[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 115 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5693-H5721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 375, I call up 
the bill (S. 627) to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information 
Act Processing Delays, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 375, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of House 
Report 112-184, modified by the amendments printed in part B of the 
report, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                 S. 627

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Budget 
     Control Act of 2011''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

          TITLE I--TEN-YEAR DISCRETIONARY CAPS WITH SEQUESTER

Sec. 101. Enforcing discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Reports and orders.
Sec. 104. Expiration.
Sec. 105. Conforming amendments to the Congressional Budget and 
              Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

            TITLE II--VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

Sec. 201. Vote on the balanced budget amendment.
Sec. 202. Consideration by the other House.

              TITLE III--DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS

Sec. 301. Debt ceiling disapproval process.

         TITLE IV--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION

Sec. 401. Establishment of Joint Select Committee.
Sec. 402. Expedited consideration of joint committee recommendations.
Sec. 403. Funding.
Sec. 404. Rulemaking.

          TITLE V--PELL GRANT AND STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM CHANGES

Sec. 501. Federal Pell Grants.
Sec. 502. Termination of authority to make interest subsidized loans to 
              graduate and professional students.
Sec. 503. Termination of Direct Loan repayment incentives.
Sec. 504. Inapplicability of title IV negotiated rulemaking and master 
              calendar exception.

          TITLE I--TEN-YEAR DISCRETIONARY CAPS WITH SEQUESTER

     SEC. 101. ENFORCING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       Section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 251. ENFORCING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       ``(a) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Sequestration.--Within 15 calendar days after 
     Congress adjourns to end a session there shall be a 
     sequestration to eliminate a budget-year breach, if any.
       ``(2) Eliminating a breach.--Each non-exempt account shall 
     be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by multiplying the 
     enacted level of sequestrable budgetary resources in that 
     account at that time by the uniform percentage necessary to 
     eliminate a breach.
       ``(3) Military personnel.--If the President uses the 
     authority to exempt any personnel account from sequestration 
     under section 255(f), each account within subfunctional 
     category 051 (other than those military personnel accounts 
     for which the authority provided under section 255(f) has 
     been exercised) shall be further reduced by a dollar amount 
     calculated by multiplying the enacted level of non-exempt 
     budgetary resources in that account at that time by the 
     uniform percentage necessary to offset the total dollar 
     amount by which outlays are not reduced in military personnel 
     accounts by reason of the use of such authority.
       ``(4) Part-year appropriations.--If, on the date specified 
     in paragraph (1), there is in effect an Act making or 
     continuing appropriations for part of a fiscal year for any 
     budget account, then the dollar sequestration calculated for 
     that account under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be subtracted 
     from--
       ``(A) the annualized amount otherwise available by law in 
     that account under that or a subsequent part-year 
     appropriation; and
       ``(B) when a full-year appropriation for that account is 
     enacted, from the amount otherwise provided by the full-year 
     appropriation.
       ``(5) Look-back.--If, after June 30, an appropriation for 
     the fiscal year in progress is enacted that causes a breach 
     for that year (after taking into account any sequestration of 
     amounts), the discretionary spending limits for the next 
     fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount or amounts of that 
     breach.
       ``(6) Within-session sequestration.--If an appropriation 
     for a fiscal year in progress is enacted (after Congress 
     adjourns to end the session for that budget year and before 
     July 1 of that fiscal year) that causes a breach for that 
     year (after taking into account any prior sequestration of 
     amounts), 15 days later there shall be a sequestration to 
     eliminate that breach following the procedures set forth in 
     paragraphs (2) through (4).
       ``(7) Estimates.--
       ``(A) CBO estimates.--As soon as practicable after Congress 
     completes action on any discretionary appropriation, CBO, 
     after consultation with the Committees on the Budget of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate, shall provide OMB 
     with an estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget 
     authority for the current year, if any, and the budget year 
     provided by that legislation.
       ``(B) OMB estimates and explanation of differences.--Not 
     later than 7 calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and 
     legal holidays) after the date of enactment of any 
     discretionary appropriation, OMB shall transmit a report to 
     the House of Representatives and to the Senate containing the 
     CBO estimate of that legislation, an OMB estimate of the 
     amount of discretionary new budget authority for the current 
     year, if any, and the budget year provided by that 
     legislation, and an explanation of any difference between the 
     2 estimates. If during the preparation of the report OMB 
     determines that there is a significant difference between OMB 
     and CBO, OMB shall consult with the Committees on the Budget 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate regarding that 
     difference and that consultation shall include, to the extent 
     practicable, written communication to those committees that 
     affords such committees the opportunity to comment before the 
     issuance of the report.

[[Page H5694]]

