Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2986) to amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 856 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of

this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 856 is a closed rule that provides for consideration of S. 2986, a bill to increase the public debt limit. The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. Finally, the rule provides 1 motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, the debt limit increase bill that will come before this body is a necessary step in order to avoid a shutdown of our government. The Federal Government has never before defaulted on our obligations, but without our immediate action today we will simply be unable to pay our bills.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill increases the statutory debt limit in order to protect the full faith and credit of the United States. It is necessary and not an unusual step to ensure that the Federal Government is able to pay its bills.

It is important to note that the level of debt subject to limit is a function of past decisions made by decades of administrations and Congresses. It is equally important to note that increasing the debt limit does not increase the deficit.

As Robert Rubin, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary noted, ``Passage of the debt ceiling is totally unrelated to deficit reduction.'' And in testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, he further noted that ``The debt limit is about meeting obligations already incurred, while future deficits can only be reduced so actions taken in the budget process itself.''

While the publicly-held debt has increased more rapidly in recent years, it is a result of the ongoing war against terrorism, an effort that began after the horrific attacks on our Nation on September 11, 2001.

Without passage of the underlying bill today, vital programs such as Social Security, medicare, unemployment insurance benefits, veterans' care, and military retirement are all put in jeopardy.

We risk not providing food, clothing, ammunition, and other necessary resources to our brave men and women engaged in the war on terror. Highway funding, disaster assistance, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, all will be at risk.

In addition, if we do not act today, taxpayers will be further burdened with higher interest rates, and we risk the disruption of financial markets at a time when our national economy continues to grow at a strong pace.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and this underlying legislation is necessary to keep the government operating, ensure the continued delivery of vital services for our citizens, and provide the equipment, supplies, and munitions our troops need to continue our fight in the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to just clarify the record that while public debt is held by foreign interests, foreigners invest in the United States because we have a sound economy and we provide a safe place for them due to our low risk of default.

The market for U.S. Treasury securities is the largest, most liquid and transparent financial market in the world.

It is also important for our colleagues to know that our debt limit increase is not an unusual function if we just look at the 21st century, but I think we kind of have to look at the last half of the 20th century.

The level of outstanding debt is subject to a limit and a function that is past decisions made by previous administrations and Congresses over decades, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, as well as current and past levels of economic activity and should not be subject to political gamesmanship.

As we look at the debt limit increase measures, there have been 83 since 1940, Mr. Speaker, seven during the 1940s, six during the 1950s, 13 during the 1960s, 18 during the 1970s, 24 during the 1980s, 13 during the 1990s and two far this decade. So it is not an unusual function or an unprecedented function or a Republican function or a Democratic function. It is a function of keeping the government running.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is important, after listening to my colleague and fellow member of the Committee on Rules, that we point out that tax relief did not cause the deficit. We would have triple-digit budget deficits today if taxes remained at the historically high levels of 2000. The tax policies that were put in place helped our economy out of a recession that began in the Clinton administration and was in the early Bush years.

Without our tax policies, the economy would not have recovered as quick and as well as it has. More Americans would have lost their jobs. A less robust recovery from recession would have had the adverse effects on revenues and the budget deficit, and healthy revenue growth continues even with tax relief. The recent decline in the deficit is largely a result of revenue increasing faster than anticipated because of strong economic growth.

After 3 years of declining revenue in the wake of September 11, revenue is now growing more robustly than expected. Just since July, we have seen the deficit projections for this year drop by $32 billion. While I cannot predict what the next election will be, I do know the President ran on those tax cuts, as did the majority in this Congress, and both the President will serve another term and in the 109th Congress the Republican majority will continue in being the majority in this body

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in the time of the last 2 years of this Congress we have had a great debate. A guy from the left that believes that there should not be tax cuts, or to have some kind of message for middle America to feel that they might get a piece of it.

I am a guy that believes if you pay taxes, you ought to get a tax cut. We took that referendum, I guess, to the public, and they have ratified an opportunity for this majority to remain.

