[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 115 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5678-H5688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 627, BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 375 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 375

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 627) 
     to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act 
     Processing Delays. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution, modified by the 
     amendments printed in part B of that report, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of 
     debate, with one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, 
     30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
     and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of July 31, 2011, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules if the legislative 
     text that is the object of the motion was

[[Page H5679]]

     available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident 
     Commissioner on the legislative day before consideration, 
     except that a motion described in subsection (b) may not be 
     entertained until the third legislative day on which the 
     legislative text that is the object of the motion is 
     available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident 
     Commissioner.
       (b) If the Speaker entertains a motion to suspend the rules 
     relating to a measure proposing a balanced budget amendment 
     to the Constitution under subsection (a) debate under clause 
     1(c) of rule XV shall be extended to two hours.
       Sec. 3.  When the House adjourns by operation of section 4 
     of this resolution on any legislative day during the period 
     from August 1, 2011, through September 6, 2011, it shall 
     stand adjourned until the third constitutional day thereafter 
     at a time to be announced by the Speaker in declaring the 
     adjournment (except that when the House adjourns on September 
     6, 2011, it shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on September 
     7, 2011).
       Sec. 4.  On each legislative day during the period 
     addressed by section 3 of this resolution:
        (a) the Speaker may dispense with legislative business, in 
     which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to 
     section 3 of this resolution after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV; and
       (b) if the Speaker does not dispense with legislative 
     business, the Speaker may at any time declare the House 
     adjourned pursuant to section 3 of this resolution.
       Sec. 5.  On each legislative day during the period 
     addressed by section 3 of this resolution (except a day 
     before August 8, 2011, on which the Speaker does not dispense 
     with legislative business pursuant to section 4), the Journal 
     of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as 
     approved.
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 7.  Bills and resolutions introduced during the period 
     addressed by section 3 of this resolution shall be numbered, 
     included in the Congressional Record, and printed with the 
     date of introduction, but may be referred by the Speaker at a 
     later time.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the 
consideration of this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the 
Budget Control Act of 2011. It provides for 2 hours of debate, as the 
Reading Clerk just said. One hour is equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules. 
That'll be yours truly and Ms. Slaughter, and 30 minutes will be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 30 minutes will be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, since 1962, there have been 74 increases in the debt 
ceiling. At this moment, we begin what is clearly the single most 
historic debate on any measure that addresses increasing the debt 
ceiling. Why? Because for the first time we are working to get at the 
root cause of why it is that the debt ceiling needs to be increased.
  As the debate negotiations over the looming debt ceiling limit have 
proceeded over the last weeks and months, people across this country 
are asking: How did we get to this point? How was the crisis created 
and how do we resolve it? As is often the case, we can't hope to reach 
a solution without understanding the fundamental problem.
  At the very start of this process several months ago, many of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle advocated strongly and worked 
very, very hard for an increase in the debt ceiling that had no strings 
attached to it at all; had nothing attached to it at all. They argued 
that the debt ceiling had been increased 10 times over the last decade, 
and it was just a perfunctory legislative act that should be done 
without any broader debate or accompanying policy changes.
  Mr. Speaker, that approach is precisely the fundamental problem. And 
that approach is one that has, throughout the past several decades, led 
to what for all intents and purposes was little more than a blind 
increase in the debt ceiling itself. For years and years and years, the 
Federal Government has spent money that it does not have, expanding the 
size and scope of government and its reach without regard to the long-
term fiscal consequences.
  When the tax dollars ran out, Mr. Speaker, it turned to borrowing 
voraciously. Each and every time the borrowed money ran out, the 
Federal Government just borrowed more. It was always clear that 
catastrophic consequences would ensue if the U.S. Government defaulted 
on its obligations. So Congress took the path of least resistance and 
simply raised the debt ceiling. But sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the path of 
least resistance is, in fact, the road to ruin.
  Raising the debt ceiling, without taking measures to address the 
underlying issues merely put off the crisis for a short time, making it 
larger and more entrenched in the process. That's how we got to the 
point where we are today.
  And that's why from the very outset Republicans have insisted that 
this time would be different. We refused to contemplate yet another 
debt ceiling increase without addressing the underlying cycle of 
reckless, unaccountable spending and borrowing.
  Yes, we absolutely must avert the looming crisis that could force the 
United States Government to default and put our ailing economy into a 
tailspin. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot and will not do so in a way that 
creates an even bigger crisis down the road.
  Republicans put Washington on notice that the era of unchecked 
spending was coming to an end at the start of this Congress with the 
passage of H.R. 1, which dramatically cut spending for the current 
fiscal year. We continued the process of imposing new levels of fiscal 
discipline with the passage of our budget resolution for the coming 
fiscal year. This measure outlined not just spending cuts but long-term 
reforms that would help to prevent entitlement programs from collapsing 
into insolvency and dragging the rest of the economy along with them.
  In May of this year, at the Economic Club of New York, Speaker 
Boehner once again outlined the Republican agenda for creating growth 
and opportunity, creating jobs and opportunity for our fellow Americans 
through greater fiscal discipline and more rigorous accountability for 
the size and scope of government.
  From the very start of this new majority, Mr. Speaker, and at every 
step of the way since, Republicans have been fighting for real 
solutions to the fiscal mess that the country finds itself in. We 
promised that we would start a new course, and it is with a great deal 
of pride, Mr. Speaker, that I stand here and say we have done just 
that.
  Today's underlying legislation, this underlying measure is a dramatic 
stride forward in our ongoing quest. While we have steadily laid the 
groundwork over the last 6 months, this plan represents the single most 
significant, most fundamental reform to our fiscal situation in the 
modern era.
  It makes immediate, enormous cuts in Federal spending. These cuts are 
greater than the corresponding increase in the debt ceiling, ensuring 
that action taken to avert an immediate crisis is coupled with a 
massive down payment on dealing with the long-term crisis.
  It sets caps on spending in order to impose discipline and 
accountability on the process going forward. It establishes a joint 
select committee that will be directed to identify at least $1.8 
trillion in additional cuts and guarantee an expedited vote on those 
cuts later this year.