       ``(C) Assumptions and guidelines.--OMB estimates under this 
     paragraph shall be made using current economic and technical 
     assumptions. OMB shall use the OMB estimates transmitted to 
     the Congress under this paragraph. OMB and CBO shall prepare 
     estimates under this paragraph in conformance with 
     scorekeeping guidelines determined after consultation among 
     the House and Senate Committees on the Budget, CBO, and OMB.
       ``(D) Annual appropriations.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, amounts provided by annual appropriations shall 
     include any discretionary appropriations for the current 
     year, if any, and the budget year in accounts for which 
     funding is provided in that legislation that result from 
     previously enacted legislation.
       ``(b) Adjustments to Discretionary Spending Limits.--
       ``(1) Concepts and definitions.--When the President submits 
     the budget under section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code, OMB shall calculate and the budget shall include 
     adjustments to discretionary spending limits (and those 
     limits as cumulatively adjusted) for the budget year and each 
     outyear to reflect changes in concepts and definitions. Such 
     changes shall equal the baseline levels of new budget 
     authority and outlays using up-to-date concepts and 
     definitions minus those levels using the concepts and 
     definitions in effect before such changes. Such changes may 
     only be made after consultation with the Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Budget of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate and that consultation shall include written 
     communication to such committees that affords such committees 
     the opportunity to comment before official action is taken 
     with respect to such changes.
       ``(2) Sequestration reports.--When OMB submits a 
     sequestration report under section 254(e), (f), or (g) for a 
     fiscal year, OMB shall calculate, and the sequestration 
     report and subsequent budgets submitted by the President 
     under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, shall 
     include adjustments to discretionary spending limits (and 
     those limits as adjusted) for the fiscal year and each 
     succeeding year, as follows:
       ``(A) Emergency appropriations; overseas contingency 
     operations/global war on terrorism.--If, for any fiscal year, 
     appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that--
       ``(i) the President designates as emergency requirements 
     and that the Congress so designates in statute on an account 
     by account basis; or
       ``(ii) the President designates for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism and that the Congress so 
     designates in statute on an account by account basis;
     the adjustment shall be the total of such appropriations in 
     discretionary accounts designated as emergency requirements 
     or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism, as applicable, and the outlays flowing in all 
     fiscal years from such appropriations.
       ``(B) Continuing disability reviews and redeterminations.--
     (i) If a bill or joint resolution making appropriations for a 
     fiscal year is enacted that specifies an amount for 
     continuing disability reviews under titles II and XVI of the 
     Social Security Act and for the cost associated with 
     conducting redeterminations of eligibility under title XVI of 
     the Social Security Act, then the adjustments for that fiscal 
     year shall be the additional new budget authority provided in 
     that Act for such expenses for that fiscal year and the 
     additional outlays flowing therefrom, but shall not exceed--
       ``(I) for fiscal year 2012, $623,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority;
       ``(II) for fiscal year 2013, $751,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority;
       ``(III) for fiscal year 2014, $924,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority;
       ``(IV) for fiscal year 2015, $1,123,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority;
       ``(V) for fiscal year 2016, $1,166,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority;
       ``(VI) for fiscal year 2017, $1,309,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority;
       ``(VII) for fiscal year 2018, $1,309,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority;
       ``(VIII) for fiscal year 2019, $1,309,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority;
       ``(IX) for fiscal year 2020, $1,309,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority; and
       ``(X) for fiscal year 2021, $1,309,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority.
       ``(ii) As used in this subparagraph--
       ``(I) the term `continuing disability reviews' means 
     continuing disability reviews under titles II and XVI of the 
     Social Security Act and redeterminations of eligibility under 
     title XVI of the Social Security Act; and
       ``(II) the term `additional new budget authority' means the 
     amount provided for a fiscal year, in excess of $273,000,000, 
     in an appropriation Act and specified to pay for the costs of 
     continuing disability reviews under the heading `Limitation 
     on Administrative Expenses' for the Social Security 
     Administration.
       ``(C) Health care fraud and abuse control.--
       ``(i) If a bill or joint resolution making appropriations 
     for a fiscal year is enacted that specifies an amount for the 
     health care fraud abuse control program at the Department of 
     Health and Human Services (75-8393-0-7-571), then the 
     adjustments for that fiscal year shall be the amount of 
     additional new budget authority provided in that Act for such 
     program for that fiscal year and the additional outlays 
     flowing therefrom, but shall not exceed--

       ``(I) for fiscal year 2012, $270,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority;
       ``(II) for fiscal year 2013, $299,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority;
       ``(III) for fiscal year 2014, $329,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority;
       ``(IV) for fiscal year 2015, $361,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority;
       ``(V) for fiscal year 2016, $395,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority;
       ``(VI) for fiscal year 2017, $414,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority;
       ``(VII) for fiscal year 2018, $434,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority;
       ``(VIII) for fiscal year 2019, $454,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority;
       ``(IX) for fiscal year 2020, $475,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority; and
       ``(X) for fiscal year 2021, $496,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority.

       ``(ii) As used in this subparagraph, the term `additional 
     new budget authority' means the amount provided for a fiscal 
     year, in excess of $311,000,000, in an appropriation Act and 
     specified to pay for the costs of the health care fraud and 
     abuse control program.
     The adjustment for outlays shall only be for the outlays 
     flowing from the additional new budget authority and the 
     total outlays adjustments made for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed the total adjustments made for that fiscal year in new 
     budget authority.
       ``(c) Discretionary Spending Limit.--As used in this part, 
     the term `discretionary spending limit' means--
       ``(1) with respect to fiscal year 2012, for total 
     discretionary spending: $1,043,000,000,000, in new budget 
     authority of which new budget authority for function 050 
     shall be between $535,440,000,000 and $568,560,000,000;
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2013, for total 
     discretionary spending: $1,047,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority of which new budget authority for function 050 
     shall be between $537,440,000,000 and $570,560,000,000;
       ``(3) with respect to fiscal year 2014, for total 
     discretionary spending: $1,066,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority;
       ``(4) with respect to fiscal year 2015, for total 
     discretionary spending: $1,086,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority;
       ``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2016, for total 
     discretionary spending: $1,107,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority;
       ``(6) with respect to fiscal year 2017, for total 
     discretionary spending: $1,131,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority;
       ``(7) with respect to fiscal year 2018, for total 
     discretionary spending: $1,156,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority;
       ``(8) with respect to fiscal year 2019, for total 
     discretionary spending: $1,182,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority;
       ``(9) with respect to fiscal year 2020, for total 
     discretionary spending: $1,208,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority; and
       ``(10) with respect to fiscal year 2021, for total 
     discretionary spending: $1,234,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority;
     as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 250(c) is amended as follows:
       (1) Strike paragraph (4) and redesignate succeeding 
     paragraphs accordingly.
       (2) In paragraph (7)(C) (as redesignated), strike ``the 
     food stamp program'' and insert ``the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program''.
       (3) Strike paragraph (13) (as redesignated) and insert the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(13) The term `outyear' means a fiscal year one or more 
     years after the budget year.''.
       (4) At the end, add the following new paragraphs:
       ``(19) The term `emergency' means a situation that--
       ``(A) requires new budget authority and outlays (or new 
     budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom) for the 
     prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or 
     property, or a threat to national security; and
       ``(B) is unanticipated.
       ``(20) The term `unanticipated' means that the underlying 
     situation is--
       ``(A) sudden, which means quickly coming into being or not 
     building up over time;
       ``(B) urgent, which means a pressing and compelling need 
     requiring immediate action;
       ``(C) unforeseen, which means not predicted or anticipated 
     as an emerging need; and
       ``(D) temporary, which means not of a permanent 
     duration.''.

