[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 112 (Monday, July 25, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5474-H5481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
                       CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. 
Christensen) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
minority leader.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, this evening the Congressional Black 
Caucus is pleased that our Democratic leadership has given us the 
opportunity to once again come to the floor for the first Democratic 
hour this evening.
  I want to just talk a little bit about some of the people who came 
and visited me in my office in my district this morning. I had a visit 
from AARP leadership and some of their advocates and volunteers this 
morning in my St. Croix office. They came to bring this petition to the 
office, signed by hundreds of people just on one of my islands. And it 
says:
  ``Dear Members of Congress,
  ``Seniors and future retirees earned their benefits after a lifetime 
of hard work and paying into the system. Yet some Members of Congress 
from both parties are considering harmful cuts to Medicare and Social 
Security''--I know nobody in the Congressional Black Caucus is 
considering those kinds of cuts--``as a part of a deal to pay the 
Nation's bills. A deal like that could dramatically increase health 
care costs for seniors and future retirees, threaten their access to 
doctors, hospitals and nursing homes, and reduce benefit checks they 
rely on to pay the bills.
  ``Instead of cutting the benefits of seniors and future retirees, 
Congress should be reducing wasteful spending and closing tax 
loopholes. Instead of shifting more health care costs to seniors, 
Congress should be working to hold down health care costs for 
everyone,'' as the Democrats worked very hard to do last year when we 
passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  So these undersigned are calling on us to oppose any deal that would 
make harmful cuts to the Medicare and Social Security benefits 
Americans have been working on for all these years. And this is just 
the beginning, Mr. Speaker and colleagues. There will be more of these 
petitions to come.
  Some of the participants that came to my office this morning are: 
Aloma Peters, Lucie Rodriguez, Elizabeth Torruela, Nicolas Encarnacion, 
Luz D. Sierra, Theodora Moorehead, Ann Thomas, Ellarine Batiste, Joan 
Sackey, Miguel Ramos, Ramomta Cagnes, Doris Brown, Paul Simmonds, 
Denyce Singleton, Genny Dargan, and Lumoz Ayala, but representing the 
hundreds of people that sent this petition to the Congress of the 
United States.
  In my district, and they talked about this this morning, we have one 
of the highest utility bills in our country, and they're just trying to 
figure out what they would do if their Social Security checks were not 
coming to them next month.
  But a default is not just catastrophic for individuals on Social 
Security. It would be catastrophic for everyone. It's catastrophic for 
our Nation and our economy. The poor, of course, would lose their 
safety net and the ability to pull themselves out of poverty, the help 
that they need.
  And the middle class will also pay a price. It would be so 
catastrophic that mortgage payments would increase by over $1,000 for 
the average family. Credit card interest would increase by $250 for the 
average family. Families could pay an additional $182 per year on 
utilities. I'm sure our utilities in the Virgin Islands would be much 
higher than that. And families could pay an additional $318 per year on 
food. They could lose thousands of dollars in their retirement savings.
  We are so proud and honored to have a leader like Leader Nancy 
Pelosi, who has represented us in all of the discussions at the White 
House, and has stood strong for Democratic priorities and kept the 
voices of House Democrats and the interests of the American people on 
the table.
  We have heard of two different proposals that are coming forth this 
evening. It's interesting that Speaker Boehner has brought forth a 
proposal with, still, no tax hikes. We were never talking about tax 
hikes, Mr. Speaker. We were talking about letting the temporary Bush 
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, as they were always 
intended to expire.
  His proposal speaks about entitlement reforms and savings. I just 
read the letter from the AARP, the petition, at least in part, which 
calls on us to save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Yet the 
Republican proposal would include entitlement reforms and savings.
  And again, here comes the balanced budget amendment, a budget 
amendment that would be required before the end of the year. And then a 
short-term lifting of the debt ceiling, something that will not bring 
the stability to our economy and that would still put our credit in the 
world at risk.
  He says it's a two-step approach to hold President Obama accountable. 
Is that what this is all about? Or is it that we're trying to restore 
the good faith and credit of this Nation?
  Their two-step approach to hold President Obama accountable, I don't 
think he needs to be held accountable. He's been a good President, and 
he doesn't need us to help him be accountable.
  They have cuts. They want cuts that exceed the debt hike, the hike in 
the debt ceiling. I think that's a new one. I thought that originally 
we talked about having a balance between the lifting of the debt 
ceiling and the cuts.
  Caps to control future spending. Well, we know what that would mean. 
All the programs that our communities, the communities that we 
represent, would lose funding for programs that they need. Again, here 
comes the balanced budget amendment and entitlement reforms and, of 
course, no tax hikes.
  Now, I've been joined by several of my colleagues, and I'd like them 
to join in this Special Order if they are ready at this point in time. 
And I'm always pleased to be joined on these Monday evenings by the 
gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Congresswoman

[[Page H5475]]

Sheila Jackson Lee, and we're glad to yield to her such time as she 
might consume.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin 
Islands. And let me thank you for persisting in discussing these issues 
with our colleagues. You have been determined, and your leadership has 
caused us to have this, I think, very thoughtful discussion more often 
than not.
  I'm also pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague from 
Virginia, who has developed tenure on these issues dealing with the 
budget and has always been helpful, Mr. Scott, on really sort of 
getting us through the weeds.
  And in an hour or two, or approximately an hour and a half maybe, the 
President will speak to the Nation. And I believe that this President 
truly appreciates democracy and, frankly, has no problem with coming to 
the American people in a straightforward and honest manner.