Now, I also understand majority/minority politics, and I guess if I look through the years of 1940, 1950, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000 when we would find that Republicans controlled the place or Democrats controlled the place, I am sure that there were a few that made the debt reduction or the aspect of all of that debate at the same time they looked at the debt limit.

But also in my opening remarks we heard from Secretary Rubin who said that the aspect of raising the debt limit was not the aspect of addressing the deficit. It was the budget itself. And I will quote him.

As Robert Rubin, then Treasury Secretary under the President said in November of 1995 in that quote, Passage of the debt ceiling is totally unrelated to deficit reduction. The deficit can only be reduced in the budget process.

He reiterated this truth 1 month later in testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services when he said, The debt limit is about meeting obligations already

incurred, while future deficits can only be reduced through actions taken in the budget process itself.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, a couple things.

One, in the finger pointing of this 21st century of deficit and debt limit increases, again, I will put on the record, we had seven during the 1940s, six during the 1950s, 13 during the 1960s, 18 during the 1970s, 24 during the 1980s, 13 during the 1990s and two so far this decade. So we are not into a new venture, and we are not into a Republican venture. We are into a congressional decision of whether we keep the government moving or whether we do not, and there were 83 debt limit measures that have been enacted into law.

I believe the gentleman from Texas will come up and talk about the PAYGO amendment that was offered before the Committee on Rules last night, and I think that it will be important for us to listen to him, and I believe that the issue of PAYGO will have bipartisan support if and when it comes to this floor.

But I also want to caution my colleagues that this is a Senate bill that we are taking up, and further delay once again results in this body jeopardizing our trust funds such as Social Security, Medicare, highways, and we further jeopardize veterans' care and military retirement.

So when we put our military at risk, at not having the necessary resources of food and clothing and ammunition, we also endanger unemployment benefits and disaster assistance, low-income home energy assistance programs.

The debate on PAYGO I believe should happen and will happen. It is not necessarily that it has to happen when we are looking at debt limit for a number of reasons, including the quotes of Robert Rubin of 1995.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

credit of the United States, to honor the obligations of this great Nation as we have for 220 years, to rise above the partisanship and pass a straightforward extension of the debt limit. Show them that America keeps its word.''

That rang true when a Democratic President spoke to a Republican Congress; it rings true today as we consider the debt limit.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I want to correct my colleague from Oregon. I do not think I said I had a mandate on anything. I think I outlined the fact we had a great debate before an election and Republicans continue here.

I also wonder if my colleague ever voted for a debt limit increase in his many terms of service, as we demagogue the issue today. As we come to a vote, it is going to get down to whatever excuse you find if you do not vote for it. But if you do not vote for it, you are actually putting the government in harm's way, which means the people are in harm's way. We have said that in repeated messages on the record today, and that still remains a fact as we look at consideration of the debate on the rule and then the underlying legislation following it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a number of my colleagues, and I have been on the record repeated times. First of all, what came before the Committee on Rules last night was a Senate bill. The Committee on Rules made a vote and decision without having any further delay to bring forward the Senate bill for consideration on the rule that we are now in debate on, and later we will have debate on the underlying legislation.

We can demagogue it and put on the record all sorts of messages to feel good or draw political lines or switch from when might have been responsibility for voting for debt limit and now not, and now PAYGO. We have had debate on that. But I want to make sure that we listen to two things when we talk about bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is a two-way street of working together.

I suspect, as I said before my colleague from California entered the Chamber, I expect to see Republican support again for PAYGO. Republicans are looking at it closely. There is certainly support for consideration of that. My colleague from California outlined some of the votes in a bipartisan vote that came for PAYGO, and I addressed that I think, with the gentleman from Texas, that there is support.

The question is, under the terms of the debate, we want it altogether, right now, right here, and that is the position we are carrying. Some of that has been now a Blue Dog position that has been laid out by a number of members of that caucus. But the reality is if we keep screwing around with this thing, we are going to shut the government down. We cannot have it both ways.

