hope no one 
makes the argument that we are here as obstructionists. We are here 
today positively saying we will offer in the motion to commit--
recommit, commit, whatever the new terminology is--this bill back to 
the Committee on Ways and Means with an instant recall at $150 billion 
so that we might have another look at the budget prior to the end of 
this fiscal year when CBO re-estimates.
  It is fiscally irresponsible for this group, this House, to stand on 
this floor and increase by $450 billion without revisiting the economic 
game plan that we are under. Take a look at State after State after 
State in which governors are having to make tough decisions. Here we 
are no longer tax and spend, we are borrow and spend. That is exactly 
what this resolution will do. Those who vote for it today will be 
voting to borrow and spend another $450 billion with the exact same 
economic game plan that has gotten us into the problem that we are in 
today.
  I do not understand this. I do not understand why, once again, the 
chairman comes on, and no one comes over and debates.
  Where is the debate?
  Mr. RANGEL. Where is the debate? Well, I guess it is all on the 
outside. I can understand the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Democrats will vote to raise the debt ceiling 
when there is a plan to reverse fiscal irresponsibility. There is no 
plan. The fiscal irresponsibility began right here in this U.S. House 
of Representatives under your majority, and now you try to shift the 
blame to the Senate, trying to obscure the fact that the 
irresponsibility commenced right here.
  We told you that the sheer size of the tax cut made all of your plan 
a risky gamble. We warned you the projections of future budget 
surpluses were not written in stone. As it turned out, they were 
written in sand, in substantial part because of your policies.
  We have gone from surpluses as far as the eye could see to deficits 
as far as the eye can see. You are diverting Social Security and 
Medicare to pay for your tax cuts and other irresponsible programs. The 
majority has compounded its irresponsibility, as I have said, by 
tonight saying raise the debt ceiling without any plan to stem the red 
ink in this budget. It is another $450 billion that will come where? 
From Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. You have no plan. All 
you are trying to do is to shift the blame.
  This Congress is obliged to raise the debt ceiling, we are obliged to 
pay our debts, but we should not just write a blank check, which is 
what you want. We need a plan to stop this raid on Social Security and 
Medicare.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, to vote 
``no'' until you become fiscally responsible with the funds of our 
fellow and sister citizens.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  They wanted to know where is the debate? I am trying to figure out 
what it is that I am supposed to debate. The gentleman from Michigan 
comes on the floor and says Democrats will vote to increase the debt 
limit. The measure in front of us is to increase the debt limit. But 
the gentleman then said he asked his colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
resolution.
  Which position are you supposed to debate? Yes or no? I find it 
interesting that if they knew last year prior to September 11 that we 
were going to have all of those problems associated with the tragedy 
around the 11th and the consequent commitment by this President to 
carry the war to the terrorists and they were prescient enough to know 
that the country was going to face that situation, gee, I wish they 
would have let us know that was going to happen. We could have taken 
some procedures and some steps that would have certainly been far more 
humane than what occurred.
  I find that people who are more than willing to use hindsight as the 
reason for taking a position rather interesting when shortly they will 
also urge their colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Medicare package. Only 
this time their argument is going to be that we do not spend enough. We 
are only going to spend $350 billion.
  The beauty of the Democrats' ability to debate is they are masters at 
compartmentalizing. Right now it is, ``You spendthrifts, we have to 
raise the debt limit.'' Several hours from now it will be, ``You 
cheapskates, you are not willing to spend enough to help the seniors.''
  And they say, why are you not willing to debate? I am trying to 
figure out which Democrat I am supposed to debate. The one that is 
complaining the Republicans are spendthrifts and we have to raise the 
debt limit? Or the one who is saying, you are cheapskates, you are not 
willing to spend enough, $800 billion, to help seniors.
  I guess the problem I have is that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) in characterizing a Member several days ago puts me in 
exactly that dilemma.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time and yield the control of 
the time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Texas will control the time for the majority.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished leader. We were 
calling for debate. We did not know you were going to bring out the 
leader. We want to hear what he has to say about this since the 
chairman of Committee on Ways and Means is confused.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time.
  I am a farmer. I think, just for the sake of being honest and not 
hoodwinking the American people, maybe we should get this, if you will, 
discussion out of the hay mound and down on the barn floor where we can 
chew it up seriously.

                              {time}  1900

  The fact is, maybe I would make an analogy that my family that I love 
went out and spent more money than they should and now the question is, 
do we pay that credit card bill? So, reluctantly, probably as one of 
the most fiscal Members of this Congress, I say, look, we have to pay 
our bills.
  The problem has been on that spending. Let me give my colleagues an 
example. If we held the line on spending since President Clinton came 
into office in 1994 we would not have this problem today. That is not 
just Democrat control; it is the Republican control. There is an 
overzealousness to spend, and that is what we have been doing.
  Let me give my colleagues this example. In 1998, we passed and 
executed a plan designed to balance the budget by 2002. That is what we 
promised in 1998. That budget projected fiscal 2002, this year's 
revenues, at just under $1.89 trillion. Actual revenues, even after the 
tax cut, were way in excess of that, according to CBO, and now are 
expected to come in over $2 trillion, or

[[Page 11837]]