                              {time}  1940

  But it really is important I think to educate ourselves, to educate 
our colleagues, because with all the chatter, it seems as if they've 
lost their way.
  Soon after the President speaks tonight--I believe around 9 o'clock--
Mr. Boehner will come forward. But if our Republican friends come 
forward, are they coming forward with facts? Will they educate the 
American people to inform them that the debt ceiling has been raised 
100 times before? Will they educate the American people that probably 
for the first time in 2011 they have actually put ``debt ceiling'' in 
your vocabulary. Now it's going to be highlighted in Webster's 
dictionary. Most Americans did not know that terminology, but I think 
those of us who remember our history and those who studied the 
Constitution--even those of us who are lawyers remember the importance 
of studying the Constitution, and will always remember the words the 
``full faith and credit of the United States.'' Even in difficult days 
that keeps the country going. Why? Because the world buys America's 
Treasury notes. They buy it willingly and openly and excitedly, which 
means that our dollar is strong and that people are happily holding on 
to the Treasury note, again, because they believe that America will 
never default on her debt.
  Now if you wanted to get more detailed, I'd refer you to the 14th 
Amendment, section 4. There's a lot of chatter about what it means, but 
the clear language says that the public debt shall not be questioned. 
Of course it lists wars and other issues that occurred in the 
historical perspective of that amendment, but scholars have not formed 
opposition to the thought--hardcore opposition--that it also lives 
today and really means that we must recognize the public debt and pay 
our bills. So full faith and credit and a constitutional premise for 
doing what we should do.
  So why don't we just move forward so that on August 2, or even before 
that, we will not have to face our seniors looking for their Social 
Security check, or maybe even visit a nursing home, as I have done over 
the last 2 weeks and before, and see seniors who are able to pay their 
way, but others who are on Medicaid. So I don't think that we should 
suggest that this is a drama and a dramatization to say that some 
seniors will be put out on the curb because they depend upon Medicaid. 
Even those who worked but had jobs that did not allow them to have a 
401(k) or long-term care, they depend upon Medicaid.
  And as we look at the plan that we will hear tonight, it's been put 
on the Web site by Speaker Boehner, there is a great deal of fear that 
Social Security--or apprehension might be the word that we want to 
use--that really the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security safety net 
are in the eye of the storm. And so when you look at no tax hikes--
which we have heard a number of people raise their voices on that, and 
I think it should be noted that the Obama administration and this 
Democratic leadership in the last Congress gave tax cuts over and over 
again, and particularly gave tax cuts to the working and middle class. 
The stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, gave 
tax cuts. But how do you truly say to the American people that we're 
trying to do what you do, which is to tighten your belts, that is, 
looking realistically at the right kinds of cuts--and most economists 
will tell you that the cuts should be long range. They tell you it 
makes no sense to talk about cuts overnight. In fact, it's unrealistic. 
The family sits at the kitchen table trying to balance their books. It 
is almost impossible for them, in the next 24 hours, to have a total 
change. They have to, over a measured period of time--maybe someone 
gets another job, maybe someone finds an increased amount of wages, and 
then they, over time, cut their budget and begin to pay bills. America 
has to pay its bills right now. But over the timeframe, we need to look 
for ways to raise revenue.
  So let me just share with you: A friend of ours, a colleague, 
Congressman Bishop has shared this very potent poster that is very easy 
to understand. We need to allow those tax cuts for a small percentage 
of the American public--and this is not a class warfare situation. I 
believe it is important for people to enjoy their wealth, to create 
wealth, to create jobs, but this is what we call equal sacrifice, 
accepting the burden of being an American, rising to the cause when 
you're called upon to serve. No one can compare to the men and women 
right now as we stand here that are on the front lines of Iraq and 
Afghanistan. No one can compare to families who are welcoming flag-
draped coffins home right now because their soldiers died on the 
battlefield. We can't compare to that. But right now America needs all 
of us, and she needs us to stand up and be counted.
  And so there are wealthy persons like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates 
who for a long period of time indicated that these tax cuts need to 
expire. Here is the revenue right here. There are 30,000 households 
that report incomes of more than $1 million. One day of the Bush tax 
cuts for millionaires expiring gives us $120 million. That may provide 
the resources for our national parks and wildlife. It may as well shore 
up hospitals that really depend upon Medicare reimbursement. It might 
help in a military family's pay increase. Then of course if you take 
one week of allowing those tax cuts to expire, here is revenue to the 
Federal Government--here you get $857 million. That is one week. Just a 
reminder, in terms of moneys that were spent, we created 3 million 
jobs--and I'll get to that. I think I'm going to hold that point 
because I want you to see the difference--$857 million comes in for one 
week. That's Pell grants for our students; that's allowing research at 
the NIH for cancer, cures for cancer and as well for heart disease, 
stroke, neurological disease; payments for those suffering from mental 
health needs.
  And then if you just go 1 month of the expiration of the Bush cuts, 
you have $3.43 billion. Now in the Recovery and Reinvestment, the 
President, because of the crisis he faced--which was none of the 
Clinton surplus was left; it was all gone because of two unpaid wars--
he had to come in and save us. So about $800 billion in the Recovery 
Act put 3 million jobs on the table. It created 3 million jobs. Just 
imagine what would happen if those tax cuts expired. We would have 
$3.43 billion, and we would have the opportunity to multiply that, 
which I think goes in about six times--math on the floor of the House--
a little less than that, four times. It would create 4 times 3 million: 
12 million jobs--real quick math here.

  So the question is, and let me reverse that math because I see Bobby 
Scott looking up. I thought it was 343; it's only 3. So I won't do any 
math on the floor of the House, but I will say that it will create 
jobs. Because we had $800 billion--I was reading that as $343 billion. 
So it was $3.43, and then if we do 1 year of Bush cuts, it will be $41 
billion. And so we can take a portion of the $800 billion and we can 
see the jobs that will be created by $3 billion and $41 billion.
  What I will say to you, my friends, is that the announcement that is 
going to be made by the Speaker doesn't give us that flexibility. It 
truly undermines the safety network of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security, but it also puts in some elements that clearly undermine the 
running of this country.
  A balanced budget amendment is not realistic for the United States 
because the Federal Government takes care of 50 States, not just one. 
And our friends will tell us that these States have balanced budgets. 
It's okay when you're

[[Page H5476]]

taking care of one household, but if you're taking care of 300 million 
households plus, when that particular State that needs the Federal 
Government--like Missouri during the horrible tornados, or Alabama, or 
the floods, or any other manmade or natural disaster--they want us to 
be able to help them. A balanced budget amendment would not allow that.

