[Pages H4154-H4166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INCREASING PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

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

S. 2578

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
462, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

[[Page H4155]]

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

{time} 1845

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
A lot of strange things are happening on the Republican watch as the
Committee on Ways and Means loses all of its jurisdiction. I was just
about to blame the Republican leadership; and, lo and behold, it is the
Senate that is responsible. Every time I get ready to be critical of
the Republican leadership for bypassing the House rules, by creating
rules to pass legislation, I hear my distinguished and talented and
intellectual chairman say, ``This is not unprecedented. This is just
the first time it is happening because what is unprecedented is what
the other body is doing. Shame on the other body.''
Let me tell you this. We are the keepers of the tradition of the
House, and these rules are being violated each and every day. Who would
think at a time of war when our Nation is still in recession, where we
are trying to bring our wounds together, where we recognize that, sure,
we lost 5 or $6 trillion in the surplus, it was not the Republicans'
fault, it was because the economy let us down. But now that we are
asked to increase the debt ceiling, we are no longer Republicans and
Democrats, we are Americans, and we are going to say, yes, let's do it.
Why? Because Republicans are trustworthy? Of course we cannot say
that. Because we come together when the full faith and credit of the
United States is at stake. When that flag goes up, then we have no
choice except to increase the debt ceiling. It is just the same as
finding out at home that when you find out that your credit has run
out, you can start pointing fingers, but if you need an extension or
the mortgage is going to be foreclosed, then you have to get the
extension.
All we want to know is, what did you do with the money? How are you
going to spend the additional money that you are going to borrow? And
if the Senate is so irresponsible, why did the House not act sooner?
Why did the Committee on Ways and Means not come together in a
bipartisan way and bring something to the floor?
Mr. Speaker, the Senate may have a lot of things that they are doing
in an unprecedented way, and they should be subject perhaps to a lot of
criticism. But the inadequacy of the House leadership and the fact that
my historically prestigious committee is losing jurisdiction each and
every day under Republican leadership, let us not blame that on the
Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am trying to understand how the Committee on Ways and Means is
losing jurisdiction when the chairman of the committee and the ranking
member are debating a bill brought to us by a rule which allows no
amendments, exactly the way in which legislation coming from the
Committee on Ways and Means is always dealt with.
I think if you have really followed this debate over time, you will
understand the dynamics of the debate. If we do not do it, we get
criticized. If we do do it, we get criticized. If in fact the measure
before us, which originated in the Senate and is the work product of
the Senate leadership and the gentleman from New York finds the
Senate's language and structure unacceptable, then his problem is with
the leadership of the Senate, not of the leadership of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a senior member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I always am impressed by the chairman of
the committee's use of words. He said that we are out here because of
the exigencies of circumstances. What he means is, we made a mess and
we got to fix it. It is a mess that did not have to happen.
Mr. Speaker, I refer to an op-ed of Sunday, February 11, 2001, by
Robert Rubin that is called A Prosperity Easy to Destroy. It says in
short:

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

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

A Prosperity Easy To Destroy

(By Robert E. Rubin)

I had not intended to get involved in the public debate on
fiscal policy at this point, but I feel so strongly that a
tax cut of the magnitude proposed is a serious error in
economic policy that I felt a need to speak.
The proposed tax cut of roughly $2 trillion--$1.6 trillion
of tax cuts plus $400 billion of interest on debt that would
otherwise have been retired--would substantially diminish the
fiscal position of the federal government, and would create a
serious threat

[[Page H4156]]

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), one of the outstanding Members of the House.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to make it very clear that this side of the aisle has been
in favor of raising the debt ceiling clean since at least March. We
have made repeated offers. What we are not in favor of doing is
increasing the debt ceiling with a blank check to continue to borrow
money without changing our economic game plan.
I join with Chairman Thomas in his opening remarks because it is in
the same spirit that he referenced back to 1946 that we attempted to
have an offer of an amendment today to lower the amount of debt ceiling
from $450 billion to a $150 billion increase. That is exactly the same
spirit in which was done in 1946. We asked for that to be made in
order, but the rule once again denied the minority an opportunity to
have a clean up and down vote on an alternative.
I do not understand why we continue to have the inability to have
debate on issues as important as the debt ceiling is. I hope no one
makes the argument that we are here as obstructionists. We are here
today positively saying we will offer in the motion to commit--
recommit, commit, whatever the new terminology is--this bill back to
the Committee on Ways and Means with an instant recall at $150 billion
so that we might have another look at the budget prior to the end of
this fiscal year when CBO re-estimates.
It is fiscally irresponsible for this group, this House, to stand on
this floor and increase by $450 billion without revisiting the economic
game plan that we are under. Take a look at State after State after
State in which governors are having to make tough decisions. Here we
are no longer tax and spend, we are borrow and spend. That is exactly
what this resolution will do. Those who vote for it today will be
voting to borrow and spend another $450 billion with the exact same
economic game plan that has gotten us into the problem that we are in
today.
I do not understand this. I do not understand why, once again, the
chairman comes on, and no one comes over and debates.
Where is the debate?
Mr. RANGEL. Where is the debate? Well, I guess it is all on the
outside. I can understand the problem.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Democrats will vote to raise the debt ceiling
when there is a plan to reverse fiscal irresponsibility. There is no
plan. The fiscal irresponsibility began right here in this U.S. House
of Representatives under your majority, and now you try to shift the
blame to the Senate, trying

[[Page H4157]]