                              {time}  1240

  This is a critical component to the long-term solution.
  Mr. Speaker, you know very well that we've had countless commissions 
over the years that have proposed ideas for cutting deficits. Some 
ideas have had more merit than others, but their

[[Page H5680]]

merit has been immaterial because no serious proposal has been afforded 
congressional consideration. This measure before us ensures that 
Congress will address the proposals that we receive.
  Now, for the last 6 months, the House of Representatives has taken a 
number of key steps to rein in spending and ensure greater 
accountability and discipline in the use of taxpayer dollars. Yet they 
have been held up indefinitely by our friends in the other body. 
Today's underlying measure would eliminate the challenge by 
guaranteeing a clean up-or-down vote in both Chambers of the work 
product that emerges from this Joint Select Committee. The entire 
Congress, Mr. Speaker, will have no choice but to consider real 
solutions. Each and every Member of the House and the Senate will have 
to go on record. No deficit commission, Mr. Speaker, no deficit 
commission, no plan, no proposal that has come before has had that kind 
of guarantee, the kind of guarantee that is included in this measure 
that's before us.
  Today's underlying measure also moves the process forward on a 
balanced budget amendment. Taken together, these proposals represent a 
radical departure from the status quo. Mr. Speaker, they fundamentally 
alter our Federal spending process in order not just to avert an 
immediate crisis but to diffuse the ticking timebomb of our $14.3 
trillion national debt.
  Mr. Speaker, global markets, U.S. job creators, and, most 
importantly, the American people are watching what we do here today. 
They want to see bold and credible action that restores confidence in 
our economy now and in the future.
  This legislation, Mr. Speaker, delivers that very action that the 
American people, that U.S. markets and the global markets are seeking. 
It's a plan for the short, medium, and long term. It fundamentally 
alters the current landscape and helps to ensure that we never get back 
to where we are right now, and that is, as we all know, on the brink of 
a fiscal and economic catastrophe.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues--and I hope very much that we will 
be able to enjoy bipartisan support. I urge them to support both the 
rule that allows for consideration of this measure and the underlying 
legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman, my friend Mr. Dreier, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that we have two separate but equally 
urgent issues facing our country: raising the debt ceiling and reducing 
the Nation's debt. In this Congress we should make a serious effort to 
do both. However, after 100 years, almost, of protecting the full faith 
and credit of the United States by raising the debt ceiling without 
pause, the majority's decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage in order 
to push drastic cuts and place the burden of future debt reduction 
squarely upon the middle class. This unprecedented effort to put 
ideology before country has led us to the brink of default, a prospect 
that is all too real as we vote today.
  The plan we're considering today is not the product of a bipartisan 
compromise. No matter how many times anybody says that, it does not 
make it true. We're considering a bill the majority knows will never be 
approved by the Senate nor signed by the President. Members of the 
House are being told to vote on legislation despite having no idea, no 
idea, what cuts are in this bill. Any Democrat who votes for this bill 
could be cutting Social Security or heating for low-income families and 
not even know it. To ask the House to vote on undisclosed cuts is a 
cynical waste of time.
  Furthermore, the bill shrugs aside the burden of governing. It asks 
us to vote like a mock government that will be set up and pass the buck 
to a commission to make decisions for us, leaving us to simply 
rubberstamp what they decide. That is not why I ran or was elected to 
Congress, and it is an abandonment of the responsibilities we are sworn 
to uphold.
  Today's reckless plan would put us right back in the same situation a 
few months from now when the atmosphere is even more politically 
charged by the coming election. Our economy and our markets won't have 
the stability they need. Credit agencies will have no choice but to 
downgrade the U.S. debt. This would cause interest rates to rise, 
effectively raising taxes for every American family.
  The leaders of the majority know this and said so publicly, but they 
don't seem to care. In a June 13 interview with Politico, Majority 
Leader Cantor said, ``We feel very strongly that one of the reasons why 
we continue to see an ailing economy is that people have very little 
confidence, have very little certainty in terms of where we are 
headed.'' In that same interview, he was explicit that he wants a 
single debt ceiling vote for this Congress and not, as he said, ``a 
series of short-term extensions, as some have suggested.''
  The following week Politico quoted Leader Cantor saying, ``If we 
can't make the tough decisions now, why would we be making them later? 
I don't see how multiple votes on a debt ceiling increase can help get 
us to where we want to go.'' Yet here we are today considering a bill 
that will require a second debt ceiling vote just 6 months from now.
  Not only is this bill awful policy and a waste of our time, but the 
rule before us clears the way, which will come as a great surprise to 
Members, for a constitutional amendment that would give a simple 
majority the ability to cut spending, while only allowing the 
government to raise revenues--that is, to go after the people who are 
more able to pay and to get corporations to pay their own way--by 
having to have approval of three-fifths of the House to do that. In 
other words, they are sacrosanct; the poor always give.
  This cut-first, think-later approach would directly harm the middle 
class. The amendment stacks the deck in favor of future cuts to Social 
Security and Medicare and Medicaid while making it virtually impossible 
to close tax loopholes for oil companies and millionaires who own 
private jets.
  As if this was not enough, the process by which we will vote on this 
amendment is a disgrace to this institution. Under today's rule the 
majority proposes we consider a constitutional amendment under 
suspension of the rules, the most closed procedure that we have. As we 
all should know, suspension of the rules is designed for 
noncontroversial legislation such as naming a post office or 
congratulating a winning sports team. To give a constitutional 
amendment the same consideration as renaming a post office is 
embarrassing for us and a disgrace to the dignity and tradition of the 
House.
  In closing, today's debate is about fairness. Are we a nation that 
asks the most of those who have the least? It certainly appears so. Or 
are we a nation of shared sacrifice and fairness, a nation that asks 
every American to do his fair share? Today's bill turns upside-down any 
notion of fairness and proposes radical changes to our Constitution 
that would protect millionaires and special interests while making it 
easier than ever to take from the middle class.
  For this reason I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
today's rule and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from 
Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), now in his seventh month as a 
Member of Congress, the Budget Committee's representative from the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. WOODALL. I very much thank the chairman for yielding.
  That's right, 7 months--7 months.
  I'm one of the new guys on Capitol Hill, and I ran for Congress to do 
exactly what we're doing down here today.
  There are going to be a lot of folks down here with accusations and 
recriminations. I just want you to know I'm going to be the guy down 
here with a smile on my face because today is why I came to Congress.
  Seventy-three times, I'm told by folks who have been here longer than 
I, this Congress has taken a withdrawal out of America's ATM.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I just wanted to say it's 74 times.