                              {time}  1950

  And then the caps to control spending do not allow the discretion to 
be able to make priorities when priorities are necessary.
  The last point I want to make about what our Speaker will be 
announcing tonight to calm the markets is that this is going to be a 
bifurcated process. Let me say to my colleagues, if you are having fun 
now, just think about 4 months from now or 6 months. We will have to go 
through this again. Another debate about the debt ceiling. And I remind 
you, we have raised it 100 times before. Most Americans have never 
heard of it because we worked with the Presidents, like President 
Reagan who in 1983 wrote his own Republican Senate majority leader, 
Senator Baker, and said you cannot not pass the debt ceiling. It is 
incalculable to think of America defaulting on her bills.
  So here we go with a proposal that would cause us to have to vote 
twice in a 6-month period. What does that mean? It means that a young 
couple trying to buy a house sees a surge in their interest rate. It 
means if you have a credit card, it may be defunct only because you 
cannot afford to pay the surging interest rate. Fees for you to buy a 
house might skyrocket. Housing costs might go up. Houses might stop 
being built.
  So I would simply ask my colleagues today: let's be Americans. Let's 
look at what we can do together. Just allow these tax cuts to expire 
and allow us to be able to calculate this amount of money. And, again, 
$3.43 billion and $41 billion makes a difference in the lives of 
Americans.
  So I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for allowing me to 
share some thoughts and to hopefully dispel some myths, and also some 
fears. It is $14.3 trillion. It is a big number, but economists will 
tell you that America is not broke. It's not broken, either. It is at a 
stage when we need to come together to raise this debt ceiling and go 
back into regular order.
  Whether I agree or disagree with what the House Republicans bring 
forward in the appropriation process, we can hassle that out on the 
floor of the House. But we will allow America to pay her bills. And 
soldiers on the battlefield will not fear that grandparents are not 
getting their Social Security, or worrying about their family members 
getting compensation that they are truly due because of the sacrifice 
that their loved ones are making on behalf this Nation. I believe 
America is going to stand up and be counted.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank you, and I thank you for bringing the 
charts so we can see very clearly how much money is lost from just not 
taking the tax cuts back to the Clinton tax rates. You can imagine, and 
I'm not doing any math on the floor, either, but how much money we have 
lost during the time those cuts have been in place and will continue to 
lose through next year.
  The Republican proposal that is being brought to us now, I don't see 
any investment for the future. No investment in education, no 
investment in relieving ourselves of our dependence on foreign fuel or 
continuing to invest in health care or creating jobs. There is nothing 
like that. It is just cut, cut, cut; and the economists also tell us 
that this is not the time to be cutting spending.
  We have a budget guru here with us this evening, the person who leads 
us every year in putting together a fantastic Congressional Black 
Caucus budget, one that not only invests in the future and in all of 
those things that I talked about, but also has every year, has found a 
way while investing to also reduce the deficit.
  I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. If we are 
going to talk about how bad the budget situation is now, I think it 
makes sense to explain how we got here.
  First, in the early 1990s, the budget had gone totally out of whack. 
The first President Bush got together with the Democratic leadership of 
the House and Senate. Unfortunately, we had to break his pledge on 
``read my lips, no new taxes,'' and they came to an agreement and did a 
little bit to fix the budget.
  In 1993 after President Clinton came in, we did some serious work 
about the budget. We raised some taxes and got the budget under control 
in the 1993 budget. When you vote on budgets, they are tough budgets. 
President Bush to a large extent can credit his decision to address the 
budget with new taxes as part of the reason for his defeat.
  And when the Democrats, without a single Republican vote in the 
House, and not a single Republican vote in the Senate, passed the 1993 
budget, 50 Democrats lost their seats. It was a tough vote. You lose 
your seats when you have very serious deficit reduction. But as a 
result of that 1993 budget, we not only balanced the budget in just a 
few short years, but we went into significant surplus and created a 
record number of jobs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average almost 
quadrupled.

  In 1995, when the Republicans got in control by demagoguing the votes 
that we cast fixing the budget, they came in and tried to undermine 
everything in the entire budget. President Clinton let the government 
get shut down rather than sign those irresponsible budgets that the 
Republicans passed.
  As a result of his tenacity and holding on to his original plan, the 
budget was balanced in a few short years. Now, there are some in 
Congress who talk about the historic balanced budget amendment in the 
mid-90s. Well, if they hadn't come to such agreement, the balance would 
have balanced itself. We didn't know when we voted on that, as a matter 
of fact, whether the budget had already gone into surplus. They hadn't 
finished counting the money. It went from a 290 deficit, we got down to 
$10 billion, and the agreement slowed down the progress a little bit. 
But we still went into surplus.
  In 2001, Chairman Greenspan was answering questions like, what's 
going to happen when we pay off the entire national debt held by the 
public? What's going to happen to interest rates? What's going to 
happen to the bond market when there are no government bonds? How do 
you calculate investment strategy when you don't have government bonds 
setting the no-risk limit, and you have increased rate of return after 
that, how do you calculate investment strategies if there are no 
government bonds because you have paid them all off?
  By 2008, it was projected we would owe no money to China, Japan, and 
Saudi Arabia. We would have paid off our entire national debt. So 
people are thinking this is hard. We had done it. In 2001, by August of 
2001, after the first round of tax cuts, we had already gone broke. 
Instead of the surplus, Social Security surplus, they were talking 
about the lock box, put that away for Social Security, Medicare 
surplus, put that in the lock box for Medicare. We had a surplus over 
that.
  By August of President Bush's first year, we had gone through all of 
the surplus, and we were into Social Security and Medicare by August. 
You cannot blame September 11 for the fact that we had already gone 
broke a month before. And so after two tax cuts, not paid for, after 
prescription drug benefit not paid for, a couple of wars not paid for, 
we are in the ditch.
  Now, during the Clinton administration, we had PAYGO. You wanted to 
spend some more money, you had to come up with the money to pay for it. 
You wanted to cut taxes, you had to cut some programs, you had to pay 
for it. Everything you did, you had to pay for it. When President Bush 
came in, they did away with PAYGO and put us in the ditch.
  Now we're so far in the ditch that most experts suggest we need $4 
trillion in deficit reduction to get back to a point where we are 
fiscally responsible. About $4 trillion. The Simpson-Bowles committee 
came up with one plan with a lot of this and a little of that--$4 
trillion. But there is one interesting thing that you could do to come 
up with almost $4 trillion: let all of the Bush tax cuts expire. Done. 
That is all you have to do.
  As a matter of fact, in the Congressional Black Caucus budget this 
year, we started off with that premise. Let them all expire. But we 
wanted to extend some, and so we paid for them. We