to obscure the fact that the irresponsibility commenced right here.
We told you that the sheer size of the tax cut made all of your plan
a risky gamble. We warned you the projections of future budget
surpluses were not written in stone. As it turned out, they were
written in sand, in substantial part because of your policies.
We have gone from surpluses as far as the eye could see to deficits
as far as the eye can see. You are diverting Social Security and
Medicare to pay for your tax cuts and other irresponsible programs. The
majority has compounded its irresponsibility, as I have said, by
tonight saying raise the debt ceiling without any plan to stem the red
ink in this budget. It is another $450 billion that will come where?
From Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. You have no plan. All
you are trying to do is to shift the blame.
This Congress is obliged to raise the debt ceiling, we are obliged to
pay our debts, but we should not just write a blank check, which is
what you want. We need a plan to stop this raid on Social Security and
Medicare.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, to vote
``no'' until you become fiscally responsible with the funds of our
fellow and sister citizens.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
They wanted to know where is the debate? I am trying to figure out
what it is that I am supposed to debate. The gentleman from Michigan
comes on the floor and says Democrats will vote to increase the debt
limit. The measure in front of us is to increase the debt limit. But
the gentleman then said he asked his colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
resolution.
Which position are you supposed to debate? Yes or no? I find it
interesting that if they knew last year prior to September 11 that we
were going to have all of those problems associated with the tragedy
around the 11th and the consequent commitment by this President to
carry the war to the terrorists and they were prescient enough to know
that the country was going to face that situation, gee, I wish they
would have let us know that was going to happen. We could have taken
some procedures and some steps that would have certainly been far more
humane than what occurred.
I find that people who are more than willing to use hindsight as the
reason for taking a position rather interesting when shortly they will
also urge their colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Medicare package. Only
this time their argument is going to be that we do not spend enough. We
are only going to spend $350 billion.
The beauty of the Democrats' ability to debate is they are masters at
compartmentalizing. Right now it is, ``You spendthrifts, we have to
raise the debt limit.'' Several hours from now it will be, ``You
cheapskates, you are not willing to spend enough to help the seniors.''
And they say, why are you not willing to debate? I am trying to
figure out which Democrat I am supposed to debate. The one that is
complaining the Republicans are spendthrifts and we have to raise the
debt limit? Or the one who is saying, you are cheapskates, you are not
willing to spend enough, $800 billion, to help seniors.
I guess the problem I have is that the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) in characterizing a Member several days ago puts me in
exactly that dilemma.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time and yield the control of
the time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
gentleman from Texas will control the time for the majority.
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished leader. We were
calling for debate. We did not know you were going to bring out the
leader. We want to hear what he has to say about this since the
chairman of Committee on Ways and Means is confused.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time.
I am a farmer. I think, just for the sake of being honest and not
hoodwinking the American people, maybe we should get this, if you will,
discussion out of the hay mound and down on the barn floor where we can
chew it up seriously.

{time} 1900

The fact is, maybe I would make an analogy that my family that I love
went out and spend more money than they should and now the question is,
do we pay that credit card bill? So, reluctantly, probably as one of
the most fiscal Members of this Congress, I say, look, we have to pay
our bills.
The problem has been on that spending. Let me give my colleagues an
example. If we held the line on spending since President Clinton came
into office in 1994 we would not have this problem today. That is not
just Democrat control; it is the Republican control. There is an
overzealousness to spend, and that is what we have been doing.
Let me give my colleagues this example. In 1998, we passed and
executed a plan designed to balance the budget by 2002. That is what we
promised in 1998. That budget projected fiscal 2002, this year's
revenues, at just under $1.89 trillion. Actual revenues, even after the
tax cut, were way in excess of that, according to CBO, and now are
expected to come in over $2 trillion, or more than 5 percent above the
projection. However, it was spending. Our projection in 1998 for
outlays were under $1.89 trillion and are now expected to be $110
billion higher than we projected. It should be clear that it is
spending.
Now, this tough question: I do not want to vote to increase the debt
ceiling without some kind of a plan like every family has, like every
business has, to say, look, we are going to borrow a little more, but
we are going to have to pay it back sometime. How are we going to
eventually pay it back so that we do not leave this mortgage to our
kids?
Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the $35 billion in increased
defense expenditures and $6 billion expanded homeland are part of the
problem. We have to deal with that national security problem. Let us
pass this debt ceiling, but, likewise, let us move ahead and have a
plan of how we are going to repay this debt so that we do not leave it
to our kids.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. All we need is a
plan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is precisely on target with
his comments. During the 1990s, we understood the need to balance the
budget. What was the result? It created the greatest period of economic
growth in the history of the Nation. The chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means says, hindsight, it is easy. It is foresight that we
undertook in the 1990s. We prepared for the rainy day; that was the
whole notion: a national disaster, international conflict, a downturn
in the economy.
That is why we do not understand a reckless $2 trillion tax cut. We
should have been focused on the items that we might not have been able
to control in the near or far future.
Unemployment has gone from 4 percent to 6 percent, the budget deficit
is at $250 billion, and a Wall Street analyst said yesterday, the
economy and the markets right now are in the midst of a full-blown
corporate governance shock. Stock market numbers are down, the value of
the dollar has dropped considerably, retail sales have dropped along
with consumer confidence, and we continue right down this road.
Now here is the point that I find most focused tonight and the one
that I think troubles me perhaps far more than anything else. There
were Members on the other side of this body who were going to impeach
Secretary Rubin, going to impeach him. Actually, the Committee on
Financial Services in this House held hearings on impeaching Bob Rubin
because of the debt ceiling question. They would not vote to raise that
debt ceiling under any circumstances.
Tonight, the argument is, well, if we had better hindsight, it would
be much

[[Page H4158]]