[[Page H5681]]

  Mr. WOODALL. Seventy-four times. I appreciate the chairman for 
correcting me. Seventy-four times that America's ATM card has been 
stuck in, no funds to withdraw, and yet cash has been dispensed. And 
not once, I'm told by my friend from New York, not once have we ever 
tied any spending decisions to increasing America's credit line. That's 
outrageous. That's outrageous.
  But today we do. Today we do. Today we say the buck stops with the 
112th Congress. The buck stops with us.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield again?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. DREIER. I've just been informed by the staff that both the 
gentleman and I are wrong, Mr. Speaker. It's 75 times that this has 
taken place. I've just been told by the Congressional Research Service. 
So we're just being very modest in our assessment of it so far. But 
we're up to 75, as of right now.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. WOODALL. That almost takes the smile off my face. Can you believe 
that? Seventy-five times this Congress, the people's House, the most 
responsive body we have in Federal Government, has reached in with that 
ATM card and taken that money out, with absolutely no funds on deposit. 
Again, the buck stops today.
  Now, in fairness, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not do everything I 
wanted it to do. I wanted more. And each and every time we've had an 
opportunity--we had an opportunity in H.R. 1, that continuing 
resolution we passed. A great process, a great debate, great 
conclusion. This does not go as far as the House budget--the budget 
that we passed that day.
  Mr. Speaker, you remember we considered absolutely every budget that 
any Member of Congress brought to the floor of this House. We decided 
on one. This doesn't do as much as that did. But you know what this 
does do? This says we're not going to increase the credit line by a 
penny unless we're cutting a penny too, because the problem in this 
town, I have learned, Mr. Speaker, in 7 months, is not that we don't 
spend enough. It's not. And that's a legitimate disagreement I have 
found that we have. But it is not that we don't spend enough. The 
problem is that we spend too much.
  Mr. Speaker, do I wish that we were doing more in this bill today? 
Yes, I do. But I smile with pride because we could have been yet 
another Congress, Congress No. 76, where we just kick the can down the 
road and accept no responsibility at all. We don't do that, Mr. 
Speaker. The buck stops here. I'm in strong support of this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. 
McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule, to 
this closed process, and to the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I keep expecting lion tamers and acrobats to appear on 
the House floor. Because this process, under this Republican 
leadership, has become a complete circus. The underlying Boehner plan 
should be called the Republican Default Act.
  The rule allows the Republican leadership to bring a radical balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution before the House, but right now we 
have no idea what that amendment will look like. This is crazy.
  Our Founding Fathers spent weeks and weeks arguing over every clause, 
conjunction, and comma in the Constitution. But today, my Republican 
friends treat it as just another excuse for a partisan press release. 
And why are they doing this, Mr. Speaker? It's simple. Politics. The 
Speaker of the House made that clear in a radio interview. He argued 
that the reason the Republicans should support his radical plan to 
slash Medicare and Social Security and education and medical research 
is that ``Barack Obama hates it, Harry Reid hates it, Nancy Pelosi 
hates it.''
  And yesterday, in a meeting of the Republican conference, their 
leadership tried to rally votes for this bill by playing a clip from 
the movie, ``The Town.'' The quote they used--and I guess this was 
supposed to be inspirational--was this: ``I need your help. I can't 
tell you what it is, you can never ask me about it later, and we're 
gonna hurt some people.''
  The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that the people they're going to hurt 
are senior citizens on Medicare and Social Security. They're going to 
hurt children who don't have enough to eat. They're going to hurt 
students trying to afford a college education. They're going to hurt 
the very people who can least afford to take the hit, all in the name 
of protecting tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Their 
approach is reckless. Their approach is wrong. Their approach is 
unfair. And I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and against 
this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to simply congratulate my colleague for the success that he 
had last night in the Rules Committee in encouraging the Rules 
Committee to adopt a measure that will ensure that we would have the 3-
day layover requirement in place for consideration of any balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution. The gentleman offered the 
amendment, and I'm very pleased that the Rules Committee saw fit to 
make it in order. I want to congratulate the gentleman.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I appreciate it very much. The problem is you're 
bringing it under a suspension of the rules, the most closed process 
that we have in this House. There are no amendments. Quite frankly, 
even 3 days is not enough to do the proper and due diligence on a 
constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that in both 
1962 and 1983 constitutional amendments were brought up in this House 
under suspension of the rules. This is not at all unprecedented. What 
is unprecedented is the fact that we said there would in fact be, based 
on the gentleman's amendment, a 3-day layover requirement addressed to 
ensure that Members would have an opportunity to see the proposed 
constitutional amendment before it is voted on.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished 
former Rules Committee member, my very good friend, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, Tom Cole.
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to support 
the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that this Congress has chosen--
this House--has chosen to raise the debt ceiling in a responsible and 
historic way, that is, not only allowing the ceiling to go up, but 
coupling it with real reductions in long-term spending that we all know 
need to occur. So far, the President and the other body have both 
failed to act. The Senate, just for the record, hasn't even passed a 
budget in 2 years, hasn't moved a piece of legislation in this crisis. 
Frankly, it has done nothing.
  The President is now a born-again deficit hawk. It's a false 
conversion. Let's just look at the record. He appointed a deficit 
reduction commission and then refused to adopt any of its 
recommendations. He sent this body and the other body a budget that was 
so flawed, it failed 97-0 in a Democratic Senate. He asked for a clean 
vote on the debt ceiling in this body. He was given that vote, and he 
got fewer than a hundred of my friends on the other side to vote with 
him. He's talked about a plan, but never presented a plan in public. 
Frankly, the President in this crisis has failed to lead.
  But we have not failed to act.
  I'm proud of our Speaker, I'm proud of our Congress, and I know I'm 
going to be proud of the House at the end of the day because this House 
is going to do the right thing for the American people. We'll see if 
the Senate and the President will follow suit.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina, an expert on the Constitution, Mr. Price.

