Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, encourage the passage of H.R. 3242, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 4620. H.R. 4620 was introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Nethercutt). I have been contacted by the Texas Wheat Growers, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the Wheat Export Trade Education Committee and the USA Rice Federation in support of addressing an issue that has arisen in regard to the collection of assessments for State commodity research and education programs when the commodity in question goes under loan with the USDA. I want to thank the gentleman from Washington and the Washington Wheat Growers for bringing this situation to our attention before it impacted more States or more commodities. I am pleased to have worked with the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), to report out a bill that the Committee on Agriculture fine-tuned in conjunction with USDA and the wheat industry. As a wheat farmer, I know the benefit our State wheat and other commodity promotion groups do on our behalf with checkoff funds, and I support this continued effort; and therefore, I am pleased to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to express my support also for H.R. 3514, the Pennsylvania National Forest Improvement Act of 2004. This legislation allows the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or convey six parcels of land from the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania to local municipalities or private individuals. According to the U.S. Forest Service, the sale or conveyance of these parcels is necessary because they are administrative sites which actually exceed their worth in terms of management. The parcels in question have been identified as outlying parcels by the Forest Service. Three of the parcels would be conveyed to local government agencies, allowing them to better serve their communities. Proceeds from the sale of the parcels will be used to improve administrative sites and to acquire inholdings from willing sellers. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2984. Current statute requires any marketing order that assesses processing pears must have equal representation from producers and processors on its governing board. This statute is a barrier to the industry's consolidation plan and would unjustly grant processors, who do not pay into Federal marketing orders, a role in directing activities funded with producer dollars. The Pacific Northwest pear industry is seeking to consolidate promotional activity under a single Federal marketing order for fresh pears and processing pears that will be funded, operated and managed by pear producers. H.R. 2984 would remove the existing processor membership requirement, allowing the industry to establish a single producer-funded-and- operated Federal marketing order. This change will pave the way for consolidation and allow producers alone to determine how their funds will be used in pear promotion activities. The pear industry is unified in support of the proposed changes made in H.R. 2984, and I encourage members to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) be allowed to manage the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for S. 33, a lands exchange bill that was introduced by Senator Lincoln of Arkansas which passed the Senate on November 11, 2003. Its companion bill in the House, H.R. 3744 was introduced by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross). These two pieces of legislation are the same except for changes to the title and some capitalization. This legislation authorizes the sale of 16 administrative sites in the Ouachita National Forest and 7 administrative sites in the Ozark- St. Francis National Forest. Because some of the parcels contain buildings which must be maintained for historic preservation purposes, they are expensive to maintain, according to the U.S. Forest Service. In fact, the U.S. Forest Service contends that the cost of maintaining such parcels generally exceeds their value in terms of management. S. 33 allows the monies from the sale of the sites to be used to relocate and renovate offices and to purchase and replace administrative sites. The Forest Service has indicated that it has no objections to the legislation. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2119, legislation to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the State of North Carolina approximately 4.28 acres of Federal lands administered as part of the Oxford Research Station in Granville, North Carolina. The bill addresses concerns raised by USDA with the original legislation. In a letter dated March 30, 2004, USDA acknowledged the strong, equitable interest the State of North Carolina has in the research station and stated it will gladly exercise the authority provided to convey the Oxford Research to the State of North Carolina once the legislation is enacted. According to USDA estimates, the amendment will not significantly affect the Federal budget. In fact, the research station is currently unused and actually costs the USDA's property inventory funding to maintain it. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank my friend from Tennessee for yielding and thank him for taking this hour tonight. I not only want to thank him, but I want to thank USA Today for what they did today on the front page of their newspaper. We have been in this Chamber several times this year talking about this, but nobody pays any attention. You would think that you are making this up, what you have just shown, how the deficit has turned around. We have listened to the explanations from our friends on the other side who are in control of the fiscal matters of this country right now. Here is the paper, front page: $84,454 is the average householder's personal debt, as you mentioned. We have got home mortgages. If you are in small business, you borrow money. Your personal family, you borrow money. You have got credit card debt. You have got a car loan, et cetera. So the average per household is $84,454. The average debt that you are talking about tonight plus the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, and I found it rather fascinating that the previous 1 hour did not ever mention the debt that is associated with the Medicare program right now, that did not mention that we were kind of misled, and I was one of the bipartisan supporters of the pharmaceutical drug Medicare reform bill, and I supported it because of the rural hospital components, but nobody mentioned the fact that we were misled about what the cost of that bill was going to be, those of us who supported it. We were not told 100 percent of the truth, and that is another story for another day. But you are going to get into something in a minute that I think is going to get even more the attention of the American people. I remember, 1981, when we in this body in a bipartisan way increased the debt ceiling to, I believe, $980 billion. We are talking tonight about $7.3 trillion. It was $980 billion in 1981. We did not worry too much about that at that time because we owed most of that money to ourselves. When you owe money to yourselves, I remember the debate very clearly, it is not a problem because we are just taking it out of this pocket and putting it in another one. But, today, it has changed a little. I think that leads into the point the gentleman was wanting to make. I want to talk more about this unfunded liability again, things we are not doing in this 108th Congress. It has been now labeled, and I think correctly, the biggest do- nothing Congress since 1948; i.e., we have been in session less this year than any Congress since 1948. And that means that we have got an energy bill we have not passed. That means we have got a budget we have not passed. That means that, sometime this week, we are going to reach the debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion, which means we have got to up our credit card limit, or we default on these notes that we have got. And so all of this time, nothing is being talked about until today on the front page, some newspaper, some media, paid a little bit of attention to it. But when we talk about debt, we do not owe it to ourselves anymore, and one of the most frightening aspects of this debt today is the one that the gentleman is just about to talk about.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I hope our colleagues are paying a little attention to this tonight, because when we have been on this floor offering to be part of a solution, if people are watching this right now, folks are beginning to think, I would hope, okay, what should we do about it? What do you propose we do about it? How do you stop this, or is it no problem? Well, I do not think anybody can come to the conclusion that this is no problem. If they do, they are living on a different world than the gentleman is or I am. It is a problem. It is a major problem. Not only is this foreign debt, but then when you look at the unfunded liabilities of our Social Security system, for our children and grandchildren, and I want to emphasize right here, no one watching this has to worry about your Social Security check today. That is not the problem. It is our children and grandchildren that have got to worry about it. The Medicare situation right now is a $30 trillion unfunded liability. That is the more immediate problem. But our point tonight is in emphasizing this body, the 108th Congress, has done nothing to address the problem the gentleman is showing, has done nothing to address the Social Security unfunded liability, has done nothing to deal with Medicare, other than dig the hole deeper; and that is the concern that we bring tonight. It is time that we start doing something about it. Sometime this week, it is estimated that on Friday the United States of America will reach our credit card limit, $7.384 trillion; and when you reach that limit, you cannot borrow any more. Now, the Blue Dogs, we have written a letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), saying Mr. Speaker, we will vote to increase the debt ceiling, we will provide some bipartisan support for doing that, and we ask you to bring it to the floor and do it out in the open, with one proviso: reinstate one small rule that worked in 1990, 1992 and 1997, pay-as-you-go. It says if you are going to spend more money for any purpose, you have got to pay for it. If you are going to cut taxes, you have got to cut the spending first; not just say you are going to do it, but actually do it before you cut the taxes so you do not dig the deficit hole deeper. We think that is a reasonable compromise. The gentleman and I and 36 of our colleagues have said on this side of the aisle, we will do that. Instead, what we hear from the leadership of this House is we are not going to vote on it until the lame duck session. We are going to put the Treasurer of the United States, who has asked us to increase the debt ceiling, we are going to put the good faith and credit of the United States into requiring the Treasurer of the United States to use every gimmick at his disposal, borrowing the Civil Service