easier for us to undertake these sorts of initiatives.
The point that we have reached is because of the tax cut, and we have
to focus on that issue, and we have to understand it and keep it in
perspective. At the same time that we discuss this, American companies
are allowed to sneak out of this Nation in a time of war in the dark of
night to Bermuda to escape what they contend to be corporate taxes.
Mr. Speaker, $48 billion more, $38 billion more for homeland
security. The chairman was mistaken. The problem is not hindsight; the
problem is vision and foresight.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that I am hearing talk over here
about where is the Republican plan to get out of the predicament that
we are in. The obvious question is, where is the Democrat plan? Where
has it been? Where is the budget?
I sit on the Committee on the Budget. The Democrats did not have a
budget in committee, they did not have a budget on this House Floor,
and they have the nerve to come down here and say, where is our plan?
We put a budget together. We put a budget on this floor. We passed it
on this floor. We have a plan. They may disagree with it, but they did
not have the courage to put a budget on the floor and have an honest
debate about it and have an honest vote about it.
Let me tell my colleagues what the plan would look like if we had
one. It would be all about more spending, and they know that. I know
they do not like tax cuts, but what they wanted to do with that money
is they wanted to spend it. I have not been here all that long, this is
only my fourth year, but each and every single time that we have had an
appropriation bill on this floor, if we did not all agree, and on many
we do, but when we did not agree, what was the objection on their side?
It was always that it does not spend enough.
Well, let me tell my colleagues, we cannot spend our way into a
deficit unless we are spending too much. And the Democrat plan, that I
must infer, since they will not put one on the table, can only be that
they want to spend even more money.
The Democrats also know for a fact that the big problem that we face
is the result of an economic slowdown and a war that we are engaged in.
The fact is, if it had not been for the tax cut that we passed last
year, I do not know what kind of condition this economy would be in,
but it would clearly be in much worse shape than it is in now.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I did not want to embarrass them by saying
we told you so, but since he asked for it, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on the Budget, to tell them what our plan was.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, just 18 short months ago, OMB and Treasury
both told us that there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling for
at least 7 years, not until 2008. OMB told us that they foresaw
surpluses coming that would total $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years.
A year later, when OMB sent up its budget, the budget that we are now
working upon, it contained a simple pie chart. Look at page S-415.
According to OMB's own pie chart, 40 percent of the surplus was a
massive miscalculation. It did not take sufficient account of the
economy; it technically was deficient. Seventeen percent of the surplus
was wiped out by spending increases, much of it for defense, and 43
percent, 43 percent of the projected $5.6 billion surplus, according to
OMB's calculation, had been wiped out by the tax cuts, or would be
wiped out by the tax cuts enacted last June.
Mr. Speaker, this is the chart, this is the line on this chart right
here, this blue line at the bottom, that we would have followed had we
followed the budget resolution that we proposed, had we not taken the
proposal that the Republicans made and that the President made. This,
instead, is the chart that, the line that we are on, the red chart,
that is additional debt. That is the bottom line.
This is a bar chart that shows us where we might have been with the
publicly-held debt. We could have retired all of the publicly-held debt
if we had husbanded our resources and earnestly tried to do it. We had
that opportunity. We would have actually paid off most of the publicly-
held debt; and, instead, we are going to accumulate $2.8 trillion in
additional debt because of the budget that we adopted 2 years ago and
still now are implementing.
That is why we find ourselves tonight in June, 2002, not June, 2008,
but June, 2002, raising the debt ceiling by $450 billion. Many of us
Democrats will not support this bill before us because last year in
2001 we proposed a budget.
Speaking of compartmentalizing, we had a budget. We proposed a
framework for the budget, and we proposed to set aside in our
resolution one-third of the surplus to be used for debt retirement
until we had finally reached some agreement for making Social Security/
Medicare solvent far into the future. We wanted to commit that extra
third of the surplus for that purpose, and our Republican colleagues
roundly rejected the idea. They passed a massive tax cut that left no
room for error, and that is why we are here tonight slipping through in
the space of 1 hour a $450 billion increase in the debt.
We believe that the Government has to meet its obligation, but we do
not want to make the Treasury play games with our trust funds. Many of
us on this side will vote for a debt increase of $150 billion. This
allows us to meet our obligations to our creditors and at the same time
meet our obligations to our children, passing a budget that gets us
back in balance.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, there is nobody in the House of Representatives with
more integrity when it comes to numbers on the budget than the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I commend him for what
he just said. Except there are a couple of things that he may have
forgotten to mention and a couple of rest of the stories.
First of all, it is true that the Democrats last year introduced a
budget plan. Of course, they did not have a majority. They could not
even get a majority of their own caucus to support the plan, but, yes,
some of them did have a plan. If that plan would have been adopted, not
only would we be into Social Security this year but we would also be
standing here on the floor today knocking up against the debt ceiling.
So you can say you had a plan and you can say that maybe your surplus
projections may have been a little bit better, but do not tell us that
you were not into Social Security and do not tell us that you were not
knocking up against the debt ceiling.
That is last year. Now let us talk about this year. There is no
minority plan. There were a couple of members of the Blue Dog Caucus
that came forward with our budget with a trigger. So they took our
plan, and there is a plan called the House Budget, which we passed in
the House and which we have now deemed and which the President has
accepted and which we are operating under and which we passed two
appropriation bills today and which we will also pass a prescription
drug bill later, that is operating in the House of Representatives and
is operating for this Federal Government.
We have a plan. There is a challenge with regard to the plan, and I
wish you would direct your attention to the other body which has
nothing, no budget, no plan, no ideas on what to do. Yes, they rushed
through a debt ceiling increase and put it over here and we will deal
with it today, but when we talk about plans, you do have to at least
smile a little bit, and I do see a few of you smiling, that you do not
have a plan, and that is when we are talking about plans, the plan that
is not there.
But there are a few Members with integrity who are coming to the
floor today and putting forward ideas, their ideas for increased
spending. There is going to be a prescription drug benefit

[[Page H4159]]

that is going to come forward from the Democrats a little bit later. It
will be, and I think my colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means
said earlier it was going to be somewhere in the $600 billion range.
Folks, we are getting it scored; and my guess is it could be over a
trillion dollars of new mandatory spending.
Oh, but do not worry about that. Let us compartmentalize that.
Because we are going to deal with the Republicans and the debt ceiling
today, even though we do not have a plan.
And then other thing that many Members with integrity come forward
with, they say, you know what, that tax cut that we passed last year
was too much, it was way too much, and so let us not do anything about
that either except maybe roll it back. That is called a tax increase.
So the plan is foggy, but we are starting to see what the minority
side is starting to come up with. It is called higher taxes and more
spending, higher taxes and more spending. Now tell me how that plan
does not knock up against the debt ceiling?
So I understand you can come to the floor today, and part of not
governing means that you do not have to make a choice and you do not
have to make a plan and that is fine. You get to have that luxury. But
let us just recall history. For 40 years, this trillions of dollars
that have been added to the debt were added to the debt by a
Democratic-controlled Congress.

{time} 1915

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

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. STENHOLM. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that by unanimous
consent this body may do almost anything if we all agree, all 435.
The debate has been that we have no plan. The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) offers a plan by unanimous consent. This seems to
be or would be in order, unless there is objection from the other side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are certain unanimous consent requests
that require clearance from both sides of the aisle. Among those are a
request for consideration of nongermane amendments to bills, which this
would be.
Mr. STENHOLM. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. STENHOLM. Again, from the rules that the Chair is reading, this
is what I thought I was interpreting, that by unanimous consent we may
adjust a rule, if there is no objection from the other side. I hear no
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. These are the Speaker's announced and
published guidelines for recognition of unanimous consent requests. The
Chair will not recognize those unanimous consent requests that have not
been cleared by both sides.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I now inquire of the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget if he would, by unanimous consent, agree, so
that we might clear up the problems that the Speaker is having with
this, what I consider to be, very fair request.
I have heard objection.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was smiling, as the gentleman recorded, because I had
not seen the chairman of the Committee on the Budget since we lost the
$4 trillion. Welcome back.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we are debating tonight this bill because
our fiscal house is in total disarray. After 8 years of shrinking
deficits, and finally reaching one true surplus in fiscal year 2000, we
have seen over the last months a deteriorating fiscal condition that
has allowed us to be bumping up against the $5.95 trillion statutory
debt ceiling, when we were told by Secretary O'Neill just a year ago we
would not reach it until 2008.
The truth of the matter is that we need to return to fiscal
responsibility. We need to stop raiding the Social Security trust fund.
If any corporate executive in America raided the employees' retirement
trust funds, they would be thrown into jail. Yet we are doing it
tonight.
The truth is, the Democrats have laid out a plan. That plan has been
introduced in the form of legislation. That plan says we will agree to
a $150 billion increase in the debt ceiling immediately and no further
increase until we have a plan to return us to a balanced budget by
2007, until we establish spending caps to control our spending, and
until we strengthen and extend the pay-go rules.
That is the Democratic plan. That is what this House should be
approving tonight.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. RANGEL. If the majority has no further speakers, is it possible
they could give us their time, because we have a lot of speakers?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas may yield his time
if he wishes.
Mr. ARMEY. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I was advised by my
daddy not to waste time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear what he said. If they do not
have any speakers, we have a lot of speakers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New
York, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. For every $100 the
Federal Government is spending, we are now bringing in about $90 worth
of revenue. The way we are making up the other $10 is to borrow it.
Some of it comes from the Social Security trust fund, and the rest of
it comes from the private capital markets. We have reached our limit,
or we are about to reach our limit as to what we can borrow.
Logic tells us that what we ought to do is sit down and figure out
how we got here. I think it is true that the terrorist attack had
something to do with that, indisputably. I think it is true that the
recession had a lot to do with it, indisputably. But the other side has
to admit that the $2 trillion tax cut that they recklessly put through
this House last year also has got something to do with it.
The two parties ought to come together, discuss the alternatives,
extend the debt ceiling tonight by an amount necessary to cover us
during that period of time, and put our house back in order. That is a
reasonable, sensible approach, which is why the other side will not let
it get to the floor.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Matheson).
(Mr. MATHESON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