[[Page H5682]]

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, since our Republican 
colleagues assumed the majority in January, we have swung from one 
artificially created crisis to the next.
  In the spring, we barely dodged a government shutdown. Now we face an 
unprecedented and unnecessary crisis over raising the debt ceiling, an 
event that's occurred more than 70 times since 1964. And we're already 
hearing rumblings of another potential shutdown in October at the end 
of the current fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, the most baffling part of this legislation is that it 
requires us to have this debate all over again in 6 months.
  Time and time again, I've heard my Republican colleagues say that 
private capital has not found its way back into the market because of 
economic uncertainty. Surely the majority cannot believe that going 
through this debate again in 6 months would do anything to increase 
market stability or reduce uncertainty.
  Mr. Speaker, lurching from one politically motivated calamity to the 
next is doing our economy great harm. It's doing our country great 
harm. We need a bill that addresses the default issue for the long 
term, not one that will require us to repeat this madness in a matter 
of weeks. It's past time for the majority to bring such a bill to this 
floor, so that we can focus on bringing jobs back and building our 
economy for the long haul.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes 
to another hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, my good friend 
from Spring Hill, Florida (Mr. Nugent).
  Mr. NUGENT. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from California, for allowing me to speak on this topic.
  We have an obligation to ensure that government doesn't default on 
its debts for the first time in history. I've always said that America 
is a country that keeps her promises, and those promises include our 
debts. The Senate hasn't acted. The President hasn't acted. So today, 
the House is considering yet another solution to keep these promises. 
I'm not just talking about promises to our creditors. If we default, we 
break promises to our seniors, to our troops, and to our veterans. Such 
a scenario, in my view, is just totally unacceptable.

                              {time}  1300

  The Budget Control Act is a way forward. It's a down payment on 
serious spending reforms. It's cuts now, and it's more cuts in the 
future. Most importantly, it requires both chambers of Congress to vote 
on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Future cuts and future spending caps are all well and good, but they 
don't hold our feet to the fire. We all know, if the Federal Government 
wants to spend money, they will do it. They've proven that time and 
time again. The Budget Control Act recognizes that we can't keep 
spending what we don't have, which is why it requires Congress to vote 
on a balanced budget amendment.
  It's a new promise to the American people--a promise that we are 
going to do better, a promise that we will only spend what we collect.
  President Obama says he wants a balanced approach. What we want, what 
the American people want, is a balanced budget. The President has done 
plenty of telling us what he won't do. What President Obama hasn't told 
us is what he will do. What President Obama has are his speeches. 
Speeches aren't plans.
  A plan is what we have here in front of us today. It's a good plan. 
Could it be better? All of us on this side of the aisle believe it 
could be. We passed a resolution of Cut, Cap, and Balance, but that 
died in the Senate. So, today, we are talking about what is going to 
move this country forward, what is going to set us up on a path of 
sustainable spending, not what we're currently living with, which is an 
addiction. We have a spending addiction in the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield my friend from 
Spring Hill an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. NUGENT. A plan is what we have here in front of us today, and 
it's a new way forward. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
recognize that and move with us.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. The Republican Party's deficit plan is very simple: one, 
prolong the default crisis; two, push the Nation to the very brink of 
economic collapse; three, repeat it all again and again until election 
day 2012.
  The Republican Party cares only about political victory. They don't 
want compromise. They want capitulation.
  And if America goes into default, it will be your fault.
  We now have the pluperfect form of the Republican Party's political 
paradox: Republicans hate government, but they have to run for office 
in order to make sure it doesn't work. In 1995 and '96, the Republican 
Party shut down the Federal Government. In 1997 and '98, the 
Republicans shut down the Congress over impeachment. Earlier this year, 
they threatened to shut down the Federal Government again unless they 
got an extension of tax cuts for the very rich.
  And now Republicans are trying to shut down the entire economy. 
Republicans are turning Americans into the laughingstock of the world.
  If our Nation defaults, it will devastate Americans all across the 
country. If you have an adjustable rate mortgage, you will pay more. If 
you have a credit card, you will pay more. If you have a small 
business, you will pay more.
  This Republican default will impose a Tea Party tax on the entire 
country. It will force Americans to pay billions more of their hard-
earned money when they can least afford it. The Tea Party has 
congressional Republicans wrapped around its little finger, but it's 
the American people who are going to get squeezed. The Republican Party 
doesn't care. After all, it was the Bush administration and 
congressional Republicans who put us on this course in the first place.
  The only way to end this historic nightmare is to resolve another 
massive deficit--the leadership deficit in the Republican Party.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say to my very good friend from Massachusetts that, as I listen to 
those remarks, I am really struck by the fact that our view is that 
we're in this together, and I will say for the record that we care 
about absolutely everything that my friend said we don't care about.
  We as a Nation have a challenge that needs to be addressed in a 
bipartisan way. The measure that is before us today is one that was--
and I underscore the word ``was''--agreed to by the Senate majority 
leader, Harry Reid, and by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
John Boehner. Now, I know that Senator Reid is not at this juncture 
supportive of this measure; but it's important to note that we need to 
bring about greater spending cuts.
  I know that I speak for most all of my Republican colleagues when I 
say that this is really the beginning of a process towards reducing the 
size and scope and reach of government. We feel passionately about the 
need to expand individual initiative and opportunity in this country, 
and to characterize us as doing nothing but wanting to close down the 
government and being controlled by some outside group, Mr. Speaker, we 
as Republicans want to work in a bipartisan way because we recognize 
that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and that the 
Democrats have control in the United States Senate. That's why Speaker 
Boehner has worked diligently in pursuing the goals and the priorities 
that we have, but at the same time, he has recognized that we can't get 
it all.
  No one is happy with this measure that is before us. Speaker Boehner 
is not happy with this measure that is before us, but he understands 
that we have to ensure that we don't see the Nation go over the brink 
and that we do, in fact, increase the debt ceiling, but his goal has 
been to get to the root cause.
  As we've now found out, 75 times the debt ceiling has been increased 
since 1962. In fact, I'm told that former Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld, as

