[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24046-24059]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    INCREASING THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 856, I 
call up the Senate bill (S. 2986) to amend title 31 of the United 
States Code to increase the public debt limit, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of S. 2986 is as follows:

                                S. 2986

       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 ``$7,384,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$8,184,000,000,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 856, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The issue before us is really America's responsibility to pay its 
bills, to meet obligations that America and Congress, as our Members, 
have already incurred.
  Before September 11 and the war on terror, the Republican-led 
Congress paid down nearly half a trillion dollars in public debt, 
marking the first time since 1969 that Congress had reduced the 
national debt. Today, America is fighting an elusive and determined 
enemy abroad, while working to stimulate the economy and help industry 
still recovering from the 9/11 attacks.
  At this extraordinary time, with our Nation's many obligations, the 
government is nearing the debt limit. If the Treasury cannot issue the 
debt, the government may be unable to meet many of its obligations, 
such as the regular investment into the Civil Service Retirement and 
Disability Fund. Republicans want to do the responsible thing. As a 
result, Congress is increasing the debt limit to $8.1 trillion.
  Holding the line on spending and raising the debt limit are not 
mutually exclusive, and it is important to remember that. Earlier this 
year, the House approved a lean, responsible budget that would cut the 
deficit in half within 5 years, hold the line on spending and guard 
against Democrats' calls for job-killing tax hikes.

[[Page 24047]]

  Republicans are committed to reducing America's debt through 
responsible and restrained spending. Congress must meet America's 
priorities such as Social Security and Medicare. That is why raising 
the debt limit is so critical. But, in doing so, we can remain 
steadfast in our quest to eliminate the waste, the fraud and abuse on 
behalf of all taxpayers and future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I do have a bipartisan request. Tonight's measure is an 
appropriate time to discuss spending and deficits and solutions, but as 
we debate this and as we make our final vote, let us not punish our 
seniors, let us not punish our elderly, let us not punish our military 
just to score political points. If the debt ceiling is not increased, 
America cannot pay its bills. We cannot meet existing obligations. We 
will not ultimately have the cash on hand to pay Social Security 
benefits, military retirement, Medicare benefits, unemployment benefits 
and other trust fund obligations.
  As raw as this recent election was, as bitterly contested as it was, 
with hurt feelings all around, we need to work together as Americans to 
take responsibility for our bills. Let us not default on our 
obligations. Let us not stop the checks to our needy who are counting 
on us. Let us not use our elderly as political pawns in trade for a 
seven second sound byte back home. They deserve better. We have a 
responsibility to pay our bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remaining time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to join in the bipartisan request that we try to work 
this out. The request sounds like a drunk going to an Alcoholic 
Anonymous meeting, saying just give me one more drink and I will not do 
it again. But there has to be a program involved in joining with my 
colleagues in this bipartisan approach, and we have a program and that 
is pay-as-you-go.
  My colleagues cannot help themselves with spending. They think they 
have a credit card with no limit on it. They go to the richest of their 
friends and they tell them, they do not ask for it, that they are going 
to give them a $1 trillion tax cut. Then when they ask, well, where are 
we going to get the money, do not worry about it, we will increase the 
debt ceiling, we will just borrow some money.
  Who are we borrowing the money from? The Japanese and the Chinese. 
What kind of patriotism is that? What kind of bipartisanship do my 
colleagues want for that?
  The truth is every day for the next 2 years we are going to be 
dealing with the moral issues that encompass this Congress and this 
country, and the quicker my colleagues try to explain how they can take 
a surplus projected at $5.6 trillion and then come up and waste it and 
come up with a deficit of $3 trillion, the quicker they can see that 
the interest on this debt is going to be larger than the things that 
they talk about in the Koran, in the Bible or in the Torah and all of 
those things. That is, talking about education and health care and help 
your fellow man and let us not help the high rollers that my colleagues 
try to do.
  So we are prepared to work in a bipartisan way. If a creditor wants 
to try to help someone that just could not control the spending, the 
first thing they do is get a plan. We will give my colleagues plenty of 
opportunity to be bipartisan by saying pay-as-you-go. Do not stop 
everything. Do not hurt the aged. Do not hurt Social Security. Do not 
hurt Medicare. We know how compassionate they feel about those issues, 
but do not get us involved in anymore debt unless you have some kind of 
a cockamamie plan to get us out of the mess that you put us in.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for the purposes of control, who has a true 
understanding of patriotism and compassion and moral values, and take 
notes because my colleagues are going to be hearing a lot about this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we here for the third time in 3 years? It is 
because our country has borrowed over $1.5 trillion in that time from 
2001 until now.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an accident. This is the first 
administration and the first Congress in the history of this country 
that has knowingly, willfully, deliberately, and consciously pursued an 
economic plan that will leave our country weaker in the long run than 
when they found it. No other people who have occupied these seats have 
consciously, willfully and deliberately bankrupted our country like 
what is going on today.
  Just in the last 4 years, at a 5 percent interest rate, these people 
have raised taxes on the American people $67 billion a year each and 
every year from now on to the rest of our lives because of this 
prolific borrowing that is going on.
  President Jimmy Carter once said that the highest office in our land 
is that of citizen, and he is right. Citizens hire us to come here 
every couple of years in this body to do the public work, to try to run 
their business like we would run our own.
  All we have asked of the majority is before we borrow another $800 
billion in the name of every citizen in this country, they would at 
least give us the opportunity to stop and say why do we not pay for 
what we are spending? Why do we not do the moral value of paying our 
bills? We are not paying our bills by borrowing another $800 billion. 
We are passing our bills on to our children, our grandchildren and 
anybody else who follows us. That is no moral value.
  I tell my colleagues one other thing. We are creating a financial 
vulnerability in this country that is second only to the threat of 
terrorism. Since 2001, there has been an $844 billion increase in 
foreign-held debt, and do my colleagues know who holds it? Almost every 
country in the world.
  I hold this up from the Treasury Department: Japan, over $700 
billion; mainland China and Hong Kong, over $230 billion; the Caribbean 
banking centers, over $100 billion.

                              {time}  2115

  We are literally, you are literally mortgaging our future economy to 
anybody in the world that will give us money on the cheap today so we 
do not have to face up and pay our own bills from my generation: pass 
it on to somebody else. It is nothing less than a national security 
issue, and we will have more to say about that later.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Some people have a short memory around here. I do believe that 
reducing the debt, restraining spending is a bipartisan effort. We have 
to work together. But I recall my friends on the Democratic side, when 
Republicans proposed a Medicare drug plan of around $400 billion, our 
friends on the Democrat side proposed a plan of $968 billion. We did 
not spend too little; they wanted to spend more. When we talked about 
unemployment extensions, they increased it $30 billion over the 
Republican plan. It was not that we were spending too little; they 
wanted to spend more. And when we talked about welfare reform and the 
need to move people to work, they added $52 billion, my Democratic 
colleagues, so concerned about the debt. It was not that we were 
spending too little; they wanted to spend more.
  And when we are talking about moral obligations, I guess I would ask 
this: Is it a moral obligation when you trumpet that press release for 
that new firefighting equipment, for that new road you got, for that 
new university research, for that farm bill you championed, when you 
stand for the ribbon-cutting back home, and when you court public 
approval for spending tax dollars? Do you also have the moral 
obligation to pay for it?
  Today, the issue is are we going to pay the bills of America, pay for 
the

[[Page 24048]]