[[Page H4160]]

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding time to me.
There is no question that circumstances have changed from where we
were a year ago. We acknowledge that we have this war on terrorism. We
have homeland security concerns, so the situation has changed.
We ought to change the way we are figuring out what we are doing
about the budget. If we have to go borrow more money from a bank to buy
a car or a house, we have to tell the bank a story about how we are
going to pay them back. That is just common sense. But we do not have
that story here. We are not telling people that story. We are telling
the American people we want to borrow more money that is going to be on
their backs and the next generation and the next generation, with no
story about how we are going to pay it back.
So let us all agree that the situation has changed. Let us all agree
that we have a tough job ahead of us. Let us roll up our sleeves and
work together and come up with some kind of plan on a going-forward
basis to put us back in a position of fiscal responsibility.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it was only a few months ago that
Republicans were telling us we would not need to touch this debt
ceiling until 2008, and frigned concern that we would probably pay down
so much debt that we would hurt the economy.
Well, we know that in the meantime much has happened, but one of
these developments is the impact of one tax break after another for
their wealthy Republican friends and another is that corporate tax
abuse has been totally ignored to the extent that some corporations in
this country actually have the arrogance, at a time of national
security need, to renounce their citizenship, move their mailbox to
Bermuda or some other foreign island, and evade their United States
taxes at the same time our deficits continue to mount.
It is not just a spending issue, though there have been plenty of
spending bills in this House that I have voted against. A loss of tax
revenues also contributes to the deficit and a total disinterest and
disregard for this aspect of the problem by the Republican leadership.
I do not believe there is a carpet big enough to sweep underneath all
the mess that Republicans have made of our budget. After a few years of
paying down the deficit, when Americans enjoyed the benefits of lower
interest rates to purchase homes and cars, we now face a return to
years of one deficit after another. How incredible that at the offer of
a unanimous consent resolution to at least say, can we not agree in a
bipartisan fashion that by the year 2007 we will be off this deficit
financing and we will have a balanced budget, their answer is no; to
object, to refuse to consider a commitment to having a balanced budget
by at least the year 2007.
We do have a default issue tonight, not about the debt. Rather it is
a default in leadership; it is a default in responsibility. We have
heard so much talk lately about intelligence failures, but one of the
most obvious is the inability to grasp that when the elite do not pay
their fair share, like these corporations that are heading offshore,
the rest of us have to pick up the tab.
Then Republicans come, as they are tonight, and ask to use our Social
Security cards as their credit card for more spending and more tax
breaks.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) for yielding time to me, and also for his great friendship
and leadership.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the other side come to this floor this
evening and talk about this debt as if we did not have good sense over
here.
Now, if we are doing so good, Mr. Speaker, how come we are broke? I
just do not quite understand that. It is like we did not have enough
sense to tell the difference between turnip greens and butter beans.
If we are doing so good, if this plan that the gentleman from Iowa
kept referring to a while ago is working so well, how come we are
broke? How come we need to borrow another $450 billion, not from
ourselves, but from our children and grandchildren, for crying out
loud?
Who in their right mind would want to do something like that? Why
would we want to come to this floor and borrow another $450 billion
from our children and grandchildren and have no idea how we are going
to pay it back?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, for a refreshing change in pace, I am more
than pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, when I was elected in 1987, I had one big desire: to get
our country's financial house in order and to balance the Federal
budget. That was my desire. I did not feel I really had an opportunity
to really have an impact on that until John Kasich came and started
offering amendments to cut spending in 1989, and more and more of us
started to join with him.
Then in 1994 a major change happened: Republicans had an opportunity
to lead this House and to try to get our country's financial house in
order. We did that by 1997, and in 1998 we ended deficit spending. In
1999 we ended using Social Security reserves. That happened. That is a
fact. It was a bipartisan effort.
There are times I voted to increase the national debt, and there are
times I voted not to. But when I hear a colleague who has pushed the
farm bill so hard talk to us about not increasing the deficit, I think,
did that not contribute to increasing the national debt? Is that not a
part of spending? When I see some of my colleagues who voted for the
defense budget, did that not help increase the national debt?
Now, I also voted for the tax cut. So did a number of Democrats. When
the Senate had a chance to repeal the tax cut, only three of them
wanted to repeal it. Now, I was uncomfortable when we had a debate to
increase the national debt, and it was kind of put into something else.
I heard my colleagues say, let us have it clean. So I asked my
leadership, and others did, as well, let us have it clean.
There were some who said the $750 billion increase, as the President
proposed, is simply so high because it might push us beyond even the
election of the President. So when there was an effort by Senator
Daschle and Republicans jointly to come in with $450 billion and to
have it clean, I pleaded with my House leadership to just take it right
off this desk and send it to the President. That is what we have an
opportunity of doing.
I really think, and I know why my colleagues on this side of the
aisle are tempted to do it, there are things they do not like, and this
is a way for them to illustrate their contempt, their anger, all the
things that are pent up.