Each of us has voted for something that makes the government run and takes credit for it when it is the fall of the election year, making sure that voters knew they were working hard to bring some of that Federal money back home.

Any further delay will result in this body's jeopardizing our trust funds, like Social Security, Medicare and highways. We further jeopardize military care and retirement. We put our military at risk. We endanger unemployment benefits and disaster assistance and low- income home energy assistance programs, programs many of us had in our messages back in our respective States and districts.

We also talk about listening to presentations from 2000. At least twice I put on the record in this hour 83 different times over the last 64 years has the Congress taken upon itself to increase the debt limit.

I also put on the record President Clinton's 1996 State of the Union address where he asked for bipartisan cooperation to ask the Congress to do the right thing and increase the debt limit.

So it is not a new thing, it is not a Republican thing, it is not at Democrat thing, it is a government thing. There will be a consequence if we do not keep the government running because, for the history of our Nation, we have never not made sure that we honored what needed to be done with respect to debt limit.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in 1996, we heard, as I put on the record, President Clinton's appeal to the Congress. I thought I might share a little bit of the appeal of our colleagues. The two I have come from the Democratic side of the aisle at that time who made the appeal for the debt limit to be rising.

Barbara Kennelly of Connecticut stated, ``Lifting the debt limit should not be a matter of politics, but of governance. Ensuring that it is done should not be a question of partisan leverage, but of leadership.''

The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), ``If the debt ceiling is not extended or is sent to the President in a form he cannot sign, the repercussions will be devastating. Already, the leaders of our European allies are warning of an international financial crisis should the United States default on its debt payments. Bond rating agencies are raising alarm that our Nation's triple A bond rating is in jeopardy.

``An actual default would cause interest rates on Treasury bonds to rise, making a balanced budget almost impossible to achieve. Home mortgage and business borrowing rates would increase, slowing economic growth.

``In the past, many clean debt limit extensions have been passed in a bipartisan manner by this House. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now.''

I do not always agree with my colleagues on some of their viewpoints of getting government solutions, and I am sure that many do not agree with me on government solutions, but we have certainly had a history of administrations, Democrat and Republican, and 83 times this Congress since 1940 has said let us do it.

Now I understand showmanship. I understand consumption back home. I understand we are still in November, so we have a little election spirit in us. But the reality is if we do not increase this debt limit, we are putting America's people in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress must honor our commitments and America's priorities. We must stand up today in support of our seniors and veterans and military and all citizens who will be harmed by our inaction. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support the rule and the underlying bill.

I also look at the 109th Congress as an opportunity for those who want to look at PAYGO, Republican and Democrat, from those from the left to those on the right to come together in a bipartisan fashion and continue working through the will of the House to see those types of considerations debated in committee and debated on the floor of this great House.

Before I yield back, I would like to quickly thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and all of the members of the Committee on Rules and staff as this is most likely the last time I will manage a rule for this industrious panel. I have been honored to serve on the Rules Committee for the past 6 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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. 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. 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?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

``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. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, tell me the moral clarity of going home each week and trumpeting that press release for the firefighter fund or the road project or for

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

Mr. Speaker, let me first, on behalf of this side of the aisle, join with the Minority Leader in praising the service of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). His grandson ought to be proud of his granddad, his service here, both for our country here in Congress and in Texas where, as a fellow Texan, I can tell my colleagues I am very proud of his service and proud to have served with him.

There is something else we share as well. We share a debt in this Nation and we share a responsibility to pay those bills. The debt we face tonight is shared. Eighty-eight percent of this debt occurs from intergovernmental transfers of before the Bush administration. This is debt generated over decades and decades that every Member in this House today had a hand in creating.

The solution in the end, after all of the rhetoric is said and done, is going to be to join together for spending restraint, for abolishing obsolete agencies, to eliminating the billions of dollars of duplication, to getting a backbone to say no to projects. And, in fact, we have the opportunity starting in January, maybe tonight, to have a fresh start about working together, Republicans and Democrats, to again balance this budget and to start paying down that debt.