[[Page H5477]]

cut the oil loopholes and extended some, and we cut some other 
loopholes, and added this tax and cut this. We got to a point where we 
could extend a lot of the tax cuts because we paid for them.

                              {time}  2000

  If you want to know what deficit reduction looks like without 
revenue, you can look at the continuing resolution earlier this year. 
It started out at $66 billion, which annualized, was about a hundred 
billion. And 10 years, that would be about a trillion. If you look at 
what was in that first trillion dollars that they wanted to cut, it was 
so bad that they couldn't get it passed. They ended up having to 
compromise. We had cuts in the safety net like community health 
centers, cuts in energy assistance for low-income seniors, cuts in 
community action agencies, and we had cuts in investments in the 
future. Head Start, Pell Grants got cut. Scientific research and NASA 
all got cut.
  And then just perfunctory parts of government. FBI agents got cut. 
We're sitting up in the Judiciary Committee trying to figure out how to 
deal with many of the problems we've got, and half of it is we don't 
need new criminal laws. We need new FBI agents to investigate the 
cases. FBI agents were cut; 4,000 fewer. Clean Water Grants, 
Environmental Protection, all cut. Air traffic controllers. There are 
so few. They're working so hard that they're falling asleep on the job. 
They were cut.
  The next round of cuts would be, obviously, Medicare and housing and 
other programs were next on the chopping block. We could not get--they 
could not get that passed. As a matter of fact, by the time they 
finished, now they're going to a program suggesting that we need to cut 
not $1 trillion but $2 trillion or $3 trillion. If you couldn't get the 
first trillion passed because you're so deep into the things that 
people believe in, things that--Clean Water Grants, food inspectors. 
There are so few food inspectors in that budget that some meatpacking 
plants would have to close because they are obligated to have a Federal 
meat inspector on site. And if you can't be on site, you can't operate. 
They had so few meat inspectors that they anticipated many of the 
companies would have to close down or at least close temporarily 
because there were so few.
  Now they're trying to figure out how you can do $2 trillion or $3 
trillion worth of cuts. They came up with this idea of the debt 
ceiling. The debt ceiling is something that recognizes the fact that 
we've already spent the money. So you raise the debt ceiling not 
because you're spending any money but because you have already spent 
the money. It's a perfunctory kind of thing. Dozens of times, almost 
once a year over the last 50 years, we've had to increase the debt 
ceiling. Democrats and Republicans all have had to vote for the debt 
ceiling.
  The charade about the thing is usually the majority party has to cast 
the tough votes and the minority party gets to talk about fiscal 
irresponsibility and grandstand a little bit, but it's never in the 
context that there's any question about whether the debt ceiling is 
going to be increased. Speeches are made, but it's in the context it's 
going to pass. And you can make a speech about it.
  Now they're saying, Maybe we won't increase the debt ceiling. Nobody 
knows what would happen if the debt ceiling were not increased, if we 
defaulted on our bonds, if we didn't send out Social Security checks. 
Nobody knows what would happen--what would happen to the investments, 
what would happen to the interest rates. We had a temporary technical 
glitch a few years ago where checks were a day or two--couple of days 
late going out and they calculate that as a result of that little 
glitch we paid about half a percent higher interest rate for many 
years.
  Now, a 1 percent interest rate on the national debt now is about in 
the range of $100 billion. So if you're looking at what would happen if 
you defaulted on the debt and people charged more interest, well, 
that's the order of magnitude that we would be talking about. We 
shouldn't have to even discuss what would happen ``if,'' because it 
could be anything. And who would want to find out? We ought to just go 
ahead and increase the debt ceiling and not use it as a threat that 
unless you do this, we'll blow up the economy. I would hope that our 
leadership would not capitulate to those kind of threats because if you 
capitulate this time, in October they can shut down October by not 
passing appropriations bills. Don't get ``my way or the highway'' to 
close down the government. In a year or so you would have to do the 
debt ceiling again. Same thing.
  So if you capitulate to these kinds of childish threats, there will 
be no end to it and you will certainly invite them back. As a matter of 
fact, what is going on now is they're kind of slow-walking us through 
some cuts that never could have been made in the normal legislative 
process. Last year, in December, we extended the Bush tax cuts. That 
cost $400 billion a year. Now we're broke, and we need to come up with 
about $400 billion a year, as if we had forgotten what we did last 
December.
  Now, when we extended those tax cuts, there's no mention of how it 
would be paid for. It would have been nice to know what the plan was, 
whether we're going to have to cut Social Security or Medicare in order 
to afford the tax cuts that were extended in December. Now they're 
going to try to get some cuts that they couldn't otherwise get if 
you're making rational choices. And legislative process is about 
choices. If you want a program, you ought to pay for it. If you're 
willing to pay the taxes, then you can have your program. Not willing 
to pay the taxes, can't have your program.