{time} 1930

I just cannot imagine you would do it on this issue, not on this
issue. I cannot imagine that we would tomorrow risk the fact that this
may not pass. And, you know what? It may not pass. Maybe you will
succeed in getting some Republicans, a few, to vote against it, and
maybe my Democratic colleagues will convince the rest of their
conference to make a political game of this. In the end, we are simply
pushing another debate on this until February, 2003, the next Congress.
Maybe the Democrats will be in charge. Maybe the Republicans. But we
will have to wrestle with this issue.
But for me there is no question. I voted for the tax cut. I did not
vote for the farm bill. I thought the farm bill was an outrage. I think
it kind of sent a message that is unfortunate. I voted for the defense
bill. I voted for the 9-11 costs. So in the end when you see the votes
go up and if my Democratic colleagues are successful in convincing most
of their colleagues to vote against this and this goes down, I think
tomorrow people will know where the problem is.
This is Senator Daschle's bill. It is a Democratic bill in the Senate
that we have an opportunity to take off this desk and pass it, and any
alteration to this sends it right back to the Senate.
I sincerely hope my colleagues remember, if they voted for the farm
bill, that they have some obligations. If they voted for the defense
bill, they have some obligations. And the tax

[[Page H4161]]

cuts which my colleagues are concerned about really have not taken
effect. They have come in years in the future. But the one thing that
did take effect was the $300 or the $500 or the $600 payment. The
Democratic proposal. Thank God. Because as we went into this recession
more spending and tax cuts have made this recession less. So I salute
my colleagues for making this recession less by spending more and
making the debt ceiling increase necessary.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for yielding me time.
I personally do not care whether it is a Democrat or Republican bill.
What we have got in this country is a $6 trillion debt. We are paying a
billion dollars a day interest, and all we have asked for is a plan of
some kind to get us out of this hole before we pass another $450
billion authority to borrow money. If anybody thinks that is
unreasonable, I would like to debate that point. There is not a
business or a family listening tonight anywhere in this country that
would run their own business like we are running the Nation's business,
borrowing another $450 billion with absolutely no plan.
The plan we are operating under does not balance for the next decade
without using Social Security trust funds. Now, if anybody can convince
the American people that that is a reasonable approach to this Nation's
financial problems, I would like to talk to them because it is
absolutely, I tell you what you can do. You can bamboozle people a
little while, but the American public is not stupid by any stretch of
the imagination, and they know that year after year of red ink is
sooner or later going to catch up with us and with our children.
I will tell you something else. The most insidious tax raise, tax
hike in the world is borrowing money because you pay interest year
after year after year, today a billion dollars a day in interest
because our predecessors and us did not have the fortitude to either
cut the programs we do not like and do not need or to raise the revenue
for the ones that we do. That is where we are. This is shifting
responsibility, and it is a generational mugging.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have got right here in front of me, it
took me 5 months to compile this, I have got the votes of every one of
the Democratic leadership, every single time, from the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer), right on down the list, every single time that you voted
to take 100 percent of the money out of the Social Security trust fund.
For 40 years your budgets used money out of the Social Security trust
fund. When I came here, we had $5 trillion of debt. The gentleman just
said, and he is right, not quite a billion dollars a day but almost a
billion dollars a day we pay on the interest when we came here.
Now, if you pay down $500 billion it does not take a mathematician to
figure if you are paying a billion dollars a day and there is 365 days
in a year, you will end up with a lot more billions of dollars. And it
keeps going up, and it keeps going up because you cannot pay it down.
I heard the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) every single day
when I was on the floor in the minority come in and talk, oh, the lady
in the red dress. I am sorry. We need a middle-class tax cut. But in
1993, when you had the House, the White House and the Senate, you could
not help yourselves. You increased the tax on the middle class. You
increased the tax on Social Security. You took every dime out of the
Social Security trust fund. You cut veterans COLAs. You cut military
COLAs. You called it a deficit reduction plan.
But yet when Republicans came we eliminated that Social Security tax.
We gave a middle-class tax cut. And our policies, not one single
Democrat bill or budget, not one Democrat budget from the President
ever passed. As a matter of fact, Republicans brought up your budgets
to show how bad they were.
And for you to get up here and day after day talk about tax breaks
for the rich, I talked to some of my colleagues. I said, what are you
talking about? You know that is not true. And they said, it is
gamesmanship. You lowered the bar too low in this House.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
There is a lot of partisan finger pointing, name calling, creative
history interpretation. That is not going to get us anywhere. We have a
problem on our hands. If we were a family running in the red we would
sit at the kitchen table and figure this out. And the answer is not
going to be, I got it, let us go to the bank and get the biggest line
of credit we possibly can and let everything go the same.
That is what the majority is proposing tonight. They are proposing
simply to increase the line of credit and keep on borrowing. Let the
wagons roll.
We have to do different than that. We have asked, as we consider this
motion, for an alternative to be considered one that would allow the
debt to increase through the period of August, avoid any default on
obligations of the government before then but require a plan, a plan to
come before us to get us to a balanced budget in 7 years.
Let us not talk about partisan antics in the past, Republican or
Democrat. Let us together agree. We need a plan. We need it now. And
that is what we asked for with the substitute.
I could not be more dismayed that there was an objection and it will
not even be allowed to be considered. Because this plan, this strategy
of going up with the kind of debt increase they are looking at is the
height of irresponsibility. In the next decade, 78 million Americans
will turn 65; and the tap each will bring on Social Security and
Medicare will strain the Nation's resources in a way it was never
strained before.
What we need to do this decade is pay down the debt, not add to the
debt. We are leaving for our children a crushing financial burden, if
we, now that it is our time in control, and the baby boomers are in the
workforce in full force, do not pay our way but merely run up the debt.
So we ask the majority for a plan, a plan to be resolved in August of
this year before the election, not swept under the rug, not kicked into
next year, but now. How are we going to pay our own way?
We were not paying our own way now. That is why you have sought the
debt increase. This is ultimately taking money coming in from Social
Security and spending it on other government programs. Our children
will pick up the tab. It is wrong. Vote this down.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey),
the distinguished majority leader for yielding me time.
I rise today as a conservative Member of this institution, Mr.
Speaker. I did not come here to increase the government's debt. I came
here believing, as so many people I represent believe, that if you owe
debts, pay debts.
I spoke to an elderly woman on a radio program in Richmond, Indiana,
today in the heart of the heartland district that I represent. Mr.
Speaker, she said with fear in her voice that she was worried that a
conservative like me would not support raising the debt ceiling and
would put at risk her Social Security check. She assumed that my
loathing of red ink would cause me to vote in such a way or fail to act
in such a way that it would jeopardize her benefits and the benefits of
people that she loves.
Well, I assured her then and I rise today to assure all of those that
are listening, Mr. Speaker, that I will not do that. I truly believe if
you owe debts, pay debts. I am a member of a majority in this
institution that has repaid the national debt nearly a half of a
trillion dollars. We have balanced

