[Pages H9975-H9987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INCREASING THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

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

S. 2986

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``$7,384,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$8,184,000,000,000''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 856, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The issue before us is really America's responsibility to pay its
bills, to meet obligations that America and Congress, as our Members,
have already incurred.
Before September 11 and the war on terror, the Republican-led
Congress paid down nearly half a trillion dollars in public debt,
marking the first time since 1969 that Congress had reduced the
national debt. Today, America is fighting an elusive and determined
enemy abroad, while working to stimulate the economy and help industry
still recovering from the 9/11 attacks.
At this extraordinary time, with our Nation's many obligations, the
government is nearing the debt limit. If the Treasury cannot issue the
debt, the government may be unable to meet many of its obligations,
such as the regular investment into the Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund. Republicans want to do the responsible thing. As a
result, Congress is increasing the debt limit to $8.1 trillion.
Holding the line on spending and raising the debt limit are not
mutually exclusive, and it is important to remember that. Earlier this
year, the House approved a lean, responsible budget that would cut the
deficit in half within 5 years, hold the line on spending and guard
against Democrats' calls for job-killing tax hikes.
Republicans are committed to reducing America's debt through
responsible and restrained spending. Congress must meet America's
priorities such as Social Security and Medicare. That is why raising
the debt limit is so critical. But, in doing so, we can remain
steadfast in our quest to eliminate the waste, the fraud and abuse on
behalf of all taxpayers and future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I do have a bipartisan request. Tonight's measure is an
appropriate time to discuss spending and deficits and solutions, but as
we debate this and as we make our final vote, let us not punish our
seniors, let us not punish our elderly, let us not punish our military
just to score political points. If the debt ceiling is not increased,
America cannot pay its bills. We cannot meet existing obligations. We
will not ultimately have the cash on hand to pay Social Security
benefits, military retirement, Medicare benefits, unemployment benefits
and other trust fund obligations.
As raw as this recent election was, as bitterly contested as it was,
with hurt feelings all around, we need to work together as Americans to
take responsibility for our bills. Let us not default on our
obligations. Let us not stop the checks to our needy who are counting
on us. Let us not use our elderly as political pawns in trade for a
seven second sound byte back home. They deserve better. We have a
responsibility to pay our bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remaining time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to join in the bipartisan request that we try to work
this out. The request sounds like a drunk going to an Alcoholic
Anonymous meeting, saying just give me one more drink and I will not do
it again. But there has to be a program involved in joining with my
colleagues in this bipartisan approach, and we have a program and that
is pay-as-you-go.
My colleagues cannot help themselves with spending. They think they
have a credit card with no limit on it. They go to the richest of their
friends and they tell them, they do not ask for it, that they are going
to give them a $1 trillion tax cut. Then when they ask, well, where are
we going to get the money, do not worry about it, we will increase the
debt ceiling, we will just borrow some money.
Who are we borrowing the money from? The Japanese and the Chinese.
What kind of patriotism is that? What kind of bipartisanship do my
colleagues want for that?
The truth is every day for the next 2 years we are going to be
dealing with the moral issues that encompass this Congress and this
country, and the quicker my colleagues try to explain how they can take
a surplus projected at $5.6 trillion and then come up and waste it and
come up with a deficit of $3 trillion, the quicker they can see that
the interest on this debt is going to be larger than the things that
they talk about in the Koran, in the Bible or in the Torah and all of
those things. That is, talking about education and health care and help
your fellow man and let us not help the high rollers that my colleagues
try to do.
So we are prepared to work in a bipartisan way. If a creditor wants
to try to help someone that just could not control the spending, the
first thing they do is get a plan. We will give my colleagues plenty of
opportunity to be bipartisan by saying pay-as-you-go. Do not stop
everything. Do not hurt the aged. Do not hurt Social Security. Do not
hurt Medicare. We know how compassionate they feel about those issues,
but do not get us involved in anymore debt unless you have some kind of
a cockamamie plan to get us out of the mess that you put us in.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for the purposes of control, who has a true
understanding of patriotism and compassion and moral values, and take
notes because my colleagues are going to be hearing a lot about this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, why are we here for the third time in 3 years? It is
because our country has borrowed over $1.5 trillion in that time from
2001 until now.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an accident. This is the first
administration and the first Congress in the history of this country
that has knowingly, willfully, deliberately, and consciously pursued an
economic plan that will leave our country weaker in the long run than
when they found it. No other people who have occupied these seats have
consciously, willfully and deliberately bankrupted our country like
what is going on today.
Just in the last 4 years, at a 5 percent interest rate, these people
have raised taxes on the American people $67 billion a year each and
every year from now on to the rest of our lives because of this
prolific borrowing that is going on.
President Jimmy Carter once said that the highest office in our land
is that of citizen, and he is right. Citizens hire us to come here
every couple of years in this body to do the public work, to try to run
their business like we would run our own.
All we have asked of the majority is before we borrow another $800
billion in

