Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Stenholm moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1308 be instructed to agree, to the maximum extent possible within the scope of conference, to a conference report that-- (1) extends the tax relief provisions which expire at the end of 2004, and (2) does not increase the Federal budget deficit.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, an earlier speaker tonight said the economy is showing signs of some considerable improvement. Jobs are being created, GDP is increasing. Well, it should. We have borrowed $2.5 trillion in the last 3\1/2\ years and spent it. We should get the kind of results with that amount of borrowing. Last week, the administration failed to meet the deadline to release the mid-session review of the budget. If the administration had released the mid-session review, it would have shown that our budget is in a deep hole. As my colleagues have heard me say many times, when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging. Soon we will have an announcement of another record deficit, somewhere between $425 billion and $500 billion. Under the simple concept of pay-as-you-go, if we want to pass a tax cut or spending increase, we need to say how we would pay for it. We need to take two shovels away from Congress and the President to stop us from digging the hole deeper. The original PAYGO legislation was part of the bipartisan 1990 budget agreement between President George Herbert Walker Bush and the Democratic Congress. It was subsequently extended in 1993 and 1997, but was allowed to expire in 2002 by President Bush and the Republican Congress. We should be spending our time trying to find a bipartisan solution to balance our budget, but that may be too much to expect from this do- nothing 108th Congress. Not only has this Congress failed to make any serious efforts to reduce the deficit, we have allowed the budget enforcement tools, which we have proven the track record of in controlling the deficit, to expire. Last month, the House spent 7 hours on this floor debating 19 amendments on budget process reform, but the House leadership would not even allow an up-and-down vote on the Blue Dog budget enforcement proposals because the leadership knew that it would have enough bipartisan support to pass. Now, I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Nebraska who just spoke regarding marriage. I strongly support middle- class tax relief. I support extending the marriage penalty relief, the $1,000 per child tax credit and the 10 percent tax bracket. What I oppose is passing these tax cuts with borrowed money and leaving our children and grandchildren to pay our bills. Those who want to extend expiring tax cuts or make the tax cuts permanent, which they will try to do again this week, adding another $120 to $180 billion to our deficit, should be willing to put forward the spending cuts or the offsetting necessary to pay for them. Applying pay-as-you-go rules to tax cuts does not prevent Congress from passing more tax cuts. All it says is that if we are going to reduce our revenues, we need to reduce our spending by the same amount so the deficit does not get deeper. If Republicans actually meant what they say about controlling spending, they would have no problem with applying pay-as-you-go to tax cuts, because it would force Congress to actually control spending when we pass tax cuts instead of just promising to do so in the future. The problem is the actions of Republicans have not matched their rhetoric. They cut taxes without cutting spending and charge the difference to our children and grandchildren. Last year we increased the debt limit by $984 billion. The current debt limit is $7.384 trillion. At the close of business last Friday, our total national debt stood at $7,273,792,456,490.62. It appears very likely the debt limit will be reached sometime in late September or October, with the most likely date being early October. It is time for Congress to deal seriously with our Nation's fiscal affairs. We cannot keep having 70 percent of our debt being bought by foreigners and not paying the bill sooner or later.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Common Computing Environment system. There are a lot of folks making a lot of great speeches today, and I agree with all of them. I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). I agree with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the concerns and the needs there. I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and his statement. I agreed with the chairman and what he is saying. But what I am afraid of is that we are about to do something that is going to do more damage to all of our farmers and all of our needs and the efficiency of the delivery of these programs by once again using the Common Computer Environmental systems as a cash cow. USDA began modernization and streamlining with the USDA Reauthorization Act of 1994 signed by the President, October 13, 1994. Since then we have made some progress. USDA field agencies still rely, though, on outdated information technology. Basically, what we were saying in 1994 to USDA, start cooperating and working together. Have FSA, NRCS and Rural Development start looking at one-stop shopping, start looking at putting their computer systems together, start doing those things that would allow them to operate efficiently and save money for our appropriators and get the job done better. We have got a ways to go. But if we deny them the technology to do it, we will never get there. I want to give the Members a little story about how using modern information technology can benefit not only producers in the delivery of programs and services but can save the taxpayers millions of dollars of waste in eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the delivery of Federal assistance. In 2000, the Committee on Agriculture included a provision in the crop insurance reform bill it was considering. The bill instructed the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and implement a coordinated plan for the Risk Management Agency and the Farm Service Agency to reconcile all