more than 5 percent above the projection. However, it was spending. Our 
projection in 1998 for outlays were under $1.89 trillion and are now 
expected to be $110 billion higher than we projected. It should be 
clear that it is spending.
  Now, this tough question: I do not want to vote to increase the debt 
ceiling without some kind of a plan like every family has, like every 
business has, to say, look, we are going to borrow a little more, but 
we are going to have to pay it back sometime. How are we going to 
eventually pay it back so that we do not leave this mortgage to our 
kids?
  Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the $35 billion in increased 
defense expenditures and $6 billion expanded homeland are part of the 
problem. We have to deal with that national security problem. Let us 
pass this debt ceiling, but, likewise, let us move ahead and have a 
plan of how we are going to repay this debt so that we do not leave it 
to our kids.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. All we need is a 
plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is precisely on target with 
his comments. During the 1990s, we understood the need to balance the 
budget. What was the result? It created the greatest period of economic 
growth in the history of the Nation. The chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means says, hindsight, it is easy. It is foresight that we 
undertook in the 1990s. We prepared for the rainy day; that was the 
whole notion: a national disaster, international conflict, a downturn 
in the economy.
  That is why we do not understand a reckless $2 trillion tax cut. We 
should have been focused on the items that we might not have been able 
to control in the near or far future.
  Unemployment has gone from 4 percent to 6 percent, the budget deficit 
is at $250 billion, and a Wall Street analyst said yesterday, the 
economy and the markets right now are in the midst of a full-blown 
corporate governance shock. Stock market numbers are down, the value of 
the dollar has dropped considerably, retail sales have dropped along 
with consumer confidence, and we continue right down this road.
  Now here is the point that I find most focused tonight and the one 
that I think troubles me perhaps far more than anything else. There 
were Members on the other side of this body who were going to impeach 
Secretary Rubin, going to impeach him. Actually, the Committee on 
Financial Services in this House held hearings on impeaching Bob Rubin 
because of the debt ceiling question. They would not vote to raise that 
debt ceiling under any circumstances.
  Tonight, the argument is, well, if we had better hindsight, it would 
be much easier for us to undertake these sorts of initiatives.
  The point that we have reached is because of the tax cut, and we have 
to focus on that issue, and we have to understand it and keep it in 
perspective. At the same time that we discuss this, American companies 
are allowed to sneak out of this Nation in a time of war in the dark of 
night to Bermuda to escape what they contend to be corporate taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, $48 billion more, $38 billion more for homeland 
security. The chairman was mistaken. The problem is not hindsight; the 
problem is vision and foresight.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that I am hearing talk over here 
about where is the Republican plan to get out of the predicament that 
we are in. The obvious question is, where is the Democrat plan? Where 
has it been? Where is the budget?
  I sit on the Committee on the Budget. The Democrats did not have a 
budget in committee, they did not have a budget on this House Floor, 
and they have the nerve to come down here and say, where is our plan?
  We put a budget together. We put a budget on this floor. We passed it 
on this floor. We have a plan. They may disagree with it, but they did 
not have the courage to put a budget on the floor and have an honest 
debate about it and have an honest vote about it.
  Let me tell my colleagues what the plan would look like if we had 
one. It would be all about more spending, and they know that. I know 
they do not like tax cuts, but what they wanted to do with that money 
is they wanted to spend it. I have not been here all that long, this is 
only my fourth year, but each and every single time that we have had an 
appropriation bill on this floor, if we did not all agree, and on many 
we do, but when we did not agree, what was the objection on their side? 
It was always that it does not spend enough.
  Well, let me tell my colleagues, we cannot spend our way into a 
deficit unless we are spending too much. And the Democrat plan, that I 
must infer, since they will not put one on the table, can only be that 
they want to spend even more money.
  The Democrats also know for a fact that the big problem that we face 
is the result of an economic slowdown and a war that we are engaged in. 
The fact is, if it had not been for the tax cut that we passed last 
year, I do not know what kind of condition this economy would be in, 
but it would clearly be in much worse shape than it is in now.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I did not want to embarrass them by saying 
we told you so, but since he asked for it, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on the Budget, to tell them what our plan was.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, just 18 short months ago, OMB and Treasury 
both told us that there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling for 
at least 7 years, not until 2008. OMB told us that they foresaw 
surpluses coming that would total $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years.
  A year later, when OMB sent up its budget, the budget that we are now 
working upon, it contained a simple pie chart. Look at page S-415. 
According to OMB's own pie chart, 40 percent of the surplus was a 
massive miscalculation. It did not take sufficient account of the 
economy; it technically was deficient. Seventeen percent of the surplus 
was wiped out by spending increases, much of it for defense, and 43 
percent, 43 percent of the projected $5.6 billion surplus, according to 
OMB's calculation, had been wiped out by the tax cuts, or would be 
wiped out by the tax cuts enacted last June.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the chart, this is the line on this chart right 
here, this blue line at the bottom, that we would have followed had we 
followed the budget resolution that we proposed, had we not taken the 
proposal that the Republicans made and that the President made. This, 
instead, is the chart that, the line that we are on, the red chart, 
that is additional debt. That is the bottom line.
  This is a bar chart that shows us where we might have been with the 
publicly-held debt. We could have retired all of the publicly-held debt 
if we had husbanded our resources and earnestly tried to do it. We had 
that opportunity. We would have actually paid off most of the publicly-
held debt; and, instead, we are going to accumulate $2.8 trillion in 
additional debt because of the budget that we adopted 2 years ago and 
still now are implementing.
  That is why we find ourselves tonight in June, 2002, not June, 2008, 
but June, 2002, raising the debt ceiling by $450 billion. Many of us 
Democrats will not support this bill before us because last year in 
2001 we proposed a budget.
  Speaking of compartmentalizing, we had a budget. We proposed a 
framework for the budget, and we proposed to set aside in our 
resolution one-third of the surplus to be used for debt retirement 
until we had finally reached some

[[Page 11838]]

agreement for making Social Security/Medicare solvent far into the 
future. We wanted to commit that extra third of the surplus for that 
purpose, and our Republican colleagues roundly rejected the idea. They 
passed a massive tax cut that left no room for error, and that is why 
we are here tonight slipping through in the space of 1 hour a $450 
billion increase in the debt.
  We believe that the Government has to meet its obligation, but we do 
not want to make the Treasury play games with our trust funds. Many of 
us on this side will vote for a debt increase of $150 billion. This 
allows us to meet our obligations to our creditors and at the same time 
meet our obligations to our children, passing a budget that gets us 
back in balance.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, there is nobody in the House of Representatives with 
more integrity when it comes to numbers on the budget than the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I commend him for what 
he just said. Except there are a couple of things that he may have 
forgotten to mention and a couple of rest of the stories.
  First of all, it is true that the Democrats last year introduced a 
budget plan. Of course, they did not have a majority. They could not 
even get a majority of their own caucus to support the plan, but, yes, 
some of them did have a plan. If that plan would have been adopted, not 
only would we be into Social Security this year but we would also be 
standing here on the floor today knocking up against the debt ceiling.
  So you can say you had a plan and you can say that maybe your surplus 
projections may have been a little bit better, but do not tell us that 
you were not into Social Security and do not tell us that you were not 
knocking up against the debt ceiling.
  That is last year. Now let us talk about this year. There is no 
minority plan. There were a couple of members of the Blue Dog Caucus 
that came forward with our budget with a trigger. So they took our 
plan, and there is a plan called the House Budget, which we passed in 
the House and which we have now deemed and which the President has 
accepted and which we are operating under and which we passed two 
appropriation bills today and which we will also pass a prescription 
drug bill later, that is operating in the House of Representatives and 
is operating for this Federal Government.
  We have a plan. There is a challenge with regard to the plan, and I 
wish you would direct your attention to the other body which has 
nothing, no budget, no plan, no ideas on what to do. Yes, they rushed 
through a debt ceiling increase and put it over here and we will deal 
with it today, but when we talk about plans, you do have to at least 
smile a little bit, and I do see a few of you smiling, that you do not 
have a plan, and that is when we are talking about plans, the plan that 
is not there.
  But there are a few Members with integrity who are coming to the 
floor today and putting forward ideas, their ideas for increased 
spending. There is going to be a prescription drug benefit that is 
going to come forward from the Democrats a little bit later. It will 
be, and I think my colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means said 
earlier it was going to be somewhere in the $600 billion range. Folks, 
we are getting it scored; and my guess is it could be over a trillion 
dollars of new mandatory spending.
  Oh, but do not worry about that. Let us compartmentalize that. 
Because we are going to deal with the Republicans and the debt ceiling 
today, even though we do not have a plan.
  And the other thing that many Members with integrity come forward 
with, they say, you know what, that tax cut that we passed last year 
was too much, it was way too much, and so let us not do anything about 
that either except maybe roll it back. That is called a tax increase.
  So the plan is foggy, but we are starting to see what the minority 
side is starting to come up with. It is called higher taxes and more 
spending, higher taxes and more spending. Now tell me how that plan 
does not knock up against the debt ceiling?
  So I understand you can come to the floor today, and part of not 
governing means that you do not have to make a choice and you do not 
have to make a plan and that is fine. You get to have that luxury. But 
let us just recall history. For 40 years, this trillions of dollars 
that have been added to the debt were added to the debt by a 
Democratic-controlled Congress.