spending that has been incurred and take responsibility for our own 
actions?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say one thing. We are not paying for anything. We are borrowing every 
dime he is talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) asked us to be 
bipartisan. Why were the Republicans not bipartisan when you put your 
budget together? You want us to be bipartisan now. What about the past? 
You want us to be fiscally responsible for your fiscal 
irresponsibility. We will not do that.
  You mentioned the Medicare bill. We paid for ours. You hid the facts 
about what you were proposing. You hid them from us, and you continue 
to do so.
  It has been said here let everybody understand the impact on the 
families of America. The gross interest on the national debt this year: 
three-quarters of all nondefense discretionary spending. And when 
projected over 10 years, it is going to be even larger than nondefense 
discretionary spending.
  This action of yours today is the bitter fruit of your fiscal 
irresponsibility. You give every reason for this problem except your 
own actions, your own default. It is time that you stood up to the 
bitter fruits of your policies. Do not stonewall. Do not give us the 
hollow excuses. This country's families are now being asked by you for 
a tax increase on every family of America. You can vote for that; I am 
not going to do so.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Like a mortgage payment, like a credit card payment, we are paying 
for past decisions by this Congress, some of them decades old. In fact, 
if we are talking about the past 40 years of control by our Democratic 
friends, we are talking about raiding the Social Security trust fund, 
increasing the debt, and in more recent years voting against every bill 
because we did not spend more. Because we did not spend more.
  Republicans are standing up for this responsibility. We understand 
that America took three big hits to our economy on 9/11: the recession 
President Bush inherited, the attacks of 9/11 that cost us almost 2 
million American jobs, and then the technology bubble burst and the 
scandals from the false economy of the 1990s.
  America fought back. Republicans fought back with the simple 
principle: if we want to create jobs in America, leave the tax dollars 
in America, in our hometowns, on Main Street in our small businesses. 
By fighting back from a hit that would have sent most countries 
stumbling to their knees, we are creating jobs, we are increasing 
revenue to the Federal Government, and the deficit is dropping.
  But today, the question is, for all those Members who have been so 
eager to trumpet that press release, so eager to take credit for that 
spending that they brought home, the question is: Are you going to step 
up and pay the bills that America and Congress has incurred, or are you 
going to vote to stop our Social Security checks, stop the retirement 
checks to our military, stop the Medicare payments so important for the 
elderly?
  It is bipartisan, whether you agree or disagree with how we got here. 
And that is a fair argument. Republicans and Democrats have a different 
view of this, and that is a healthy one. But regardless of that, if you 
supported the farm bill, if you supported the road bills, if you 
supported the water projects, if you supported the road projects, then 
step up and pay the bill tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas described a situation here 3 
years ago before we went on this borrowing binge. What he conveniently 
neglected to point out was that President Bush and the Republican Party 
inherited the strongest economy in the history of America that was 
expected to post a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus. And he conveniently 
neglects to point out that it is the $2 trillion that they have taken 
from the budget through tax cuts that have helped to put us in the 
situation that we are in. Talk about amnesia.
  In just 4 years of Republican management, the country's fiscal 
situation has collapsed to the tune of nearly $9 trillion, draining the 
entire Clinton surplus and digging a deficit of $3 trillion, the 
largest deficit in the history of the world. And today, for the third 
time in 4 years, the country's fiscal situation has become so dire that 
we bumped up against the legal limit on how much we can borrow. So we 
are going to raise the limit or the government will default. All of 
this from the party that in American history has preached fiscal 
responsibility. So we have to come up with enough money now for their 
tax cuts, the war, and, by the way, just think of this, two wars with 
four tax cuts. That defies human history.
  And the President has very big plans for the next 4 years. He says he 
is going to spend a lot of capital that he has earned. So we are going 
to create private accounts for Social Security, which would cost more 
than $1 trillion, more than the current system might offer; and we do 
not even have enough money in the current system so that we are going 
to borrow this money tonight.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who is a nice enough fellow, he 
mentioned a couple of moments ago the situation that we are in. I want 
to remind this body that 8 years ago the Republican Party was going to 
impeach Bob Rubin for doing precisely the things their Secretary of the 
Treasury is doing this evening.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have 2 minutes and three or four charts 
that I think I can tell the whole story with.
  The year 2001. The President saw, looking out 10 years, surpluses of 
$4.6 trillion, and he said we can have it all, tax cuts and surpluses 
too. So he sent us a budget with enormous tax cuts. We warned against 
buying into those projections, but it was not heeded. They told us at 
the time that we could pass these tax cuts and we would not even have 
to consider an increase in the debt ceiling until the year 2008. That 
promise lasted 1 year.
  The next year, in 2002, there was a $450 billion request for another 
hike in the debt ceiling. The following year, 2003, there was a request 
for an increase in the debt ceiling of $984 billion, the single largest 
increase in history, a bigger amount than the entire national debt in 
1981 when Ronald Reagan came to office.
  Add those three together and they tell you a lot: $450 billion, plus 
$984 billion, plus tonight's request, $800 billion, comes to $2.234 
trillion. $2.234 trillion. That is the amount by which we have had to 
increase the debt ceiling of the United States in order to accommodate 
the budgets and fiscal policies of the Bush administration: $2.234 
trillion.
  Now, that is bad enough, but we asked CBO last September to take its 
latest economic forecast and to project the Bush budget 10 years, 
through the year 2014, and tell us how much debt would be accumulated 
in that period of time if we stayed on this course. This is what is to 
come. Tonight is only the beginning. This is what is to come if we 
follow those policies for the next 10 years. We will accumulate a 
national debt of $14.545 trillion.
  And here, the final chart tells it all. Our debt is increasing twice 
as fast as our GDP, or income. This cannot be sustained, and that is 
why we do not believe this bill in its present form should be adopted.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from

[[Page 24049]]

California (Mr. Cox), a long-serving Member with strong leadership on 
the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Many of our colleagues are just back from the Clinton library. I will 
never forget the night on this floor, not so long ago, in 1996, when in 
this very Chamber President Clinton said right on the heels of his 
attempt to have the Federal Government take over responsibility for 
one-sixth of the Nation's economy, ``the era of big government is 
over.''
  That line recalled similar sentiments by such earlier conservative 
Presidents as Ronald Reagan, Calvin Coolidge and Abraham Lincoln, with 
the difference being that the latter three actually meant it.
  How many of you remember not just Clinton's favorite line but the 
entire passage in proper context? It went as follows: ``We know big 
government does not have all the answers. We know there is not a 
program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a 
smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington, and we have to 
give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of 
big government is over.''
  I remember that moment vividly. I was, of course, sitting in this 
House Chamber, about 20 feet from the President, in this seat right 
here when he spoke those words. He was reading from the teleprompter, 
and his line of sight over the Plexiglas extended directly to my 
reserved place here at the leadership table.
  Because Bill Clinton was very comfortable using the teleprompter, he 
routinely made eye contact with the Members sitting in the Chamber, and 
he looked me directly in the eye, and at that moment I could see that 
he was enormously satisfied with that line in his speech. Yet in 
retrospect, when Bill Clinton declared ``the era of big government is 
over,'' he was right, for now we are living in ``the era of really big 
government.''
  Assuming we keep to our schedule this evening, Mr. Speaker, the 
Federal Government will spend more than $100 million just in the time 
we are debating this debt ceiling legislation. The growth of government 
in modern history has been astounding. In 1952, the year I was born, 
which we all agree was not very long ago, Federal spending was a quaint 
$68 billion compared to over $2.5 trillion today. And it was just that 
high because America was at war in Korea at the time.
  When my oldest child was born in 1993, Federal spending was $1.4 
trillion. In just one generation, the size of the Federal Government 
had increased more than 20-fold. We blew by the $2 trillion mark in 
2002, and we have not even taken our foot off the accelerator.

                              {time}  2130

  We are past the point where we can make excuses for the big 
government elephant in the living room. He has taken over our living 
space, contributing nothing to the family and, as Ronald Reagan knew, 
posing a threat to our freedoms.
  President Reagan, my first boss in Washington, said it best in his 
1989 farewell address, ``Man is not free unless government is limited. 
There is a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable 
as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.''
  President Reagan knew this fundamental truth: Big government is 
incompatible with freedom.
  There is a reason that fiscal restraint is a traditionally 
conservative value. Big government requires big spending and, 
therefore, a comfort level in taking and using the fruits of other 
people's labor. It is a comfort level found in socialism, not 
conservatism.
  So it is with great sadness that I come to the floor tonight to 
recommend a vote on increasing the debt ceiling. But the reason it is 
necessary is that the money has already been spent. The bills have come 
due for what this Congress has already voted for.
  Three years ago, we endured a vicious attack on our Nation. As 
horrifying as it was, it was a visible attack, an attack from without. 
We knew then how to mount a defense against a foreign enemy. We would 
not give in to terror. At the time, Osama bin Laden boasted, ``I tell 
you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed.'' He was wrong 
then, and he is wrong now. We will not cede this Nation to tyranny, but 
neither should we cede it to the burdens of big government.
  We have got to acknowledge that, unlike the hideous face of 
terrorism, big government is an attractive seductress. It is sometimes 
enticing to our citizenry and certainly to many of us in this Chamber. 
But as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I know that 
every tax dollar spent on nonessential functions of government is, in 
these times, doubly squandered. Monies given to National Public Radio 
or the National Endowment for the Arts cannot go toward our national 
defense.
  The truth is, rapid, unsustainable increases in nondefense spending 
threaten our ability to protect American citizens and to respond to 
future threats. Period. That is precisely what is happening now so long 
as the liberal big spenders in this Congress will not say no.
  This vote on the debt ceiling tonight is nothing but a reminder that 
it is high time we get back to pruning back the waste of government. It 
can be done. We did it in 1995, the first year of the Republican House 
majority, and we can do it now.
  The truth is, the biggest spenders in this Congress will be the ones 
who vote against this resolution. Because, for big spenders, reining in 
the government is not a serious priority. The majority of us, however, 
have got to be responsible. We have got to go forward with renewed 
resolve to be fiscally responsible. We have to keep uppermost in mind 
that big government does not have all of the answers. It really does 
not have many answers at all. Not good ones, anyway.
  We know there is not a program for every problem. We have discovered, 
after all these years, that is really a good thing. So as we do the 
right thing tonight, Mr. Speaker, let us vow to stick with what the 
Founding Fathers wanted us to do. Not surprisingly, those are the very 
things we have been good at all along.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman just told Members is up is down, and 
down is up. The liberal big spenders have not spent a dime in this 
place in 10 years. They do not have the votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman from Tennessee that 
Lewis Carroll is writing the speeches that are being given on this 
legislation: Up is down, black is white, good is bad, and bad is good.
  Dick Armey said Republicans control this town, and you have for 4 
years. Republicans control it. This House, the Senate, and the White 
House. Not a nickel is spent because Democrats vote on it. It is all 
your spending that you are talking about. All your spending.
  The immoral, intellectually bankrupt fiscal policies that we have 
been pursuing for the last 4 years resulted in this request for this 
gargantuan increase on the debt on the head of every American, young 
and old.
  Bill Clinton was President of the United States and, in 1998, no 
increase in the debt; 1999, no increase in the debt; 2000, no increase 
in the debt; 2001, no increase in the debt. Not until the Republican 
fiscal policies were adopted did this country start to sink deeper and 
deeper and deeper into debt. From less than $6 trillion, in 42 months 
you have taken this country another $2 trillion in debt.
  Let us talk of moral values in America. Let us talk of squandering 
the public resources of a $5.6 trillion surplus that President George 
Bush said was available when he spoke to this Congress in February, 
2001. We have some fiscal conservatives, they say, on this floor and 
they say spending is the problem. Why have they not stopped it for 4 
years?