     SEC. 103. REPORTS AND ORDERS.

       Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (c)(2), strike ``2002'' and insert 
     ``2021''.
       (2) In subsection (f)(2)(A), strike ``2002'' and insert 
     ``2021''.

     SEC. 104. EXPIRATION.

       (a) Repealer.--Section 275 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Change.--Sections 252(d)(1), 254(c), 
     254(f)(3), 254(f)(4), 254(g), and 254(i) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not 
     apply to the Congressional Budget Office.

     SEC. 105. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 
                   AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974.

       (a) Adjustments.--Section 314 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 is amended as follows:
       (1) Strike subsection (a) and insert the following:
       ``(a) Adjustments.--After the reporting of a bill or joint 
     resolution or the offering of an amendment thereto or the 
     submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate may make appropriate budgetary adjustments of 
     new budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom in the 
     same amount as required by section 251(b) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.
       (2) Strike subsections (b) and (e) and redesignate 
     subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (b) and (c), 
     respectively.
       (3) At the end, add the following new subsections:

[[Page H5695]]

       ``(d) Emergencies.--If a reported bill or joint resolution, 
     or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, contains a 
     provision providing new budget authority and outlays or 
     reducing revenue, and a designation of such provision as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget shall not count the 
     budgetary effects of such provision for purposes of title III 
     and title IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives.
       ``(e) Enforcement of Discretionary Spending Caps.--It shall 
     not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that would cause the discretionary spending 
     limits as set forth in section 251 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act to be exceeded.''.
       (b) Motion to Strike in the House of Representatives.--(1) 
     In the House of Representatives, if a reported bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, contains a provision providing new budget authority 
     and outlays or reducing revenue, and a designation of such 
     provision as an emergency pursuant to this section, the chair 
     of the Committee on the Budget shall not count the budgetary 
     effects of such provision for purposes of title III and title 
     IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (2) In the House of Representatives, a proposal to strike a 
     designation under paragraph (1) shall be excluded from an 
     evaluation of budgetary effects for purposes of title III and 
     title IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives.
       (3) An amendment offered under paragraph (2) that also 
     proposes to reduce each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by the pending measure that is not required to be 
     appropriated or otherwise made available shall be in order at 
     any point in the reading of the pending measure.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) The terms `emergency' and `unanticipated' have the 
     meanings given to such terms in section 250(c) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.
       (d) Appeals for Discretionary Caps.--Section 904(c)(2) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking 
     ``and 312(c)'' and inserting ``312(c), and 314(e)''.

            TITLE II--VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

     SEC. 201. VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

       After September 30, 2011 and not later than December 31, 
     2011, the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, 
     shall vote on passage of a joint resolution, the title of 
     which is as follows: ``Joint resolution proposing a balanced 
     budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.''.

     SEC. 202. CONSIDERATION BY THE OTHER HOUSE.

       (a) House Consideration.--
       (1) Referral.--If the House receives a joint resolution 
     described in section 201 from the Senate, such joint 
     resolution shall be referred to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. If the committee fails to report the joint 
     resolution within five legislative days, it shall be in order 
     to move that the House discharge the committee from further 
     consideration of the joint resolution. Such a motion shall 
     not be in order after the House has disposed of a motion to 
     discharge the joint resolution. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
     without intervening motion except twenty minutes of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent. If such a motion is adopted, the House shall 
     proceed immediately to consider the joint resolution in 
     accordance with paragraph (3). A motion to reconsider the 
     vote by which the motion is disposed of shall not be in 
     order.
       (2) Proceeding to consideration.--After the joint 
     resolution has been referred to the appropriate calendar or 
     the committee has been discharged (other than by motion) from 
     its consideration, it shall be in order to move to proceed to 
     consider the joint resolution in the House. Such a motion 
     shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a 
     motion to proceed with respect to the joint resolution. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion. A motion 
     to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of 
     shall not be in order.
       (3) Consideration.--The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the joint 
     resolution and against its consideration are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution to its passage without intervening motion except 
     two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent and one motion to limit debate on 
     the joint resolution. A motion to reconsider the vote on 
     passage of the joint resolution shall not be in order.
       (b) Senate Consideration.--(1) If the Senate receives a 
     joint resolution described in section 201 from the House of 
     Representatives, such joint resolution shall be referred to 
     the appropriate committee of the Senate. If such committee 
     has not reported the joint resolution at the close of the 
     fifth session day after its receipt by the Senate, such 
     committee shall be automatically discharged from further 
     consideration of the joint resolution and it shall be placed 
     on the calendar.
       (2) Consideration of the joint resolution and on all 
     debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall 
     be limited to not more than 20 hours, which shall be divided 
     equally between the majority and minority leaders or their 
     designees. A motion further to limit debate is in order and 
     not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of other business, or 
     a motion to recommit the joint resolution is not in order. 
     Any debatable motion or appeal is debatable for not to exceed 
     1 hour, to be divided equally between those favoring and 
     those opposing the motion or appeal. All time used for 
     consideration of the joint resolution, including time used 
     for quorum calls and voting, shall be counted against the 
     total 20 hours of consideration.
       (3) If the Senate has voted to proceed to a joint 
     resolution, the vote on passage of the joint resolution shall 
     be taken on or before the close of the seventh session day 
     after such joint resolution has been reported or discharged 
     or immediately following the conclusion of consideration of 
     the joint resolution, and a single quorum call at the 
     conclusion of the debate if requested in accordance with the 
     rules of the Senate.