                              {time}  1915

  It was only over the last 5 years that that debt has started to be 
reduced. By almost half a trillion dollars that debt was reduced. I 
think that is a pretty good track record.
  One other thing I would just mention, for those who predicted back in 
February that all this would happen. They have forgotten September 11. 
September 11 is why we are here. That is why we have to do this today.
  Let us vote to increase the debt limit and be responsible about the 
plan to get us back into fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have made in 
order an amendment to this bill in the form of H.R. 4758, which is a 
plan to raise the debt and at the same time commit this Congress to 
balancing the budget again by the year 2007.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under the Speaker's announced 
guidelines, the Chair will not recognize request to offer an amendment 
that would not be not germane to the bill.
  Mr. SPRATT. I can ask unanimous consent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not recognize for such 
unanimous consent requests.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. STENHOLM. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that by unanimous 
consent this body may do almost anything if we all agree, all 435.
  The debate has been that we have no plan. The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) offers a plan by unanimous consent. This seems to 
be or would be in order, unless there is objection from the other side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are certain unanimous consent requests 
that require clearance from both sides of the aisle. Among those are a 
request for consideration of nongermane amendments to bills, which this 
would be.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Again, from the rules that the Chair is reading, this 
is what I thought I was interpreting, that by unanimous consent we may 
adjust a rule, if there is no objection from the other side. I hear no 
objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. These are the Speaker's announced and 
published guidelines for recognition of unanimous consent requests. The 
Chair will not recognize those unanimous consent requests that have not 
been cleared by both sides.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I now inquire of the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget if he would, by unanimous consent, agree, so 
that we might clear up the problems that the Speaker is having with 
this, what I consider to be, very fair request.
  I have heard objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was smiling, as the gentleman recorded, because I had 
not seen the chairman of the Committee on the Budget since we lost the 
$4 trillion. Welcome back.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner).

[[Page 11839]]

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we are debating tonight this bill because 
our fiscal house is in total disarray. After 8 years of shrinking 
deficits, and finally reaching one true surplus in fiscal year 2000, we 
have seen over the last months a deteriorating fiscal condition that 
has allowed us to be bumping up against the $5.95 trillion statutory 
debt ceiling, when we were told by Secretary O'Neill just a year ago we 
would not reach it until 2008.
  The truth of the matter is that we need to return to fiscal 
responsibility. We need to stop raiding the Social Security trust fund. 
If any corporate executive in America raided the employees' retirement 
trust funds, they would be thrown into jail. Yet we are doing it 
tonight.
  The truth is, the Democrats have laid out a plan. That plan has been 
introduced in the form of legislation. That plan says we will agree to 
a $150 billion increase in the debt ceiling immediately and no further 
increase until we have a plan to return us to a balanced budget by 
2007, until we establish spending caps to control our spending, and 
until we strengthen and extend the pay-go rules.
  That is the Democratic plan. That is what this House should be 
approving tonight.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
  Mr. RANGEL. If the majority has no further speakers, is it possible 
they could give us their time, because we have a lot of speakers?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas may yield his time 
if he wishes.
  Mr. ARMEY. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I was advised by my 
daddy not to waste time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear what he said. If they do not 
have any speakers, we have a lot of speakers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New 
York, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. For every $100 the 
Federal Government is spending, we are now bringing in about $90 worth 
of revenue. The way we are making up the other $10 is to borrow it. 
Some of it comes from the Social Security trust fund, and the rest of 
it comes from the private capital markets. We have reached our limit, 
or we are about to reach our limit as to what we can borrow.
  Logic tells us that what we ought to do is sit down and figure out 
how we got here. I think it is true that the terrorist attack had 
something to do with that, indisputably. I think it is true that the 
recession had a lot to do with it, indisputably. But the other side has 
to admit that the $2 trillion tax cut that they recklessly put through 
this House last year also has got something to do with it.
  The two parties ought to come together, discuss the alternatives, 
extend the debt ceiling tonight by an amount necessary to cover us 
during that period of time, and put our house back in order. That is a 
reasonable, sensible approach, which is why the other side will not let 
it get to the floor.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Matheson).
  (Mr. MATHESON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  There is no question that circumstances have changed from where we 
were a year ago. We acknowledge that we have this war on terrorism. We 
have homeland security concerns, so the situation has changed.
  We ought to change the way we are figuring out what we are doing 
about the budget. If we have to go borrow more money from a bank to buy 
a car or a house, we have to tell the bank a story about how we are 
going to pay them back. That is just common sense. But we do not have 
that story here. We are not telling people that story. We are telling 
the American people we want to borrow more money that is going to be on 
their backs and the next generation and the next generation, with no 
story about how we are going to pay it back.
  So let us all agree that the situation has changed. Let us all agree 
that we have a tough job ahead of us. Let us roll up our sleeves and 
work together and come up with some kind of plan on a going-forward 
basis to put us back in a position of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it was only a few months ago that 
Republicans were telling us we would not need to touch this debt 
ceiling until 2008, and feigned concern that we would probably pay down 
so much debt that we would hurt the economy.
  Well, we know that in the meantime much has happened, but one of 
these developments is the impact of one tax break after another for 
their wealthy Republican friends and another is that corporate tax 
abuse has been totally ignored to the extent that some corporations in 
this country actually have the arrogance, at a time of national 
security need, to renounce their citizenship, move their mailbox to 
Bermuda or some other foreign island, and evade their United States 
taxes at the same time our deficits continue to mount.
  It is not just a spending issue, though there have been plenty of 
spending bills in this House that I have voted against. A loss of tax 
revenues also contributes to the deficit and a total disinterest and 
disregard for this aspect of the problem by the Republican leadership.
  I do not believe there is a carpet big enough to sweep underneath all 
the mess that Republicans have made of our budget. After a few years of 
paying down the deficit, when Americans enjoyed the benefits of lower 
interest rates to purchase homes and cars, we now face a return to 
years of one deficit after another. How incredible that at the offer of 
a unanimous consent resolution to at least say, can we not agree in a 
bipartisan fashion that by the year 2007 we will be off this deficit 
financing and we will have a balanced budget, their answer is no; to 
object, to refuse to consider a commitment to having a balanced budget 
by at least the year 2007.
  We do have a default issue tonight, not about the debt. Rather it is 
a default in leadership; it is a default in responsibility. We have 
heard so much talk lately about intelligence failures, but one of the 
most obvious is the inability to grasp that when the elite do not pay 
their fair share, like these corporations that are heading offshore, 
the rest of us have to pick up the tab.
  Then Republicans come, as they are tonight, and ask to use our Social 
Security cards as their credit card for more spending and more tax 
breaks.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) for yielding time to me, and also for his great friendship 
and leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard the other side come to this floor this 
evening and talk about this debt as if we did not have good sense over 
here.
  Now, if we are doing so good, Mr. Speaker, how come we are broke? I 
just do not quite understand that. It is like we did not have enough 
sense to tell the difference between turnip greens and butter beans.
  If we are doing so good, if this plan that the gentleman from Iowa 
kept referring to a while ago is working so well, how come we are 
broke? How come we need to borrow another $450 billion, not from 
ourselves, but from our children and grandchildren, for crying out 
loud?
  Who in their right mind would want to do something like that? Why 
would we want to come to this floor and borrow another $450 billion 
from our children and grandchildren and have no idea how we are going 
to pay it back?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, for a refreshing change in pace, I am more