  Last year we passed health care reform. It cost a trillion dollars. 
We raised more than a trillion dollars in taxes. That's a balanced 
approach. If we didn't want to pay the taxes, we couldn't have the 
program. And so that's the balanced approach that we're not making as 
we go along now because the next step in this process will be not cuts 
but caps.
  No program will be cut if any deal comes on. These $2 trillion or $3 
trillion deals come back. Not a single program will be cut. There will 
just be caps. Three months from now, when you try to appropriate under 
those caps, you'll wonder why you can't afford Head Start, why you 
can't afford any food inspectors, why you can't afford any FBI agents, 
because the caps are so low.
  If you put them all together, if you had made your choices, if you 
had known you were going to have to cut Head Start and FBI agents and 
Clean Water Grants when you cut taxes, maybe you wouldn't have cut the 
taxes. You should have made the choices all at once.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I think you said playing politics. Is that 
the same as a schoolyard game of playing chicken? And in the course of 
what you just said, is there any light for creating jobs in this 
approach that is being taken, where you have no revenue and you have 
cuts, with no plan? I see no opportunity for creating jobs.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. In terms of jobs, much has been said about the 
reason why you would not want to increase taxes in an economic 
downturn. Because you would adversely effect the economy. That's true. 
But if you have spending cuts, the effect on the economy is not only 
larger but more direct and more immediate. Increases in taxes don't hit 
until the following year. As soon as you cut spending, somebody is 
getting fired. Jobs get lost immediately when you have spending cuts.
  So for the same reason that they say you can't increase taxes during 
an economic downturn, the stronger argument could be made that you 
should not have any spending cuts. The estimates on some of the 
Republican plans are that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost 
if those plans had been enacted.
  Now, one of the real tragedies about all this discussion is 
sometimes--talk about rhetoric in politics--some people are talking 
about this so-called balanced budget amendment as a condition of moving 
forward. Well, one of the things about the legislation that we'll 
consider called the balanced budget amendment is a bill that has a 
misleading title. It says: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. Guess what that legislation does not require?

[[Page H5478]]

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin 
Islands.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Does it require a balanced budget?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. It does not require a balanced budget. What it 
does is require a three-fifths vote to pass a budget that is not 
unbalanced. Every budget we consider this year was not in balance the 
first year. So the Ryan budget that passed would have required a three-
fifths vote. The Republican Study Committee plan that was not balanced 
the first year that in the fullness of time would cut discretionary 
spending 50, 60, or 70 percent was not in balance the first year. It 
would require a three-fifths vote.
  Now, as I said, when you cast those tough votes, the first President 
Bush lost his Presidency trying to balance the budget. Fifty Democrats 
lost their seats in 1993 trying to balance the budget.

                              {time}  2010

  I will guarantee you that there will be Republicans who will lose 
their seats for voting for the Ryan plan because it included, 
essentially, a repeal of Medicare and replacing it with an inadequate 
voucher, and they're going to lose their seats over it. We already 
picked up one seat in upstate New York where that Ryan plan was an 
issue, but when you vote on real deficit reduction, people will lose 
their seats.
  If you were to move the threshold up to three-fifths and if you were 
the chief sponsor of a severe deficit reduction plan, common sense will 
let you know that it will be harder to pass if you move that thing up 
to three-fifths. So the enactment will make it harder to pass deficit 
reduction. Once you need three-fifths, there is no limit to how 
irresponsible you can get. The tax cut extensions of $400 billion in 
December, that got three-fifths. You could have more tax cuts and more 
additional spending totally out of control, and all you'd need is 
three-fifths.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But the caps would be in place.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The caps are another part.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. They would be in place as part of the bill, but you 
couldn't raise any revenue.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. There are four provisions.
  The first is you need three-fifths to pass a budget. That's going to 
make it harder to pass a budget. The second provision is a two-thirds 
vote to raise taxes. So, if you're trying to balance a budget, having a 
two-thirds vote to raise taxes will obviously make it harder to balance 
the budget. This thing is called a ``balanced budget amendment.'' The 
first two provisions obviously make it harder to balance the budget.
  The third provision is you need a two-thirds vote to pass a budget 
that spends more than 18 percent of the gross national product, a two-
thirds vote to pass if it's more than 18 percent of GDP. We haven't 
been that low since we passed Medicare, so that's going to put a lot of 
pressure on the Medicare program. Guess what? If you put all these 
things together with the pressure on Medicare, we know we can cut the 
benefits with a simple majority, but to save the program with new 
taxes: two-thirds in the House and two-thirds in the Senate.
  There is another little insulting provision at the end. It's a three-
fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling, and raising the debt ceiling 
this year has been enough of a spectacle that they want it to be an 
annual, everyday occurrence.
  You have this thing called the ``balanced budget amendment,'' which 
will make it harder to balance the budget, and it would certainly put 
pressure on Social Security and Medicare by allowing those programs to 
be cut with a simple majority. Yet to save them with new revenues like 
increasing the amount right now with Social Security a little over 
$100,000--no more Social Security tax--and if we were to extend that 
like Medicare to all of your income, we could pretty much solve the 
problem, but you couldn't do that without a two-thirds vote. You 
couldn't close an oil loophole to save Social Security without a two-
thirds vote--but to cut the benefits, a simple majority. They want to 
inflict the balanced budget amendment in there to preserve their oil 
company millionaire loopholes and jeopardize Social Security and 
Medicare and put us in a budget situation where it will be virtually 
impossible to ever balance the budget.
  People should read the bill past the title. Most people, when they 
hear the title, they start debating whether it's a good idea or a bad 
idea to have a balanced budget or whether it's a good idea or a bad 
idea to balance the budget every year without exception, which would 
not allow countercyclical spending in times of downturn.
  Now, interestingly enough, the gentlelady from Texas and I serve on 
the Judiciary Committee, and we heard one of the Representatives from 
Arizona talk about the Arizona balanced budget amendment and how that 
works on the State level. Then we did a little research to find out: 
How did Arizona balance its budget?
  We found out, first of all, they got billions of dollars of stimulus 
money to help them balance the budget, but that wasn't enough. Do you 
know, in the last couple of years, the Arizona State government has 
sold--sold--their State capitol and sold their Supreme Court building 
and leased it back? They got hundreds of millions of dollars in the 
kitty that helped them balance the budget by selling the State capitol 
and by selling the Supreme Court. That's what a balanced budget 
amendment does for you, I guess.
  We need to make sure that we don't get lost in the rhetoric about the 
misleading titles of legislation, and we need to actually read past the 
title in the balanced budget amendment.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. That happened so often with some of these bills.
  I thank you for taking us through the history of how we got to where 
we are, because there is a lot of rhetoric that tries to hide how we 
got here: the fact that hard votes were taken in '93, that President 
Clinton did leave a large surplus and that, by the end of President 
Bush's term, we were in a deep deficit and then in a recession--a 
recession that was not created by this President but inherited by this 
President. When they talk about, yes, President Obama has increased the 
deficit, what should he do--allow us to fall deeper into a recession?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. What would he do? What would the Republicans 
have supported him doing to reduce the deficit? Would they have 
supported increased taxes? What spending are they talking about with 
specificity?
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. They have never accepted increased taxes, not in 
any crisis.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Legislation is about choices. I mean, if you 
want a Head Start program, you've got to pay for it. If you want clean 
water grants, you've got to pay for them. We need to be making these 
choices, not in the context of threats about blowing up the economy, 
but by making the rational choices about what kind of vision and what 
kind of future we think we want. Some of us think that education is 
important. You have to pay taxes to get a good education. Some people 
think that clean water grants are important. Some people think that 
scientific research, food inspectors, FBI agents, air traffic 
controllers are important. There are a lot of things we like in 
government, and you've got to pay for them.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you again for joining us and for laying out 
that history.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. To add to what my colleague just said, we 
are also in a climate of fighting against terrorism, and in order to 
secure the homeland, you have to make choices about how you invest, so 
I have a different opinion. I think, if you invest money, you get 
innovation and you get jobs; and none of what has been said by Speaker 
Boehner says anything about innovation, jobs, and he has no, seemingly, 
understanding of the importance of securing the homeland.
  Mr. Speaker, I am joined this evening by Members of the Congressional 
Black Caucus to call upon Congress to pass a bill that increases the 
debt ceiling so that we can avoid economic disaster and continue to 
work for the American people in repairing our economy and creating 
jobs.
  While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to 
resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I 
cannot support any measure that unduly constrains the ability of 
Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job 
creation troubles.