trust fund dollars, again, they have already been borrowed and spent, but we are going to do it again, because, as you know, these trust funds are a figment of imagination of anybody. The military, the irony tonight, is that for the next 6 weeks we are going to force the Treasurer of the United States to borrow the military trust funds. The men and women who are putting their lives on the line tonight for us in Afghanistan and Iraq, work in paying into their trust fund for their retirement, we are going to manipulate that for the next 6 weeks just to keep us from voting to increase the debt ceiling. That borders on immorality. We hear a lot about that around this body, and it is wrong. It is time for us to start dealing. You will find, Mr. Speaker, there are some considerable number of Democrats that will work with you would you allow us the opportunity to do so. Finally, on the point the gentleman is making here, the gentleman mentioned debt tax awhile ago. All we hear about around here is tax cuts, tax cuts out the gazoo. What the gentleman has shown tonight is the largest tax increase that this country has ever seen, because once you owe $7 trillion, let us round it off now because it will be $8 trillion within the next year, $8 trillion, a 1 percent increase in the interest rates of this country, a 1 percent increase is a $80 billion tax increase, and where are we going to send 42 percent of that tax increase? To our good foreign neighbors that are financing our spending binge in this country. This is the biggest not only tax increase, but, as the gentleman pointed out tonight, the biggest foreign aid bill that this country has ever passed. And yet you would not believe it based on the rhetoric we hear in this body night after night.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I was just going to add a couple of points here. It is not just the three of us talking about this. The Comptroller General David Walker, the government's chief accountant, is traveling the Nation warning of the impending crisis. ``I am desperately trying to get people to understand the significance of this for our country, our children and our grandchildren,'' Walker says. ``How this is resolved could affect not only our economic security but our national security,'' which the gentleman has pointed out and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). ``We are heading to a future where we will have to double taxes or cut Federal spending by 50 percent.'' Alan Greenspan has been begging this Congress and this administration to deal with the deficit, but nobody seems to be listening. This is a major problem which requires a solution, and we just seem to be ignoring it and sweeping it under the table like it is not there, but it is there.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to make an observation right here, because I know if any of our colleagues, and we have two on the floor from our friends on the other side of the aisle right now, their thinking right now, if it has been as it has been when we have had open expressions of opposition to some of our solutions, is that you are forgetting to say we are at war, and wars are expensive. No, we are not forgetting for one second that we are at war, and 20 percent of this problem is directly related to the war, 20 percent. I use as my reference for that, Alan Greenspan. The gentleman from Tennessee brought up another interesting point that really is directly tied to the point the gentleman is making tonight. How many times have we been on this floor worried about the trade deficit? I rhetorically ask the question of my constituency back home many times: How long can America keep sending over $500 billion, exporting our jobs to other countries at the rate we are without the law of economics taking over? I do not know the answer to that question, and I do not know anybody who does know the answer to that question, but there is an answer, and the market is ultimately going to answer that. But now, tonight, the gentleman has shown, as Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story. What happens to those dollars when we ship them across to other countries? They come back. They have to come back. They are buying our debt with those dollars. If they did not, we would have a much more serious economic situation almost overnight.

Mr. STENHOLM. That is the crisis. Now, we hear folks saying, well, Charlie, this deficit is not the largest in the history of our country as a percent of GDP, and I concede that point readily, because that is a fact, if we will also use the same GDP figures for spending and for revenue. And having been around this body now for almost 26 years, I tend to go back and see, well, what was it in 1978 when I was elected and what is it in 2004 today. And spending as a percent of GDP by the Federal Government for all programs has gone down one-half of 1 percent. Revenue has gone down by 5 percent. Therefore, we are perfectly willing to borrow from foreign interests that which we demand the right to spend for all of the purposes that we are spending today. And when we hear this, there is another thing; and this is the point I wanted to make. The current accounts deficit, the gentleman mentioned that, is the largest that it has been in the history of our country today: 6.9 percent of gross domestic product in the current accounts deficit. Mr. Speaker, 3.4 percent is where it was in 1987 when Black Monday occurred and the stock market crashed because of something that happened. As USA Today says today, an oil crisis, something happens, we have a problem. We are double, 100 percent worse off today in the current accounts deficit than we were in 1987. Well, one other little figure, facts and figures. The gentleman talked about the debt tax. Forty percent of all income taxes paid by the United States citizenry last year went to pay interest on the national debt. Forty percent of all of our taxes are going to pay interest on the debt; and yet the debt, the deficit, and the rising debt is of no problem to the leadership of this House. Mind-boggling.