[[Page 11840]]

than pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was elected in 1987, I had one big desire: to get 
our country's financial house in order and to balance the Federal 
budget. That was my desire. I did not feel I really had an opportunity 
to really have an impact on that until John Kasich came and started 
offering amendments to cut spending in 1989, and more and more of us 
started to join with him.
  Then in 1994 a major change happened: Republicans had an opportunity 
to lead this House and to try to get our country's financial house in 
order. We did that by 1997, and in 1998 we ended deficit spending. In 
1999 we ended using Social Security reserves. That happened. That is a 
fact. It was a bipartisan effort.
  There are times I voted to increase the national debt, and there are 
times I voted not to. But when I hear a colleague who has pushed the 
farm bill so hard talk to us about not increasing the deficit, I think, 
did that not contribute to increasing the national debt? Is that not a 
part of spending? When I see some of my colleagues who voted for the 
defense budget, did that not help increase the national debt?
  Now, I also voted for the tax cut. So did a number of Democrats. When 
the Senate had a chance to repeal the tax cut, only three of them 
wanted to repeal it. Now, I was uncomfortable when we had a debate to 
increase the national debt, and it was kind of put into something else. 
I heard my colleagues say, let us have it clean. So I asked my 
leadership, and others did, as well, let us have it clean.
  There were some who said the $750 billion increase, as the President 
proposed, is simply so high because it might push us beyond even the 
election of the President. So when there was an effort by Senator 
Daschle and Republicans jointly to come in with $450 billion and to 
have it clean, I pleaded with my House leadership to just take it right 
off this desk and send it to the President. That is what we have an 
opportunity of doing.
  I really think, and I know why my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle are tempted to do it, there are things they do not like, and this 
is a way for them to illustrate their contempt, their anger, all the 
things that are pent up.

                              {time}  1930

  I just cannot imagine you would do it on this issue, not on this 
issue. I cannot imagine that we would tomorrow risk the fact that this 
may not pass. And, you know what? It may not pass. Maybe you will 
succeed in getting some Republicans, a few, to vote against it, and 
maybe my Democratic colleagues will convince the rest of their 
conference to make a political game of this. In the end, we are simply 
pushing another debate on this until February, 2003, the next Congress. 
Maybe the Democrats will be in charge. Maybe the Republicans. But we 
will have to wrestle with this issue.
  But for me there is no question. I voted for the tax cut. I did not 
vote for the farm bill. I thought the farm bill was an outrage. I think 
it kind of sent a message that is unfortunate. I voted for the defense 
bill. I voted for the 9-11 costs. So in the end when you see the votes 
go up and if my Democratic colleagues are successful in convincing most 
of their colleagues to vote against this and this goes down, I think 
tomorrow people will know where the problem is.
  This is Senator Daschle's bill. It is a Democratic bill in the Senate 
that we have an opportunity to take off this desk and pass it, and any 
alteration to this sends it right back to the Senate.
  I sincerely hope my colleagues remember, if they voted for the farm 
bill, that they have some obligations. If they voted for the defense 
bill, they have some obligations. And the tax cuts which my colleagues 
are concerned about really have not taken effect. They have come in 
years in the future. But the one thing that did take effect was the 
$300 or the $500 or the $600 payment. The Democratic proposal. Thank 
God. Because as we went into this recession more spending and tax cuts 
have made this recession less. So I salute my colleagues for making 
this recession less by spending more and making the debt ceiling 
increase necessary.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me time.
  I personally do not care whether it is a Democrat or Republican bill. 
What we have got in this country is a $6 trillion debt. We are paying a 
billion dollars a day interest, and all we have asked for is a plan of 
some kind to get us out of this hole before we pass another $450 
billion authority to borrow money. If anybody thinks that is 
unreasonable, I would like to debate that point. There is not a 
business or a family listening tonight anywhere in this country that 
would run their own business like we are running the Nation's business, 
borrowing another $450 billion with absolutely no plan.
  The plan we are operating under does not balance for the next decade 
without using Social Security trust funds. Now, if anybody can convince 
the American people that that is a reasonable approach to this Nation's 
financial problems, I would like to talk to them because it is 
absolutely, I tell you what you can do. You can bamboozle people a 
little while, but the American public is not stupid by any stretch of 
the imagination, and they know that year after year of red ink is 
sooner or later going to catch up with us and with our children.
  I will tell you something else. The most insidious tax raise, tax 
hike in the world is borrowing money because you pay interest year 
after year after year, today a billion dollars a day in interest 
because our predecessors and us did not have the fortitude to either 
cut the programs we do not like and do not need or to raise the revenue 
for the ones that we do. That is where we are. This is shifting 
responsibility, and it is a generational mugging.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have got right here in front of me, it 
took me 5 months to compile this, I have got the votes of every one of 
the Democratic leadership, every single time, from the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), right on down the list, every single time that you voted 
to take 100 percent of the money out of the Social Security trust fund.
  For 40 years your budgets used money out of the Social Security trust 
fund. When I came here, we had $5 trillion of debt. The gentleman just 
said, and he is right, not quite a billion dollars a day but almost a 
billion dollars a day we pay on the interest when we came here.
  Now, if you pay down $500 billion it does not take a mathematician to 
figure if you are paying a billion dollars a day and there is 365 days 
in a year, you will end up with a lot more billions of dollars. And it 
keeps going up, and it keeps going up because you cannot pay it down.
  I heard the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) every single day 
when I was on the floor in the minority come in and talk, oh, the lady 
in the red dress. I am sorry. We need a middle-class tax cut. But in 
1993, when you had the House, the White House and the Senate, you could 
not help yourselves. You increased the tax on the middle class. You 
increased the tax on Social Security. You took every dime out of the 
Social Security trust fund. You cut veterans COLAs. You cut military 
COLAs. You called it a deficit reduction plan.
  But yet when Republicans came we eliminated that Social Security tax. 
We gave a middle-class tax cut. And our policies, not one single 
Democrat bill or budget, not one Democrat budget from the President 
ever passed. As a matter of fact, Republicans brought up your budgets 
to show how bad they were.