[[Page H5479]]

  Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased 
it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past 
decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in 
February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 
trillion. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to 
accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit 
can be avoided until August 2nd.
  Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the 
history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt 
obligations.
  We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. United 
States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest 
investments another country or investor could make. For foreign nations 
and investors, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held 
something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and 
credit of the United States government.
  As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing out debt 
ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the 
American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care 
with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these 
issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous 
amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal 
responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving 
our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, 
including political ideology.
  Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve 
borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in 
order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more 
flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow 
money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements 
of funding a major war in the modern era.
  To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, 
allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations 
without prior Congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the 
amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit.

  In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of 
the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the 
United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis 
that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic 
experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. 
economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well.
  The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of 
political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to 
raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament 
to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, 
this time around, some of my Republican colleagues have created an 
impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts.
  While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues 
with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them 
in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over 
pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will 
begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not 
raised.
  This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is 
perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the 
undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, 
raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing 
legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to 
by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present. Raising the debt 
limit simply matches the amount the United States is allowed to borrow 
to the amount it already owes.
  Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it 
not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy 
Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to 
finance the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, as well as 
the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that 
fund.
  If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the 
stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time 
in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in 
American history has the country's full faith and credit been called 
into question. Credit rating agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poors 
stand ready to downgrade the triple A rating that America currently 
enjoys.
  Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance 
our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. 
Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince 
banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its 
debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend 
money to a government that did not pay them back. Showing the world 
that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of 
that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more 
risk on the part of the investors.
  Furthermore, any investors who continue to purchase U.S. Treasury 
bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the 
increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance 
of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require 
the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the 
loan worth the risk for investors to take on.
  Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As 
we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market 
hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but 
small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments 
tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, 
will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American 
people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement 
accounts. With uncertainty still lingering in the markets and in the 
minds of citizens, we must not allow another wild fluctuation in the 
markets to occur due to default.

  One of the major reasons that the job market continues to remain so 
stagnant is the fact that the flow of credit to small businesses that 
enables them to hire and expand has slowed.
  Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress 
has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling 
makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use 
this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their 
extreme agenda. They knew that the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act'' was 
not a realistic proposal and that it was not going to pass the Senate. 
They just wanted to waste time.
  Mr. Speaker, along with the Congressional Black Caucus, I believe 
that Congress should increase the debt ceiling to meet the obligations 
the United States has already promised to undertake. By refusing to do 
so, it endangers our economy and the recovery of our jobs.
  Last week Republicans introduced the ``Cut, Cap and Balance Act'' 
which I aptly named the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' 
Because it tap danced around raising our debt ceiling and acting in a 
responsible manner to pay our nation's debt obligations. That bill 
would have forced our nation to join a losers club as it would have 
eliminated important social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social 
Security, and Pell grants. The theme for the Republicans seems to be a 
focus on cutting programs for the most at need and ignoring the need to 
focus on Job creation. This bill busts the hopes and dreams of our 
children, seniors, and military families. It busts the hopes to grow 
our nation in the future. The ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill'' 
was just a distraction and now we have the opportunity to once again 
get serious about raising our debt. We can not continue to waste a 
tremendous amount of time. The Deadline is right around the corner. The 
American people cannot have a government that is the embodiment of 
living check to check. We must do something NOW!
  For a moment think about the American people. Step back and envision 
the faces of those who will be impacted if we are not successful in 
finding common ground. They are the faces of the the elderly who will 
not receive their social security payments. They are the faces of 
children and infants who will not receive their WIC benefits. They are 
the faces of hardworking every day Americans, including the multitudes 
of poor working families who will not be able to receive the benefits 
they need from government run programs that are keeping them from 
falling into homelessness. When you think of our future, also see our 
present. Without raising this debt limit we are putting the present and 
the future of Americans at risk.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank you for adding that again.
  At this time, I would like to yield to the former chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Barbara Lee from Oakland, who 
is also chair of the Out of Poverty Caucus. A lot of times--well, even 
up to this weekend--nobody is talking about the poor.
  I thank you for starting the Out of Poverty Caucus and for leading us 
through an agenda that continues even today of pathways out of poverty 
and for bringing us to the floor every day for the last couple of weeks 
to talk about how the Republican policies, the bills that they are 
proposing and the way they're holding the debt ceiling hostage are 
hurting the poor in our country.
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank Congresswoman Christensen for leading this 
Special Order tonight.
  I also thank you for your leadership on behalf of, really, my 
constituents and on behalf of the entire country because it is so 
important that you as first vice chair of the Congressional