[[Page H5683]]

he's on his book tour, is now talking about the fact that we've seen 
the increase that he had to vote on in 1962. It was a $250 billion 
increase in the debt ceiling at that time, and it was the first of 75 
increases that we've had. Never before in our history have we, Mr. 
Speaker, focused on getting at the root cause of why it is we have to 
increase the debt ceiling.
  So it was a very interesting presentation that my friend just gave, 
but I will tell you that I want to work with him and that I want to 
work with other Democrats to make sure that we address this and do it 
for the American people.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I rise in strong opposition to the Republican 
Default Act, which represents a continued effort by our Republican 
colleagues to hold our economy hostage while forcing an ideological 
agenda and jeopardizing our economy.
  Yet again, our colleagues across the aisle have put forward a 
legislative proposal that would lead to crippling cuts in Medicare, 
Social Security and Medicaid, all while refusing to even consider 
ending ill-advised tax breaks for the most fortunate Americans.
  Who absorbs the total burden from these drastic cuts, Mr. Speaker? 
Our seniors and working families, that's who.
  On a day when Exxon Mobil's second quarter profits soared 41 percent 
and they earned $10 billion, it is simply unconscionable for us to ask 
seniors, working families, children, and middle class folks to bear the 
burden of our deficits when we are asking nothing--nothing--of 
corporations, special interests and the wealthiest few. This short-term 
debt limit increase measure fails to instill the necessary confidence 
in the American people that we have their best interests at heart, and 
it certainly does little to calm our creditors throughout the world.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
opposition to this reckless, dead-on-arrival bill that the majority of 
the Senate and the President oppose so that we can find legitimate 
compromise with a long-term solution. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been 
sitting at the compromise table for a very long time. There is a cold, 
empty chair across the table from us. It is time for the Republicans to 
warm that seat.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maine, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Pingree.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my former colleague for her wonderful 
work and for recognizing me today.
  Mr. Speaker, about an hour ago, I met with a wonderful group of 
religious and civic leaders from around this country. After our 
meeting, they walked into the Capitol Rotunda, they got down on their 
knees to pray, and at this moment, they are being arrested.
  They were praying for those who will be hurt the hardest by the bill 
that we are considering today. They were praying for seniors who will 
face rising costs for their prescription drugs. They were praying for 
low-income Americans who depend on heating assistance to stay warm in 
the winter. They were praying for working families who already struggle 
to make ends meet and find a way to send their kids to college. They 
were praying for the millions of Americans who don't have high-priced 
lobbyists to protect them.
  You know who can afford those lobbyists? Corporations who ship jobs 
overseas and are protected by this bill, the big oil companies whose 
subsidies are protected in this bill, the millionaires and billionaires 
whose tax breaks are protected in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the men and women arrested today were standing up for 
the families that find it harder and harder to afford basics like 
groceries and heat and health care.
  I urge you to vote against this rule and against this bill and join 
them, the members of the faith and civic community, who are standing up 
for those Americans.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
to say to my good friend from Maine and former Rules Committee 
colleague that obviously we want to do everything we can to ensure that 
people do receive their Social Security checks.
  On July 12, the President of the United States said that if we don't 
see an increase in the debt ceiling take place by August 2, that he 
can't guarantee that Social Security checks will in fact go out.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it's pretty apparent that we have a proposal before 
us. It's a proposal that Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid worked on in 
good faith last weekend. Senator Reid is no longer supportive of this. 
But this is what was a bipartisan work product that came forward to 
ensure that we could increase the debt ceiling and to ensure that we 
would not see our Nation go into default.
  So I would say to my friends who are advocating a vote against this, 
any Member who does vote against this is voting for us to go into 
default. Why? We are faced with a very, very certain time limit. It 
happens to be August 2.
  Now, we've just gotten word that our colleagues in the other body 
are, upon passage of this measure here in the House of Representatives, 
potentially moving to table the measure in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, 
that will only slow down and undermine the opportunity for those people 
who have been on their knees in the great Rotunda of this Capitol 
praying to ensure that no one is denied their Social Security check, 
that enhances the prospect of those Social Security checks not being 
delivered.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I pray that we don't go into 
default. I pray that our Nation does not go over the edge, and I hope 
and pray that we are able, in a bipartisan way, to successfully address 
this issue.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that we know 
very good and well where the majority stands on Social Security and 
Medicare because we heard the Ryan proposal, and everybody knows it in 
the country. Those programs are to be changed from what we have, and 
we're working really hard here to help them out, maybe what you would 
consider a temporary solution.
  I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady.
  Bond rating houses have already predicted that if we have a short-
term fix to the debt ceiling here in the House today, we risk the 
downgrading of the creditworthiness of this country. Now, the GOP has 
proved itself fundamentally ill-suited to governance on this issue. 
They were for a big deal before they were against it, they were against 
a short-term fix before they were for it, and at least two walkouts 
from negotiations they asked for.
  They can't accept a ``yes'' from the United States Senate getting 
what they wanted in the proposal: $2.2 trillion in cuts, no revenue, 
and a fix through 2012, providing the very certainty just in the last 
campaign cycle they preached about forever.
  So why would they insist on this plan, a short-term fix that actually 
cuts less spending? Speaker Boehner said, ``to make sure the Democrats 
don't prevail in the Senate or at the White House.'' That simple. And 
that cynical.
  It is no coincidence that the Republicans chose the clip from ``The 
Town.'' The topic has Ben Affleck talking about, ``We're going to harm 
some people.'' And his colleague jumps up and says, ``Whose car are we 
going to use?'' Reportedly, in the Republican caucus, somebody jumped 
up and said, ``I'll drive the car.''
  I'm afraid that's true.
  They're willing to drive the car to harm some people today. Though 
what they forgot to tell their caucus was that that scene is about a 
group of people plotting a crime. And that's what it will be today if 
we pass this seductively simple, short-term plan that will hurt America 
and hurt America's families.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentlewoman from New York has 13\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page H5684]]