relevant information received by RMA and FSA from a producer who obtains crop insurance. The agencies were to reconcile such producer- derived information on at least an annual basis to identify and address any discrepancies. We encouraged the Secretary to use an outside entity that had expertise in information technologies known as data mining and data warehousing and other available information technologies to administer the program. It took over a year to implement the provisions, with USDA kicking and screaming all the way. In fact, only RMA ultimately entered into the agreement with Tarleton and Planning Systems Incorporated to apply data mining and data warehousing to its data in an attempt to detect fraudulent practices in the multiperil crop insurance program. FSA refused to share its producer data. We talk about cutting waste, fraud and abuse from Federal programs all the time. In 4 short years and an approximately $20 million investment by this body, RMA estimates it has saved American taxpayers $250 million in claims not filed by detecting schemes to file bogus insurance claims losses. Technology can do the job if we allow it to do it. What more could we accomplish if we required all of USDA to use modern technology and by sharing information to ensure that the programs it administers and services it delivers is done in an effective and efficient manner? If we are serious about eliminating waste, fraud and abuse from government programs, I suggest we fully fund USDA's Common Computing Environment. I recognize and I saw all of the amendments that my colleagues were bringing today, each one of which is designed to get into this particular, they believe, cash cow, for doing some very good and important things. But I think we become considerably shortsighted if we do not recognize that if we are truly to deliver the services to our producers that the conservation, with technical assistance, if we are truly to do those things that we all want to do, the best place to start is by making sure that the USDA Reorganization Act of 1994 is fully implemented by demanding USDA do it, but at the same time not shortchange them on the technology they will need in order to do it. That is my concern today. I guess basically I am rising in opposition to all of the amendments until someone can show me that taking money from the computers is a better investment. I would much rather continue to recognize we have a budget problem, not an appropriations problem. I recognize what the chairman is attempting to do with this amendment, but I believe it is not in the best long-term interest of USDA and the people we serve, the producers and consumers of America.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and associate myself with both chairmen's comments. Right now, we are in some serious negotiations on the current Doha round of the WTO agreement. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) made the comment a moment ago, I want to repeat it. It makes no sense for us to unilaterally disarm ourselves when we are in the process of negotiating the next round of trade agreements. Also, I have to chuckle sometimes when I hear other groups who suddenly become experts on everything that is done or not done in agriculture. Right now, we are in an international marketplace in which we have to compete with other governments. I first became aware of this over 20 years ago when it affected the poultry industry and when we found turnkey jobs being offered to anyone that would buy their chickens. We had folks that were willing to pay for turnkey jobs for everything from the feeding, to the growing, to the processing, to the selling, to the promoting. We had this same argument year after year in which for some reason we have been refusing to stand shoulder to shoulder with our businesses in that international marketplace. If we could isolate it, then the gentleman is correct with his amendment. But when one looks at it from the standpoint of the negotiations that we are now going through, it makes no sense whatsoever for this body to unilaterally disarm those producers of commodities that are trying to compete in an international marketplace and the only help they get is this small amount which is given through the MAP program. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let us give our negotiators a chance, and if by chance we can negotiate away all Federal help by all governments everywhere in the world to do this, then I will be the first one standing here on this floor saying, let's do it. But today let us not do it.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4766. Mr. Chairman, once again the chairman and ranking minority member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have done an excellent job under very tight constraints. The bill is well balanced and will allow the Agriculture Department, the CFTC, and other related agencies to carry out their various important functions. Mr. Chairman, the cap on this bill binds very tightly. It represents a near hard freeze and, as a result, the Appropriations Committee had to cut into mandatory funding. I was very proud of the work that the Agriculture Committee and this House did in developing the 2002 farm bill, and for me it was a great honor to be involved in its development. In a very forward-looking way, it addressed farm income, but it also made substantial investments in research, so that American agricultural technology can continue to lead the world; in conservation, so that our natural resources will continue to be available for generations to come; in rural development, so that our rural areas could make technology improvements and provide basic services; and in preserving our nutrition programs that protect the needy. But because of this Congress' failure to take a similar, forward- looking approach to government debt, this appropriations bill cuts the funding for the reforms and investments that were so strongly supported in this House. The FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill made substantial cuts in farm bill programs of over $650 million, and this year's bill goes farther still to the tune of $1.26 billion. I find