[[Page H9976]]

the name of every citizen in this country, they would at least give us
the opportunity to stop and say why do we not pay for what we are
spending? Why do we not do the moral value of paying our bills? We are
not paying our bills by borrowing another $800 billion. We are passing
our bills on to our children, our grandchildren and anybody else who
follows us. That is no moral value.
I tell my colleagues one other thing. We are creating a financial
vulnerability in this country that is second only to the threat of
terrorism. Since 2001, there has been an $844 billion increase in
foreign-held debt, and do my colleagues know who holds it? Almost every
country in the world.
I hold this up from the Treasury Department: Japan, over $700
billion; mainland China and Hong Kong, over $230 billion; the Caribbean
banking centers, over $100 billion.

{time} 2115

We are literally, you are literally mortgaging our future economy to
anybody in the world that will give us money on the cheap today so we
do not have to face up and pay our own bills from my generation: pass
it on to somebody else. It is nothing less than a national security
issue, and we will have more to say about that later.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Some people have a short memory around here. I do believe that
reducing the debt, restraining spending is a bipartisan effort. We have
to work together. But I recall my friends on the Democratic side, when
Republicans proposed a Medicare drug plan of around $400 billion, our
friends on the Democrat side proposed a plan of $968 billion. We did
not spend too little; they wanted to spend more. When we talked about
unemployment extensions, they increased it $30 billion over the
Republican plan. It was not that we were spending too little; they
wanted to spend more. And when we talked about welfare reform and the
need to move people to work, they added $52 billion, my Democratic
colleagues, so concerned about the debt. It was not that we were
spending too little; they wanted to spend more.
And when we are talking about moral obligations, I guess I would ask
this: Is it a moral obligation when you trumpet that press release for
that new firefighting equipment, for that new road you got, for that
new university research, for that farm bill you championed, when you
stand for the ribbon-cutting back home, and when you court public
approval for spending tax dollars? Do you also have the moral
obligation to pay for it?
Today, the issue is are we going to pay the bills of America, pay for
the spending that has been incurred and take responsibility for our own
actions?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say one thing. We are not paying for anything. We are borrowing every
dime he is talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) asked us to be
bipartisan. Why were the Republicans not bipartisan when you put your
budget together? You want us to be bipartisan now. What about the past?
You want us to be fiscally responsible for your fiscal
irresponsibility. We will not do that.
You mentioned the Medicare bill. We paid for ours. You hid the facts
about what you were proposing. You hid them from us, and you continue
to do so.
It has been said here let everybody understand the impact on the
families of America. The gross interest on the national debt this year:
three-quarters of all nondefense discretionary spending. And when
projected over 10 years, it is going to be even larger than nondefense
discretionary spending.
This action of yours today is the bitter fruit of your fiscal
irresponsibility. You give every reason for this problem except your
own actions, your own default. It is time that you stood up to the
bitter fruits of your policies. Do not stonewall. Do not give us the
hollow excuses. This country's families are now being asked by you for
a tax increase on every family of America. You can vote for that; I am
not going to do so.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Like a mortgage payment, like a credit card payment, we are paying
for past decisions by this Congress, some of them decades old. In fact,
if we are talking about the past 40 years of control by our Democratic
friends, we are talking about raiding the Social Security trust fund,
increasing the debt, and in more recent years voting against every bill
because we did not spend more. Because we did not spend more.
Republicans are standing up for this responsibility. We understand
that America took three big hits to our economy on 9/11: the recession
President Bush inherited, the attacks of 9/11 that cost us almost 2
million American jobs, and then the technology bubble burst and the
scandals from the false economy of the 1990s.
America fought back. Republicans fought back with the simple
principle: if we want to create jobs in America, leave the tax dollars
in America, in our hometowns, on Main Street in our small businesses.
By fighting back from a hit that would have sent most countries
stumbling to their knees, we are creating jobs, we are increasing
revenue to the Federal Government, and the deficit is dropping.
But today, the question is, for all those Members who have been so
eager to trumpet that press release, so eager to take credit for that
spending that they brought home, the question is: Are you going to step
up and pay the bills that America and Congress has incurred, or are you
going to vote to stop our Social Security checks, stop the retirement
checks to our military, stop the Medicare payments so important for the
elderly?
It is bipartisan, whether you agree or disagree with how we got here.
And that is a fair argument. Republicans and Democrats have a different
view of this, and that is a healthy one. But regardless of that, if you
supported the farm bill, if you supported the road bills, if you
supported the water projects, if you supported the road projects, then
step up and pay the bill tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas described a situation here 3
years ago before we went on this borrowing binge. What he conveniently
neglected to point out was that President Bush and the Republican Party
inherited the strongest economy in the history of America that was
expected to post a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus. And he conveniently
neglects to point out that it is the $2 trillion that they have taken
from the budget through tax cuts that have helped to put us in the
situation that we are in. Talk about amnesia.
In just 4 years of Republican management, the country's fiscal
situation has collapsed to the tune of nearly $9 trillion, draining the
entire Clinton surplus and digging a deficit of $3 trillion, the
largest deficit in the history of the world. And today, for the third
time in 4 years, the country's fiscal situation has become so dire that
we bumped up against the legal limit on how much we can borrow. So we
are going to raise the limit or the government will default. All of
this from the party that in American history has preached fiscal
responsibility. So we have to come up with enough money now for their
tax cuts, the war, and, by the way, just think of this, two wars with
four tax cuts. That defies human history.
And the President has very big plans for the next 4 years. He says he
is going to spend a lot of capital that he has earned. So we are going
to create private accounts for Social Security, which would cost more
than $1 trillion, more than the current system might offer; and we do
not even have enough money in the current system so that we are going
to borrow this money tonight.