[[Page 11841]]

  And for you to get up here and day after day talk about tax breaks 
for the rich, I talked to some of my colleagues. I said, what are you 
talking about? You know that is not true. And they said, it is 
gamesmanship. You lowered the bar too low in this House.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  There is a lot of partisan finger pointing, name calling, creative 
history interpretation. That is not going to get us anywhere. We have a 
problem on our hands. If we were a family running in the red we would 
sit at the kitchen table and figure this out. And the answer is not 
going to be, I got it, let us go to the bank and get the biggest line 
of credit we possibly can and let everything go the same.
  That is what the majority is proposing tonight. They are proposing 
simply to increase the line of credit and keep on borrowing. Let the 
wagons roll.
  We have to do different than that. We have asked, as we consider this 
motion, for an alternative to be considered one that would allow the 
debt to increase through the period of August, avoid any default on 
obligations of the government before then but require a plan, a plan to 
come before us to get us to a balanced budget in 7 years.
  Let us not talk about partisan antics in the past, Republican or 
Democrat. Let us together agree. We need a plan. We need it now. And 
that is what we asked for with the substitute.
  I could not be more dismayed that there was an objection and it will 
not even be allowed to be considered. Because this plan, this strategy 
of going up with the kind of debt increase they are looking at is the 
height of irresponsibility. In the next decade, 78 million Americans 
will turn 65; and the tap each will bring on Social Security and 
Medicare will strain the Nation's resources in a way it was never 
strained before.
  What we need to do this decade is pay down the debt, not add to the 
debt. We are leaving for our children a crushing financial burden, if 
we, now that it is our time in control, and the baby boomers are in the 
workforce in full force, do not pay our way but merely run up the debt. 
So we ask the majority for a plan, a plan to be resolved in August of 
this year before the election, not swept under the rug, not kicked into 
next year, but now. How are we going to pay our own way?
  We were not paying our own way now. That is why you have sought the 
debt increase. This is ultimately taking money coming in from Social 
Security and spending it on other government programs. Our children 
will pick up the tab. It is wrong. Vote this down.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), 
the distinguished majority leader for yielding me time.
  I rise today as a conservative Member of this institution, Mr. 
Speaker. I did not come here to increase the government's debt. I came 
here believing, as so many people I represent believe, that if you owe 
debts, pay debts.
  I spoke to an elderly woman on a radio program in Richmond, Indiana, 
today in the heart of the heartland district that I represent. Mr. 
Speaker, she said with fear in her voice that she was worried that a 
conservative like me would not support raising the debt ceiling and 
would put at risk her Social Security check. She assumed that my 
loathing of red ink would cause me to vote in such a way or fail to act 
in such a way that it would jeopardize her benefits and the benefits of 
people that she loves.
  Well, I assured her then and I rise today to assure all of those that 
are listening, Mr. Speaker, that I will not do that. I truly believe if 
you owe debts, pay debts. I am a member of a majority in this 
institution that has repaid the national debt nearly a half of a 
trillion dollars. We have balanced the budget last year, adopted a plan 
to actually redeem all of the public debt over the next decade. We were 
on track, Mr. Speaker, to meet that goal, even after the President's 
tax cut was adopted.
  And then, though it is convenient tonight to forget it on the other 
side of the aisle, that a recession struck America; and then, of 
course, as we all experienced here, the devastation in New York City 
and at the Pentagon. 
9-11 struck and hundreds of billions of dollars that the CBO and the 
OMB and every independent organization in America predicted would be 
there was no longer there.
  The result is that our government now needs to keep its promise to 
the American people, to all of various entitlement programs, but maybe 
most especially the program that that elderly woman asked about this 
morning.
  We must raise the statutory debt limit. The truth is they have no 
budget. They have no credibility on debt reduction. They have no plan 
to guarantee the full faith and credit. They have no plan for that 
little old lady in Richmond, Indiana.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Kansas 
(Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to the bill on the floor at the 
present time. Kansas families live by three simple rules. Number one, 
do not spend more money than you make. Number two, pay off your debts. 
Number three, invest in basics in the future.
  The basics for our country are national defense, Social Security and 
Medicare, a highway system, things we all would agree on. The basics 
for a family are food, shelter and education, health care, things, 
again, we all would agree on. And yet in this Congress, in this 
Congress, after we got our budget back in balance, we started down the 
wrong road again.
  Now I do not blame anybody in this Congress for a recession. I do not 
blame anybody in this Congress for what happened on 9-11 and certainly 
not the President. And I voted for tax cut, so I do not blame anybody 
for that as causing the problem we are in. But I think we need to move 
back to fiscal responsibility.
  Initially, Secretary O'Neill asked for a $750 billion increase in the 
debt limit. I think that is an outrageous blank check to give to this 
Congress. Now they are asking for $450 billion dollars. I think the 
appropriate amount is $150 billion and move to a plan to get us back to 
balance. Just to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to get us 
back to balance.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I did not plan to speak on this at all. I was up in my office and 
could not help but, watching some of the proceedings, I could not help 
understanding that there is something amiss here to have people, 
individuals on the Democrat side of the aisle who have voted for nearly 
every spending program that has been put up, who vote for the airline 
bail out, who vote for the farm bill, who vote for the education bill, 
spending bill after spending bill, none of which I voted for and yet I 
am over here saying to vote for this bill.
  Now, how can somebody spend like a drunken sailor and then all of a 
sudden find religion when it comes to raising the debt limit? This is 
just like eating a big meal and walking out on the bill. There are only 
a few people in this House who could in good conscience vote against 
this bill, and they have spoken. And to see this display of people 
standing up and saying, we cannot raise the debt limit, that is not 
responsible, after voting to spend and spend and spend, it is just more 
than I could take. So I had to come here and talk about it.