  Mr. DREIER. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you, Ms. Slaughter, for your 
generosity. And I want to thank the gentlelady from Maine for 
recounting the prayers of Americans. And I would ask them to continue 
to pray, because compromise is part of the democratic way.
  But my friends on the other side did not tell you correctly why we 
are now involved in frivolous activity on the floor. We're not raising 
the debt ceiling. And the reason is there are 53 Senators in the other 
body that have signed a letter that said they're absolutely not going 
to vote for this draconian presentation. And the reason--and let me 
call the roll.
  The reason they're not going to vote for it is because it is a short-
term solution to a long-term problem. It has no revenues along with 
cuts. Sixty-four percent of the American people say balance it, cuts 
with revenues, to invest in our Nation.
  Let me read the roll why Senators are not voting, the other body is 
not voting. Democrats recognize this is not the way to go.
  You will lose your Medicare. Pell Grants will not be available for 
our young people. Medicaid will see in its loss seniors being put out 
of nursing homes. And then we'll have Social Security, our safety net, 
being trampled on. The loss of America's savings. The Dow went down 200 
points yesterday. Just wait until under this bill we do it again and 
again and again, Americans will lose their shirt. The American Dream of 
buying a home will be lost. And all of our mobility systems, America's 
railroads and airports and airlines, will be jeopardized.
  Pay our bills. And if we cannot pay our bills, Mr. President, use the 
Constitution and use the 14th Amendment if we cannot pay our bills.
  To my friends on the other side of the aisle, many of us have already 
voted for a clean debt ceiling. We're willing to do it again. But we 
will not suffer the idea of a one-sided government that takes away 
entitlement, that caps spending that is for those who are in need and 
balances an amendment on the backs of those who are suffering from 
devastating disasters in States like Missouri, States like Alabama, 
with all of the flooding.
  This is not the way to go. Vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the 
underlying bill.
  Pray for America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the House Amendment to S. 
627, the ``Budget Control Act of 2011,'' which, like the previous debt-
ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp 
cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-
changing sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals 
and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share.
  In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom 
the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I 
support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve 
our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot 
support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic 
security and ability to provide for their families while constraining 
the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, 
fiscal, and job creation troubles.
  The Budget Control Act of 2011 cuts $22 billion from the Federal 
Budget for FY2012. Robert McIntyre, of Citizens for Tax Justice 
testified before the Senate Budget Committee that tax loopholes for 
corporations, big business owners and business investors cost the 
Treasury Department $365 billion dollars in FY2011.
  This bill is essentially a rehashed version of the same bill that 
President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed to reject. It 
asks for $917 billion in cuts from domestic spending for a $900 billion 
dollar increase in the debt ceiling, while demanding nothing in revenue 
from the nation's wealthiest. It's nothing more than a ransom note, 
irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few months so that in 
just a short period of time, the American public can be hit up again 
for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Veterans benefits.
  There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs 
that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring 
the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill is 
wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying 
our nation's bills and resolving our differences!
  In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below 
the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census 
Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest 
rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of 
the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many 
rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition 
Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 
2011, or the Women, Infant, and Children, WIC, Program that provides 
nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home 
state.
  In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty 
nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined 
by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they 
are living on less than $22,314 per year.
  Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States 
poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished 
children in the Nation, 20.7 percent of America's youth. The Kaiser 
Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans 
living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4 percent 
of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.
  There is no doubt that we must reduce the national debt, but my 
Republican colleagues' desire for instant gratification through deep 
spending cuts to benefits, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is 
reckless and threatens the financial security of millions of Americans.
  Instead of closing corporate tax loopholes to reduce the deficit, the 
Budget Control Act cuts discretionary spending, and requires Congress 
to draft proposals to cut at least $1.8 trillion from Medicare and 
Social Security. This is an outrage, and an insult to the American 
dream.
  Forcing Congress to draft plans to cut 1.8 trillion from Medicare and 
Social Security forces Members to disregard the best interests of their 
constituents. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for 
Americans who have paid into it for their entire working lives. 
Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect 
for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare 
in 2010.
  Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one 
of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to 
Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th 
District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid 
recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to 
healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending.
  Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national 
debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is 
unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican 
colleagues would pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social 
programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets 
provide these individuals with vital assistance.
  Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to 
conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to 
everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as 
they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not 
fitting for America.
  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. The game is up, and the American people 
understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any 
new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that 
we have already agreed to and promised to pay.
  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.
  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.

[[Page H5685]]

Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion dollars. In 
reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting 
procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be 
artificially avoided until August 2.
  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. America 
has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United 
States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest 
investments another country or investor could make. For investors 
around the world, 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.
  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, 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 3, the United States will 
begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not 
raised.
  This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between 
a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the 
radical agenda of the Tea Party, which irresponsibly pulls the chair 
out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the 
wealthiest.
  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.
  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 3, 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.
  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. 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. The proponents of this bill are putting the 
country at serious risk of losing its status as the world's economic 
superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our ability to manage global 
economic affairs. Our status in the world will be diminished, which 
will undermine our leverage on the world stage that allows us to 
command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to 
decision-making. This bill will reduce America's ability to compete 
with a surging China.
  Furthermore, any investors that do 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. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to 
default and add to the uncertainty still lingering the minds of 
citizens.
  As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market 
would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a 
housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause 
a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity 
families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. 
Moreover, the long-term effects would. spending and investment in the 
housing market.
  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.
  Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine 
Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who 
insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt 
their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has 
called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted 
themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre'', and I am 
inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical 
for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's 
own bill.
  They live in a world that is not the world that the American people 
live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, 
even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; 
that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes 
from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our 
job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic 
future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an 
economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the 
nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits to survive.
  These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet 
due to the nature our political process, they have held up the entire 
government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent 
second recession.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents 
in their home districts who would be hurt by this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of 
Americans live in; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by 
reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve 
Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the 
financial system into chaos'', and ``destroy the trust and confidence 
that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest 
liquid assets in the world''. Instead of injecting ideological spending 
cuts and Constitutional amendments, into the traditionally non-
political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work quickly to 
pass a bill that makes good on our debt obligations and restores 
confidence in American credit.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad situation. There are two failures: One is 
the process by which we got here, where we've abandoned a willingness 
to compromise when compromise is required; and second is to propose a 
plan that's not balanced with revenues as well as with spending cuts.
  I just want to go through the process. This institution is 
responsible for making decisions about taxing and spending. Those are 
contentious debates; always have been, always will be. But whenever 
we've made progress, there's been a recognition that the Republican 
argument, that we have to watch how we spend our money, has validity, 
and that the Democratic argument, that we have to have fairer taxes, 
has had merit. This is a one-sided approach.
  There were negotiations that were promising. In May, the Biden group 
began negotiations to avert a crisis. On May 16, the U.S. hit the debt 
ceiling, and Treasury moved money around to avert the August 2 
deadline. June 23, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, walked out because 
revenues were on the table. July 3, President Obama and Speaker Boehner 
meet to work out a ``grand bargain'' deal. It was very promising, $4 
trillion in deficit reduction by combining revenues as well as