[[Page 24050]]

  They say there has been terrorism. I agree. There has been a war. We 
had a war under President Clinton, Members recall, one the other side 
of the aisle was not enthusiastic about, but we lost very few people, 
and the despot who committed genocide against the Bosnian people is now 
locked in The Hague.
  I tell my friends, this is the right thing to do if we adopt the 
motion to instruct that will be offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm), the most fiscally responsible Member of this body. 
Increase it for a short time. The United States cannot welch on its 
debt. We must pay our debt, but fiscal responsibility ought to be 
adopted by the majority that have control to do so.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  ``We did not spend a dime around here for the past 10 years. All the 
spending is yours''?
  That is not what you told your constituents. I have seen your press 
releases. You said you secured the road project. You said you 
championed university research. You said you got that road project. 
Here is my question: Who are you not leveling with, the voters back 
home or the people listening tonight?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am prepared to pay for the public works projects that I secure. The 
public works project that this side secured pales into insignificance 
beside the public works projects that you get for your Members on your 
side of the aisle, 17 times as much as we did, and you came here saying 
we are against pork. Seventeen times, my friend. Seventeen times is the 
pork in your bills.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. ``Mr. Speaker, we did not spend a dime around 
here for the past 10 years. It is all your spending.'' That was 2 
minutes ago.
  Today, it is, yeah, we spent a lot, but you spent more. Well, there 
is a difference. What we spent our deficit on was tax relief for the 
American people. I readily admit that. When we look at the deficit 
today, and we do share this, the fact of the matter is 50 percent of 
our deficit is caused because of this recession and we have to 
strengthen this economy. We have to get into a stronger economy. 
Twenty-five percent of it was new spending, spending that you have 
claimed credit for, not tonight, but you have claimed credit for years 
and years throughout the districts, in your speeches and in your 
campaigns. And the rest of that, that small amount left, is for tax 
relief to get people back to work, to help small businesses create jobs 
and get this economy strong again.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans are stepping up tonight to accept that 
responsibility to get the economy going. We are going to pay our bills. 
We are not going to claim credit for spending, lay the blame on another 
party, and then try to stop the checks for our Social Security 
recipients and our Medicare recipients and our military retirees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think people realize the situation we are in. 
We will step up to the plate if the other side will allow us to pay-as-
you-go, but they will not do that. They are not paying anything. They 
are borrowing another $800 billion. We are not paying any bills. We are 
borrowing money right now based on last year of $1.1 billion a day, $48 
million an hour, $796,000 a minute. We have already borrowed $10 
million while we have been talking. It is $13,000 a second, and you 
will not let us have pay-as-you-go.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about 
morality on this House floor and about patriotism.
  I want someone to explain to me how it can be moral for a father to 
stick his kids with his bills. How can it be moral for me to stick my 
three kids and Charlie Stenholm's beautiful grandson here with $800 
billion of new debt? I want to hear how it is patriotic to burden the 
next generation of Americans with so much debt that they cannot pay for 
their wars which they will unfortunately have, that they cannot pay for 
their natural disasters that are going to happen. Please tell me how 
that is moral or patriotic.
  And for God's sake, Mr. Brady, please do not tell me you are paying 
the bills tonight when you are borrowing $800 billion that you are 
going to stick your kids with. You are not paying the bill. Your kids 
are going to pay the bill. And until they pay the bill, we are going to 
continue to squander $1 billion a day on interest on the national debt.
  It gets better, Mr. Brady, because I bet when you got back to Texas 
you tell them how much you hate foreign aid, and so I am sure you would 
love to tell the people of Texas that one-third of that billion dollars 
a day that we spend on interest on the national debt goes to the 
Communist Chinese, goes to the Japanese, goes to the other countries 
that now own one-third of our debt. I am sure you are proud of that.
  But let me just remind you, Mr. Brady, 3 years ago on this floor, on 
my son's birthday, you all came down and said you can cut taxes, 
increase spending, and you were going to pay off the debt. Since that 
time, you have borrowed $1,786,314,460,700.45. It gets better. Because 
in that time you have stolen over $600 billion from the Social Security 
trust fund. Tell me how it is moral for you to steal from the Social 
Security trust fund, how it is moral to steal from the Medicaid trust 
fund, how it is moral to steal from the military retirees.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair reminds Members to 
address the Chair and not other Members in the second person.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, tell me the moral clarity of going home each week and 
trumpeting that press release for the firefighter fund or the road 
project or for that water project, and then stand up here tonight and 
tell us we are not going to pay the bill for it. So the seniors who 
need their Social Security checks, the heck with them. The military 
retirees who are counting on their retirement, the heck with them. I 
got my press acclaim, I got my public support, but you, you on the 
other side of the aisle, you take responsibility for making sure those 
checks get there. Tell me the moral obligation of that.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of this proposal. Some will talk and just 
say no and just point fingers. Others will stand and take the 
responsibility for governing. We have absolutely had a very difficult 
last several years. We came into this, this administration, with a 
recession, we were attacked, we are dealing with a war on terror, 
increased costs of homeland security to fight terror, to prevent 
further attacks on the United States. That costs a lot of money. There 
is no doubt that dealing with those costs during a recession put us in 
a difficult situation.
  So what are we to do? Simply say, oh my, let's raise taxes on the 
American people who are in a recession? That is a huge mistake. We are 
getting out of the recession. We see growth. We see job improvement, 
all as a result of the President's and our decision to keep taxes low.
  The whole point of this tonight is to take responsibility, not cry 
and whine and say it is not our fault, it is your fault. We are taking 
responsibility. We are going to raise the debt ceiling. We are 
continuing with a conservative budget that will cut our deficit in half 
in 5 years. That is responsible. I urge my colleagues to grow up, take 
responsibility and support this tonight.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous

[[Page 24051]]

consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker:

       A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches 
     pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering 
     their true sight, restore their government to its true 
     principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering 
     deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long 
     oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs 
     sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck 
     turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back 
     the principles we have lost, for this is a game where 
     principles are at stake.--Thomas Jefferson, 1798, after the 
     passage of the Sedition Act.