[[Page H9977]]

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who is a nice enough fellow, he
mentioned a couple of moments ago the situation that we are in. I want
to remind this body that 8 years ago the Republican Party was going to
impeach Bob Rubin for doing precisely the things their Secretary of the
Treasury is doing this evening.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have 2 minutes and three or four charts
that I think I can tell the whole story with.
The year 2001. The President saw, looking out 10 years, surpluses of
$4.6 trillion, and he said we can have it all, tax cuts and surpluses
too. So he sent us a budget with enormous tax cuts. We warned against
buying into those projections, but it was not heeded. They told us at
the time that we could pass these tax cuts and we would not even have
to consider an increase in the debt ceiling until the year 2008. That
promise lasted 1 year.
The next year, in 2002, there was a $450 billion request for another
hike in the debt ceiling. The following year, 2003, there was a request
for an increase in the debt ceiling of $984 billion, the single largest
increase in history, a bigger amount than the entire national debt in
1981 when Ronald Reagan came to office.
Add those three together and they tell you a lot: $450 billion, plus
$984 billion, plus tonight's request, $800 billion, comes to $2.234
trillion. $2.234 trillion. That is the amount by which we have had to
increase the debt ceiling of the United States in order to accommodate
the budgets and fiscal policies of the Bush administration: $2.234
trillion.
Now, that is bad enough, but we asked CBO last September to take its
latest economic forecast and to project the Bush budget 10 years,
through the year 2014, and tell us how much debt would be accumulated
in that period of time if we stayed on this course. This is what is to
come. Tonight is only the beginning. This is what is to come if we
follow those policies for the next 10 years. We will accumulate a
national debt of $14.545 trillion.
And here, the final chart tells it all. Our debt is increasing twice
as fast as our GDP, or income. This cannot be sustained, and that is
why we do not believe this bill in its present form should be adopted.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox), a long-serving Member with strong leadership
on the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Many of our colleagues are just back from the Clinton library. I will
never forget the night on this floor, not so long ago, in 1996, when in
this very Chamber President Clinton said right on the heels of his
attempt to have the Federal Government take over responsibility for
one-sixth of the Nation's economy, ``the era of big government is
over.''
That line recalled similar sentiments by such earlier conservative
Presidents as Ronald Reagan, Calvin Coolidge and Abraham Lincoln, with
the difference being that the latter three actually meant it.
How many of you remember not just Clinton's favorite line but the
entire passage in proper context? It went as follows: ``We know big
government does not have all the answers. We know there is not a
program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a
smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington, and we have to
give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of
big government is over.''
I remember that moment vividly. I was, of course, sitting in this
House Chamber, about 20 feet from the President, in this seat right
here when he spoke those words. He was reading from the teleprompter,
and his line of sight over the Plexiglas extended directly to my
reserved place here at the leadership table.
Because Bill Clinton was very comfortable using the teleprompter, he
routinely made eye contact with the Members sitting in the Chamber, and
he looked me directly in the eye, and at that moment I could see that
he was enormously satisfied with that line in his speech. Yet in
retrospect, when Bill Clinton declared ``the era of big government is
over,'' he was right, for now we are living in ``the era of really big
government.''
Assuming we keep to our schedule this evening, Mr. Speaker, the
Federal Government will spend more than $100 million just in the time
we are debating this debt ceiling legislation. The growth of government
in modern history has been astounding. In 1952, the year I was born,
which we all agree was not very long ago, Federal spending was a quaint
$68 billion compared to over $2.5 trillion today. And it was just that
high because America was at war in Korea at the time.
When my oldest child was born in 1993, Federal spending was $1.4
trillion. In just one generation, the size of the Federal Government
had increased more than 20-fold. We blew by the $2 trillion mark in
2002, and we have not even taken our foot off the accelerator.