[[Page H5686]]

cuts. President Obama, incidentally, put on the table things that were 
giving enormous heartburn to many Democrats, but he said, We have to 
compromise for the greater good. The Speaker indicates on July 9 that 
the ``grand bargain'' is unlikely due to differences on revenues, so he 
leaves. July 22, Mr. Boehner walks away from the debt talks, saying 
that we can't have revenue.
  So now we have the bill. The bill is defective in this fundamental 
respect: It is going to damage the economy; $1 trillion in cuts, 
increasing on a short-term basis the debt ceiling, followed by $1.8 
trillion that will hurt Medicare and Social Security. This is going to 
be very harmful for the economy.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the reputation of this United States House 
of Representatives and Congress is at a low ebb because of the fact 
that we haven't acted prior to this date, the fact that the reputation 
of the United States of America is on the line, and we're being talked 
about at the same level as the economies of Spain and Greece and 
Ireland and Portugal. This should never have happened. I'm embarrassed 
as I see the greatest power on Earth and the country that's been the 
greatest country on Earth through my entire life possibly diminish 
because of the actions of the other side and not getting this debt 
ceiling resolved.
  The ratings of the United States will go down. That will cause 
interest rates to go up, and it will cause us to lose jobs. And to 
extend this for just 6 months--which is what is happening--means the 
same Kabuki theater will take place again in 6 months. The American 
public doesn't want to see it. Moody's doesn't want to see it. Standard 
and Poor's doesn't want to see it. The markets don't want to see it. 
The world doesn't want to see it. When I was in Europe with the 
Bundestag in Germany, they almost laughed at us, and they said, You are 
like Greece and Ireland and Portugal. And that should not happen. It 
should not have happened in this country and while we're in charge.
  So I would ask this United States Congress, Mr. Speaker, to have a 2-
year extension, enough money to lift this ceiling to where this 
President won't have to deal with it again and the next President can 
deal with it. And if it is, as I hope, President Obama, the Republicans 
won't have to work to see that he is not reelected because he will be 
term-limited, so they can work at ease. And if it's a Republican, they 
can even have more ease. But let's be fair and let's extend this for 2 
years.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very happy to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a 
hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations and one of our 
cardinals.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I must begin, Mr. Speaker, by asking, do you have the President's 
plan? Or perhaps, do any of the Democrats over there have the 
President's plan? I keep hearing that this plan is not a good one; it's 
not a compromise; it hasn't been vetted. I would like to see the 
President's plan. That way, I can sit down with a cheat sheet and 
compare the President's plan with the plan of Senator Reid, with the 
plan proposed by Speaker Boehner. There's nothing, nothing but silence.
  How long has he been President? Nearly 3 years. He knew the debt 
crisis was looming out there. He knew that there would be a debate 
about the debt ceiling. Indeed, as a Senator, in 2006, Barack Obama 
voted ``no'' to a debt ceiling increase, citing lack of leadership. 
Well, surely since that moment in 2006, he knew he would have to be 
dealing with the debt ceiling. He knew Medicare needed reform. He knew 
that Social Security needed reform. He continued the war, which he 
campaigned against. He continued the Bush tax cuts, which he now cries 
is the whole problem, that that's why we're in this situation.
  It's even more appalling, Mr. Speaker, when you read his statement, 
July 12, just a few weeks ago, ``I cannot guarantee that those 
checks''--speaking of Social Security checks--will ``go out on August 3 
if we haven't resolved this issue because there may simply not be the 
money in the coffers to do it.'' That's what the President believes, 
but he has no plan? How can he face the seniors of the United States of 
America?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KINGSTON. How can he say to the seniors of America, I might not 
be able to pay you your Social Security, and then not offer a plan? 
Well, God bless the Speaker, and God bless the people who have, in good 
faith, engaged in this discussion and offered plans. Indeed, the 
Republicans have already passed one plan, Cut, Cap, and Balance. The 
Senate, in their cowardliness, tabled it, refused to even vote on it. 
In fact, this was the same Senate who rejected the President's budget 
97-0. Today we offer a second plan. If the Democrats have a plan, let 
them put it on the table. If the President has a plan, let us look at 
it so we can compare.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, since I have extra time and didn't give 
him enough in the first place, I yield 2 more minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
  I would like to insert into the Record at this time a letter from 53 
United States Senators saying that they will not support the Boehner 
default plan.
  Mr. Speaker, this proposal that we are debating today is dead on 
arrival. We are wasting precious time. We are fast approaching a 
deadline that we need to address, and here we are, debating a bill that 
we know is going nowhere in the United States Senate.
  I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, enough of 
the theatrics. This is time for a grownup moment. This is time to act 
like adults, to work with the Senate, to work with the President, to 
come up with a bipartisan deal, and to get this job done.
  But let's understand why we are where we are. When Bill Clinton left 
office, we had a balanced budget. We had surpluses. When President Bush 
took over and the Republicans, what happened? Tax cuts, mostly for 
wealthy people that weren't paid for; a prescription drug bill that 
wasn't paid for; two wars that weren't paid for. And we end up in this 
terrible debt situation.
  And what do my friends propose as a way to get out of it? They 
propose a bill that would make drastic cuts in programs that benefit 
the poor and the most vulnerable in our country. What they propose is 
eviscerating Medicare and Social Security. They propose cutting 
education money so that our kids can afford to go to school. They 
propose balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class and the 
most vulnerable in this country. It is wrong. It is shameful. It is an 
outrage to bring a bill like this to the floor.

                              {time}  1330

  And given the fact that we know it's going nowhere, this is just 
politics. Enough. I think the American people have had enough. They 
want us to get together to do our job, and I would urge my Republican 
colleagues to pull this bill from the floor and get serious about 
negotiating a real deal.