it somewhat disingenuous for the leadership of this House to profess their commitment to agriculture and the progress made in the farm bill--even leading members of their own party to believe that the farm bill will not be opened--and then attacking the farm bill in this back door approach. Whether we open the farm bill and cut agriculture because of reconciliation instructions or because of appropriations constraints, the end result still takes us to the same place--breaking our commitments to farmers and ranchers, to our commitments to conservation of our environment and protection of wildlife, and to the improvement of our rural economy. What is even a bigger shame is the fact that when you slowly dismantle the farm bill in this fashion, without the benefit of an overarching budget agreement, you still don't achieve a lower deficit/balanced budget. I have said before and I repeat it again, agriculture is always willing to do its fair share for fiscal sanity. However, when we willy- nilly cut agriculture without regard to a bigger plan I have severe reservations. Mr. Chairman, you can't blame the Appropriations Committee for this condition. They have worked on a bipartisan basis to provide the best bill possible in a bad situation. Amazingly, we are considering this bill without the benefit of even having a budget in place; our deficit in May reached $347 billion--well on its way to $500 billion before the current fiscal year ends. But in order to meet the cap, this bill cuts these mandatory farm bill programs: Key research in the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; small watershed rehabilitation; the Rural Strategic Investment Program; rural broadband and local rural television initiatives; funding for rural firefighters; the Wetlands Reserve Program; the EQIP program; the Conservation Security Program; the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; the Farmland Protection Program; and the Renewable Energy Systems Program. Mr. Chairman, the farm bill--which was developed in a very inclusive and bipartisan manner--has been working very well. But our current fiscal policies--which are being developed without that kind of commonsense bipartisanship--are causing the piece-by-piece dismantling of the farm bill. I hope that the leaders of this House will soon reach across the aisle so that we can work together toward a common solution. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the U.S. Forest Service grounded 33 of their heavy airtankers that were used to support firefighting program. Although a few of these planes have been cleared for service in this fire season, we must work to develop long-term plans for the U.S. Forest Services' aerial firefighting program. I would like to work with the members of the Appropriations Committee in the future to help fund research and development of adequate aircraft to support our country's forest firefighting program. Mr. Chairman, once again I commend Appropriations Committee members on both sides for their work on this important bill and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3980. With the rain, wind, hail, and tornadoes that passed through West Texas last month and again today, this legislation could not be more timely. This bill will give us the tools to research the effects of these storms, and it will provide us with a foundation from which we can learn how to minimize the damages associated with them. A working group comprised of officials from many Federal agencies will be formed to assess ways to reduce losses of life and property caused by these storms. As a farmer from West Texas, I know how damaging tornadoes and windstorms can be, and I understand the importance of this legislation. In the past I have strongly supported the efforts of research entities like the Texas Tech Wind Science Center to study ways to mitigate the damages caused by large windstorms. The Wind Science Center at Texas Tech has done yeomen's work identifying the best ways to reduce structural damage to properties caused by high winds associated with tornadoes and hurricanes. As a member of the Wind Hazard Reduction Caucus, I have supported efforts to make available the resources needed to study and minimize the damaging effects of these windstorms. As has already been pointed out, in 1997 I worked on a bipartisan, bicameral basis with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to ensure the Texas Tech Wind Science Center got its first Federal earmark of $3.8 million, which was included in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill. As is quite often the case, when some folks do not understand, quite frankly, what wind is all about, some suggested this was pork. We contacted the then-Chief of Staff for the White House, Erskine Bowles, and requested that the funding be supported by President Clinton and be kept off the line item veto list. These efforts paid off. The center has since received anywhere from $1.1 million to $2.4 million each year since then. I want to close by thanking the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for his work on this issue and the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) first introduced this legislation in 1999, and he has been a champion of wind hazard reduction efforts since he has come to Congress. I know that he is happy to have this bill on the floor, as I am here today happy to support these measures again and encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor very disappointed because once again the majority has chosen not to allow the Blue Dogs to have our amendment considered. I would like to ask the gentleman from Washington, why did his committee allow 19 amendments, most of which should be offered by the minority party, but are being offered by the majority party? Why did he not allow the Blue Dogs to have 5 minutes, 10 minutes, a simple up and down vote on our proposal?