[[Page 11842]]

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  We have heard the debate tonight. There is one question that lingers. 
Where are the fiscally responsible members of the Republican House of 
Representatives? So many of my colleagues campaigned, as many Democrats 
did, on the virtues of the balanced budget and paying down the debt.
  The plan that has been outlined here tonight that was offered as an 
amendment in the Committee on the Budget by me and others addresses all 
the concerns that have been expressed. It gives discretion for us to 
spend some money on security. It allows time to get back to a balanced 
budget and paying down the debt.
  On September 11, thank God we had economic security. We had a 
balanced budget. We were on our way to paying down the debt. It kept us 
strong. It keeps us strong. We could not ignore that. We need to get 
back to it.
  The arguments my colleagues make about tax cuts would be better 
arguments if we did not have the debt in the trillions of dollars, over 
$4 trillion. The interest payment 2 years ago on that debt exceeded 
more than we spent on Medicare every year. Now a number of us are 
worried about the health of the economy.
  If we continue down this path without adopting the plan that has been 
advocated tonight, we will start to drive interest rates up again and 
we will really be in trouble. I urge rejection of this bill. Let us 
adopt the plan.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker left. I reserve my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  At the appropriate time the minority would hope that common sense and 
fairness would allow us to send this bill to the Committee on Ways and 
Means and have it reported out the right way with the right amount of 
increase in the debt.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to yield the remaining time that is 
left to our distinguished leader from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) in order 
to close this argument on behalf of the minority.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge Members to vote for the 
motion to commit, which will be presented in a few moments, and if that 
motion to commit is not passed, I urge Members to vote against the 
bill.
  The power to budget and to pass economic plans carries with it the 
responsibility to, if it is necessary, raise debt ceilings to 
accommodate the budget, the economic plan that we are operating under. 
The economic plan we are operating under is one propounded by the 
President and the Republican majority in the House. That is their 
prerogative and that is their right. There was not real collaboration 
on that plan. There was no need for that collaboration. That also is 
their right.
  If that is the plan that is in place and that plan now leads to 
deficits and spending Social Security dollars against everything that 
we said together that we did not want to do because we passed the 
lockbox at least five times, then it seems to me it is incumbent upon 
the people who propose that plan to vote to increase the debt ceiling 
to accommodate the results that that plan has caused.
  I have said many times that I would vote tonight or anytime to raise 
the debt ceiling by $150 billion. I use that amount because I think it 
is sufficient to buy us a couple of more months' time to try to work 
out a bipartisan budget that will begin to move us back in the right 
direction, because I think that is what we ought to do.
  I have said to the President that we should have a negotiation, we 
should have a summit, we should have a meeting, a bipartisan meeting, 
to try to work out a new budget for our country. I know we cannot get 
everything we want, and I know that the other side cannot get 
everything they want; but we had a tragedy in this country on 9-11 that 
no one anticipated. My colleagues can bet that every family who lost 
somebody on 9-11 has had a budget conference around their dining room 
table to come up with a new budget, given the fact that many of them 
lost their breadwinner or winners on 9-11.
  Just as those families suffered tragedy on 9-11, the American 
families suffered a tragedy on 9-11; and as many of us argued when the 
budget was on the floor, we should take care of those contingencies if 
they happen. Well, if 9-11 is not a contingency that happened, I do not 
know what is. We are faced with a hole in security responsibilities. We 
are faced with fighting a war in many countries abroad. If that is not 
a new contingency, I do not know what is.
  As an American family, Democrats, Republican, Independents, whatever, 
we are all Americans tonight; and we ought to be sitting around a table 
in these next 2 months working out a new budget for America that does 
not lead us back into all these deficits and spending Social Security 
dollars that all of us together said we did not want to do.
  So in the name of common sense, I ask that we come together tonight. 
We could get 435 votes to pass $150 billion increase in the debt 
ceiling and move this country back into a budget that will be good for 
all Americans at war, fighting for our country, fighting against 
terrorism, and fighting for American values.
  I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to vote for the 
motion to commit and let us get back to an American budget that is good 
for all the American people.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I have here a letter from the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group 
of distinguished American citizens who concern themselves daily with 
such matters as balanced budgets; and according to the Concord 
Coalition, it says that ``it is clear that the debt limit must be 
increased. The Senate has acted and now it is up to the House. 
Republicans and Democrats alike should put the Nation's 
creditworthiness ahead of political considerations.''
  The Concord Coalition goes on to say that ``the House must be 
prepared to act on a stand alone debt limit increase in time to avoid a 
crisis.'' It also calls upon us to be nonpartisan or bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, what in the world could possibly be more bipartisan than 
to have the Republican majority leader of the House of Representatives 
schedule for debate and a vote a Senate-passed bill that is authored by 
the Senate Democrat majority leader? The head of the Democrat Party, 
the highest-ranking Democrat in America wrote this bill. What could 
possibly be more bipartisan than the tribute we Republicans are 
standing here paying to the distinguished leadership of the gentleman 
from South Dakota, the head of the Democrat Party?
  Mr. Speaker, irony of ironies, the gentleman from South Dakota's own 
party's leadership in this House stands here in militant opposition to 
the head of their own party's plan to raise the debt ceiling. What are 
we to make of this partisanship? A party turning upon itself in 
defiance of the Concord Coalition. What are we to do?
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us Senate bill 2578 authored, as I have 
said, by the highest-ranking elected Democrat in America today, the 
Senate majority leader, Senator Daschle from South Dakota, a bill which 
when brought to the floor in the other body was passed with a vote of 
37 loyal Senate Democrats and 31 thoughtful Senate Republicans. What a 
bipartisan effort that was. Was it not applauded by even The Washington 
Post for the spirit of bipartisanship?
  Every author of bipartisanship in America stood in reverence at the 
action in the other body, for the collegiality around the Senate 
Democrat leader's plan, and yet we bring it to this floor and it is 
mocked, mocked by members of his own party. Oh, be still my heart. What 
am I to do with this? What can we say?
  Are there 37 brave Democrat souls in this body, loyal to their own 
party's leadership, afflicted with affection for the gentleman from 
South Dakota who will stand up and say to the Concord Coalition count 
me in, I am with my