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2011.
     Speaker John Boehner,
     U.S. Capitol, H-232,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner: With five days until our nation faces 
     an unprecedented financial crisis, we need to work together 
     to ensure that our nation does not default on our obligations 
     for the first time in our history. We heard that in your 
     caucus you said the Senate will support your bill. We are 
     writing to tell you that we will not support it, and give you 
     the reasons why.
       A short-term extension like the one in your bill would put 
     America at risk, along with every family and business in it. 
     Your approach would force us once again to face the threat of 
     default in five or six short months. Every day, another 
     expert warns us that your short-term approach could be nearly 
     as disastrous as a default and would lead to a downgrade in 
     our credit rating. If our credit is downgraded, it would cost 
     us billions of dollars more in interest payments on our 
     existing debt and drive up our deficit. Even more worrisome, 
     a downgrade would spike interest rates, making everything 
     from mortgages, car loans and credit cards more expensive for 
     families and businesses nationwide.
       In addition to risking a downgrade and catastrophic 
     default, we are concerned that in

[[Page H5687]]

     five or six months, the House will once again hold the 
     economy captive and refuse to avoid another default unless we 
     accept unbalanced, deep cuts to programs like Medicare and 
     Social Security, without asking anything of the wealthiest 
     Americans.
       We now have only five days left to act. The entire world is 
     watching Congress. We need to do the right thing to solve 
     this problem. We must work together to avoid a default the 
     responsible way--not in a way that will do America more harm 
     than good.
           Sincerely,
         Harry Reid; Richard J. Durbin; Charles E. Shumer; Patty 
           Murray; Jeanne Shaheen; Ben Nelson; Bernard Sanders; 
           Claire McCaskill; Mary L. Landrieu; John F. Kerry; Al 
           Franken; Patrick J. Leahy; Christopher A. Coons; 
           Barbara A. Mikulski; Barbara Boxer; Ron Wyden; Robert 
           Menendez; Carl Levin; Sherrod Brown; Herb Kohl; Richard 
           Blumenthal; Mark Begich; Michael F. Bennet; Thomas R. 
           Carper; Frank R. Lautenberg; Dianne Feinstein; Max 
           Baucus; Debbie Stabenow; Bill Nelson; Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand; Maria Cantwell; Kent Conrad; Mark R. 
           Warner; Kay R. Hagan; Sheldon Whitehouse; Daniel K. 
           Inouye; Daniel K. Akaka; Tim Johnson; Mark Udall; Joe 
           Manchin III; Amy Klobuchar; Benjamin L. Cardin; Tom 
           Udall; Joseph I. Lieberman; Jeff Bingaman; Jack Reed; 
           Jon Tester; Jeff Merkley; Tom Harkin; Jim Webb; John D. 
           Rockefeller IV; Mark L. Pryor; Robert P. Casey, Jr.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and 
am prepared to close.
  Mr. DREIER. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible rule. It trivializes the 
Constitution, endangers Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and 
says to the world, The United States Congress is incapable of doing its 
job.
  The majority's risking a calamitous default on our debt, and they're 
doing so in the name of politics. The Republicans' ``my way or the 
highway'' approach is dead wrong, and I urge my colleagues to join me 
in opposing both this rule and the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, not one Member of this House likes the fact 
that we are here today and that we're facing the issue that is before 
us. As we've found throughout this debate, 75 times since 1962 the 
United States Congress has been in a position where it's had to 
increase the debt ceiling. And here we are again today, dealing with a 
very unpopular increase in the debt ceiling because it has to be done.
  Democrat and Republican alike recognize that we can't let our Nation 
go into default. We are the greatest Nation the world has ever known, 
and we can't follow the trend that we have seen in Europe of Greece, 
Portugal, Ireland, and other countries.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we're getting close. We're getting close. The 
President of the United States has requested that we have an increase 
in the debt ceiling so that our Nation doesn't default. When that 
request was made of Speaker Boehner, he chose to work together in a 
bipartisan way, recognizing that the President of the United States is 
a Democrat, the United States Senate is controlled by Democrats, the 
United States House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans.
  The most recent message that was sent by the American people came 
last November. Last November we saw a net gain of 63 seats for the 
Republican Party. It had been decades and decades and decades, in fact, 
three-quarters of a century since we'd seen that kind of gain for the 
Republican Party here in the House of Representatives.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the message was overwhelming. The message was, 
create jobs, get our economy growing, and get our fiscal house in 
order. And that's exactly what we're trying to do.
  So as we are faced with this 76th increase in the national debt since 
1962, Speaker Boehner has said we're not going to do it as it's been 
done the last 75 times. We are going to insist that we bring about 
dramatic spending cuts. In fact, we want to see spending cuts that 
actually exceed the level of the debt ceiling increase.
  Now, it was on July 12, as we've said, that President Obama said if 
we don't have this increase in the debt ceiling, he couldn't, on August 
3, guarantee that Social Security checks would go out. And so we have 
this measure before us, Mr. Speaker.
  We've heard that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on 
the other side of the rotunda are planning to simply table this measure 
if it passes the House of Representatives. Now, we all learned in 
school how a bill becomes a law, and we know very well that one House 
passes a measure and the other House is to address it.
  Now, we saw Cut, Cap and Balance pass the House of Representatives, 
and our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol chose to table it. 
And now the word comes that if we pass this today that they're going to 
choose to table it.
  Well, this is the plan that is before us. It is a plan that was 
worked on in good faith by Speaker Boehner and the Democratic leader of 
the United States Senate, Harry Reid. Now, I know that Senator Reid no 
longer supports this plan, but last weekend he did. And I believe that 
we have a responsibility to step up to the plate, take action, increase 
the debt ceiling, but do so by addressing the long-term challenges and 
get at the root cause of why it is we have to increase the debt 
ceiling.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
then the underlying legislation which will allow us to have the debt 
ceiling increased and ensure that our Nation does not go into default.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 186, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 663]

                               YEAS--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

[[Page H5688]]



                               NAYS--186

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bachmann
     Chandler
     Chu
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Johnson (GA)
     Lee (CA)
     Payne

                              {time}  1401

  Messrs. RUNYAN, FLAKE, SOUTHERLAND, FITZPATRICK, DENT, TIBERI, 
KINGSTON, and DENHAM changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on House 
Resolution 375, the Rule providing for consideration of S. 627. Had I 
been able to cast my vote I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________