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. STENHOLM. I take back my time from the gentleman. I appreciate the honesty in which he comes forward and with a straight face attempts to say why they denied us a chance. They can find time for 19 amendments, most of which are a joke. The rhetoric sounds good. The gentleman from Minnesota just spoke, there is a lot he and I can work together on. What we offered in our amendment is a chance to work together on something, but we are constantly denied and why? Because if they allowed our amendment on the floor, there is bipartisan support for it and it might have a chance to pass. Any resemblance to democracy in this House is purely coincidental with the running of it by the current leadership in the House. Purely coincidental. I ask my colleague why they denied our amendment but allowed 19 others. We heard the answer. The rule before us presents us with a false choice. Let me remind everyone, Republicans control the House, Republicans control the Senate, Republicans control the White House. The only thing Republicans cannot control is spending. Spending has gone up more in the last 3 years than in the previous 8. And when you talk about spending, I have been here 25 years. Spending has gone down by one-half of 1 percent as a percent of gross domestic product since I was elected in 1978. Revenue has gone down by 5 percent. That creates the deficits. I agree with the gentleman who just spoke a moment ago. Raising the debt ceiling would have to be done. But we should never raise it without putting a change in the manner in which our economic program is working that will just continue to have the debt ceiling going on as far as the eye can see. That makes no sense. Some of us would like to work with you but we are constantly denied the opportunity to come before this body and have a vote. What we asked for is pay as you go that applies to both spending and to revenue. If you are going to spend more, you have got to cut someplace else. We agree with the President, President George W. Bush's spending limits for 2 years. We agree. There is no argument on spending. But there is an argument on deficits. And with all due respect, if you want to cut taxes, you have got to cut spending. Do not just talk about it. Do not just come and make the speeches we are going to hear all day today about how tough we are going to be on spending. You are in the majority. Anybody offering some of those amendments you are offering, you ought to be doing it. Nobody is keeping you from doing it. You have got the votes. You can do anything you want if you have got the votes. But what do you do? You bring 19 amendments to the floor that you used to offer when you were in the minority party, and I agreed with you. I agreed with you on many of those. But now you are in the majority and I disagree with the manner in which you are running this House. But that is a right of the majority. All we asked for is a chance to have our idea debated and through the wisdom of, oh, well, you are going to disappoint some from time to time, there are folks on your side that agree with us and you deny them the right to vote with us. That is shameful. Applying pay-as-you-go rules to tax cuts does not prevent Congress from cutting taxes, and do not say that over here. You know it is not true. It makes great sense, pleases a lot of folks, I suppose. But all it says is if we are going to reduce our revenues, we need to reduce spending by the same amount. Do it. Do not just come to this floor and spend 12 hours debating some of the silliest amendments that we could have if you are serious about doing something. If we really want to do it, let us do it like we did in 1990, like we did in 1997, when we had bipartisan support for doing something about the deficit. The hand is still here on this side. I wish somebody over there would take it just once before this year is over.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, and I appreciate that fact, and I do not consider all of the amendments silly. I consider some of them very silly, but the one that I am agreeing with him on I do not consider silly.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to join with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) to offer this amendment tonight. Expedited rescission has been around a long time. Dan Quayle first introduced it in 1975. Senator Carper, Dick Armey did yeoman's work in passing this legislation. I have been working in support of expedited rescission legislation since 1992. And I worked with many Members on my side of the aisle, including the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and others on similar proposals. There is a fundamental question that we need to ask. Line item veto was unconstitutional, and I was never comfortable giving any President one-third-plus-one minority override over a decision of Congress, and the Supreme Court upheld that as being unconstitutional, but imperfectly willing to give any President line item veto over any pork spending, if that is what you want to call it, by me or the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) or anyone else, provided I have an opportunity to have a majority of the House agree with me or to agree with the President. That is what expedited rescission is all about. I respect the concern of Members on my side of the aisle that that amendment will give too much power to the President, but it matters not to me who is President. I am perfectly willing to give any President that opportunity because it will have a very cleansing effect because anyone that sticks in as many add-ons as we have been adding on to the appropriation process, and I found it rather amusing listening to the appropriators a moment ago, when you look at what has happened with all of the add-ons, all of the add-ons that have been added in the appropriations process, I would love to see a President come in and line item veto that, even if it is mine or anyone else's, because it would have a cleansing effect. If one cannot stand up on the floor and defend that which he has asked appropriators to put in the bill, he should not do it. And that is what this amendment is all about. This amendment will not make a significant dent in our deficit, and I do not claim that it will. But it will have a very real cleansing effect on the legislative process. And it will take a step towards reducing the public cynicism about the political process. The time has come for to us support this additional tool for accountability and fiscal responsibility.