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why he has not brought it up is we cannot have the kinds of budgets that have been here in this body for the last 3 or 4 years and get to a balanced budget. We have to change our overall budget philosophy and go back to pay-as-you- go. It is pretty simple arithmetic. We cannot run this country on philosophy. The banks will not lend us money on philosophy all of our lives. At some point, the law of economics is going to take over and as the charts the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) has shown us tonight, if it does not begin to get the attention, which I am glad again today, USA Today put it on the front page, maybe now, tomorrow night in the debates between the two candidates for Vice President, this issue will come up. Maybe Thursday or Friday night it will become part of the debate, and people will start asking the question, what is your plan? The three of us will be here, hopefully with three friends from the other side of the aisle with a plan; and if we will start working together, we can begin to address this problem. But we cannot do it with the game plan that we are under today. The game plan today is giving the results of what the gentleman is showing us right now in the charts.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, as a long-time independent voice of the people of west Texas, I rise to urge my colleagues in Congress to move forward with meaningful reforms to our national energy policy. Driving across the long west Texas highways, one cannot help but notice the towering wind farms that have cropped up in the area I represent. Unfortunately, further wind energy development is completely halted because Congress has yet to extend the production tax credit for renewable sources of energy. We had the opportunity to extend the credits with the 2002 energy bill and now the latest energy bill has stalled in Congress. Because of unwillingness to move back to the negotiating table, my constituents are forced to forgo further wind energy development in their counties. This means fewer jobs are created in the area. Counties and schools have to give up additional tax revenue and the U.S. is put further behind in our goal to produce more renewable energy. Mr. Speaker, it is time for folks in Congress to get serious about energy in America and immediately pass the extension for the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit. It is the economically and environmentally responsible thing to do.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the comments of my friend from New York, I feel compelled to remind everyone of the words of the late Will Rogers when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much. It's them knowing so much that ain't so that is the problem.'' We can talk about this all that we want to, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule, but any Member who has ever stood on this floor and talked about fiscal responsibility should vote no on this rule. All Members who care about the future integrity of the Social Security system should vote no on this rule. All Members who care about the legacy that we will leave for future generations should vote against this rule, and you know it in your heart. Now, I too strongly support middle class tax relief. I support extending the marriage penalty relief. I support continuing the $1,000 per child tax credit and the expanded 10 percent tax credit. I have been a strong advocate for extending the wind energy tax credit. The question is whether or not we will provide tax relief to middle income families. The debate is not whether we should do so with borrowed money, adding more debt on top of our $7.3 trillion national debt. We should not pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. That is the argument we make today. Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget just like families across the country do every day as I hear from my friends on this side all the time, except when it counts. Unfortunately, the leadership of the House seems to have forgotten that common-sense principle. Instead of figuring out how to make these tax cuts fit within our budget, the majority has decided to avoid making tough choices. Every dime of these tax cuts will be added to the debt we will leave for our children and grandchildren, and you know it. In the next couple of weeks, we will have to vote to raise the debt ceiling unless we hide it. Last year foreign interests financed more than 70 percent of our $374 billion deficit. More than $1.8 trillion of this debt we now talk about, well, we do not talk about it on this side of the aisle, is held by foreign investors. I find it particularly ironic that we are considering legislation that would add $146 billion to that debt on the same day the House Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled to act on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. If a balanced budget amendment were already in the Constitution, we would not be able to continue following the budget policies being advocated by the majority. It seems only fair that