{time} 2130

We are past the point where we can make excuses for the big
government elephant in the living room. He has taken over our living
space, contributing nothing to the family and, as Ronald Reagan knew,
posing a threat to our freedoms.
President Reagan, my first boss in Washington, said it best in his
1989 farewell address, ``Man is not free unless government is limited.
There is a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable
as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.''
President Reagan knew this fundamental truth: Big government is
incompatible with freedom.
There is a reason that fiscal restraint is a traditionally
conservative value. Big government requires big spending and,
therefore, a comfort level in taking and using the fruits of other
people's labor. It is a comfort level found in socialism, not
conservatism.
So it is with great sadness that I come to the floor tonight to
recommend a vote on increasing the debt ceiling. But the reason it is
necessary is that the money has already been spent. The bills have come
due for what this Congress has already voted for.
Three years ago, we endured a vicious attack on our Nation. As
horrifying as it was, it was a visible attack, an attack from without.
We knew then how to mount a defense against a foreign enemy. We would
not give in to terror. At the time, Osama bin Laden boasted, ``I tell
you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed.'' He was wrong
then, and he is wrong now. We will not cede this Nation to tyranny, but
neither should we cede it to the burdens of big government.
We have got to acknowledge that, unlike the hideous face of
terrorism, big government is an attractive seductress. It is sometimes
enticing to our citizenry and certainly to many of us in this Chamber.
But as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I know that
every tax dollar spent on nonessential functions of government is, in
these times, doubly squandered. Monies given to National Public Radio
or the National Endowment for the Arts cannot go toward our national
defense.
The truth is, rapid, unsustainable increases in nondefense spending
threaten our ability to protect American citizens and to respond to
future threats. Period. That is precisely what is happening now so long
as the liberal big spenders in this Congress will not say no.
This vote on the debt ceiling tonight is nothing but a reminder that
it is high time we get back to pruning back the waste of government. It
can be done. We did it in 1995, the first year of the Republican House
majority, and we can do it now.
The truth is, the biggest spenders in this Congress will be the ones
who vote against this resolution. Because, for big spenders, reining in
the government is not a serious priority. The majority of us, however,
have got to be responsible. We have got to go forward with renewed
resolve to be fiscally responsible. We have to keep uppermost in mind
that big government does not have all of the answers. It really does
not have many answers at all. Not good ones, anyway.

[[Page H9978]]