[[Page H4162]]

the budget last year, adopted a plan to actually redeem all of the
public debt over the next decade. We were on track, Mr. Speaker, to
meet that goal, even after the President's tax cut was adopted.
And then, though it is convenient tonight to forget it on the other
side of the aisle, that a recession struck America; and then, of
course, as we all experienced here, the devastation in New York City
and at the Pentagon.
9-11 struck and hundreds of billions of dollars that the CBO and the
OMB and every independent organization in America predicted would be
there was no longer there.
The result is that our government now needs to keep its promise to
the American people, to all of various entitlement programs, but maybe
most especially the program that that elderly woman asked about this
morning.
We must raise the statutory debt limit. The truth is they have no
budget. They have no credibility on debt reduction. They have no plan
to guarantee the full faith and credit. They have no plan for that
little old lady in Richmond, Indiana.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Kansas
(Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to the bill on the floor at the
present time. Kansas families live by three simple rules. Number one,
do not spend more money than you make. Number two, pay off your debts.
Number three, invest in basics in the future.
The basics for our country are national defense, Social Security and
Medicare, a highway system, things we all would agree on. The basics
for a family are food, shelter and education, health care, things,
again, we all would agree on. And yet in this Congress, in this
Congress, after we got our budget back in balance, we started down the
wrong road again.
Now I do not blame anybody in this Congress for a recession. I do not
blame anybody in this Congress for what happened on 9-11 and certainly
not the President. And I voted for tax cut, so I do not blame anybody
for that as causing the problem we are in. But I think we need to move
back to fiscal responsibility.
Initially, Secretary O'Neill asked for a $750 billion increase in the
debt limit. I think that is an outrageous blank check to give to this
Congress. Now they are asking for $450 billion dollars. I think the
appropriate amount is $150 billion and move to a plan to get us back to
balance. Just to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to get us
back to balance.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I did not plan to speak on this at all. I was up in my office and
could not help but, watching some of the proceedings, I could not help
understanding that there is something amiss here to have people,
individuals on the Democrat side of the aisle who have voted for nearly
every spending program that has been put up, who vote for the airline
bail out, who vote for the farm bill, who vote for the education bill,
spending bill after spending bill, none of which I voted for and yet I
am over here saying to vote for this bill.
Now, how can somebody spend like a drunken sailor and then all of a
sudden find religion when it comes to raising the debt limit? This is
just like eating a big meal and walking out on the bill. There are only
a few people in this House who could in good conscience vote against
this bill, and they have spoken. And to see this display of people
standing up and saying, we cannot raise the debt limit, that is not
responsible, after voting to spend and spend and spend, it is just more
than I could take. So I had to come here and talk about it.

{time} 1945

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time.
We have heard the debate tonight. There is one question that lingers.
Where are the fiscally responsible members of the Republican House of
Representatives? So many of my colleagues campaigned, as many Democrats
did, on the virtues of the balanced budget and paying down the debt.
The plan that has been outlined here tonight that was offered as an
amendment in the Committee on the Budget by me and others addresses all
the concerns that have been expressed. It gives discretion for us to
spend some money on security. It allows time to get back to a balanced
budget and paying down the debt.
On September 11, thank God we had economic security. We had a
balanced budget. We were on our way to paying down the debt. It kept us
strong. It keeps us strong. We could not ignore that. We need to get
back to it.
The arguments my colleagues make about tax cuts would be better
arguments if we did not have the debt in the trillions of dollars, over
$4 trillion. The interest payment 2 years ago on that debt exceeded
more than we spent on Medicare every year. Now a number of us are
worried about the health of the economy.
If we continue down this path without adopting the plan that has been
advocated tonight, we will start to drive interest rates up again and
we will really be in trouble. I urge rejection of this bill. Let us
adopt the plan.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker left. I reserve my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
At the appropriate time the minority would hope that common sense and
fairness would allow us to send this bill to the Committee on Ways and
Means and have it reported out the right way with the right amount of
increase in the debt.
Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to yield the remaining time that is
left to our distinguished leader from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) in order
to close this argument on behalf of the minority.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge Members to vote for the
motion to commit, which will be presented in a few moments, and if that
motion to commit is not passed, I urge Members to vote against the
bill.
The power to budget and to pass economic plans carries with it the
responsibility to, if it is necessary, raise debt ceilings to
accommodate the budget, the economic plan that we are operating under.
The economic plan we are operating under is one propounded by the
President and the Republican majority in the House. That is their
prerogative and that is their right. There was not real collaboration
on that plan. There was no need for that collaboration. That also is
their right.
If that is the plan that is in place and that plan now leads to
deficits and spending Social Security dollars against everything that
we said together that we did not want to do because we passed the
lockbox at least five times, then it seems to me it is incumbent upon
the people who propose that plan to vote to increase the debt ceiling
to accommodate the results that that plan has caused.
I have said many times that I would vote tonight or anytime to raise
the debt ceiling by $150 billion. I use that amount because I think it
is sufficient to buy us a couple of more months' time to try to work
out a bipartisan budget that will begin to move us back in the right
direction, because I think that is what we ought to do.
I have said to the President that we should have a negotiation, we
should have a summit, we should have a meeting, a bipartisan meeting,
to try to work out a new budget for our country. I know we cannot get
everything we want, and I know that the other side cannot get
everything they want; but we had a tragedy in this country on 9-11 that
no one anticipated. My colleagues can bet that every family who lost
somebody on 9-11 has had a budget conference around their dining room
table to come up with a new budget, given the fact that many of them
lost their breadwinner or winners on 9-11.

[[Page H4163]]