[[Page H5480]]

Black Caucus--and chairman Cleaver, who chairs the Congressional Black 
Caucus--continue to be the conscience of the Congress and to speak out 
and sound the alarm about the consequences of possible bad political 
and policy decisions. So thank you very much for what you're doing. 
It's so important that these issues be swept from under the rug and 
discussed in an open forum.
  The debate and the discussion with Congressman Bobby Scott and 
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee were very important to have because I 
think that the public, who is listening to this discussion, will 
understand the history and the background and the technical aspects 
about this budget and deficit reduction plan that the Speaker is 
bringing forward, which really do, once again, put the American people 
as pawns, I think, in a game that they are not responsible for playing. 
People cannot wait any longer. They are tired of having their futures 
threatened by Republican politicians who are playing games that put the 
entire Nation and our economy at risk.
  As for the Ryan budget and now this debt ceiling plan put forth by 
the Republicans, I'll tell you that what comes to mind is, when you 
look at it and when you listen to what's in it, it's a ``you're on your 
own'' kind of plan. For those who are wealthy and those are beholden to 
special interests and hedge fund billionaires and millionaires and all 
of those who have benefitted from the tax cuts, they'll be fine; but 
for those, as you mentioned earlier, who are poor or who could possibly 
fall from middle income into the ranks of the poor, this debt ceiling 
plan put forth by the Republicans is morally wrong and is fiscally 
unsound. We don't want to see the majority of the American people on 
their own once again, so I'm glad we're here tonight discussing this.
  A Republican default on our debt, this would devastate the retirement 
savings of millions of American seniors--just devastate. We know that 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--these government safety net 
programs--have provided for millions of our seniors to live a decent 
life in their golden years and to not fall into the ranks of poverty. 
Now all of these programs are on the chopping block. It makes no sense. 
A Republican default on our debts, it would weaken our entire economy 
and weaken our national security, and we heard earlier that hundreds of 
thousands of jobs could be lost, that even more jobs would be lost. We 
should be about creating jobs, not putting forth measures that would 
take us further down the road into a recession and, for some, a 
depression.

                              {time}  2020

  In fact, it's very simple. America must pay our bills on time, and we 
must do this in a way that does not devastate the safety net for our 
senior citizens and our children's future.
  Either you are on the side of the American people and want to 
safeguard vital human needs programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security, critical food benefits for families and children--or you're 
on the side of the billionaires and the bankers, financial services 
industries, subsidies for massive oil company profits. You're on one 
side or the other in this debate.
  The Congressional Black Caucus continues to be on the side of our 
Nation's most vulnerable populations, who, in these very hard economic 
times, depend on these vital safety net programs for their survival 
day-in and day-out. Meanwhile, we keep hearing claims from the other 
side of the aisle that only misdirect attention.
  America really is not broke. We're the richest and we're the 
strongest country in the world, and we still have the best ideas, the 
best workers, the best schools, and the largest economy in the world. 
But we won't be for long if the Republicans have their way.
  You know, you often wonder for those who say that default will not 
wreak havoc on the country. There are some who I think could care less 
if we went into default because if you listen to what they're saying, 
it doesn't really bother a lot of Members here. And that, to me, is 
tragic.
  Some tell us that the future is bleak and that the government cannot 
afford to invest in a prosperous and growing America. But the truth is 
that raising the debt ceiling should be very simple. It should be a 
simple vote by all of us to allow the United States Treasury to fund 
all of its programs and obligations and debts of the entire Federal 
Government that are already in the law.
  Republicans in the House have already voted to support and pass a $9 
trillion increase in the national debt. And now again, instead of 
working to create jobs and help our Nation rise out of this great 
recession, and depression for many, the Republicans are really playing 
a high-stakes game of chicken with the safety net and with the security 
of every single American so that they can protect the massive--and 
Congressman Scott and yourself talked about this--$400 billion tax cut 
that Congressman Scott warned us we would have to pay for some time 
soon. It came sooner rather than later, Congressman Scott. And we 
listened to you, and those of us who voted ``no,'' we tried. But here 
we are with your prediction coming true.
  Here we're asking once again those who have been hurt, the most 
vulnerable, to pay once again. And that is just downright wrong.
  A failure to raise the debt limit would mean an immediate stop to 
over 40 percent of the entire Federal Government. Our soldiers would 
not get paid, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments would be 
delayed. And the health and safety of every single American would be 
threatened, along with the health of our very fragile economy.
  The incredibly irresponsible position that the Republicans have taken 
protecting tax breaks for the super rich, Wall Street corporations, Big 
Oil, that seems to be more important than preventing the United States 
government from defaulting on our debts.
  And let me just remind those who want to cut Medicare and dismantle 
Medicare. That's basically what they want to do. Medicare recipients 
did not create the national debt. And that is unconscionable to even 
talk about balancing the budget or paying down the debt on the backs of 
our most vulnerable populations, including those who are facing living 
in poverty.
  And let me remind our Republican colleagues again that the 
Congressional Black Caucus, under the leadership of Chairman Cleaver, 
Congresswoman Christensen, Congressman Bobby Scott, already offered a 
budget--and he mentioned it earlier--that would have saved $5.7 
trillion from the deficit, protected our most vulnerable communities, 
and would have ensured the stability of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security. And our budget was balanced.
  So the country is not broke. We know how we got here--two wars, these 
massive tax cuts for the very wealthy, Wall Street going amok. So it's 
time to be real, and it's time to be truthful. It's time to be honest, 
and it's time to make sure that the decisions we make here will not dig 
us deeper into the hole. America really doesn't have any more time for 
these Republican games.
  Let me also conclude by talking about those who are unemployed 
because if we don't do something quickly, the ranks of the unemployed 
are going to grow even greater. And unemployment compensation is really 
survival funds, survival compensation, until we figure out how we're 
going to create jobs. And incidentally, the Republicans haven't put 
forth any job plan since they've been in power.
  But these long-term unemployed Americans who have run out of their 
unemployment compensation, known as the 99ers, they continue to face 
uncertainty and hardships, and the House must act now to stand with 
these individuals.
  H.R. 589, which my colleague, Congressman Scott, and I introduced 
earlier this year, Congresswoman Christensen and many members of the 
Congressional Black Caucus are cosponsors. This would add 14 weeks of 
unemployment emergency compensation. It would make these benefits 
retroactively available to people who have exhausted all of their 
benefits and are still unemployed. Extending these benefits for long-
term unemployed individuals will stimulate our economy, empower more 
consumers, and create more jobs.
  So this extension should be in any deficit reduction plan because we 
know that not only is it the right thing to do, the morally correct 
thing to do, this is the economically prudent thing