  These words of Jefferson ring particularly true at this moment. 
Principles are indeed at stake--basic principles of standing up for 
fiscal integrity, keeping our promises to American workers, and leaving 
the next generation free of crushing deficits. The majority has 
abandoned these principles, but we will not let them be forgotten. The 
futures of our children and our grandchildren are at sake.
  We are here to vote on the administration's demand for an increase in 
the debt limit of $800 billion dollars. This is the third increase in 
the debt that this administration has demanded in its first term--for a 
total of $2.1 trillion, the largest debt increase in our history. This 
administration has spent recklessly and immorally, driving the deficit 
each year to a new record.
  Democrats know how to reduce the deficit--and so did Republicans, in 
earlier years. When I came to Congress in 1992 we had a deficit of $290 
billion. Yet, after 8 years of bipartisan policies of fiscal 
responsibility we ended President Clinton's second term with a 
projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.
  After only 4 years of this administration's irresponsible spending, 
we have a 10-year projected deficit of $2.3 trillion--a free fall of 
almost $8 trillion dollars in only 4 years. How much worse will it get 
before we can restore the government to its true principles?
  Having been chastised by all the financial ministers of Europe this 
week for allowing the U.S. budget deficit to get to this point, 
Secretary Snow said today that the budget deficit is the 
administration's highest economic priority. I challenge the 
administration to put its money where its mouth is.
  If the administration meant what it said, it would urge Republicans 
to join Democrats in reinstituting the pay-go rules that enabled us to 
reduce the deficit under President Clinton. We had bipartisan support 
for these rules for 8 years--because they work, and because they 
represent the necessary and responsible course.
  If the administration meant what it said, we would have a strategy to 
pay down the debt held by China and other Asian countries before they 
acquire a stranglehold on our economy and can dictate our fiscal 
choices.
  If the administration meant what it said, we would not be here 
debating a further increase in the debt limit while the Secretary has 
already raided the Civil Service Retirement Fund.
  For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we must bring 
government back to fiscal responsibility. Any vote on increasing the 
debt limit must be coupled with a vote to reinstate the pay-go rules.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. We want to take 
responsibility. We want to pay as you go instead of borrowing and 
borrowing and borrowing. That is responsible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. We are all sinners. None of us has clean hands, 
particularly on spending issues. But there is one among us who over the 
last 26 years has the cleanest record and the best record of doing the 
right thing on Federal budget deficits. That man's name is Charlie 
Stenholm, and he is proudly from Texas. Sadly, tragically, due to the 
last election and very unfair partisan gerrymandering, he will no 
longer be with us. But we need to carry Charlie Stenholm's message in 
our hearts, in both parties, every day, because this man has lived it 
for 26 years and in a friendly and bipartisan fashion tried to carry 
each one of us on his ample shoulders.
  It is a tough job, even in the greatest country in the history of the 
world, to do the right thing when it comes to future generations like 
his grandson sitting right there. It is a tough job to live within the 
budget that you set. But Charlie has done the best job of any of us. So 
I hope that in this debate tonight, as we are literally borrowing 
nearly $1 million a minute against our children and grandchildren, that 
we will learn to reform, because this debate is really about whether we 
reform our ways starting tonight. Not next Congress, not next year. 
Starting now. Will we adopt pay-as-you-go? Because that is the only 
thing that has worked around here. Charlie Stenholm has championed 
that. It has worked. It worked for 12 years magnificently. We all need 
to get behind Charlie Stenholm and adopt pay-as-you-go as the policy of 
this House.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am no longer the chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform, but I am the chairman of a subcommittee and I do 
appreciate it. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) might take 
issue with that.
  Let me just say, I looked around this Chamber and I was listening to 
the debate. I have a lot of friends on the Democrat side, including my 
good buddy Charlie Stenholm and Charlie Rangel. We have all been here 
for a long time. All I can say is that it really kind of tickles me 
because I hear many of my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle 
talking about spending constraint. For 40 years you guys had control of 
this place and year after year after year after year the budget deficit 
went up and up and up and up, and now that we are in the majority and 
we have got all these problems and granted we do have a lot of problems 
we have got to get control of spending and I am for all of that.
  To hear colleagues of mine like Charlie and others come up here and 
talk about spending constraints tickles me to death, because for 40 
years you did not do that. I love you guys. I love working with you. 
But there is nothing like a reformed lady of the evening, and I love 
you guys because you are changing.
  But where were you for those 40 years? I do believe we have to work 
together. I do believe we have to work together, but please remember 
your past when you are admonishing us to change things.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentleman 
from Indiana's side of the aisle has borrowed more money in 3\1/2\ 
years than the Democrats borrowed in 40.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to stand in this 
well as a Democrat, and I hope that the people of this country are 
taking good notes tonight, because it is the Democrats in this Congress 
who are standing up for sound fiscal responsibility. I think it is very 
important for us to realize and never forget that it was President 
Clinton who left a huge surplus that has been squandered in these last 
4 years.
  Here are the facts. This is the third time in 3 years that the debt 
limit has been increased for a grand total of more than $2 trillion. 
The last hike was nearly $1 trillion. But it took less than 18 months 
for the government to hit the new rate ceiling. By way of comparison, 
the entire Federal debt in 1980 was just less than $1 trillion. We are 
on a runaway train without any brakes. And all we are asking for is 
pay-as-you-go so that we can be responsible.
  I will tell you really just how irresponsible you are being on the 
other side of the aisle. Do you realize that 90 percent of this new 
debt that you are creating is being purchased by foreign countries and 
foreign interests? And just the amount of the interest that we are 
paying on it, just the cost of borrowing this money from these 
countries accounts for more than 10 percent of all of Federal spending, 
which is more than what we are spending on our own homeland security. 
You talk about irresponsibility. It is truly irresponsible for us to 
turn over our debt, our fiscal security, to foreign interests, let 
alone the irresponsibility we are showing for passing on this debt to 
our children.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let us do a quick fact check here. Eighty-eight percent of the debt 
that

[[Page 24052]]

we are raising today comes from government transfers, or from past 
debts before President Bush's administration took office. Eighty-eight 
percent of that. So we are paying for past decisions, including past 
Democratic administrations and Democratic holds of this Congress.
  Second point. Our deficit and our debt is way too high. I think we 
all agree on that. I do not know anyone here who thinks otherwise. That 
truly is bipartisan. Let us keep in perspective that publicly held debt 
today is 37 percent of the economy. It was as high as 49 percent in 
1995 during President Clinton's tenure. The fact of the matter is the 
debt and the deficit is too high at all levels in America's history, 
and at some point at the end of this debate after this is all done and 
we get out and get through with all of our purging of our frustrations 
on how we got here, we are going to have to work together to balance 
this budget, to start paying down this debt and find some solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds. You have got an 
opportunity to do that tonight by adopting a PAYGO rule. You can start 
right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk and 
discussion in the media recently about our country's morals which 
played an important role, I think, to many in our recent elections. I 
personally welcome these discussions, but I am saddened by the fact 
that there has been little talk about the moral values of the 
government's borrow-and-spend economic policies.
  Tonight we will have a vote to raise the debt ceiling for the third 
time in the last 3 years. Why? Because Congress has been content to 
manage the American taxpayers' money in a way that immorally disregards 
the well-being of our Nation's economic future. I believe it is immoral 
for this country to keep racking up debt as far as the eye can see and 
to pass it on to our children and our grandchildren. I think it is 
immoral to borrow and spend and ask our soldiers to make the ultimate 
sacrifice while we refuse to make even marginal sacrifices in our 
fiscal policies.
  Mr. Speaker, last week on Thursday, November 11, the 278th Regimental 
Combat Unit left for Iraq. Many of these brave men and women of this 
National Guard unit come from Tennessee and from my congressional 
district. I was able to visit the 278th in Fort Shelby, Mississippi, 
the day they went off to defend our country. I wish them luck and offer 
my prayers for their safe return home. Now I wish our soldiers' 
government would take the steps necessary to curb this deficit 
spending, to reinstate true budget enforcement measures like PAYGO, and 
to pay down this Nation's debt, instead of continuing to raise the 
ceiling, so that our troops when they return home, they are not left 
with footing the bill for a war they so bravely fought. As we continue 
to discuss morality in America, I hope we will not continue to ignore 
the immoralities of our current fiscal policies.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I think it is important to keep focus that 88 percent of this debt 
occurred through intergovernmental transfers or before the Bush 
administration. It is a shared debt and a shared responsibility. The 
way we do not tackle it is to cut off the retirement checks for the 
military mothers and fathers of those serving today. That is exactly 
the wrong way to do it, the wrong way to duck responsibility. Together 
we can agree to pay our bills and then work together to reduce the 
debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons why we 
should vote against this debt ceiling limit. The first is that there is 
no plan to pay it off and the second is that what we are really doing 
is mortgaging our children's future. The reality is that when you talk 
about social spending, we could eliminate all social spending and we 
would still have an annual deficit. Tax cuts have equaled 17 times all 
domestic discretionary spending, and every child born in this country 
is now going to inherit $85,000 in interest costs on this debt, and 
that is what you are passing on to the next generation. That is 
immoral.
  Also, bear in mind that 90 percent of this new debt is being bought 
by foreign countries. Forty-three percent of it is now owned by foreign 
countries. Imagine the situation that you are leaving to the next 
generation. This is the result of a $10 trillion fiscal reversal. We 
are going to offer a PAYGO proposal where we would look at revenue as 
well as spending. That is what you have to do. That is the only thing 
that has worked, and that is the only responsible thing to do tonight.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds as a 
reminder that it is the economy that has caused this deficit; it is 
additional spending both for homeland security, supporting our troops, 
and for those press releases Members in this Chamber have so proudly 
touted back home. Today, and in fact we could have taken away all the 
tax cuts and we would still be running a deficit in America. It is time 
to pay our bills. Let us not cut off checks to our Social Security 
people simply for partisan purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some quite interesting 
statements tonight. One of the previous speakers derided this side of 
the aisle for the way we handled the national economy for the 40 years 
we were in control.
  Here are the facts: from 1946 until 1979, our national debt as a 
percentage of total national income declined by almost three-quarters, 
from 126 percent of our total national income to about 25 percent of 
our total national income. Then along came Ronald Reagan and his free 
lunch budgets; and in the years he was President, our national debt, as 
a percentage of our national income, doubled. Our national debt went 
from less than $1 trillion to more than $3 trillion under Ronald 
Reagan's stewardship.
  Bill Clinton came into the White House, and with the support of the 
Democratic Party with not a single vote from the Republican side of the 
aisle, he took the actions that led to a balanced budget and produced 
the surpluses that were referred to earlier by the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Mr. Bush then came along and reversed all of that 
progress.
  So I am sorry. We can all have our own spin, but the fact is one 
cannot change history. One cannot change the record.
  I would say only one other thing. All of the talk about the past is 
beside the point. This debate tonight is about what we are going to do 
tomorrow, and that is what the Stenholm motion is all about. It says 
that regardless of what anybody has done in the past, tomorrow we are 
going to return to the kind of fiscal responsibility we have not seen 
under the Bush administration by returning to PAYGO. If they believe in 
being more responsible tomorrow than they have been up until today, 
they will vote against this resolution and they will vote for the 
Stenholm motion.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to wish everybody aloha here. 
Can we get a smile on everybody's face? Aloha. I invite everybody all 
out to Honolulu. As long as we are spending money, why not come out to 
Honolulu and enjoy it while they have the opportunity?
  Let us face it. The only reason that we are not out there right now 
is that