Just as those families suffered tragedy on 9-11, the American
families suffered a tragedy on 9-11; and as many of us argued when the
budget was on the floor, we should take care of those contingencies if
they happen. Well, if 9-11 is not a contingency that happened, I do not
know what is. We are faced with a hole in security responsibilities. We
are faced with fighting a war in many countries abroad. If that is not
a new contingency, I do not know what is.
As an American family, Democrats, Republican, Independents, whatever,
we are all Americans tonight; and we ought to be sitting around a table
in these next 2 months working out a new budget for America that does
not lead us back into all these deficits and spending Social Security
dollars that all of us together said we did not want to do.
So in the name of common sense, I ask that we come together tonight.
We could get 435 votes to pass $150 billion increase in the debt
ceiling and move this country back into a budget that will be good for
all Americans at war, fighting for our country, fighting against
terrorism, and fighting for American values.
I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to vote for the
motion to commit and let us get back to an American budget that is good
for all the American people.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
I have here a letter from the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group
of distinguished American citizens who concern themselves daily with
such matters as balanced budgets; and according to the Concord
Coalition, it says that ``it is clear that the debt limit must be
increased. The Senate has acted and now it is up to the House.
Republicans and Democrats alike should put the Nation's
creditworthiness ahead of political considerations.''
The Concord Coalition goes on to say that ``the House must be
prepared to act on a stand alone debt limit increase in time to avoid a
crisis.'' It also calls upon us to be nonpartisan or bipartisan.
Mr. Speaker, what in the world could possibly be more bipartisan than
to have the Republican majority leader of the House of Representatives
schedule for debate and a vote a Senate-passed bill that is authored by
the Senate Democrat majority leader? The head of the Democrat Party,
the highest-ranking Democrat in America wrote this bill. What could
possibly be more bipartisan than the tribute we Republicans are
standing here paying to the distinguished leadership of the gentleman
from South Dakota, the head of the Democrat Party?
Mr. Speaker, irony of ironies, the gentleman from South Dakota's own
party's leadership in this House stands here in militant opposition to
the head of their own party's plan to raise the debt ceiling. What are
we to make of this partisanship? A party turning upon itself in
defiance of the Concord Coalition. What are we to do?
Mr. Speaker, we have before us Senate bill 2578 authored, as I have
said, by the highest-ranking elected Democrat in America today, the
Senate majority leader, Senator Daschle from South Dakota, a bill which
when brought to the floor in the other body was passed with a vote of
37 loyal Senate Democrats and 31 thoughtful Senate Republicans. What a
bipartisan effort that was. Was it not applauded by even The Washington
Post for the spirit of bipartisanship?
Every author of bipartisanship in America stood in reverence at the
action in the other body, for the collegiality around the Senate
Democrat leader's plan, and yet we bring it to this floor and it is
mocked, mocked by members of his own party. Oh, be still my heart. What
am I to do with this? What can we say?
Are there 37 brave Democrat souls in this body, loyal to their own
party's leadership, afflicted with affection for the gentleman from
South Dakota who will stand up and say to the Concord Coalition count
me in, I am with my leader, I will vote for Senator Daschle's plan? Are
there 37 brave souls in this body? Oh, I pray, Mr. Speaker, I pray that
they will present themselves.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, how disappointing it is to see the rejection
of that leadership by a bill offered as a motion to commit, in the form
of a bill offered by a small band of Members of the Senator's own party
who do not even claim to be in the mainstream of their party. These
Blue Dogs are treacherous. They are treacherous, Mr. Speaker.
I prevail upon my friends from the other side of the aisle. Look at
the example that came before you from the other side of the building.
Check the record of how your own, very own Democrat Senator voted.
Please vote with him. Save yourselves the embarrassment of having to go
home and answer this question at your local party gathering. Do not put
yourself in a position where some wonderful lady who has labored in
your party for years looks at you with horrified disappointment in her
eyes and says why did you vote with that small band of renegades in our
party and against the plan offered by our distinguished party leader,
the majority leader of the United States Senate, the distinguished
Senator Daschle?
I cannot believe it. There are times when every party must call upon
their own rank and file, men and women of the cloth on the Democrat
side of the aisle. Stand by your man. This is your opportunity. Do what
is good for America; and oh, yes, those of you in the press, please
report my gallant effort to stand here in this well today and defend,
yea, defend the good-faith offering of the highest-elected Democrat in
America from this unconscionable assault perpetrated against him by,
yes, members of his own party. It saddens me to no end.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members
that it is not in order to cast reflections on Senators.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2578,
legislation to raise the debt ceiling by $450 billion without engaging
in a real debate on how to get our nation's fiscal house back in order.
Mr. Speaker, before the House signs off on permanently raising the
debt ceiling to $6.4 trillion, I think it would be helpful to take a
step back and look at how we got here. It was not September 11th or the
war on terrorism or even last year's recession that caused this
predicament. Months before the impact of September 11th was realized in
the budget, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill asked Congress to
raise the debt limit by $750 million in response to deepening deficits
that resulted primarily from the President's tax cut. By the
Administration's own estimates, last year's tax cut--the one that I
cautioned ``left no room for error''--is responsible for 43 percent of
the total deterioration in our fiscal picture.
So, here we are today, being told by the majority that if we vote
against S. 2578, we are being irresponsible. Well, isn't that the pot
calling the kettle black? Under their watch, our budget experienced the
most dramatic reversal in history, losing $4 trillion in projected
surpluses in one year. To my mind, permanently raising the debt ceiling
in the absence of a plan to get us back to surpluses is the epitome of
fiscal irresponsibility.
Mr. Speaker, last year, the majority's budget asserted that there
would be no need to increase the debt limit until 2009. But here we
are, poised to consider legislation raising the debt ceiling to $6.4
trillion without being given a chance to offer a plan. Mr. Speaker, it
is disgraceful that the majority has decided to block debate on a
credible plan to address the short-term crisis and undo our present
fiscal mess. My Democratic colleagues, Representatives Spratt and
Moore, sought to offer a measure that would immediately increase debt
limit by $150 billion with the requirement that the President submit a
revised budget that is in balance by 2007 without borrowing from Social
Security. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this reasonable alternative never
saw the light of day.
Mr. Speaker, I am simply unwilling to write the federal government a
virtual blank check that may or may not keep us in the black until the
midterm elections in November. Mr. Speaker, every day, Americans pay $1
billion in interest on our national debt. That's about 16 cents of
every dollar they pay in taxes--just to make the interest payment, not
even to pay down the debt itself. Moreover, the indirect costs of
raising the debt limit and the return to deficits prevent long-term
interest rates high for Americans struggling to make mortgage, car, or
credit card payments, even as the Federal Reserve has dramatically
reduced short term rates.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this
measure and forcing the Republican Leadership to work with the minority
to develop a real plan to deal with the deficits that now stretch as
far as the eye can see. Until we have a realistic budget that

[[Page H4164]]

eliminates those deficits, increasing the statutory debt ceiling is
pure folly.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Secretary made it clear
weeks ago that Congress would have to increase the federal government's
debt ceiling. Since that time, many of us have been requesting an open
debate on a bill to increase the debt ceiling.
How can the Republican leadership explain the debt ceiling increase
added to the debate of the military construction appropriations bill by
way of a procedural hijacking? This legislative ambush blocks any
amendments from being offered, including the Democrats' intent to limit
the increase to $150 billion as opposed to the Republican's increase of
$450 billion.
I am ready to assure the debt limit is sufficient to meet our
obligations, however, I vote against this measure because this chamber
and the American people deserve that we conduct business of this manner
with a full debate and consideration of reasoned amendments that will
clarify a blueprint for fiscal responsibility.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 462, the Senate bill is considered as
having been read for amendment and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.

Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Moore

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. MOORE. In its current form, yes, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Moore moves that the bill S. 2578 be committed to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following.

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion
to commit.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is leaving this Congress
at the end of this term, and he might have a career as a comedian, but
this is a very, very serious matter.
Tonight, we are talking, Mr. Speaker, about raising the debt limit of
this country. We are, at present, approximately $5.9 trillion in debt.
Certainly nobody in this body wants to see the United States of America
default on its financial obligations. That will not happen. That is not
an option.
But the majority leader has not provided all the information from the
Concord Coalition, because I want to quote from their letter. ``An
increase of roughly $250 billion would be sufficient for now without
providing a blank check.'' And yet they are asking, the majority leader
is asking for $450 billion. We are offering $150 billion, and I think
that is sufficient.
If we spend further, we are into Social Security and Medicare, and
the people of America need to understand that, Mr. Speaker. That is
wrong. We can come together and come up with a plan to meet the
obligations of this country without invading Social Security and
Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to stop an increase in the
debt ceiling. Here is what we are trying to stop.
This year, in the most dramatic fiscal reversal we have seen in the
time many of us have served in this House, our budget will be in
deficit to the tune of $320 billion. Next year, according to our best
calculation, our budget will be in deficit by $373 billion. Over the
next 10 years, by $2.785 trillion. That is what we seek to stop.
If my colleagues vote for the bill instead of the motion to commit,
what they will be voting for is fiscal denial instead of fiscal
discipline. They will be voting for a little absolution, a ticket past
the next election, a ticket past the next budget resolution, but we
will simply put off dealing with this problem, this serious problem,
this dramatic reversal.
We wanted to present a plan that would have allowed the budget to be
increased by $150 billion and then another $100 billion without any
obstacle. But, after that, we could only increase it if we had in place
a budget that would be back in balance by 2007. That is what we really
seek.
In the absence of being able to offer that plan, what we offer
instead is the closest thing to it, an increase in the debt ceiling of
$150 billion which will bring us back to this problem which we will
have to address but will allow us to keep to our obligation to our
creditors and, at the same time, allow us to keep our obligation to our
children and not leave them burdened with overwhelming debt.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas Mr.
Stenholm.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my
Republican colleagues for tonight voting to borrow the money to pay for
their policies. I am disappointed, though, that they did not come to
the floor with the same enthusiasm defending the vote to borrow the
money that they did when they passed the policies that put us into
debt. With the exception of the majority leader; his enthusiasm for
borrowing $450 billion is unprecedented.
The need to increase the debt limit is not the result of September
11. In fact, the Secretary of the Treasury came to us last August
predicting that we were going to have to borrow money when we were
looking at the economic game plan that we were under. We agree on this
side unanimously, well, almost unanimously, that we need to increase
the debt limit by $150 billion tonight, and we will get over 400 votes
to do it. What we object to is providing a blank check to borrow $450
billion to stay on the same economic game plan.
Now, my friend from Arizona made the comments about the spending. I
would point out that every single spending vote this year that has
occurred has come under the Republican-passed budget that we supported
in the Blue Dogs but that my colleagues would never allow us to have
the trigger on. So do not blame us for the spending when it is the
Republican budget that we are spending to. In fact, we agree that we
should not increase spending more than the President has asked us to
spend.
That is not the issue tonight. The issue tonight is whether or not we
are going to have a new economic game plan or whether we should borrow
$450 billion with a blank check to continue spending.
Now, I am perfectly willing to roll up my sleeves in a bipartisan way
and work with the majority if they would just let us. But we will have
a pharmaceutical bill on the floor later tonight in which we will be
denied an opportunity to vote on. My Republican colleagues denied us an
opportunity to have the Hill bill, the Moore bill on the floor today,
and yet the chairman said a moment ago, where is the debate?
I have been begging my colleagues to debate me on whether we should
borrow $450 billion or $150 billion. When we vote for the bill, we are
borrowing $450. We could do it at $150 and be fiscally responsible.
That is the issue. Vote for the motion to commit.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
commit.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but recall the minority leader's comments
when he said there was no collaboration, that there was no discussion,
that there was no working together.
I seem to remember a lot of working together, a lot of collaboration
that got us to this point. I seem to remember a number of late-night
meetings in September, when, in a bipartisan way, we decided to reach
into that surplus, and there was not much left, but to reach into that
surplus and take money and deal with the emergency. I seem to remember
a bill that we voted on nearly unanimously to pay for a war against
terrorism. Bipartisan. We reached in another time and did the same
thing. I seem to remember a bill that came to the floor in a bipartisan
way that said, you know what, that

[[Page H4165]]

pre-attack recession has gotten worse and we need an economic stimulus.
So let us reach in there again and let us make sure that we deal with
the economy the way we did with the war and the way we did with the
emergency.
Now, all of a sudden, the minority leader rushes to the floor and
says, gosh, there was no collaboration, no one talked to us, no one
consulted us. Now we need a plan all of a sudden. We have had a plan:
It is called deal with the circumstances that were dealt last
September. That was our plan. And we did it together. We did it
together.
So tonight we have to do together what the other body did with the
Senate Daschle bill, and that is to increase the debt limit to deal
with the cards that we were dealt.
Now, if my colleagues want a plan, present one, but do not come down
here and blame the tax cuts without having the courage or the guts to
give us a plan to raise those taxes back up again.
And, no, I will not yield, because I am tired of my colleagues coming
down here and demagogueing tax cuts and not having one ounce of guts to
tell us their plan to increase those taxes back up. No, I will not
yield, and I will not yield to Members who come in here and say, oh,
gosh, but you are doing all the spending, when tonight my colleagues'
bill on prescription drugs will be three times the bill that we offer
on prescription drugs.
The applause is there, but where is the guts to vote for the increase
in the debt ceiling to pay for it? That is called tax and spend, and we
have seen it before. We are not going to allow it again.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the
distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, when we come down to the final analysis, we
have before us a bill authored by Senator Daschle, the highest-ranking
elected Democrat in America; and in the judgment of the Senator, $450
billion was the right compromise between what was asked by the
Secretary of the Treasury and what others might have proposed to him.
Thirty-seven Democrat colleagues agreed with the Senator as they
passed this bill to the House.

Point of Order

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

Point of Order

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

[Roll No. 278]

YEAS--207

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

NAYS--222

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart

[[Page H4166]]

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

NOT VOTING--6

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

{time} 2034

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 279]

AYES--215

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

NOES--214

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

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Bartlett

NOT VOTING--5

Engel
Hayes
Oxley
Roukema
Traficant

{time} 2047

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

____________________