those who support the amendment, as I do, be willing to budget accordingly by paying, rather than borrowing, for the policies they advocate. The legislation before us is a perfect example of why we need a balanced budget constitutional amendment, to protect the rights of future generations who are not represented in our political system, but will bear the burden of our decisions today. It is easy for politicians to vote for tax cuts or spending increases that will benefit current voters and leave the bill to our children and grandchildren who do not have a vote. Passing legislation cutting taxes or increasing spending without offsets today will increase the debt tax that must be paid by future generations and can never be repealed. The debt tax will consume 40 percent of all individual income taxes paid this year and will keep growing as long as we continue to pass legislation putting our Nation deeper into debt. Continuing to run up the national debt will ensure that we and our children and grandchildren will be overtaxed for the rest of our lives. We should defeat this rule so the conferees can go back and put together a package that provides tax relief to working men and women without increasing taxes on our children and grandchildren. To my friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds), let me remind him, it took our country 204 years to borrow the first $1 trillion, 204 years. We are borrowing $1 trillion every year and a half under the policies that you have got the guts to stand up here and say we ought to keep following. Then vote for increasing the debt ceiling and tell the American people before November 2 this is the result of the policies. We are borrowing the money to have the policies that we are giving to you. Vote for us. Forget our grandchildren.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 494, which supports the goals and purposes of National Farm Safety and Health Week and applauds the men and women who provide a stable supply of food and fiber for the United States and the world. By way of background, it should be noted that, for well over half a century, Congress has recognized National Farm Safety and Health Week. As far back as the 1940s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the first presidential proclamation recognizing National Farm Safety and Health Week in order to commemorate the hard work, diligence and sacrifices that our Nation's farmers and ranchers make on a daily basis. This week is a time for our Nation to reflect upon the important role that U.S. agriculture has played and continues to play in this Nation and throughout the entire world. The United States began as an agrarian society, and agriculture has been the backbone of this country. Over time, however, our Nation became more industrialized, and people left the farms and rural areas to pursue opportunities in the cities. And yet despite the fact that there are fewer people producing the Nation's food and fiber, productivity has increased. While the business of farming has undergone significant changes since the founding of this Nation, one thing has not changed: farming continues to be one of the most hazardous occupations in the United States. A report by the National Safety Council concluded that agriculture had the second highest fatality rate of all industries in the Nation. In 2003 alone there were 710 farm-related fatalities and 110,000 disabling injuries. I hasten to add that, because of the nature of family farms, farm- related injuries and fatalities are not solely limited to adults. A 2001 study by the National Children's Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety reported that nearly 1.5 million young people, 20 years or younger, lived or worked on farms. The same study showed that more than 660,000 in that age range were employed but not living on farms. According to the study, more than 100 children younger than 20 die each year and more than 22,000 are injured from agriculture-related injuries. Similarly, a study by the American Academy of Pediatrics showed that for teenagers farm jobs have the highest rate of fatalities of all types of teen employment. While there are many potential hazards on a farm, the greatest continues to be machinery. Reports indicate that 30 percent of farm machinery-related deaths occur in children less than 5 years old. Additionally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration concludes that 68 percent of farm-related deaths can be traced to some sort of machinery, including tractors, trucks, equipment such as augers and loaders, power takeoffs, and haying equipment. Of all the equipment on the farm, tractors remain the most dangerous. In fact, OSHA reports that more than half of the deaths that occur on the farm are the result of tractor accidents. Of the deaths caused by tractor accidents, 57 percent are the result of rollovers and another 9 percent are the result of people either falling off or getting run over by a tractor. Agriculture-related deaths and injuries are not limited to incidents involving machinery, however. Farmers and ranchers are subject to a whole host of other dangers including agriculture chemicals and fertilizers, unruly and unpredictable livestock, and buildings that contain high dust levels and toxins. It goes without saying that the commitment to farm safety cannot be limited to a single week. Nevertheless, this timely and welcome resolution to commemorate farm safety reminds us all of how important it is for farmers, ranchers, and their workers to perform their work safely and to take precautions to protect themselves. When