[[Page 24053]]

the Democrats did not take over. If I were chairing one of the 
committees, we would have an excuse to bring everybody along. We could 
have a discussion out there on the beach.
  Somebody asked me today, What are we doing down there during this 
lame duck session? I said, We are organizing our delusions. That is 
what we are doing, organizing our delusions.
  I just spoke to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and I said, 
You are engaged in a non sequitur here, the fact that you can point to 
somebody and say you did something real bad for a long time and so now 
we have an excuse to keep on doing it.
  That is not an answer. If we are going to do right by the American 
people, starting tonight, as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) 
said, it is always time to start doing the right thing. And tonight we 
ought to start by doing it by passing the Stenholm motion and acting 
responsible towards the people who sent us here.
  Aloha, Mr. Speaker. Have a wonderful holiday.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not really believe that people of our country realize the shape 
the financial balance sheet of our country is in. The budget deficit 
last year, if we stack $1 bills on top of one another, would be 41,000 
miles high. Listen to this: we are paying $5,100 a second in interest, 
$310,000 a minute. The American people will have paid $19 million in 
interest while we have been talking about this matter right now, and 
that is not including what we are borrowing.
  I tell my colleagues if we do not adopt pay-as-you-go, which simply 
says we are going to pay the bills, not borrow the money from our 
children and grandchildren, from anybody on Earth that will buy our 
paper at a relatively low rate of interest while we are here in this 
place, I tell my colleagues, I said at the outset, this is not an 
accident, Mr. Speaker. This is a willful, knowingly, deliberately 
conscious act of following an economic plan that puts us further and 
further into debt, and they will not accept a simple provision that 
says simply we ought to pay for what we are consuming. They will not 
accept that. We are going to have a motion to recommit that will ask 
for it to.
  He said we are going to get around it. We can do it tonight. We can 
start acting responsibly tonight by simply adopting pay-as-you-go. That 
is what most American families do. That is considered a virtue where I 
come from. One pays their bills, they try to behave, they go to work, 
they get up, they go to church. That is responsibility. It is not 
responsible to say I am going to buy a new house and give the mortgage 
to my son. That is not responsible.
  I tell my colleagues this is very frustrating because it is so 
abundantly clear we are mortgaging the future of this country. And what 
makes it worse is that now 43 percent of our paper is being held by 
foreign governments that do not see the world as we see it. And some 
day, I sound like a canary in a coal mine, some day, these chickens are 
going to come home to roost. When they quit buying, we are going to 
have lost control of this economy and we will have to pay whoever 
however much in order to refinance this debt. And that market is going 
to respond to what you people are doing. And it is not going to be too 
much longer, I am afraid. And when it does, it is going to be something 
that the American people are going to suffer from for a long time to 
come.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding me this time, and I commend him for his very excellent work on 
fiscal soundness for our country and in this Congress. He has so 
eloquently driven the message home that no country has ever been 
strong, prosperous, and bankrupt. I thank him for his eloquence and his 
leadership.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our distinguished ranking 
member on the Committee on Ways and Means, has been a champion for 
middle-income families in America and understands the importance of the 
fiscal soundness they have in their homes in paying their mortgages, 
their credit cards, their car payments, and the impact of a huge budget 
deficit, a huge national debt has on the lives of working families in 
America, and I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) as 
well.
  I want to reserve my highest praise for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm). This Congress has been blessed for many years by his 
distinguished service in the House of Representatives. He has been a 
champion for the American people, for the American farmer, and a leader 
for fiscal soundness in our country. He is about accountability, 
accountability in our service here. No one has been a stronger or more 
eloquent voice for that message and what it means. He has been a 
teacher to the Congress. He has changed the thinking of a political 
party by making Democrats the party of fiscal responsibility for having 
a pay-as-you-go policy where we say no more budget deficit, no more 
deficit spending.
  It has too high a cost in the personal lives of the American people. 
It has too high a cost to fiscal soundness of our country, and as 
others have indicated, there are countries that own our debt that we 
are at the mercy of should they decide not to play in those markets at 
any given time.
  So this place will simply not be the same without the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), but I hope that as a source of comfort, if that 
is the word, to him as he goes on to other great things, and I know he 
will, that he has made a tremendous difference for our country. He has 
made tremendous progress for our country. I know I speak for every 
person here when I say it has been an honor to call him colleague. I 
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. Speaker, many of us just came back from the dedication of the 
Clinton Library, where obviously we were drenched in the rain for 
several hours. But it was well worth it because we could pay tribute to 
a President who too was committed to fiscal soundness. Under the 
economic policy and the plan that was passed in this body by only 
Democratic votes, our country went on a path of fiscal soundness that 
had zero deficit in 1999. Zero deficit. Think of it. Compared to this 
year when the deficit is over $425 billion just for this year. And 
President Clinton, when he left office, he put us on a path of fiscal 
soundness and surplus of $5.6 trillion, $5.6 trillion in surplus.
  And now we are going on a path of over $3 trillion in deficit, a huge 
swing approaching $10 trillion. It is historic, the swing that has 
taken place. So no wonder we would endure the driving rain and all that 
it did to us there to thank President Clinton.
  And I might say that in attendance were also present Jimmy Carter, 
President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W. Bush. And 
both Presidents Bush spoke with great eloquence. They spoke with great 
unity for our country. It was an honor for all of us to hear their 
words and to be there with them at the dedication of the Clinton 
Library. So it was a very wonderful occasion. And I, as Democratic 
leader, want to thank President George W. Bush for giving us the planes 
to enable us to go there and to thank our distinguished Speaker for 
rolling the votes so that the Democrats and I think some of the 
Republicans could go there. Senator Frist was there, but some from the 
House were there as well.
  But just to get back to our subject here, here we come back. Is it 
not ironic that the Republicans in the campaign went out there and 
talked about their economic policy and the first order of legislative 
business when we get back here is to increase the debt ceiling? In the 
course of the President's administration now, this 4 years, it will 
have been raised $2 trillion. This is absolutely astounding in terms of 
these figures. Whatever happened to the deficit hawks? I know they are 
over there.

[[Page 24054]]

We heard from them in earlier manifestations of their legislative lives 
that they really were concerned about the fiscal soundness of our 
country. Have the deficit hawks become an endangered species?
  Be true to yourselves. Face the facts. We have to have pay-as-you-go 
again. Pay-as-you-go is what brought us into surplus. Pay-as-you-go is 
the way we have to go now. And we will have that opportunity to do that 
later.
  I am going to submit my fuller statement for the Record because the 
hour is late and because my colleagues have spoken so eloquently to 
this point. But I just want to close with a point about accountability. 
This budget that we have is supposed to be a statement of our national 
values. We have talked about that over and over again. And a value that 
we have to have is accountability, how we answer to the next generation 
for the debt that we are piling on them. We want to give our children 
opportunity. Instead, we are giving them obligations.