We know there is not a program for every problem. We have discovered,
after all these years, that is really a good thing. So as we do the
right thing tonight, Mr. Speaker, let us vow to stick with what the
Founding Fathers wanted us to do. Not surprisingly, those are the very
things we have been good at all along.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman just told Members is up is down, and
down is up. The liberal big spenders have not spent a dime in this
place in 10 years. They do not have the votes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman from Tennessee that
Lewis Carroll is writing the speeches that are being given on this
legislation: Up is down, black is white, good is bad, and bad is good.
Dick Armey said Republicans control this town, and you have for 4
years. Republicans control it. This House, the Senate, and the White
House. Not a nickel is spent because Democrats vote on it. It is all
your spending that you are talking about. All your spending.
The immoral, intellectually bankrupt fiscal policies that we have
been pursuing for the last 4 years resulted in this request for this
gargantuan increase on the debt on the head of every American, young
and old.
Bill Clinton was President of the United States and, in 1998, no
increase in the debt; 1999, no increase in the debt; 2000, no increase
in the debt; 2001, no increase in the debt. Not until the Republican
fiscal policies were adopted did this country start to sink deeper and
deeper and deeper into debt. From less than $6 trillion, in 42 months
you have taken this country another $2 trillion in debt.
Let us talk of moral values in America. Let us talk of squandering
the public resources of a $5.6 trillion surplus that President George
Bush said was available when he spoke to this Congress in February,
2001. We have some fiscal conservatives, they say, on this floor and
they say spending is the problem. Why have they not stopped it for 4
years?
They say there has been terrorism. I agree. There has been a war. We
had a war under President Clinton, Members recall, one the other side
of the aisle was not enthusiastic about, but we lost very few people,
and the despot who committed genocide against the Bosnian people is now
locked in The Hague.
I tell my friends, this is the right thing to do if we adopt the
motion to instruct that will be offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm), the most fiscally responsible Member of this body.
Increase it for a short time. The United States cannot welch on its
debt. We must pay our debt, but fiscal responsibility ought to be
adopted by the majority that have control to do so.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
``We did not spend a dime around here for the past 10 years. All the
spending is yours''?
That is not what you told your constituents. I have seen your press
releases. You said you secured the road project. You said you
championed university research. You said you got that road project.
Here is my question: Who are you not leveling with, the voters back
home or the people listening tonight?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am prepared to pay for the public works projects that I secure. The
public works project that this side secured pales into insignificance
beside the public works projects that you get for your Members on your
side of the aisle, 17 times as much as we did, and you came here saying
we are against pork. Seventeen times, my friend. Seventeen times is the
pork in your bills.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. ``Mr. Speaker, we did not spend a dime around
here for the past 10 years. It is all your spending.'' That was 2
minutes ago.
Today, it is, yeah, we spent a lot, but you spent more. Well, there
is a difference. What we spent our deficit on was tax relief for the
American people. I readily admit that. When we look at the deficit
today, and we do share this, the fact of the matter is 50 percent of
our deficit is caused because of this recession and we have to
strengthen this economy. We have to get into a stronger economy.
Twenty-five percent of it was new spending, spending that you have
claimed credit for, not tonight, but you have claimed credit for years
and years throughout the districts, in your speeches and in your
campaigns. And the rest of that, that small amount left, is for tax
relief to get people back to work, to help small businesses create jobs
and get this economy strong again.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are stepping up tonight to accept that
responsibility to get the economy going. We are going to pay our bills.
We are not going to claim credit for spending, lay the blame on another
party, and then try to stop the checks for our Social Security
recipients and our Medicare recipients and our military retirees.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think people realize the situation we are in.
We will step up to the plate if the other side will allow us to pay-as-
you-go, but they will not do that. They are not paying anything. They
are borrowing another $800 billion. We are not paying any bills. We are
borrowing money right now based on last year of $1.1 billion a day, $48
million an hour, $796,000 a minute. We have already borrowed $10
million while we have been talking. It is $13,000 a second, and you
will not let us have pay-as-you-go.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about
morality on this House floor and about patriotism.
I want someone to explain to me how it can be moral for a father to
stick his kids with his bills. How can it be moral for me to stick my
three kids and Charlie Stenholm's beautiful grandson here with $800
billion of new debt? I want to hear how it is patriotic to burden the
next generation of Americans with so much debt that they cannot pay for
their wars which they will unfortunately have, that they cannot pay for
their natural disasters that are going to happen. Please tell me how
that is moral or patriotic.
And for God's sake, Mr. Brady, please do not tell me you are paying
the bills tonight when you are borrowing $800 billion that you are
going to stick your kids with. You are not paying the bill. Your kids
are going to pay the bill. And until they pay the bill, we are going to
continue to squander $1 billion a day on interest on the national debt.
It gets better, Mr. Brady, because I bet when you got back to Texas
you tell them how much you hate foreign aid, and so I am sure you would
love to tell the people of Texas that one-third of that billion dollars
a day that we spend on interest on the national debt goes to the
Communist Chinese, goes to the Japanese, goes to the other countries
that now own one-third of our debt. I am sure you are proud of that.
But let me just remind you, Mr. Brady, 3 years ago on this floor, on
my son's birthday, you all came down and said you can cut taxes,
increase spending, and you were going to pay off the debt. Since that
time, you have borrowed $1,786,314,460,700.45. It gets better. Because
in that time you have stolen over $600 billion from the Social Security
trust fund. Tell me how it is moral for you to steal from the Social
Security trust fund, how it is moral to steal from the Medicaid trust
fund, how it is moral to steal from the military retirees.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair reminds Members to
address the Chair and not other Members in the second person.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, tell me the moral clarity of going home each week and
trumpeting that press release for the firefighter fund or the road
project or for

[[Page H9979]]

that water project, and then stand up here tonight and tell us we are
not going to pay the bill for it. So the seniors who need their Social
Security checks, the heck with them. The military retirees who are
counting on their retirement, the heck with them. I got my press
acclaim, I got my public support, but you, you on the other side of the
aisle, you take responsibility for making sure those checks get there.
Tell me the moral obligation of that.