But, in truth, the question tonight is much simpler than that. The question is, are we going to pay our bills? Are we going to take responsibility for that press release, that project, that water funding, that university research, all of those things that we have championed and ran on back home, are we going to

take responsibility to pay those bills tonight? Or are we going to vote to go into default, to not meet our obligations, to stop our Social Security checks to the elderly or retirement checks and medicare payments?

It is time to gather Republicans and Democrats to pay our bills, to look out for our seniors and to vote yes on this debt ceiling.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his very excellent work on fiscal soundness for our country and in this Congress. He has so eloquently driven the message home that no country has ever been strong, prosperous, and bankrupt. I thank him for his eloquence and his leadership.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, has been a champion for middle-income families in America and understands the importance of the fiscal soundness they have in their homes in paying their mortgages, their credit cards, their car payments, and the impact of a huge budget deficit, a huge national debt has on the lives of working families in America, and I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) as well.

I want to reserve my highest praise for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). This Congress has been blessed for many years by his distinguished service in the House of Representatives. He has been a champion for the American people, for the American farmer, and a leader for fiscal soundness in our country. He is about accountability, accountability in our service here. No one has been a stronger or more eloquent voice for that message and what it means. He has been a teacher to the Congress. He has changed the thinking of a political party by making Democrats the party of fiscal responsibility for having a pay-as-you-go policy where we say no more budget deficit, no more deficit spending.

It has too high a cost in the personal lives of the American people. It has too high a cost to fiscal soundness of our country, and as others have indicated, there are countries that own our debt that we are at the mercy of should they decide not to play in those markets at any given time.

So this place will simply not be the same without the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), but I hope that as a source of comfort, if that is the word, to him as he goes on to other great things, and I know he will, that he has made a tremendous difference for our country. He has made tremendous progress for our country. I know I speak for every person here when I say it has been an honor to call him colleague. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, many of us just came back from the dedication of the Clinton Library, where obviously we were drenched in the rain for several hours. But it was well worth it because we could pay tribute to a President who too was committed to fiscal soundness. Under the economic policy and the plan that was passed in this body by only Democratic votes, our country went on a path of fiscal soundness that had zero deficit in 1999. Zero deficit. Think of it. Compared to this year when the deficit is over $425 billion just for this year. And President Clinton, when he left office, he put us on a path of fiscal soundness and surplus of $5.6 trillion, $5.6 trillion in surplus.

And now we are going on a path of over $3 trillion in deficit, a huge swing approaching $10 trillion. It is historic, the swing that has taken place. So no wonder we would endure the driving rain and all that it did to us there to thank President Clinton.

And I might say that in attendance were also present Jimmy Carter, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W. Bush. And both Presidents Bush spoke with great eloquence. They spoke with great unity for our country. It was an honor for all of us to hear their words and to be there with them at the dedication of the Clinton Library. So it was a very wonderful occasion. And I, as Democratic leader, want to thank President George W. Bush for giving us the planes to enable us to go there and to thank our distinguished Speaker for rolling the votes so that the Democrats and I think some of the Republicans could go there. Senator Frist was there, but some from the House were there as well.

But just to get back to our subject here, here we come back. Is it not ironic that the Republicans in the campaign went out there and talked about their economic policy and the first order of legislative business when we get back here is to increase the debt ceiling? In the course of the President's administration now, this 4 years, it will have been raised $2 trillion. This is absolutely astounding in terms of these figures. Whatever happened to the deficit hawks? I know they are over there. 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.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, the national debt hit $7,444,423,020,967.95. It translates to over $25,000 owed by each and every one of us. The national debt is growing so fast, $1.6 billion every single day, that the last seven digits on the national debt clock in New York City are flipping faster than can be seen by the human eye.