              TITLE III--DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS

     SEC. 301. DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS.

       Subchapter I of chapter 31 of subtitle III of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 3101(b), by striking ``or otherwise'' and 
     inserting ``or as provided by section 3101A or otherwise''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after section 3101, the following:

     ``Sec. 3101A. Presidential modification of the debt ceiling

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) $900 billion.--
       ``(A) Certification.--If, not later than December 31, 2011, 
     the President submits a written certification to Congress 
     that the President has determined that the debt subject to 
     limit is within $100,000,000,000 of the limit in section 
     3101(b) and that further borrowing is required to meet 
     existing commitments, the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     exercise authority to borrow an additional $900,000,000,000 
     subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval 
     enacted pursuant to this section. Upon submission of such 
     certification, the limit on debt provided in section 3101(b) 
     (referred to in this section as the `debt limit') is 
     increased by $400,000,000,000.
       ``(B) Resolution of disapproval.--Congress may consider a 
     joint resolution of disapproval of the authority under 
     subparagraph (A) as provided in subsections (b) through (f). 
     The joint resolution of disapproval considered under this 
     section shall contain only the language provided in 
     subsection (b)(2). If the time for disapproval has lapsed 
     without enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval under 
     this section, the debt limit is increased by an additional 
     $500,000,000,000.
       ``(2) Additional amount.--
       ``(A) Certification.--If, after the debt limit is increased 
     by $900,000,000,000 under paragraph (1), the President 
     submits a written certification to Congress that the 
     President has determined that the debt subject to limit is 
     within $100,000,000,000 of the limit in section 3101(b) and 
     that further borrowing is required to meet existing 
     commitments, the Secretary of the Treasury may exercise 
     authority to borrow an additional amount equal to 
     $1,600,000,000,000 if the amount of deficit reduction 
     achieved pursuant to the enactment of the joint committee 
     bill as set forth pursuant to section 401(b)(3) of the Budget 
     Control Act of 2011 is greater than $1,600,000,000,000, 
     subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval 
     enacted pursuant to this section.
       ``(B) Resolution of disapproval.--Congress may consider a 
     joint resolution of disapproval of the authority under 
     subparagraph (A) as provided in subsections (b) through (f). 
     The joint resolution of disapproval considered under this 
     section shall contain only the language provided in 
     subsection (b)(2). If the time for disapproval has lapsed 
     without enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval under 
     this section, the debt limit is increased by the amount 
     authorized under subparagraph (A).
       ``(b) Joint Resolution of Disapproval.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except for the $400,000,000,000 increase 
     in the debt limit provided by subsection (a)(1)(A), the debt 
     limit may not be raised under this section if, within 60 
     calendar days after the date on which Congress receives a 
     certification described in subsection (a)(1) or within 15 
     calendar days after Congress receives the certification 
     described in subsection (a)(2) (regardless of whether 
     Congress is in session), there is enacted into law a joint 
     resolution disapproving the President's exercise of authority 
     with respect to such additional amount.
       ``(2) Contents of joint resolution.--For the purpose of 
     this section, the term `joint resolution' means only a joint 
     resolution--
       ``(A)(i) for the certification described in subsection 
     (a)(1), that is introduced on September 6, 7, 8, or 9, 2011 
     (or, if the Senate was not in session, the next calendar day 
     on which the Senate is in session); and
       ``(ii) for the certification described in subsection 
     (a)(2), that is introduced between the date the certification 
     is received and 3 calendar days after that date;
       ``(B) which does not have a preamble;
       ``(C) the title of which is only as follows: `Joint 
     resolution relating to the disapproval of the President's 
     exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as 
     submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States 
     Code, on ______', with the blank containing the date of such 
     submission; and
       ``(D) the matter after the resolving clause of which is 
     only as follows: `That Congress disapproves of the 
     President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, 
     as exercised pursuant to the certification under section 
     3101A(a) of title 31, United States Code.'.
       ``(c) Expedited Consideration in House of 
     Representatives.--

[[Page H5696]]