{time} 2145

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

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

These words of Jefferson ring particularly true at this moment.
Principles are indeed at stake--basic principles of standing up for
fiscal integrity, keeping our promises to American workers, and leaving
the next generation free of crushing deficits. The majority has
abandoned these principles, but we will not let them be forgotten. The
futures of our children and our grandchildren are at sake.
We are here to vote on the administration's demand for an increase in
the debt limit of $800 billion dollars. This is the third increase in
the debt that this administration has demanded in its first term--for a
total of $2.1 trillion, the largest debt increase in our history. This
administration has spent recklessly and immorally, driving the deficit
each year to a new record.
Democrats know how to reduce the deficit--and so did Republicans, in
earlier years. When I came to Congress in 1992 we had a deficit of $290
billion. Yet, after 8 years of bipartisan policies of fiscal
responsibility we ended President Clinton's second term with a
projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.
After only 4 years of this administration's irresponsible spending,
we have a 10-year projected deficit of $2.3 trillion--a free fall of
almost $8 trillion dollars in only 4 years. How much worse will it get
before we can restore the government to its true principles?
Having been chastised by all the financial ministers of Europe this
week for allowing the U.S. budget deficit to get to this point,
Secretary Snow said today that the budget deficit is the
administration's highest economic priority. I challenge the
administration to put its money where its mouth is.
If the administration meant what it said, it would urge Republicans
to join Democrats in reinstituting the pay-go rules that enabled us to
reduce the deficit under President Clinton. We had bipartisan support
for these rules for 8 years--because they work, and because they
represent the necessary and responsible course.
If the administration meant what it said, we would have a strategy to
pay down the debt held by China and other Asian countries before they
acquire a stranglehold on our economy and can dictate our fiscal
choices.
If the administration meant what it said, we would not be here
debating a further increase in the debt limit while the Secretary has
already raided the Civil Service Retirement Fund.
For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we must bring
government back to fiscal responsibility. Any vote on increasing the
debt limit must be coupled with a vote to reinstate the pay-go rules.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. We want to take
responsibility. We want to pay as you go instead of borrowing and
borrowing and borrowing. That is responsible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Cooper).
Mr. COOPER. We are all sinners. None of us has clean hands,
particularly on spending issues. But there is one among us who over the
last 26 years has the cleanest record and the best record of doing the
right thing on Federal budget deficits. That man's name is Charlie
Stenholm, and he is proudly from Texas. Sadly, tragically, due to the
last election and very unfair partisan gerrymandering, he will no
longer be with us. But we need to carry Charlie Stenholm's message in
our hearts, in both parties, every day, because this man has lived it
for 26 years and in a friendly and bipartisan fashion tried to carry
each one of us on his ample shoulders.
It is a tough job, even in the greatest country in the history of the
world, to do the right thing when it comes to future generations like
his grandson sitting right there. It is a tough job to live within the
budget that you set. But Charlie has done the best job of any of us. So
I hope that in this debate tonight, as we are literally borrowing
nearly $1 million a minute against our children and grandchildren, that
we will learn to reform, because this debate is really about whether we
reform our ways starting tonight. Not next Congress, not next year.
Starting now. Will we adopt pay-as-you-go? Because that is the only
thing that has worked around here. Charlie Stenholm has championed
that. It has worked. It worked for 12 years magnificently. We all need
to get behind Charlie Stenholm and adopt pay-as-you-go as the policy of
this House.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am no longer the chairman of the Committee on
Government Reform, but I am the chairman of a subcommittee and I do
appreciate it. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) might take
issue with that.
Let me just say, I looked around this Chamber and I was listening to
the debate. I have a lot of friends on the Democrat side, including my
good buddy Charlie Stenholm and Charlie Rangel. We have all been here
for a long time. All I can say is that it really kind of tickles me
because I hear many of my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle
talking about spending constraint. For 40 years you guys had control of
this place and year after year after year after year the budget deficit
went up and up and up and up, and now that we are in the majority and
we have got all these problems and granted we do have a lot of problems
we have got to get control of spending and I am for all of that.
To hear colleagues of mine like Charlie and others come up here and
talk about spending constraints tickles me to death, because for 40
years you did not do that. I love you guys. I love working with you.
But there is nothing like a reformed lady of the evening, and I love
you guys because you are changing.
But where were you for those 40 years? I do believe we have to work
together. I do believe we have to work together, but please remember
your past when you are admonishing us to change things.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentleman
from Indiana's side of the aisle has borrowed more money in 3\1/2\
years than the Democrats borrowed in 40.

[[Page H9980]]