                              {time}  2215

  It is simply not right.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to support our motion to commit which 
will accommodate, will give the government a chance to go forward, but 
also to put a limit on this profligate increase in the debt. I hope at 
the end of the evening, though, that everyone who stands up for fiscal 
soundness will vote against this irresponsible lifting of the debt 
ceiling unless there is a responsible discipline thrust upon it of pay-
as-you-go or a plan from the President to say how he intends to reduce 
the deficit.
  With that, once again, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their exceptional 
leadership on this subject, which is a very, very important one to our 
children, that we are accountable to them, that what we hand to them is 
our responsibility and that we will never forget that.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal 
soundness, vote for pay-as-you-go, vote for a plan to reduce the 
deficit, vote for a limitation on the time that the Republicans can 
continue to pile on and pile on the debt.
  At the same time, President Clinton's responsible economic policies 
eliminated the deficit, and we had three years in a row of budget 
surpluses.
  How ironic--and how sad--that our first item of legislative business 
upon returning to Washington after election is to raise the debt 
ceiling to make room for the enormous piles of debt that President 
Bush, and this Republican Congress have run up.
  When President Bush took office, we were on a path to a $5.6 trillion 
surplus. We are now facing a $3 trillion deficit--a fiscal collapse of 
nearly $9 trillion. Record surpluses have become record deficits. The 
deficit for this year alone is $413 billion.
  Now, Republicans want to raise the debt limit for the third time in 
three years. Including this year's increase, Republicans will have 
raised the debt limit by more than $2.2 trillion since President Bush 
took office.
  What happened to the Republican deficit hawks? They have become an 
endangered species in Washington. The truth is that there really is no 
limit to the amount of debt Republicans are willing to run up.
  Republicans will tell you that these deficits are not their fault; 
that they were caused by circumstances beyond their control. But it's 
just not true.
  These deficits are the direct result of irresponsible Republican 
choices--tax cuts for the wealthy and reckless corporate handouts 
including tax breaks that encourage shipping jobs overseas.
  The Republican policy of borrow-and-spend must end. We are running up 
a bill and handing it to our children.
  We should be giving our children opportunity, not obligations, but 
America's growing debt will ensure that our children and our 
grandchildren are paying for Republican irresponsibility for the rest 
of their lives.
  Their taxes will pay for the interest on our debt instead of keeping 
our military the strongest in the world, strengthening Social Security, 
or improving education.
  Higher deficits also have real consequences for American families 
today. The federal government is by far the largest player in the 
credit markets, and when federal borrowing increases there is less 
credit available to everyone else, causing interest rates to rise.
  Higher interest rates mean consumers must spend more on their 
mortgage, credit cards, and student loan payments.
  And when it becomes more expensive to borrow money, businesses are 
less likely to make the investments that generate jobs and 
opportunities.
  Democrats have a better way. We believe in accountability in 
government. Accountability was one of the six core values in our New 
Partnership for America's Future.
  Democrats believe we must return to accountability by restoring 
fiscal discipline and eliminating deficit spending with pay-as-you-go 
budget rules in which both tax cuts and spending increases must be paid 
for.
  These rules created the surpluses under President Clinton, and can 
work again.
  Democrats tried earlier today to restore the successful pay-as-you-go 
rules, but Republicans wrongly rejected that effort. Now, because this 
issue is so critical, we offer the Republicans yet another chance to 
work together in good faith to reduce the deficit.
  Charlie Stenholm has long been one of the most passionate and 
eloquent advocates for fiscal responsibility in this Congress. And 
tonight he is giving us another opportunity to meet our moral 
responsibility to the next generation.
  By supporting his motion to instruct, we will agree to increase the 
debt ceiling until April 15 next year, at which point the President 
must present a balanced budget. This would keep the government running 
and give the President and Congress time to put forward the balanced 
budget the American people need and deserve.
  Thank you, Charlie, for all of your leadership, and for this motion. 
I urge my colleagues to support the Stenholm motion to instruct.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to close.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first, on behalf of this side of the aisle, join 
with the Minority Leader in praising the service of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm). His grandson ought to be proud of his granddad, 
his service here, both for our country here in Congress and in Texas 
where, as a fellow Texan, I can tell my colleagues I am very proud of 
his service and proud to have served with him.
  There is something else we share as well. We share a debt in this 
Nation and we share a responsibility to pay those bills. The debt we 
face tonight is shared. Eighty-eight percent of this debt occurs from 
intergovernmental transfers of before the Bush administration. This is 
debt generated over decades and decades that every Member in this House 
today had a hand in creating.
  The solution in the end, after all of the rhetoric is said and done, 
is going to be to join together for spending restraint, for abolishing 
obsolete agencies, to eliminating the billions of dollars of 
duplication, to getting a backbone to say no to projects. And, in fact, 
we have the opportunity starting in January, maybe tonight, to have a 
fresh start about working together, Republicans and Democrats, to again 
balance this budget and to start paying down that debt.
  But, in truth, the question tonight is much simpler than that. The 
question is, are we going to pay our bills? Are we going to take 
responsibility for that press release, that project, that water 
funding, that university research, all of those things that we have 
championed and ran on back home, are we going to take responsibility to 
pay those bills tonight? Or are we going to vote to go into default, to 
not meet our obligations, to stop our Social Security checks to the 
elderly or retirement checks and medicare payments?
  It is time to gather Republicans and Democrats to pay our bills, to 
look out for our seniors and to vote yes on this debt ceiling.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today thoroughly 
discouraged with the current proposal to increase the public debt limit 
by a staggering $800 billion. If this proposal is allowed to pass the 
American people will inherit a budget system that allows the federal 
deficit to grow to $8.18 trillion. This kind of economic maneuvering is 
not only dangerously foolish, it is in fact unethical. There is a 
reason why we have a federal debt limit, because incurring too much 
debt ruins our ability

[[Page 24055]]

for long-term growth, by adding an additional $800 billion to the debt 
limit we are only laughing at the idea of fiscal constraint. This 
proposal being considered by this body only continues the fiscal 
irresponsibility of the Bush administration and this Republican 
Congress.
  This administration has tried to say that deficits don't matter; we 
know that that is simply not true. History has proven that chronic 
deficits threaten our economic strength by crowding out private 
investment, driving up interest rates, and slowing economic growth. 
Indeed foreign investment in the United States has dried up because 
foreign investors have no confidence in the Bush economic agenda. This 
administration's irresponsible budget policies have turned a surplus 
into a large deficit that is choking off growth in the American 
economy.
  President Bush likes to say his budget is geared towards tax cuts for 
all Americans. When in fact the average American won't receive a 
substantial tax cut, but will instead be hit with a tax hike in the 
form of an ever-growing deficit. A large deficit means taxpayers have 
to shoulder the costs of paying the interest on this new national debt. 
The end result will be a debt tax on the great majority of Americans. 
This will be a tax on lower and middle class Americans; it will be a 
tax on the elderly and most unfortunately it will be a tax on our 
children. The truly sad part of the President's economic policies is 
that while they are bad for America today they are even worse for 
future generations of American taxpayers.
  Today, we celebrated the opening of the Bill Clinton Presidential 
Library in Little Rock, Arkansas. One of President Clinton's greatest 
achievements was the fact that he led his country through one of our 
most economically prosperous periods and furthermore he took our large 
public debt built up through 12 years of Republican administrations and 
actually turned it into a surplus. It saddens me that while that was 
one of President Clinton's greatest achievements, it will not be one of 
his most lasting due to the irresponsible and misguided fiscal policies 
of the Bush administration. Republican mismanagement has turned large 
projected surpluses of over $5.6 trillion into huge projected deficits 
of more than $3.5 trillion. The difference in only a few years is 
staggering and ultimately reckless. The large public debt could be 
significantly reduced by instituting the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) system 
that applies to tax cuts as well as mandatory spending. These PAYGO 
enforcement rules were so effective in the 1990s at reducing our 
deficit and making our way towards a surplus. Democrats in Congress 
have time after time supported the reestablishment of these effective 
rules, but it seems no one on the other side of the chamber is 
listening.
  These Republican policies will double the current debt in 10 years. 
The CBO projects that the debt subject to limit will continue to rise, 
reaching $13.272 trillion by 2014 if there is no change in current 
Republican budget policy. Accounting for the implementation of 
administration policies, such as making permanent the expiring tax 
cuts, the government will incur about $6.2 trillion in additional debt 
between now and 2014, raising the statutory debt to a projected $14.5 
trillion, nearly double the current $7.384 trillion limit. These 
figures are astounding in their size, but truly they are saddening in 
their effect. Our children will bear the burden of this fiscal 
insanity. We can raise the debt limit today with little effect, but we 
are only postponing the inevitable. At some point all accounts have to 
be paid, unfortunately by then it will be our children who will be left 
with this oversized bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to convene the 109th 
Congress, one of our top priorities should be getting our fiscal house 
in order. Unfortunately the Republican leadership is sending us in the 
wrong direction. The House voted recently to raise the debt limit by a 
total of $800 billion. The vote to raise the debt limit for a third 
time in 3 years is a direct consequence of the reckless fiscal policy 
pursued by the Republican leadership over the last few years.
  A key step to putting America back on the path to financial security 
would be re-implementing pay-as-you-go policies. The House Republican 
leadership blocked efforts to restore these rules. Using pay-as-you-go 
rules, the Clinton administration helped turn a $290 billion budget 
deficit in 1992 into budget surpluses in 1998, 1999, and 2000. As a 
result, the Clinton administration was successful in paying down $362 
billion in publicly held debt. However, in 2002, the Republican 
leadership let the pay-as-you-go rules expire and once again we are 
facing endless budget deficits and soaring national debt.
  Debt increases have serious consequences for American families. At a 
time when the House leadership is promoting more and more tax cuts that 
disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans, increased budget 
deficits create an enormous debt that will mortgage our future. While a 
few are benefiting disproportionately from certain Bush tax cuts, all 
Americans will pay the consequences through the rising ``debt tax.''
  Throughout our history, every generation of Americans has worked to 
leave our children a world that is stronger and more secure than the 
one that was left to us. That is our legacy and it should also be our 
commitment. It is simply wrong to run up a debt on our national credit 
card and leave our children to pay the bill. We must take personal 
responsibility to return our Nation to fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again engaging in fiscal 
irresponsibility and endangering the American economy by raising the 
debt ceiling, this time by $800 billion. One particularly troubling 
aspect of today's debate is how many Members who won their seats in 
part by pledging never to raise taxes will vote for this tax increase 
on future generations without so much as a second thought.
  The term ``national debt'' really is a misnomer. It is not the 
Nation's debt. Instead, it is the Federal Government's debt. The 
American people did not spend the money, but they will have to pay it 
back.
  Most Americans do not spend much time worrying about the national 
debt, which now totals more than $8 trillion. The number is so 
staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak 
warnings about how much every American owes--currently about $25,000. 
Of course, Congress never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount. 
Instead, the Federal Government uses the people's hard-earned money to 
pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a 
credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is 
rising steadily.
  The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each 
year than the IRS collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes 
up, but revenues are not so dependable, especially since raising income 
taxes to sufficiently fund the government would be highly unpopular. So 
long as Congress spends more than the government takes via taxes, the 
Federal Government must raise taxes, print more dollars, or borrow 
money.
  Over the past 3 years, we have witnessed an unprecedented explosion 
in federal spending. The national debt has actually increased an 
average of $160 billion a day since September 30, 2003.
  Federal law limits the total amount of debt the Treasury can carry. 
Despite a historic increase in the debt limit in 2002 and another 
increase in 2003, the current limit of $7.38 trillion was reached last 
month. So Congress must once again vote to raise the limit. Hard as it 
may be for the American people to believe, many experts expect 
government spending will exceed this new limit next year.
  Increasing the national debt sends a signal to investors that the 
government is not serious about reining in spending. This increases the 
risks that investors will be reluctant to buy government debt 
instruments. The effects on the American economy could be devastating. 
The only reason why we have been able to endure such large deficits 
without skyrocketing interest rates is the willingness of foreign 
nations to buy the Federal Government's debt instruments. However, the 
recent fall in the value of the dollar and rise in the price of gold 
indicate that investors may be unwilling to continue to prop up our 
debt-ridden economy. Furthermore, increasing the national debt will 
provide more incentive for foreign investors to stop buying federal 
debt instruments at the current interest rates. Mr. Speaker, what will 
happen to our already fragile economy if the Federal Reserve must raise 
interest rates to levels unseen since the seventies to persuade 
foreigners to buy government debt interests?
  The whole point of the debt ceiling law was to limit borrowing by 
forcing Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote 
when it wants to borrow more than a preset amount of money. Yet, since 
there have been no political consequences for Members who vote to raise 
the debt limit and support the outrageous spending bills in the first 
place, the debt limit has become merely another technicality on the 
road to bankruptcy.
  The only way to control federal spending is to take away the 
government's credit card, which will force Congress to control federal 
spending. Therefore, I call upon my colleagues to reject S. 2986 and, 
instead, to reduce government spending. It is time Congress forces the 
Federal Government to live within its constitutional means. Congress 
should end the immoral practice of excessive spending and passing the 
bill to the next generation.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.'' Congress