[[Page H5481]]

to do in terms of passing an emergency extension. It really should be 
the first step in taking bold steps to create millions of jobs for 
Americans.
  So we should be working to pass a jobs bill that would help people 
find this pathway out of poverty. We should help keep middle-income 
individuals from falling into poverty. We should be looking at a budget 
and a plan that, yes, will help pay down our debt. Yes, it is part of 
deficit reduction--that incorporates deficit reduction as part of it. 
But no, that does not cut Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid. And 
we should really be trying to figure out a way to create some jobs for 
people. I mean, that's the bottom line. That's what we need to do.

  Thank you again, Congresswoman Christensen, for calling this Special 
Order today. We should make sure that the world knows that the 
Congressional Black Caucus continues to call attention to the games 
that Republicans are playing that will threaten our national security 
interests as well as our economic interests. And the fact that we're 
here working to try to create some jobs and to help ensure that this 
debt ceiling is raised, that's the bottom line.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Congresswoman Barbara Lee.
  I just want to mention that when we had our job summit about a week 
and a half ago, we passed out some information to those in attendance 
that added up about 30 job-creating pieces of legislation that just the 
CBC has introduced in this year. I don't believe that the Republican 
majority has brought any job-creating bills to the floor, and in this 
recovery, that's what we need, jobs.
  I know sometimes we were accused of class warfare, but we're not 
pitting the poor against the rich or the middle class against the rich. 
We just think that everyone needs to be on the side of our country. We 
are calling for shared sacrifice and for fairness.
  And really, this ought to be a clean raising of the debt ceiling. The 
cuts we're talking about that are going to hurt the people of this 
country are too important for us to be rushing through and using to 
hold the debt ceiling hostage.

                              {time}  2030

  So let's not hold such a critical thing as our ability to pay our 
bills and take care of our seniors, our children, our people with 
disabilities, and preserving our creditworthiness not only for 
Americans but the whole world depends on us, and we cannot let them 
down. We cannot let the American public down, including my 
constituents. We cannot let our country down and all of the countries 
in the world who depend on us.
  With that, I thank my colleagues for joining me. I want to, once 
again, thank the AARP for their petitions and for their strong advocacy 
on behalf of not only seniors but all Americans and our country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Unitell States 
has reached the current debt ceiling, which is set by law at $14.294 
trillion, and Congress must act by August 2, 2011 to avoid defaulting 
on its loans. If Congress fails to reach an agreement on raising the 
debt ceiling, it will cripple our economy, halt our recovery and end up 
costing taxpayers more in the long-run. For those reasons, I agree with 
financial analysts and experts who say that raising the debt ceiling is 
necessary to ensure our fiscal stability and continued economic 
recovery.
  Although the bill to raise the debt limit did not pass in the U.S. 
House of Representatives in May, I voted in favor of the measure 
because the consequences would have been disastrous for our economy.
  The Republican leadership brought this bill to the floor, but 
ironically urged their Members not to vote for it. The national debt 
limit is not a joke and needs to be taken very seriously. Normally, the 
periodic raising of the national debt limit is a noncontroversial legal 
necessity to ensure that the U.S. does not default on its debt 
obligations to foreign creditors and maintains its credit rating.
  Raising the debt limit does not authorize new spending--it simply 
allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that 
Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past. The 
United States Congress has acted 78 times to raise, extend, or revise 
the debt limit; 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under 
Democratic presidents.
  While no one is more frustrated than I am about our current fiscal 
state of affairs, I support responsible efforts to bring down our 
national debt. I firmly believe that it is a mistake to compound past 
irresponsibility with further irresponsibility on this issue. If 
Congress fails to increase the debt limit, the government would start 
to default on its foreign owned debts, which would have ``calamitous'' 
consequences for the U. S. economy. Not to mention it would be 
unprecedented in American history.
  In addition, if the United States defaulted:
  Investors would be less likely to lend to this country; borrowing 
costs, not only for the federal government, but for families, 
businesses and local governments would increase; and so would interest 
rates for municipal bonds, mortgages, car loans, and student and 
business loans.
  Mr. Speaker, America's debt is a non-partisan concern. Both parties 
share responsibly for ensuring that this nation's bills are paid. I 
stand ready to work with all of my colleagues to meet our obligations 
and put forward a productive plan to reduce the deficit.

                          ____________________