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is rather amusing if you have been around for a few years, as I have. The last time this was seriously discussed, my friends on this side of the aisle opposed it. They believe the expedited rescission was a bad idea and that we ought to go with line-item veto. The person that interjected taxes into this was Bob Michel, the minority leader, in suggesting that if you really want to do this in a way in which it will work, you put everything on the table. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) supported that, and today it is why it is so difficult. The gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) was talking about, it is us. It is we. It is pretty difficult for ``we'' to work on things when we keep changing what we think because of the current political environment that we have. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. STENHOLM. I know, but it is great. You can come in here and get 85 votes, and it does not get things done. We can get 300 votes.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. STENHOLM. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, my motion will make one simple change to the base bill. It will reinstate the original pay-as-you-go rules for all legislation which would increase the deficit. The motion would leave in place the discretionary spending limits and other provisions of the base bill. The original pay-as-you-go legislation was part of the bipartisan 1990 budget agreement between President George Bush and the Democratic Congress. Pay-as-you-go rules applying to changes in revenues in the mandatory spending were extended in the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act, the 1995 budget resolution, and the bipartisan balanced budget agreement in 1997. The pay-as-you-go rules enacted in 1990 have been tested and they worked. They were instrumental in going from large deficits in the early 1980s and early 1990s to budget surpluses in the late 1990s. The Concord Coalition, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the AARP and a bipartisan majority in the other body and a bipartisan majority in this body, for more than 20 minutes, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) offered this the first time, have all expressed support for reinstating balanced and effective PAYGO rules that applies to all legislation that would increase the deficit. These rules are based on a simple concept that all families understand, and we have heard so much of this today. If we want to reduce our revenues or increase spending, we need to say how we would pay for these changes. If we are truly serious about restoring fiscal discipline, budget enforcement rules must apply to all legislation which would increase the deficit through increased spending or reductions in revenues. All parts of the budget must be on the table. It is irresponsible and politically unrealistic to propose budget rules that apply to one part of the budget but not others. It is irresponsible and politically unrealistic to propose budget rules that apply to one part of the budget but not to others. Both sides need to be willing to apply budget discipline to their own priorities, not just the other side's priorities. Applying pay-as-you-go rules to tax cuts do not prevent Congress from passing more tax cuts or increasing spending. All it says is that if we are going to reduce our revenues we need to reduce our spending by the same amount, and if we want to increase spending, we need to make room in the budget for the increased spending by cutting other spending or raising revenues. Enacting meaningful budget enforcement legislation will require bipartisan support. This recommittal will bring bipartisan support. I conclude by saying again, and listen carefully, applying pay-as- you-go rules to tax cuts do not prevent Congress from passing more tax cuts. All it says is that if we are going to reduce our revenues we need to reduce our spending by the same amount. If my friends on the other side of the aisle actually mean what they have said over and over about controlling spending, if all of those that have just offered the last two substitutes really mean what they say about controlling spending, they should have no problem with applying pay-as-you-go to tax cuts because it would force Congress to actually control spending when we pass tax cuts instead of just promising to do so in the future. In fact, requiring Congress to offset tax cuts could be a tool to force Congress to control spending. The problem is that we have not matched our actions with our rhetoric. We propose cutting taxes without cutting spending. We run up the deficits and we pass the difference on to our children and grandchildren. This motion to recommit, very simple, will accomplish that which we have talked about all day. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as we all know, and certainly the subcommittee is aware very strongly, the B-1 bomber is an integral part of our bomber fleet. The long-range strike capability of our national defense is enhanced by the superior payload capability, speed, and accuracy of this aircraft. The Defense authorization and appropriation committees and my good friends, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from California. (Mr. Hunter), and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), have recognized the importance of the B-1 to the Air Force. It performed admirably in Afghanistan and Iraq. I rise today to discuss provisions in the Defense appropriations and authorization bills that address the reinstatement of B-1s to the fleet. As a strong supporter of the B-1 and having been closely associated with this issue since 1985 when the first B-1 was assigned to Dyess Air Force Base, my support is, and always has been, a commonsense approach that advocates the best for the Air Force. The B-1 fleet was recently reduced to its current size of 60 aircraft, with assurances that upgrades will be made to the fleet to increase mission capability rates, defensive systems, and