No one is spared this heavy economic burden, not even America's children. In fact, today every child born in America comes into this world owing a birth tax of $25,255 which is their share of payment on a national debt that they had no part in creating.

To my friends on the other side of the aisle that fought with such fervor and passion against the so-called death tax, I ask, where is the moral indignation when it comes to the birth tax which is levied on this Nation's most innocent Americans, its children?

This is a moral issue. The Federal Government cannot continue to borrow 20 cents of every dollar it spends, run up historic deficits, and add to the Federal debt without seriously harming the economy for generations yet unborn.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a measure to raise the debt ceiling for the third time in 3 years. The debt ceiling is a statutory limit, imposed by law on the total amount of debt that the United States of America can incur. It currently stands at $7.384 trillion. At the beginning of President Bush's first term, Congress was told that the debt ceiling would not need to be raised until the year 2008 at the earliest. However, if we count the $800 billion increase provided for under S. 2986, the bill to be considered later today, the debt limit will have been raised by more than $2 trillion since President Bush took office.

On this day, with Americans coming together in Little Rock, Arkansas, to open the Bill Clinton Presidential Library, I find myself waxing nostalgic for the budget policies of the 1990s: the PAYGO rules, the spending caps and other critical budget policies that set our Nation's budget on a path to historic surpluses and allowed us to pay down the national debt for 7 straight years. It was not easy but it was the right thing to do.

Last night in the Committee on Rules, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), offered an amendment to S. 2986 to help us get on the path of fiscal discipline. The Thompson amendment, co- authored with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), one of this body's most thoughtful Members on budget issues, would have allowed this body to restore the PAYGO rules and spending caps that were allowed to lapse in 2002. Regrettably, the Thompson amendment was rejected and my colleagues are being denied the opportunity to restore some budget discipline.

Mr. Speaker, our national deficit keeps hitting historic highs, $413 billion by the end of September, and no end in sight, particularly as we are spending $5 billion a month on the war. At this rate, deficits will continue for years to come, adding several trillion at a minimum to the colossal debt we have already incurred. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates that at the current rate of deficit spending, by the year 2014 the debt ceiling will have to be raised to $14.5 trillion.

Chronic budget deficits also undermine the economic security of Americans. As the government's appetite for money increases and it consumes more and more of the capital available in credit markets, more Americans will face higher interest rates and find it harder to finance their homes, their education, and their businesses.

Moreover, there is cause for alarm when we look at how this debt is being financed. I have serious concerns about how this Nation will maintain its sovereignty as foreign governments and nationals continue to bankroll us.

Today, the Japanese hold over $600 billion in U.S. debt paper and the Chinese hold between $225 and $275 billion. When 90 percent of new debt is purchased by the likes of the Bank of China and Japanese interests, how can we be sure that we have the resources to provide for the national defense? How do we ensure our independence when foreign governments who do not share our Nation's values or views on foreign policy issues buy up our bonds?

I strongly believe that the level of foreign holdings is a grave and gathering threat to our Nation's sovereignty.

Mr. Speaker the closed rule before us today only allows an hour to debate the national debt. That is simply not enough time to debate an issue that affects every man, woman and child, living and unborn, in this country. Moreover, the majority's refusal to let the Simpson- Stenholm PAYGO amendment come to the floor for a vote is foolhardy. Without a major change in course, we are on the path to debt for generations to come.

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

Soaring Ceilings

This week the lame-duck Congress will have to raise the

federal debt ceiling. For several weeks the Treasury

Department has

been doing the governmental equivalent of scrounging for

spare change in the couch cushions to pay its obligations.

Now, with the election safely past and Treasury at the limits

of its ingenuity, lawmakers will do the inevitable and

increase the government's borrowing authority by as much as

$800 billion--raising the debt ceiling to more than $8

trillion.