[[Page 11843]]

leader, I will vote for Senator Daschle's plan? Are there 37 brave 
souls in this body? Oh, I pray, Mr. Speaker, I pray that they will 
present themselves.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, how disappointing it is to see the rejection 
of that leadership by a bill offered as a motion to commit, in the form 
of a bill offered by a small band of Members of the Senator's own party 
who do not even claim to be in the mainstream of their party. These 
Blue Dogs are treacherous. They are treacherous, Mr. Speaker.
  I prevail upon my friends from the other side of the aisle. Look at 
the example that came before you from the other side of the building. 
Check the record of how your own, very own Democrat Senator voted. 
Please vote with him. Save yourselves the embarrassment of having to go 
home and answer this question at your local party gathering. Do not put 
yourself in a position where some wonderful lady who has labored in 
your party for years looks at you with horrified disappointment in her 
eyes and says why did you vote with that small band of renegades in our 
party and against the plan offered by our distinguished party leader, 
the majority leader of the United States Senate, the distinguished 
Senator Daschle?
  I cannot believe it. There are times when every party must call upon 
their own rank and file, men and women of the cloth on the Democrat 
side of the aisle. Stand by your man. This is your opportunity. Do what 
is good for America; and oh, yes, those of you in the press, please 
report my gallant effort to stand here in this well today and defend, 
yea, defend the good-faith offering of the highest-elected Democrat in 
America from this unconscionable assault perpetrated against him by, 
yes, members of his own party. It saddens me to no end.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members 
that it is not in order to cast reflections on Senators.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2578, 
legislation to raise the debt ceiling by $450 billion without engaging 
in a real debate on how to get our nation's fiscal house back in order.
  Mr. Speaker, before the House signs off on permanently raising the 
debt ceiling to $6.4 trillion, I think it would be helpful to take a 
step back and look at how we got here. It was not September 11th or the 
war on terrorism or even last year's recession that caused this 
predicament. Months before the impact of September 11th was realized in 
the budget, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill asked Congress to 
raise the debt limit by $750 million in response to deepening deficits 
that resulted primarily from the President's tax cut. By the 
Administration's own estimates, last year's tax cut--the one that I 
cautioned ``left no room for error''--is responsible for 43 percent of 
the total deterioration in our fiscal picture.
  So, here we are today, being told by the majority that if we vote 
against S. 2578, we are being irresponsible. Well, isn't that the pot 
calling the kettle black? Under their watch, our budget experienced the 
most dramatic reversal in history, losing $4 trillion in projected 
surpluses in one year. To my mind, permanently raising the debt ceiling 
in the absence of a plan to get us back to surpluses is the epitome of 
fiscal irresponsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, the majority's budget asserted that there 
would be no need to increase the debt limit until 2009. But here we 
are, poised to consider legislation raising the debt ceiling to $6.4 
trillion without being given a chance to offer a plan. Mr. Speaker, it 
is disgraceful that the majority has decided to block debate on a 
credible plan to address the short-term crisis and undo our present 
fiscal mess. My Democratic colleagues, Representatives Spratt and 
Moore, sought to offer a measure that would immediately increase debt 
limit by $150 billion with the requirement that the President submit a 
revised budget that is in balance by 2007 without borrowing from Social 
Security. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this reasonable alternative never 
saw the light of day.
  Mr. Speaker, I am simply unwilling to write the federal government a 
virtual blank check that may or may not keep us in the black until the 
midterm elections in November. Mr. Speaker, every day, Americans pay $1 
billion in interest on our national debt. That's about 16 cents of 
every dollar they pay in taxes--just to make the interest payment, not 
even to pay down the debt itself. Moreover, the indirect costs of 
raising the debt limit and the return to deficits prevent long-term 
interest rates high for Americans struggling to make mortgage, car, or 
credit card payments, even as the Federal Reserve has dramatically 
reduced short term rates.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this 
measure and forcing the Republican Leadership to work with the minority 
to develop a real plan to deal with the deficits that now stretch as 
far as the eye can see. Until we have a realistic budget that 
eliminates those deficits, increasing the statutory debt ceiling is 
pure folly.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Secretary made it clear 
weeks ago that Congress would have to increase the Federal Government's 
debt ceiling. Since that time, many of us have been requesting an open 
debate on a bill to increase the debt ceiling.
  How can the Republican leadership explain the debt ceiling increase 
added to the debate of the military construction appropriations bill by 
way of a procedural hijacking? This legislative ambush blocks any 
amendments from being offered, including the Democrats' intent to limit 
the increase to $150 billion as opposed to the Republican's increase of 
$450 billion.
  I am ready to assure the debt limit is sufficient to meet our 
obligations, however, I vote against this measure because this chamber 
and the American people deserve that we conduct business of this manner 
with a full debate and consideration of reasoned amendments that will 
clarify a blueprint for fiscal responsibility.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 462, the Senate bill is considered as 
having been read for amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
third time.


                 Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Moore

  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MOORE. In its current form, yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Moore moves that the bill S. 2578 be committed to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following.

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

       Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``$5,950,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$6,100,000,000,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion 
to commit.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is leaving this Congress 
at the end of this term, and he might have a career as a comedian, but 
this is a very, very serious matter.
  Tonight, we are talking, Mr. Speaker, about raising the debt limit of 
this country. We are, at present, approximately $5.9 trillion in debt. 
Certainly nobody in this body wants to see the United States of America 
default on its financial obligations. That will not happen. That is not 
an option.
  But the majority leader has not provided all the information from the 
Concord Coalition, because I want to quote from their letter. ``An 
increase of roughly $250 billion would be sufficient for now without 
providing a blank check.'' And yet they are asking, the majority leader 
is asking for $450 billion. We are offering $150 billion, and I think 
that is sufficient.
  If we spend further, we are into Social Security and Medicare, and 
the people of America need to understand that, Mr. Speaker. That is 
wrong. We can come together and come up with a plan to meet the 
obligations of this country without invading Social Security and 
Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to stop an increase in the

[[Page 11844]]