       ``(1) Reconvening.--Upon receipt of a certification 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Speaker, if the House 
     would otherwise be adjourned, shall notify the Members of the 
     House that, pursuant to this section, the House shall convene 
     not later than the second calendar day after receipt of such 
     certification.
       ``(2) Reporting and discharge.--Any committee of the House 
     of Representatives to which a joint resolution is referred 
     shall report it to the House without amendment not later than 
     5 calendar days after the date of introduction of a joint 
     resolution described in subsection (a). If a committee fails 
     to report the joint resolution within that period, the 
     committee shall be discharged from further consideration of 
     the joint resolution and the joint resolution shall be 
     referred to the appropriate calendar.
       ``(3) Proceeding to consideration.--After each committee 
     authorized to consider a joint resolution reports it to the 
     House or has been discharged from its consideration, it shall 
     be in order, not later than the sixth day after introduction 
     of a joint resolution under subsection (a), to move to 
     proceed to consider the joint resolution in the House. All 
     points of order against the motion are waived. Such a motion 
     shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a 
     motion to proceed on a joint resolution addressing a 
     particular submission. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without 
     intervening motion. The motion shall not be debatable. A 
     motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed 
     of shall not be in order.
       ``(4) Consideration.--The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the joint 
     resolution and against its consideration are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution to its passage without intervening motion except 
     two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent. A motion to reconsider the vote on 
     passage of the joint resolution shall not be in order.
       ``(d) Expedited Procedure in Senate.--
       ``(1) Reconvening.--Upon receipt of a certification under 
     subsection (a)(2), if the Senate has adjourned or recessed 
     for more than 2 days, the majority leader of the Senate, 
     after consultation with the minority leader of the Senate, 
     shall notify the Members of the Senate that, pursuant to this 
     section, the Senate shall convene not later than the second 
     calendar day after receipt of such message.
       ``(2) Placement on calendar.--Upon introduction in the 
     Senate, the joint resolution shall be immediately placed on 
     the calendar.
       ``(3) Floor consideration.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding Rule XXII of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order at any time 
     during the period beginning on the day after the date on 
     which Congress receives a certification under subsection (a) 
     and, for the certification described in subsection (a)(1), 
     ending on September 14, 2011, and for the certification 
     described in subsection (a)(2), on the 6th day after the date 
     on which Congress receives a certification under subsection 
     (a) (even though a previous motion to the same effect has 
     been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of 
     the joint resolution, and all points of order against the 
     joint resolution (and against consideration of the joint 
     resolution) are waived. The motion to proceed is not 
     debatable. The motion is not subject to a motion to postpone. 
     A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed 
     to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of the resolution is agreed to, 
     the joint resolution shall remain the unfinished business 
     until disposed of.
       ``(B) Consideration.--Consideration of the joint 
     resolution, and on all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 10 
     hours, which shall be divided equally between the majority 
     and minority leaders or their designees. A motion further to 
     limit debate is in order and not debatable. An amendment to, 
     or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the 
     joint resolution is not in order.
       ``(C) Vote on passage.--If the Senate has voted to proceed 
     to a joint resolution, the vote on passage of the joint 
     resolution shall occur immediately following the conclusion 
     of consideration of the joint resolution, and a single quorum 
     call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in 
     accordance with the rules of the Senate.
       ``(D) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the 
     decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the 
     rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure 
     relating to a joint resolution shall be decided without 
     debate.
       ``(e) Amendment Not in Order.--A joint resolution of 
     disapproval considered pursuant to this section shall not be 
     subject to amendment in either the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate.
       ``(f) Coordination With Action by Other House.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, before passing the joint resolution, 
     one House receives from the other a joint resolution--
       ``(A) the joint resolution of the other House shall not be 
     referred to a committee; and
       ``(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the 
     same as if no joint resolution had been received from the 
     other House until the vote on passage, when the joint 
     resolution received from the other House shall supplant the 
     joint resolution of the receiving House.
       ``(2) Treatment of joint resolution of other house.--If the 
     Senate fails to introduce or consider a joint resolution 
     under this section, the joint resolution of the House shall 
     be entitled to expedited floor procedures under this section.
       ``(3) Treatment of companion measures.--If, following 
     passage of the joint resolution in the Senate, the Senate 
     then receives the companion measure from the House of 
     Representatives, the companion measure shall not be 
     debatable.
       ``(4) Consideration after passage.--(A) If Congress passes 
     a joint resolution, the period beginning on the date the 
     President is presented with the joint resolution and ending 
     on the date the President signs, allows to become law without 
     his signature, or vetoes and returns the joint resolution 
     (but excluding days when either House is not in session) 
     shall be disregarded in computing the appropriate calendar 
     day period described in subsection (b)(1).
       ``(B) debate on a veto message in the Senate under this 
     section shall be 1 hour equally divided between the majority 
     and minority leaders or their designees.''.
       ``(5) Veto override.--If within the appropriate calendar 
     day period described in subsection (b)(1), Congress overrides 
     a veto of the joint resolution with respect to authority 
     exercised pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), 
     the limit on debt provided in section 3101(b) shall not be 
     raised, except for the $400,000,000,000 increase in the limit 
     provided by subsection (a)(1)(A).
       ``(6) Sequester.-- (A) If within the 60-calendar day period 
     described in subsection (b)(1), Congress overrides a veto of 
     the joint resolution with respect to authority exercised 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection (a), OMB shall, 
     immediately, sequester pro rata amounts from all 
     discretionary and direct spending accounts as defined in 
     section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)) (as in effect September 
     30, 2006) equal to $400,000,000,000. No reduction of payments 
     for net interest (functional category 900) shall be made 
     under any order issued under this paragraph.
       ``(B) Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not apply to this section, 
     except that payments for military personnel accounts (within 
     subfunctional category 051), TRICARE for Life, Medicare 
     (functional category 570), military retirement, Social 
     Security (functional category 650), veterans (functional 
     category 700), and net interest (functional category 900) 
     shall be exempt.
       ``(g) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This 
     subsection and subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are 
     enacted by Congress--
       ``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a joint resolution, and it 
     supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is 
     inconsistent with such rules; and
       ``(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.''.