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to stand in this
well as a Democrat, and I hope that the people of this country are
taking good notes tonight, because it is the Democrats in this Congress
who are standing up for sound fiscal responsibility. I think it is very
important for us to realize and never forget that it was President
Clinton who left a huge surplus that has been squandered in these last
4 years.
Here are the facts. This is the third time in 3 years that the debt
limit has been increased for a grand total of more than $2 trillion.
The last hike was nearly $1 trillion. But it took less than 18 months
for the government to hit the new rate ceiling. By way of comparison,
the entire Federal debt in 1980 was just less than $1 trillion. We are
on a runaway train without any brakes. And all we are asking for is
pay-as-you-go so that we can be responsible.
I will tell you really just how irresponsible you are being on the
other side of the aisle. Do you realize that 90 percent of this new
debt that you are creating is being purchased by foreign countries and
foreign interests? And just the amount of the interest that we are
paying on it, just the cost of borrowing this money from these
countries accounts for more than 10 percent of all of Federal spending,
which is more than what we are spending on our own homeland security.
You talk about irresponsibility. It is truly irresponsible for us to
turn over our debt, our fiscal security, to foreign interests, let
alone the irresponsibility we are showing for passing on this debt to
our children.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Let us do a quick fact check here. Eighty-eight percent of the debt
that we are raising today comes from government transfers, or from past
debts before President Bush's administration took office. Eighty-eight
percent of that. So we are paying for past decisions, including past
Democratic administrations and Democratic holds of this Congress.
Second point. Our deficit and our debt is way too high. I think we
all agree on that. I do not know anyone here who thinks otherwise. That
truly is bipartisan. Let us keep in perspective that publicly held debt
today is 37 percent of the economy. It was as high as 49 percent in
1995 during President Clinton's tenure. The fact of the matter is the
debt and the deficit is too high at all levels in America's history,
and at some point at the end of this debate after this is all done and
we get out and get through with all of our purging of our frustrations
on how we got here, we are going to have to work together to balance
this budget, to start paying down this debt and find some solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds. You have got an
opportunity to do that tonight by adopting a PAYGO rule. You can start
right now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk and
discussion in the media recently about our country's morals which
played an important role, I think, to many in our recent elections. I
personally welcome these discussions, but I am saddened by the fact
that there has been little talk about the moral values of the
government's borrow-and-spend economic policies.
Tonight we will have a vote to raise the debt ceiling for the third
time in the last 3 years. Why? Because Congress has been content to
manage the American taxpayers' money in a way that immorally disregards
the well-being of our Nation's economic future. I believe it is immoral
for this country to keep racking up debt as far as the eye can see and
to pass it on to our children and our grandchildren. I think it is
immoral to borrow and spend and ask our soldiers to make the ultimate
sacrifice while we refuse to make even marginal sacrifices in our
fiscal policies.
Mr. Speaker, last week on Thursday, November 11, the 278th Regimental
Combat Unit left for Iraq. Many of these brave men and women of this
National Guard unit come from Tennessee and from my congressional
district. I was able to visit the 278th in Fort Shelby, Mississippi,
the day they went off to defend our country. I wish them luck and offer
my prayers for their safe return home. Now I wish our soldiers'
government would take the steps necessary to curb this deficit
spending, to reinstate true budget enforcement measures like PAYGO, and
to pay down this Nation's debt, instead of continuing to raise the
ceiling, so that our troops when they return home, they are not left
with footing the bill for a war they so bravely fought. As we continue
to discuss morality in America, I hope we will not continue to ignore
the immoralities of our current fiscal policies.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I think it is important to keep focus that 88 percent of this debt
occurred through intergovernmental transfers or before the Bush
administration. It is a shared debt and a shared responsibility. The
way we do not tackle it is to cut off the retirement checks for the
military mothers and fathers of those serving today. That is exactly
the wrong way to do it, the wrong way to duck responsibility. Together
we can agree to pay our bills and then work together to reduce the
debt.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons why we
should vote against this debt ceiling limit. The first is that there is
no plan to pay it off and the second is that what we are really doing
is mortgaging our children's future. The reality is that when you talk
about social spending, we could eliminate all social spending and we
would still have an annual deficit. Tax cuts have equaled 17 times all
domestic discretionary spending, and every child born in this country
is now going to inherit $85,000 in interest costs on this debt, and
that is what you are passing on to the next generation. That is
immoral.
Also, bear in mind that 90 percent of this new debt is being bought
by foreign countries. Forty-three percent of it is now owned by foreign
countries. Imagine the situation that you are leaving to the next
generation. This is the result of a $10 trillion fiscal reversal. We
are going to offer a PAYGO proposal where we would look at revenue as
well as spending. That is what you have to do. That is the only thing
that has worked, and that is the only responsible thing to do tonight.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds as a
reminder that it is the economy that has caused this deficit; it is
additional spending both for homeland security, supporting our troops,
and for those press releases Members in this Chamber have so proudly
touted back home. Today, and in fact we could have taken away all the
tax cuts and we would still be running a deficit in America. It is time
to pay our bills. Let us not cut off checks to our Social Security
people simply for partisan purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

{time} 2200

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some quite interesting
statements tonight. One of the previous speakers derided this side of
the aisle for the way we handled the national economy for the 40 years
we were in control.
Here are the facts: from 1946 until 1979, our national debt as a
percentage of total national income declined by almost three-quarters,
from 126 percent of our total national income to about 25 percent of
our total national income. Then along came Ronald Reagan and his free
lunch budgets; and in the years he was President, our national debt, as
a percentage of our national income, doubled. Our national debt went
from less than $1 trillion to more than $3 trillion under Ronald
Reagan's stewardship.
Bill Clinton came into the White House, and with the support of the
Democratic Party with not a single vote from the Republican side of the
aisle, he took the actions that led to a balanced budget and produced
the surpluses that were referred to earlier by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr.