lethality. I supported the Air Force decision in its plan to keep fewer, but top- quality, mission-capable B-1s. The Defense Authorization Act included a provision for $105 million to regenerate an additional 10 B-1s above the Air Force recommendation to reinstate seven. The Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations brings to the floor today a recommendation which follows the Air Force's recommendation to regenerate seven aircraft, and also follows the Air Force confirmation that additional funding is not needed beyond the $17 million appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 2004. My concern about the funding for regenerated B-1s is the fact that $17 million may not be enough for the seven aircraft that initially cost $283 million each. Again, I strongly support the B-1, but also strongly support full funding for the entire fleet. If we are going to add seven planes, I would like assurances from the chairman and ranking member today that they do believe that the Air Force is correct that $17 million is sufficient funding to keep 67 planes in the air, flying, with the mission that I know that they support.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the refreshingly honest statement of the gentleman from Kansas and what he just said because he stated quite clearly this is a vote to increase the debt ceiling. I want to ask the gentlewoman from North Carolina if she concurs with that statement, that by voting for the previous question and this rule it is a vote to increase the debt ceiling through $8 trillion?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and I thank the gentleman from Kansas for making it very clear by voting for this rule, by voting for the previous question my colleagues are, in fact, voting to increase the debt ceiling. That is critical because there are those that want to avoid that at all costs. Now, we should not be using this Defense bill for this purpose because it is an open rule. There is strong bipartisan support for supporting the troops. We should not be mixing politics up in this issue. My friends on the other side would like folks to believe that the debate we are having today is simply about partisan politics and procedural tactics. That could not be more wrong. The only thing I disagree with the gentleman from Kansas, if my colleague wants to say all of these things that happened in the past created the deficit and that, therefore, we have to increase the debt ceiling, my colleague could persuade me if we were setting in place a policy that would do something about the deficit next year and the year after that and as we prepare for the baby boomers. But to continue the economic policy that has driven this country to borrowing $2 trillion in a period of 4 years and then to come on and say, well, we are trying to put it in the Defense bill, that is wrong. It is wrong for those that we prepare to spend the money to back our young men and women who are over in Iraq and Afghanistan today. It is wrong for us to say we want you to win, we pray every day you are going to be safe, but by the way, we are going to keep borrowing $500 billion a year under the economic policy that we have not got the guts to change on this floor and then add it to a Defense appropriation bill. But it is nice to have somebody to come on this floor and to clearly identify for all 435 of us, if my colleagues vote for this previous question, they are voting to increase the debt ceiling. That is why I will vote ``no,'' and I will encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Separate the two issues. Let us support the troops with a rule that could pass unanimously, but let us deal with the economic policy of this country by having an honest debate on how we are going to do something about these deficits that we are talking about. I rise in opposition to this rule which will allow Congress to increase our national debt limit to more than $8 trillion without a separate vote on this issue. We should not use a spending bill intended to support our troops to hide a long-term increase in the debt ceiling so we can leave more debt for our troops and other young men and women to repay in the future. My friends on the other side of the aisle would like folks to believe that the debate we are having today is simply about partisan politics and procedural tactics. They could not be more wrong. This debate is not about politics or procedure. Rather it is about the financial condition of our nation and whether we will continuing piling on more and more debt on our children and grandchildren. A vote for the rule is a vote for using parliamentary tricks to sneak through an increase in our national debt more than $8 trillion. I would say to my Republican colleagues that if you honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, you should be willing to stand up and vote to borrow the money to pay for their tax cuts instead of relying on undercover parliamentary tricks. While an increase in the debt limit is necessary to avoid a default, it would be irresponsible to provide a blank check for increased borrowing authority without taking action to stem the tide of red ink. Before Congress votes to approve a substantial increase in the debt limit, the President must work with Congress to put the fiscal house back in order, just as a family facing financial problems must work with the bank to establish a financial plan in order to get approval to refinance their debts. Congress has an obligation to re-examine our long-term budget policies in light of the dramatic reversal in our nation's fiscal condition before approving a substantial increase in our borrowing authority. At a minimum Congress should restore discipline and accountability in the budget process by reinstating budget enforcement rules which make it harder to pass legislation which would put us further into debt. Adoption of this rule approving an increase in the debt limit will allow the government to continue on the path of deficit spending, borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and a ballooning national debt. I urge members to vote against the previous question and against this rule.