         TITLE IV--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION

     SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this title:
       (1) Joint select committee.--The term ``joint committee'' 
     means the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction 
     established under subsection (b)(1).
       (2) Joint select committee bill.--The term ``joint 
     committee bill'' means a bill consisting of the proposed 
     legislative language of the joint committee recommended under 
     subsection (b)(3)(B) and introduced under section 402(a).
       (b) Establishment of Joint Select Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a joint select 
     committee of Congress to be known as the ``Joint Select 
     Committee on Deficit Reduction''.
       (2) Goal.--The goal of the joint committee shall be to 
     reduce the deficit by $1,800,000,000,000 or more over the 
     period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.
       (3) Duties.--
       (A) In general.--
       (i) Improving the short-term and long-term fiscal 
     imbalance.--The joint committee shall provide recommendations 
     and legislative language that will significantly improve the 
     short-term and long-term fiscal imbalance of the Federal 
     Government.
       (ii) Recommendations of committees.--Not later than October 
     14, 2011, each committee of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate may transmit to the joint committee its 
     recommendations for changes in law to reduce the deficit 
     consistent with the goal described in subsection (b)(2) for 
     the joint committee's consideration.
       (B) Report, recommendations, and legislative language.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than November 23, 2011, the 
     joint committee shall vote on--

       (I) a report that contains a detailed statement of the 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the joint 
     committee and the CBO estimate required by paragraph 
     (5)(D)(ii); and
       (II) proposed legislative language to carry out such 
     recommendations as described in subclause (I) which shall 
     include a statement of the deficit reduction achieved by the 
     legislation over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.

     Any change to the Rules of the House of Representatives or 
     the Standing Rules of the Senate included in the report or 
     legislative language shall be considered to be merely 
     advisory.
       (ii) Approval of report and legislative language.--The 
     report of the joint committee and the proposed legislative 
     language described in clause (i) shall require the approval 
     of a majority of the members of the joint committee.
       (iii) Additional views.--A member of the joint committee 
     who gives notice of an intention

[[Page H5697]]

     to file supplemental, minority, or additional views at the 
     time of final joint committee vote on the approval of the 
     report and legislative language under clause (ii), shall be 
     entitled to 3 calendar days in which to file such views in 
     writing with the staff director of the joint committee. Such 
     views shall then be included in the joint committee report 
     and printed in the same volume, or part thereof, and their 
     inclusion shall be noted on the cover of the report. In the 
     absence of timely notice, the joint committee report may be 
     printed and transmitted immediately without such views.
       (iv) Transmission of report and legislative language.--If 
     the report and legislative language are approved by the joint 
     committee pursuant to clause (ii), then not later than 
     December 2, 2011, the joint committee shall submit the joint 
     committee report and legislative language described in clause 
     (i) to the President, the Vice President, the Speaker of the 
     House, and the Majority and Minority Leaders of both Houses.
       (v) Report and legislative language to be made public.--
     Upon the approval or disapproval of the joint committee 
     report and legislative language pursuant to clause (ii), the 
     joint committee shall promptly make the full report and 
     legislative language, and a record of the vote, available to 
     the public.
       (4) Membership.--
       (A) In general.--The joint committee shall be composed of 
     12 members appointed pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       (B) Designation.--Members of the joint committee shall be 
     appointed as follows:
       (i) The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 3 
     members from among Members of the Senate.
       (ii) The minority leader of the Senate shall appoint 3 
     members from among Members of the Senate.
       (iii) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall 
     appoint 3 members from among Members of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (iv) The minority leader of the House of Representatives 
     shall appoint 3 members from among Members of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (C) Co-chairs.--
       (i) In general.--There shall be 2 Co-Chairs of the joint 
     committee. The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 
     one Co-Chair from among the members of the joint committee. 
     The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint the 
     second Co-Chair from among the members of the joint 
     committee. The Co-Chairs shall be appointed not later than 14 
     calendar days after the date of enactment of this section.
       (ii) Staff director.--The Co-Chairs, acting jointly, shall 
     hire the staff director of the joint committee.
       (D) Date.--Members of the joint committee shall be 
     appointed not later than 14 calendar days after the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       (E) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for 
     the life of the joint committee. Any vacancy in the joint 
     committee shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     not later than 14 calendar days after the date on which the 
     vacancy occurs in the same manner as the original 
     designation. If a member of the committee leaves Congress, 
     the member is no longer a member of the joint committee and a 
     vacancy shall exist.
       (5) Administration.--
       (A) In general.--To enable the joint committee to exercise 
     its powers, functions and duties, there are authorized to be 
     disbursed by the Senate the actual and necessary expenses of 
     the joint committee approved by the co-chairs, subject to 
     Senate rules and regulations.
       (B) Expenses.--In carrying out its functions, the joint 
     committee is authorized to incur expenses in the same manner 
     and under the same conditions as the Joint Economic Committee 
     as authorized by section 11 of Public Law 79-304 (15 U.S.C. 
     1024 (d)).
       (C) Quorum.--7 members of the joint committee shall 
     constitute a quorum for purposes of voting, meeting, and 
     holding hearings.
       (D) Voting.--
       (i) Proxy voting.--No proxy voting shall be allowed on 
     behalf of the members of the joint committee.
       (ii) Congressional budget office estimates.--The 
     Congressional Budget Office shall provide estimates of the 
     legislation (as described in paragraph (3)(B)) in accordance 
     with sections 308(a) and 201(f) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 639(a) and 601(f))(including estimates 
     of the effect of interest payment on the debt). In addition, 
     the Congressional Budget Office shall provide information on 
     the budgetary effect of the legislation beyond the year 2021. 
     The joint committee may not vote on any version of the 
     report, recommendations, or legislative language unless such 
     estimates are available for consideration by all members of 
     the joint committee at least 48 hours prior to the vote as 
     certified by the Co-Chairs.
       (E) Meetings.--
       (i) Initial meeting.--Not later than 45 calendar days after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the joint committee 
     shall hold its first meeting.
       (ii) Agenda.--The Co-Chairs shall provide an agenda to the 
     joint committee members not less than 48 hours in advance of 
     any meeting.
       (F) Hearings.--
       (i) In general.--The joint committee may, for the purpose 
     of carrying out this section, hold such hearings, sit and act 
     at such times and places, require attendance of witnesses and 
     production of books, papers, and documents, take such 
     testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths 
     the joint committee considers advisable.
       (ii) Hearing procedures and responsibilities of co-
     chairs.--