one's child is out there with them, take a little extra bit of care for that youngster. By recognizing the dangers inherent in farming and ranching and by taking steps to prevent accidents, our Nation will continue to lead the world in the production of agriculture commodities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have no further requests for time, but let me just say in closing that I am honored to join today with the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) in joining with the President, President Bush, having declared this week National Farm Safety Week; and I am very happy to join in support of that concurrent resolution, in support of the President. I thank the President for recognizing this important contribution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, 3\1/2\ years ago, there was a lot of talk around here about budget surpluses. Some folks actually claimed there was a danger that the government would pay off our debt held by the public too quickly. Today, projections of large budget surpluses have been replaced with projections of deficits as far as the eye can see, and the administration is asking Congress to approve another increase in the debt limit, the credit card limit, if you please, for the United States of America. Last year, the Republican leadership slipped through a $984 billion increase in the debt limit, the largest increase in history, without an up-or- down vote in the House of Representatives. This came less than 8 months after we raised the Federal debt ceiling by $450 billion. To put that in proper perspective, it took our country 204 years to borrow the first $984 billion. The Treasury Department estimates that the national debt will exceed the statutory debt limit, which is currently $7.384 trillion, sometime in late September or October, just before the election. But instead of taking responsibility to pass an increase in the debt limit to pay for our policies, the leadership is counting on the Treasury Department to rely on so-called extraordinary actions, such as dipping into retirement trust funds to avoid reaching the statutory debt limit until mid November and avoid a vote on legislation increasing the debt limit until a lame duck session after the election. These extraordinary actions should be a last resort to avoid a default during a crisis, not a routine action used for political convenience. It would be irresponsible to take funds from retirement trust funds simply to avoid a discussion of the fiscal problems highlighted by the need to increase the debt limit. When the House resumes consideration of the Treasury Transportation appropriations bill today, I will offer an amendment which would prohibit the Secretary of Treasury from dipping into retirement trust funds in order to circumvent the statutory debt limit. The effect of my amendment would be to force Congress to take responsibility for the increase in the national debt by approving an increase in the debt limit before adjourning in October instead of deferring action until a lame duck session. Congress should have a full and open debate on increasing our national debt limit above $8 trillion instead of relying on financial maneuvers to avoid a vote. There would be no risk of default if Congress met its responsibility to approve an increase in the debt limit before we adjourn for the election. If my Republican colleagues honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, they should be willing to stand up and vote to increase the national debt to pay for their tax cuts instead of relying on financial maneuvers. Just like credit card spending limits serve as tools to force families to examine their household budgets, the debt limit reminds Congress and the President to evaluate our budget policies. The national debt has increased by $670 billion over the last 12 months and $1.5 trillion over the last 3 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will exceed $10 trillion in just over 4 years under our current budget policies. As of the end of April, $1.813 trillion of our debt was held by foreign investors, more than $1 trillion of which is held by official institutions. Japan now holds $695 billion of our debt, and the Chinese another $217 billion. Despite this, the leadership of this body is talking about bringing up legislation this week that would add another $130 billion to that debt. We should not pay for tax cuts or spending by borrowing money against our children's future. Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget just like families do every day. The borrow-and-spend policies of the current majority will leave a crushing debt burden for future generations who do not have any say in what we are doing today and do not benefit from the tax cuts and spending programs for current generations. The one tax that cannot be repealed is the debt tax, the cost of paying interest on our national debt. The debt tax consumed 18 percent of all government revenues to pay interest on the national debt last year and 40 percent of every dime of income taxes is required to pay interest today at current interest rates. Congress should not grant the administration a blank check to continue on the path of deficit spending. Before we vote to increase the debt limit, we should reinstate the budget enforcement rules which make it harder to pass legislation which would put us further into debt, including pay-as-you- go for all legislation. If the leadership were willing to work with us to add meaningful budget enforcement provisions to legislation increasing the debt limit, the Blue Dog Democrats would gladly supply bipartisan support for an increase in the debt limit. But if the majority wants to continue with their economic policies that have us on a path to running up more than $10 trillion in debt by the end of the decade, they should be willing to step up to the plate and approve the increase in the debt limit necessary to pay for their policies and not hide until after the elections to tell the people what the results are.