[[Page H9981]]

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

[[Page H9982]]

And I might say that in attendance were also present Jimmy Carter,
President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W. Bush. And
both Presidents Bush spoke with great eloquence. They spoke with great
unity for our country. It was an honor for all of us to hear their
words and to be there with them at the dedication of the Clinton
Library. So it was a very wonderful occasion. And I, as Democratic
leader, want to thank President George W. Bush for giving us the planes
to enable us to go there and to thank our distinguished Speaker for
rolling the votes so that the Democrats and I think some of the
Republicans could go there. Senator Frist was there, but some from the
House were there as well.
But just to get back to our subject here, here we come back. Is it
not ironic that the Republicans in the campaign went out there and
talked about their economic policy and the first order of legislative
business when we get back here is to increase the debt ceiling? In the
course of the President's administration now, this 4 years, it will
have been raised $2 trillion. This is absolutely astounding in terms of
these figures. Whatever happened to the deficit hawks? I know they are
over there. We heard from them in earlier manifestations of their
legislative lives that they really were concerned about the fiscal
soundness of our country. Have the deficit hawks become an endangered
species?
Be true to yourselves. Face the facts. We have to have pay-as-you-go
again. Pay-as-you-go is what brought us into surplus. Pay-as-you-go is
the way we have to go now. And we will have that opportunity to do that
later.
I am going to submit my fuller statement for the Record because the
hour is late and because my colleagues have spoken so eloquently to
this point. But I just want to close with a point about accountability.
This budget that we have is supposed to be a statement of our national
values. We have talked about that over and over again. And a value that
we have to have is accountability, how we answer to the next generation
for the debt that we are piling on them. We want to give our children
opportunity. Instead, we are giving them obligations.

{time} 2215

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

[[Page H9983]]

take responsibility to pay those bills tonight? Or are we going to vote
to go into default, to not meet our obligations, to stop our Social
Security checks to the elderly or retirement checks and medicare
payments?
It is time to gather Republicans and Democrats to pay our bills, to
look out for our seniors and to vote yes on this debt ceiling.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today thoroughly
discouraged with the current proposal to increase the public debt limit
by a staggering $800 billion. If this proposal is allowed to pass the
American people will inherit a budget system that allows the federal
deficit to grow to $8.18 trillion. This kind of economic maneuvering is
not only dangerously foolish, it is in fact unethical. There is a
reason why we have a federal debt limit, because incurring too much
debt ruins our ability for long-term growth, by adding an additional
$800 billion to the debt limit we are only laughing at the idea of
fiscal constraint. This proposal being considered by this body only
continues the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration and
this Republican Congress.
This administration has tried to say that deficits don't matter; we
know that that is simply not true. History has proven that chronic
deficits threaten our economic strength by crowding out private
investment, driving up interest rates, and slowing economic growth.
Indeed foreign investment in the United States has dried up because
foreign investors have no confidence in the Bush economic agenda. This
administration's irresponsible budget policies have turned a surplus
into a large deficit that is choking off growth in the American
economy.
President Bush likes to say his budget is geared towards tax cuts for
all Americans. When in fact the average American won't receive a
substantial tax cut, but will instead be hit with a tax hike in the
form of an ever-growing deficit. A large deficit means taxpayers have
to shoulder the costs of paying the interest on this new national debt.
The end result will be a debt tax on the great majority of Americans.
This will be a tax on lower and middle class Americans; it will be a
tax on the elderly and most unfortunately it will be a tax on our
children. The truly sad part of the President's economic policies is
that while they are bad for America today they are even worse for
future generations of American taxpayers.

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

[[Page H9984]]

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

[[Page H9985]]

can't afford to pay for the government programs vital to this country's
health and well-being.
Republicans will, however, continue to run up huge deficits while
lowering taxes, especially for corporations and individuals making over
$200,000 a year. Unfortunately, they don't want to pay for the loss of
revenue caused by these tax-cutting measures. That means less money to
spend on everything from education to Medicare.
Increasing the debt limit is a statutory necessity to keep the
government running, but it is also a sad commentary on the fiscal
stewardship shown to the American people by this administration and the
Republican leadership in Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 856, the bill is considered read for
amendment, and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.

Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Stenholm

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

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

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

[[Page H9986]]

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

{time} 2230

This motion has nothing to do with PAYGO. And I would respectfully
say PAYGO as I have seen it really means higher taxes, unfortunately
higher spending, and unfortunately fewer jobs. I just respectfully
disagree on that. But the fact of the matter is if we keep the economy
going, if we will work together on spending restraint, I know that we
can balance the budget. I know we can pay down the deficit. But tonight
we have a responsibility to pay our bills, to meet our obligations, to
keep the checks going to our Social Security recipients, for our
military retirees.
I would respectfully urge this Chamber to vote ``no'' on commit.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194,
nays 213, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 535]

YEAS--194

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

NAYS--218

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

NOT VOTING--21

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 2254

Mr. OTTER, Mr. NUNES, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. THOMAS and Mr. CHABOT
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. OWENS, Mr. STRICKLAND and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the Senate
bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

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

[[Page H9987]]

[Roll No. 536]

AYES--208

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

NOES--204

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

NOT VOTING--21

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 2311

So the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________