       (I) Announcement.--The joint committee Co-Chairs shall make 
     a public announcement of the date, place, time, and subject 
     matter of any hearing to be conducted not less than 7 days in 
     advance of such hearing, unless the Co-Chairs determine that 
     there is good cause to begin such hearing at an earlier date.
       (II) Written statement.--A witness appearing before the 
     joint committee shall file a written statement of proposed 
     testimony at least 2 calendar days prior to appearance, 
     unless the requirement is waived by the Co-Chairs, following 
     their determination that there is good cause for failure of 
     compliance.

       (G) Technical assistance.--Upon written request of the Co-
     Chairs, a Federal agency shall provide technical assistance 
     to the joint committee in order for the joint committee to 
     carry out its duties.
       (c) Staff of Joint Committee.--
       (1) In general.--The Co-Chairs of the joint committee may 
     jointly appoint and fix the compensation of staff as they 
     deem necessary, within the guidelines for Senate employees 
     and following all applicable Senate rules and employment 
     requirements.
       (2) Ethical standards.--Members on the joint committee who 
     serve in the House of Representatives shall be governed by 
     the House ethics rules and requirements. Members of the 
     Senate who serve on the joint committee and staff of the 
     joint committee shall comply with Senate ethics rules.
       (d) Termination.--The joint committee shall terminate on 
     January 13, 2012.

     SEC. 402. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Introduction.--If approved by the majority required by 
     section 401(b)(3)(B)(ii), the proposed legislative language 
     submitted pursuant to section 401(b)(3)(B)(iv) shall be 
     introduced in the Senate (by request) on the next day on 
     which the Senate is in session by the majority leader of the 
     Senate or by a Member of the Senate designated by the 
     majority leader of the Senate and shall be introduced in the 
     House of Representatives (by request) on the next legislative 
     day by the majority leader of the House or by a Member of the 
     House designated by the majority leader of the House.
       (b) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--
       (1) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the House of 
     Representatives to which the joint committee bill is referred 
     shall report it to the House without amendment not later than 
     December 9, 2011. If a committee fails to report the joint 
     committee bill within that period, it shall be in order to 
     move that the House discharge the committee from further 
     consideration of the bill. Such a motion shall not be in 
     order after the last committee authorized to consider the 
     bill reports it to the House or after the House has disposed 
     of a motion to discharge the bill. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
     without intervening motion except 20 minutes of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent. If such a motion is adopted, the House shall 
     proceed immediately to consider the joint committee bill in 
     accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3). A motion to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of shall 
     not be in order.
       (2) Proceeding to consideration.--After the last committee 
     authorized to consider a joint committee bill reports it to 
     the House or has been discharged (other than by motion) from 
     its consideration, it shall be in order to move to proceed to 
     consider the joint committee bill in the House. Such a motion 
     shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a 
     motion to proceed with respect to the joint committee bill. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion. A motion 
     to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of 
     shall not be in order.
       (3) Consideration.--The joint committee bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the joint 
     committee bill and against its consideration are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     committee bill to its passage without intervening motion 
     except 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent and one motion to limit debate 
     on the joint committee bill. A motion to reconsider the vote 
     on passage of the joint committee bill shall not be in order.
       (4) Vote on passage.--The vote on passage of the joint 
     committee bill shall occur not later than December 23, 2011.
       (c) Expedited Procedure in the Senate.--
       (1) Committee consideration.--A joint committee bill 
     introduced in the Senate under subsection (a) shall be 
     jointly referred to the committee or committees of 
     jurisdiction, which committees shall report the bill without 
     any revision and with a favorable recommendation, an 
     unfavorable recommendation, or without recommendation, not 
     later than December 9, 2011. If any committee fails to report 
     the bill within that period, that committee shall be 
     automatically discharged from consideration of the bill, and 
     the bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
       (2) Motion to proceed.--Notwithstanding Rule XXII of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order, not later than 
     2 days of session after the date on which a joint committee 
     bill is reported or discharged from all committees to which 
     it was referred, for the majority leader of the Senate or the 
     majority leader's designee to move to proceed to the 
     consideration of the joint committee bill. It shall also be 
     in order for any Member of the Senate to move to proceed to 
     the consideration of the joint committee bill at any time 
     after the conclusion of such 2-day period. A motion to 
     proceed is in order even though a previous motion to the same 
     effect has been disagreed to. All points of order against the 
     motion to proceed to the joint committee bill are waived.