debt ceiling. Here is what we are trying to stop.
  This year, in the most dramatic fiscal reversal we have seen in the 
time many of us have served in this House, our budget will be in 
deficit to the tune of $320 billion. Next year, according to our best 
calculation, our budget will be in deficit by $373 billion. Over the 
next 10 years, by $2.785 trillion. That is what we seek to stop.
  If my colleagues vote for the bill instead of the motion to commit, 
what they will be voting for is fiscal denial instead of fiscal 
discipline. They will be voting for a little absolution, a ticket past 
the next election, a ticket past the next budget resolution, but we 
will simply put off dealing with this problem, this serious problem, 
this dramatic reversal.
  We wanted to present a plan that would have allowed the budget to be 
increased by $150 billion and then another $100 billion without any 
obstacle. But, after that, we could only increase it if we had in place 
a budget that would be back in balance by 2007. That is what we really 
seek.
  In the absence of being able to offer that plan, what we offer 
instead is the closest thing to it, an increase in the debt ceiling of 
$150 billion which will bring us back to this problem which we will 
have to address but will allow us to keep to our obligation to our 
creditors and, at the same time, allow us to keep our obligation to our 
children and not leave them burdened with overwhelming debt.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas Mr. 
Stenholm.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my 
Republican colleagues for tonight voting to borrow the money to pay for 
their policies. I am disappointed, though, that they did not come to 
the floor with the same enthusiasm defending the vote to borrow the 
money that they did when they passed the policies that put us into 
debt. With the exception of the majority leader; his enthusiasm for 
borrowing $450 billion is unprecedented.
  The need to increase the debt limit is not the result of September 
11. In fact, the Secretary of the Treasury came to us last August 
predicting that we were going to have to borrow money when we were 
looking at the economic game plan that we were under. We agree on this 
side unanimously, well, almost unanimously, that we need to increase 
the debt limit by $150 billion tonight, and we will get over 400 votes 
to do it. What we object to is providing a blank check to borrow $450 
billion to stay on the same economic game plan.
  Now, my friend from Arizona made the comments about the spending. I 
would point out that every single spending vote this year that has 
occurred has come under the Republican-passed budget that we supported 
in the Blue Dogs but that my colleagues would never allow us to have 
the trigger on. So do not blame us for the spending when it is the 
Republican budget that we are spending to. In fact, we agree that we 
should not increase spending more than the President has asked us to 
spend.
  That is not the issue tonight. The issue tonight is whether or not we 
are going to have a new economic game plan or whether we should borrow 
$450 billion with a blank check to continue spending.
  Now, I am perfectly willing to roll up my sleeves in a bipartisan way 
and work with the majority if they would just let us. But we will have 
a pharmaceutical bill on the floor later tonight in which we will be 
denied an opportunity to vote on. My Republican colleagues denied us an 
opportunity to have the Hill bill, the Moore bill on the floor today, 
and yet the chairman said a moment ago, where is the debate?
  I have been begging my colleagues to debate me on whether we should 
borrow $450 billion or $150 billion. When we vote for the bill, we are 
borrowing $450. We could do it at $150 and be fiscally responsible. 
That is the issue. Vote for the motion to commit.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
commit.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but recall the minority leader's comments 
when he said there was no collaboration, that there was no discussion, 
that there was no working together.
  I seem to remember a lot of working together, a lot of collaboration 
that got us to this point. I seem to remember a number of late-night 
meetings in September, when, in a bipartisan way, we decided to reach 
into that surplus, and there was not much left, but to reach into that 
surplus and take money and deal with the emergency. I seem to remember 
a bill that we voted on nearly unanimously to pay for a war against 
terrorism. Bipartisan. We reached in another time and did the same 
thing. I seem to remember a bill that came to the floor in a bipartisan 
way that said, you know what, that pre-attack recession has gotten 
worse and we need an economic stimulus.
  So let us reach in there again and let us make sure that we deal with 
the economy the way we did with the war and the way we did with the 
emergency.
  Now, all of a sudden, the minority leader rushes to the floor and 
says, gosh, there was no collaboration, no one talked to us, no one 
consulted us. Now we need a plan all of a sudden. We have had a plan: 
It is called deal with the circumstances that were dealt last 
September. That was our plan. And we did it together. We did it 
together.
  So tonight we have to do together what the other body did with the 
Senate Daschle bill, and that is to increase the debt limit to deal 
with the cards that we were dealt.
  Now, if my colleagues want a plan, present one, but do not come down 
here and blame the tax cuts without having the courage or the guts to 
give us a plan to raise those taxes back up again.
  And, no, I will not yield, because I am tired of my colleagues coming 
down here and demagogueing tax cuts and not having one ounce of guts to 
tell us their plan to increase those taxes back up. No, I will not 
yield, and I will not yield to Members who come in here and say, oh, 
gosh, but you are doing all the spending, when tonight my colleagues' 
bill on prescription drugs will be three times the bill that we offer 
on prescription drugs.
  The applause is there, but where is the guts to vote for the increase 
in the debt ceiling to pay for it? That is called tax and spend, and we 
have seen it before. We are not going to allow it again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the 
distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, when we come down to the final analysis, we 
have before us a bill authored by Senator Daschle, the highest-ranking 
elected Democrat in America; and in the judgment of the Senator, $450 
billion was the right compromise between what was asked by the 
Secretary of the Treasury and what others might have proposed to him.
  Thirty-seven Democrat colleagues agreed with the Senator as they 
passed this bill to the House.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the references to the other 
body, when the Chair has previously advised the other side that it is 
improper to refer to action in the other body in support of the motion 
and which they are supposed to argue otherwise independently against.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members not to 
characterize the position of a Senator on a legislation issue.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if we were to amend this substitute, 
something else for what the other body has sent us, it would go back to 
the other body and then we would be up in the air again. There is so 
much that would be left to uncertainty: the difficult financial 
gymnastics of the Secretary of the Treasury, already beleaguered by our 
delay.
  It turns out that the $450 billion increase in the debt limit is 
exactly the same increase that we passed in 1997 at the request of the 
then Democrat administration, President Clinton; and, having done so, 
we found ourselves free to not revisit this issue for 5 years. Five 
years.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the gentleman characterizing the

[[Page 11845]]

ex-President of the United States of America, President Clinton, who 
actually brought about the surplus that we used to enjoy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's objection is not well taken.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, as I said, in 1997, we passed a debt limit 
increase of $450 billion at the request of the President that was in 
office at that time. It lasted for 5 years that we did not have to 
revisit this issue. That was a good thing. Because for several years 
prior to this majority taking over the House, we did not revisit it in 
the House because we had something called the Gephardt rule. That rule 
said the House never had to deal with these issues; they would just be 
done automatically. That was comfortable, but it did not in fact give 
us this wonderful opportunity to rejoice in this.
  Well, what was my point? In 1997, we passed a debt limit increase of 
$450 billion, exactly the request that has been sent to this body by 
the other body, authored by the majority leader in the other body, 
voted for by 37 Members of the other body, and that will take us 
perhaps for a while.
  This substitute that my colleagues are being asked to vote for 
guarantees us the right to come back and deal with this issue in 
September or October. We will be guaranteed the right to do this again.
  Now, I just do not believe we have got that many more entertaining 
speeches left in us.
  I say vote against the substitute, the motion to commit, and vote for 
the Senate majority leader's bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to commit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote on the question of 
passage of the Senate bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207, 
nays 222, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 278]

                               YEAS--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NAYS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Engel
     Oxley
     Roukema
     Traficant
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson (SC)

                              {time}  2034

  Messrs. SOUDER, SHADEGG, BURR of North Carolina, and WU changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ROTHMAN and Mr. DELAHUNT changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 214, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 279]

                               AYES--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle

[[Page 11846]]


     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Bartlett
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Engel
     Hayes
     Oxley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  2047

  Mrs. TAUSCHER changed her vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the Senate bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 279 I was detained on the 
floor by legislative business. Had I voted, I would have voted 
``present.''

                          ____________________