[[Page 24056]]

and this administration simply must end the reckless and irresponsible 
budget path we are currently on.
  Early next year, my wife Faye and I expect to become grandparents for 
the first time. While this is an exciting time for our family, I 
shudder to think that our Nation's legacy to that child is going to be 
the largest national debt ever bequeathed to a generation in this 
country's history. That is wrong. It is immoral. It violates to the 
core our most basic values of responsibility to one another.
  The current administration and the Republican leadership has run up a 
massive national debt of $7.4 trillion and growing with no end in 
sight. Each newborn child now inherits $85,000 in debt. This so-called 
``baby tax'' is wrong and is building inflation into our economy that 
poses catastrophic danger to our Nation's economic prosperity.
  America must return to the values of balanced budgets and put our 
fiscal house in order. As someone who hails from a conservative state, 
I fail to see what at all is conservative about refusing to pay one's 
bills.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress must reject this legislation and return to 
policies of budget sanity and economic growth so that every individual 
willing to work hard can make the most of his or her God-given 
abilities and live the American dream.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we need to raise the debt 
limit this week. I vote against S. 2986 not for the purpose of causing 
the United States to default, but rather for the purpose of forcing a 
serious debate on fiscal policy.
  I am confident that if this motion were to be defeated, Congress 
would in effect go into emergency session to deal with the fiscal 
issues that are before us.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose increasing the debt 
limit without putting in place any plans or mechanisms to bring our 
budget into balance.
  ``Increasing the debt ceiling'' is a technical term for what Congress 
is actually doing today--we've spent another $800 billion we didn't 
have, and now we're forced to borrow that amount of money from our 
children. The national debt, already $7.4 trillion, will soon rise to 
more than $8.1 trillion because of the irresponsible borrowing and 
spending of the Republican Congress.
  Today marks the third time in the last 3 years that the Republican 
Congress has been forced to raise the debt ceiling. It's the moral 
equivalent of applying for a credit card in your child's name, running 
it up all the way, raising the credit limit, charging more money on it, 
raising the limit again, charging even more money, and raising the 
limit one more time. Only Congress is doing it on a much larger scale.
  It's a fact that the biggest cause of the red ink is tax cuts--tax 
cuts that went overwhelmingly to the highest income brackets and failed 
to create jobs. The second biggest cause is the Republican Congress's 
addiction to unrestrained spending.
  Ten years ago, the Republican Party took power in Congress promising 
to restore fiscal responsibility and balance the budget. I was proud to 
work with President Clinton and my Republican colleagues to achieve a 
historic balanced budget agreement in 1997.
  In the 1990s, working under PAYGO budget constraints, we balanced the 
budget, lowered interest rates, grew the economy, and charted a course 
to a debt-free America. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget 
Office estimated that we'd be able to pay off the entire debt of the 
United States by 2011.
  But over the last 4 years, Congress has veered onto a different 
course; $5.6 trillion in projected surpluses have turned into $5 
trillion in projected deficits. The dream of a debt-free America has 
vanished--today, about 40 percent of our mounting debt is in foreign 
hands. That is the legacy of this Republican Congress--giveaways to 
special interests, tax cuts for the very wealthy, historic levels of 
borrowing, all leading to a diminished future for our children.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Stenholm amendment to restore 
fiscal and moral responsibility to Congress and oppose another yet 
increase the debt limit.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to S. 2986, a bill that will increase the debt limit of the 
U.S. Federal Budget from $7.4 trillion to $8.2 trillion.
  Why am I voting against this bill? I am following a basic rule that 
families in my district, and throughout the country follow--don't spend 
money you don't have.
  When my constituents sit down and look at their credit card bills, 
they don't say, ``Oh look, I'm in debt. I guess I better spend more.'' 
No, they think about where they can save money, in big and small ways. 
And they prioritize. And maybe, if there is something that they really 
need, they decide to work a little overtime next to add some more money 
to the balance.
  That is exactly how government needs to function. Government needs to 
exercise fiscal responsibility. Government needs to spend within its 
means, or raise more money to finance unmet needs.
  The Republican majority, unfortunately, does not seem to understand 
this basic principle. It increases federal spending--more than any 
other government in recent history--and it simultaneously cuts taxes. 
They want to have their cake and eat it too.
  It is the time for the majority to start practicing what they preach 
about fiscal discipline. It needs to keep an eye on both the spending 
and revenue columns in the ledger. It needs to prioritize and 
economize, particularly in the areas where we are spending the most.
  Let's be realistic. Families can't balance their budgets by spending 
dollars and saving pennies, they need to make real economies.
  Similarly, we can't balance the budget on the back of domestic 
spending. Comparatively speaking, domestic spending makes up an 
insignificant part of our budget. If Congress really wants to balance 
the budget, it is going to have to look at entitlements, interest on 
debt, defense spending, and we're going to have to think twice about 
projected tax reductions.
  The future fiscal health of the United States is in our hands. I urge 
my colleagues to be more responsible with the money of the taxpayers of 
this country. There are no more excuses.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the third time since President 
Bush took office, Republicans will increase the federal debt limit. 
This year, Republicans will increase the debt limit by $800 billion. 
This would allow borrowing to reach $8.2 trillion--$8.2 trillion. Where 
has the fiscal responsibility gone?
  This year the deficit will hit a record $412 billion. Over the last 4 
years the federal debt has ballooned by $1.4 trillion. Because there 
appears to be no end in sight to the annual budget deficits, the new 
debt ceiling will probably have to be raised again next year.
  One would think that faced with this huge debt problem our friends on 
the other side of the aisle would want to reinstate ``pay-as-you-go'' 
rules as we, Democrats, have been advocating. But, unbeknownst to me 
and the American public--who are paying attention because they are the 
ones carrying this heavy debt burden--Republicans refuse to adopt 
``pay-go'' rules.
  These are the same ``pay-go'' rules that played a key role in 
balancing the budget in the 1990s under the Clinton administration. The 
Republicans' refusal to adopt ``pay-go'' does not make any sense.
  f we have to increase the debt limit, then we should do so along with 
fiscally responsible ``pay-go'' rules that would stop Republicans from 
putting Americans deeper and deeper into debt. It is hard-working 
American people that are the victims of this growing, out of control 
debt. An average American family of four bears a debt burden of about 
$100,000--$100,000.
  Something has to be done. At some point we will have to stop these 
massive increases in the federal debt. At some point we will have to 
make room to adequately fund our children's education, our brave 
troops, Social Security.
  Republicans do not seem to understand that the larger our federal 
debt becomes, the less room there is to fund these important programs. 
This body should bear that in mind as we vote tonight.
  The American people are watching.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 2986, a bill 
that increases the federal debt limit by $814 billion while doing 
nothing to ensure a return to fiscally responsible economic policy. If 
we continue to spend at the current rate while giving tax cuts to the 
wealthiest Americans, our national debt will top $8 trillion in the 
very near future.
  Just weeks ago, President Bush and many Republican candidates across 
the country were campaigning on a platform of fiscal responsibility and 
cutting the deficit in half during the next 4 years. Now that they've 
won the campaign, that rhetoric is gone and their actions today--
increasing the debt limit for the third time in 4 years--certainly 
don't meet their election promises.
  We could have had a real debate today about re-implementing the pay-
as-you-go rules that led to historic surpluses at the end of the 
Clinton administration. That would be a real move toward fiscal 
responsibility. Instead, Republicans are giving themselves the freedom 
to further reduce tax revenue while funding an ill-conceived war in 
Iraq, and claiming they just can't afford to pay for the government 
programs vital to this country's health and well-being.
  Republicans will, however, continue to run up huge deficits while 
lowering taxes, especially for corporations and individuals making

[[Page 24057]]

over $200,000 a year. Unfortunately, they don't want to pay for the 
loss of revenue caused by these tax-cutting measures. That means less 
money to spend on everything from education to Medicare.
  Increasing the debt limit is a statutory necessity to keep the 
government running, but it is also a sad commentary on the fiscal 
stewardship shown to the American people by this administration and the 
Republican leadership in Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 856, the bill is considered read for 
amendment, and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
third time.


                Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Stenholm

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I most certainly am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Mr. Stenholm moves to commit the bill S. 2986 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions that the 
     Committee report the same back to the House forthwith with 
     the following amendment:
        Add at the end of section 1 of the bill the following new 
     sentence: ``The amendment made by this section shall not 
     apply after April 15, 2005.''.

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking our leader, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and I thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) 
for their kind remarks about me.
  I want to say it is with a little bit of mixed emotion tonight that I 
address this body for the last time. I guess it kind of came to me in a 
real way just a moment ago when my grandson, who is sitting beside me, 
asked me a moment ago, ``What are you going to be doing?'' I said, ``I 
am going to offer a motion.'' ``Are you going to win this one?'' I said 
``No, we are not.'' And he said, ``Why?''
  Well, that is a question that a 9-year-old would ask. It is also a 
question a lot of 50- and 60-year-olds ought to be asking. Why is it 
those of us on this side who used to vote with my colleagues on that 
side on fiscal restraint have been losing every single vote for the 
last 4 years? What is it that has changed?
  I listened to some of the rhetoric tonight, and I want to say with 
great respect tonight I recognize the right to have disagreements on 
this floor. It is so important that we do and that we do it without 
being disagreeable. But for the life of me I cannot understand how the 
majority can march in lockstep on this side and build up the largest 
fiscal deficits in the history of our country and explain it away in 
saying deficits really do not matter anymore.
  Now, I know so many of my colleagues so well, and I appreciate 
everyone in this body. But when you come up to me privately and say, 
Charlie, you are right, but I cannot vote with you, I ask the simple 
question, why?
  Now, I understand there has been an election and I understand you 
won, and I commend you for winning. But that also means you now have 
the responsibility of your actions.
  It was amazing to me that some tonight tried to continue to blame it 
on Democrat spending. They know better than that. The minority cannot 
spend. Yes, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), we can take 
credit for some things within the budget because we are not for zero 
spending.
  I tried to offer an amendment to this bill to say pay-as-you-go, 
which worked, bipartisanly. It worked. Why did my colleagues choose to 
knock it out in 2002 and say we are not going to have pay-as-you-go 
anymore? Why do you insist on that when you know in your heart that it 
works? We tried to do this in the rule today, but we lost, because you 
said, no, we are going to increase the debt ceiling by $800 billion. So 
I assume that means you are going to continue with the same policies 
that you have been carrying for the last 4 years.
  Here I will say I hope and I pray you are right. Our country will do 
better if you are right. But you should be getting a little bit nervous 
tonight because, ultimately, politics and arguments across this side of 
the aisle in which you are going to in fact have 100 percent party 
loyalty is not going to cut it. The market is going to ultimately 
determine whether our fiscal policies for our Nation are correct or 
incorrect. You know that and I know that, and you should be getting 
nervous, as I am getting nervous.
  The Japanese, for the first time since 2002, did not buy the amount 
of debt that they had previously been buying. You should be a little 
bit worried about the Chinese beginning to become our bankers at the 
rate that they are becoming our bankers. That should bother you a 
little, but it does not seem to.
  Now, I hope you are right. Because for the good of the country, 
continuing down the economic path you are insisting on going down, in 
my judgment, is going to create a major problem. But that helped me 
lose an election, because the people in my district agree with you and, 
therefore, I respect the people of my district, and I hope and pray you 
are right.
  But, tonight, let me conclude by saying this: Yes, I have one of 
Cindy's and my three grandchildren on the floor. And a lot of people 
have asked why I have been so involved in Social Security. I wish we 
had spent a part of the last 4 years dealing with the future of Social 
Security, because everyone in this room knows that we are 4 years 
closer to D-Day on Social Security, but we have done nothing on that. 
We tried. That got me opposition from my opponent in this race. But we 
are going to have to face up to it. You are.
  Well, our grandchildren do not have a vote tonight. And to those of 
you who believe we can fight two wars, win the war on homeland security 
and do it with continued borrowed money and believe that our country is 
going to profit, then vote against the motion to commit. It is pretty 
simple. All we are saying tonight is, increase the debt ceiling until 
next April 15 and give the new Congress a chance to go in and reexamine 
the economic policy that we are following and, as many of you have 
said, you like pay-as-you-go. All we are saying with this motion to 
commit is, let us do it in the new Congress. That is all we are saying.
  You have already said you did not want pay-as-you-go, but you said 
you might want it next year. All we are saying is, reduce the amount we 
can borrow and force bipartisan cooperation. Allow the Democratic Party 
and those on this side who believe, as many of you say you do, allow us 
the chance in the next Congress to do it.
  That is what this motion to commit is all about tonight. It is 
increasing the debt ceiling just enough to get to April 15 so the 109th 
Congress can do everything that both sides are saying need to be done.
  Please vote for the motion to commit.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I agree with much of what 
our distinguished friend from Texas has said; and, again, he has been a 
long champion of balancing the budget and reducing this deficit. And he 
is so right, and we all agree: Deficits do matter. They mattered before 
we got here. They will always matter.
  But jobs matter, too. Jobs matter, too. We did not ask for the 
attacks of 9/11 that not only struck the heart of our Nation, they 
struck two million American workers from the payroll. We did not ask 
for the recession. It was inherited. And we did not ask for the Enrons 
and the WorldComs and the technology bubble that not only cost so many 
workers their jobs but really damaged, I think, everyone's hopes for 
retirement in the future.
  How we respond to that challenge, there was a difference, a respected 
difference. My colleagues on the Democratic side felt that if we kept 
the money here, if we spend and target different ways, that would move 
us out of

[[Page 24058]]

the economy, and that is a fair position.
  As Republicans, we felt otherwise. We thought if you want to create 
jobs in small business, leave the money in small business. If you want 
to create jobs on Main Street, leave the money on Main Street. If we 
want families to be able to recover and to make ends meet, let them 
keep more of the hard-earned money that they in the past have sent to 
Washington where, unfortunately, we have squandered with so many I 
think obsolete agencies and duplicative programs we would all agree 
with.
  But the fact of the matter is leaving the money at home worked. We 
are creating more jobs, and we need to do more. I think, ultimately, 
after tonight is over, that is the solution we can agree on: continuing 
to grow this economy so more people work and they pay taxes and Social 
Security and Medicare, and then together, working together, identifying 
all of the wasteful spending, getting the backbone on spending, saying 
no when it would be easier to say yes, maybe doing without, with one 
less press release on that project back home, all of which, by the way, 
we have a responsibility today to pay for those bills and these 
spending projects.

                              {time}  2230

  This motion has nothing to do with PAYGO. And I would respectfully 
say PAYGO as I have seen it really means higher taxes, unfortunately 
higher spending, and unfortunately fewer jobs. I just respectfully 
disagree on that. But the fact of the matter is if we keep the economy 
going, if we will work together on spending restraint, I know that we 
can balance the budget. I know we can pay down the deficit. But tonight 
we have a responsibility to pay our bills, to meet our obligations, to 
keep the checks going to our Social Security recipients, for our 
military retirees.
  I would respectfully urge this Chamber to vote ``no'' on commit.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). 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. TANNER. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 213, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 535]

                               YEAS--194

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ackerman
     Cannon
     Carson (OK)
     Dooley (CA)
     Dunn
     Feeney
     Gephardt
     Hoeffel
     Kleczka
     Lipinski
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Musgrave
     Norwood
     Quinn
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Toomey
     Weller


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  2254

  Mr. OTTER, Mr. NUNES, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. THOMAS and Mr. CHABOT 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. OWENS, Mr. STRICKLAND and Mrs. LOWEY 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 passage of the Senate 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 24059]]




                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 204, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 536]

                               AYES--208

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--204

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ackerman
     Cannon
     Carson (OK)
     Dooley (CA)
     Dunn
     Feeney
     Gephardt
     Hoeffel
     Kleczka
     Lipinski
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Musgrave
     Norwood
     Quinn
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Toomey
     Weller


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2311

  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.

                          ____________________