This will be the third time in three years that the debt

limit has been increased, for a grand total of more than $2

trillion during President Bush's first term. The last hike

was nearly $1 trillion, but it took less than 18 months for

the government to hit the newly raised ceiling. By way of

comparison, the entire federal debt in 1980 was less than $1

trillion;

There will be some noisy debate about this, only partly on

point. The debt limit, as now defined, both overstates and

understates the problem of the national debt. It overstates

the problem by including not only what an ordinary person

would think of as ``real debt''--the $4.3 trillion the

government has borrowed--but also money the government

essentially owes itself. These are the ``trust funds'' to

finance future obligations, such as Social Security and

Medicare, that the government ``borrows'' from to pay its

current bills. To the extent this reflects a debt, it's of a

different sort from a Treasury bond. But if this is a debt,

the ceiling understates the problem because the trust fund

IOUs the government issues to itself don't come close to

reflecting the full cost of its future commitments to those

programs.

This much is beyond question: The government is living far

beyond its means. The deficits it racks up year after year

impede economic growth, burden future generations and force

the United States to rely on foreign governments and

investors. Since Mr. Bush took office, foreign holdings of

U.S. debt have grown from 30 percent to 43 percent of the

total, and 90 percent of the new debt has been purchased by

foreigners. Meanwhile, as the government has to pay more

interest on its debt, it has less for health care, education

and other programs. According to the Congressional Budget

Office, the government's interest payments are expected to

more than double between 2003 ($153 billion) and 2010 ($319

billion); interest costs will account for almost 10 percent

of federal spending in the next decade.

``We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now,''

Mr. Bush said in his first State of the Union address. He was

speaking about his plan to pay off over the next decade the

entire $2 trillion in government debt held by the public.

Now, instead of being eliminated, debt held by the public--

real debt--is on track to reach $6.5 trillion by 2011. How do

Mr. Bush and all the lawmakers who have enabled his

irresponsibility plan to explain that to the grandchildren?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 second just to say that President Bush, in his first State of the Union said, ``We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now,'' speaking about his plan to pay off in the next decade the entire $2 trillion in government-debt held by the public.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will be calling for a no vote on the previous question so we can change the rule and add the Stenholm amendment to reinstate pay-as-you- can-go programs in our budget process.

This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on a straight party-line vote. I want to emphasize that this no vote will not in any way prevent or block the consideration of the underlying bill to increase the debt ceiling, but a yes vote will block us in voting to restore the pay-as-you-go provisions in the budget process. I urge a no vote on the previous question

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, why are we here for the third time in 3 years? It is because our country has borrowed over $1.5 trillion in that time from 2001 until now.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an accident. This is the first administration and the first Congress in the history of this country that has knowingly, willfully, deliberately, and consciously pursued an economic plan that will leave our country weaker in the long run than when they found it. No other people who have occupied these seats have consciously, willfully and deliberately bankrupted our country like what is going on today.

Just in the last 4 years, at a 5 percent interest rate, these people have raised taxes on the American people $67 billion a year each and every year from now on to the rest of our lives because of this prolific borrowing that is going on.

President Jimmy Carter once said that the highest office in our land is that of citizen, and he is right. Citizens hire us to come here every couple of years in this body to do the public work, to try to run their business like we would run our own.

All we have asked of the majority is before we borrow another $800 billion in

the name of every citizen in this country, they would at least give us the opportunity to stop and say why do we not pay for what we are spending? Why do we not do the moral value of paying our bills? We are not paying our bills by borrowing another $800 billion. We are passing our bills on to our children, our grandchildren and anybody else who follows us. That is no moral value.

I tell my colleagues one other thing. We are creating a financial vulnerability in this country that is second only to the threat of terrorism. Since 2001, there has been an $844 billion increase in foreign-held debt, and do my colleagues know who holds it? Almost every country in the world.

I hold this up from the Treasury Department: Japan, over $700 billion; mainland China and Hong Kong, over $230 billion; the Caribbean banking centers, over $100 billion.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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. 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. 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. 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.)

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. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentleman from Indiana's side of the aisle has borrowed more money in 3\1/2\ years than the Democrats borrowed in 40.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. 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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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. 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. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.