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman this is a very simple amendment to restore a little bit of accountability and honesty around here about our fiscal policies. My amendment would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from dipping into retirement trust funds in order to circumvent the statutory debt limit. The effect of my amendment would be to force Congress to take responsibility for the increase in the national debt by approving an increase in the debt limit before adjourning in October instead of deferring action until a lame duck session. There would be no risk of default if Congress met its responsibility to approve an increase in the debt limit before we adjourn for the election. The Treasury Department has repeatedly warned Congress that we are approaching the debt limit and need to increase it above its current level of 7.384 trillion. Just 3 years ago, the administration stated that we would not need to raise the debt limit for 7 years and actually warned that we were in danger of paying off our debt too quickly. After 3 years of our current economic policies, projected surpluses have turned into record deficits; and we are being asked to increase the debt limit for the third time in 3 years to more than $8 trillion. But instead of taking responsibility to pay for the debt that we have run up as a result of our policies, the Republican leadership is relying on the Treasury Department to protect them from having to take this vote before the election by dipping into retirement trust funds to avoid breaching the statutory debt limit until mid-November. When Treasury Secretary Rubin took these extraordinary actions as a last resort to avoid an imminent default during a crisis, he was loudly criticized by Republican leaders in Congress. The Republican majority in Congress passed legislation which would have taken these tools away from him, and some Republicans in Congress called for his impeachment. Today, instead of criticizing the Treasury Department for planning to dip into retirement trust funds, Republican leaders are actively encouraging the Treasury Department to take these same steps as a routine action used for political convenience. It would be irresponsible to take funds from retirement trust funds simply to avoid a discussion of the fiscal problems highlighted by the need to increase the debt limit. Instead of honestly facing up to our ballooning national debt, the leadership of this body is talking about bringing up legislation this week that would add another $130 billion to that debt. We should not pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget just like families across the country do every day. I would say to my Republican colleagues that if they honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, if they believe that deficits do not matter, they should be willing to stand up and vote openly and honestly on this floor to increase the credit card limit for our country to make room for those cuts. There would be no need for these maneuvers to avoid a vote on the debt limit if the leadership were willing to work with us to stop the increase in deficit spending. The Blue Dog Democrats will gladly supply bipartisan support for an increase in the debt limit if it is accompanied by meaningful budget enforcement provisions, including the pay-as-you-go rules that were instrumental in turning budget deficits into surpluses in the 1990s. But we will not vote to approve a blank check that will allow the Government to continue runaway deficit spending. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to continue with our current economic policies that have us on a path of running up more than $10 trillion in debt, it will be up to them to provide the votes. We will work with them if they will work with us. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the chairman. I will say that everything he has said is 100 percent the truth. We did not mention Social Security. I deliberately did not mention Social Security because that is not the issue here. Everything the gentleman said in the letter from the Treasury is the truth. That is not the point of our amendment. The point of our amendment is to have an up or down vote by this body to assume the responsibility, rather than allow, under the law, the Secretary of the Treasury to manipulate the funds in a legal way to avoid having a vote on this floor prior to November 2, to have an assumption of the responsibility of the fiscal matters of this country. That is all I am asking. The chairman is exactly right: We do not need this. If he would assure me that we will have a vote, and since both of us agree on a balanced budget constitutional amendment, this is helpful to those of us like you and I, Mr. Chairman, that want to bring fiscal accountability. That is all we are asking. Let us not confuse this issue with anything other than a clear, plain, up and down vote of expression. I have already offered on behalf of a substantial number of Democrats to support an up or down vote, if you will put some budget enforcing accountability back into our process.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.