[[Page H5698]]

     The motion to proceed is not debatable. The motion is not 
     subject to a motion to postpone. A motion to reconsider the 
     vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall 
     not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration 
     of the joint committee bill is agreed to, the joint committee 
     bill shall remain the unfinished business until disposed of.
       (3) Consideration.--All points of order against the joint 
     committee bill and against consideration of the joint 
     committee bill are waived. Consideration of the joint 
     committee bill and of all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith shall not exceed a total of 30 hours 
     which shall be divided equally between the Majority and 
     Minority Leaders or their designees. A motion further to 
     limit debate on the joint committee bill is in order, shall 
     require an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members 
     duly chosen and sworn, and is not debatable. Any debatable 
     motion or appeal is debatable for not to exceed 1 hour, to be 
     divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the 
     motion or appeal. All time used for consideration of the 
     joint committee bill, including time used for quorum calls 
     and voting, shall be counted against the total 30 hours of 
     consideration.
       (4) No amendments.--An amendment to the joint committee 
     bill, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the 
     joint committee bill, is not in order.
       (5) Vote on passage.--If the Senate has voted to proceed to 
     the joint committee bill, the vote on passage of the joint 
     committee bill shall occur immediately following the 
     conclusion of the debate on a joint committee bill, and a 
     single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if 
     requested. The vote on passage of the joint committee bill 
     shall occur not later than December 23, 2011.
       (6) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the 
     decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the 
     rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure 
     relating to a joint committee bill shall be decided without 
     debate.
       (d) Amendment.--The joint committee bill shall not be 
     subject to amendment in either the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate.
       (e) Consideration by the Other House.--
       (1) In general.--If, before passing the joint committee 
     bill, one House receives from the other a joint committee 
     bill--
       (A) the joint committee bill of the other House shall not 
     be referred to a committee; and
       (B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the same 
     as if no joint committee bill had been received from the 
     other House until the vote on passage, when the joint 
     committee bill received from the other House shall supplant 
     the joint committee bill of the receiving House.
       (2) Revenue measure.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     the House of Representatives if the joint committee bill 
     received from the Senate is a revenue measure.
       (f) Rules to Coordinate Action With Other House.--
       (1) Treatment of joint committee bill of other house.--If 
     the Senate fails to introduce or consider a joint committee 
     bill under this section, the joint committee bill of the 
     House shall be entitled to expedited floor procedures under 
     this section.
       (2) Treatment of companion measures in the senate.--If 
     following passage of the joint committee bill in the Senate, 
     the Senate then receives the joint committee bill from the 
     House of Representatives, the House-passed joint committee 
     bill shall not be debatable. The vote on passage of the joint 
     committee bill in the Senate shall be considered to be the 
     vote on passage of the joint committee bill received from the 
     House of Representatives.
       (3) Vetoes.--If the President vetoes the joint committee 
     bill, debate on a veto message in the Senate under this 
     section shall be 1 hour equally divided between the majority 
     and minority leaders or their designees.
       (g) Loss of Privilege.--The provisions of this section 
     shall cease to apply to the joint committee bill if--
       (1) the joint committee fails to vote on the report or 
     proposed legislative language required under section 
     201(b)(3)(B)(i) by November 23, 2011; or
       (2) the joint committee bill does not pass both Houses by 
     December 23, 2011.

     SEC. 403. FUNDING.

       Funding for the joint committee shall be derived in equal 
     portions from--
       (1) the applicable accounts of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (2) the contingent fund of the Senate from the 
     appropriations account ``Miscellaneous Items'', subject to 
     Senate rules and regulations.

     SEC. 404. RULEMAKING.

       The provisions of this title are enacted by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such 
     they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, 
     respectively, or of that House to which they specifically 
     apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the 
     extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such 
     House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.

          TITLE V--PELL GRANT AND STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM CHANGES

     SEC. 501. FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.

       Section 401(b)(7)(A)(iv) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(7)(A)(iv)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (II), by striking ``$3,183,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$12,183,000,000''; and
       (2) in subclause (III), by striking ``$0'' and inserting 
     ``$8,000,000,000''.

     SEC. 502. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE INTEREST 
                   SUBSIDIZED LOANS TO GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL 
                   STUDENTS.

       Section 455(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087e(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Termination of authority to make interest subsidized 
     loans to graduate and professional students.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and 
     notwithstanding any provision of this part or part B, for any 
     period of instruction beginning on or after July 1, 2012--
       ``(i) a graduate or professional student shall not be 
     eligible to receive a Federal Direct Stafford loan under this 
     part; and
       ``(ii) the maximum annual amount of Federal Direct 
     Unsubsidized Stafford loans such a student may borrow in any 
     academic year (as defined in section 481(a)(2)) or its 
     equivalent shall be the maximum annual amount for such 
     student determined under section 428H, plus an amount equal 
     to the amount of Federal Direct Stafford loans the student 
     would have received in the absence of this subparagraph.
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an 
     individual enrolled in course work specified in paragraph 
     (3)(B) or (4)(B) of section 484(b).''.

     SEC. 503. TERMINATION OF DIRECT LOAN REPAYMENT INCENTIVES.

       Section 455(b)(8) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087e(b)(8)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by amending the header to read as follows: ``(A) 
     incentives for loans disbursed before july 1, 2012.--''; and
       (B) by inserting ``with respect to loans for which the 
     first disbursement of principal is made before July 1, 
     2012,'' after ``of this part'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``with respect to 
     loans for which the first disbursement of principal is made 
     before July 1, 2012'' after ``repayment incentives''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) No repayment incentives for new loans disbursed on or 
     after july 1, 2012.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this part, the Secretary is prohibited from authorizing or 
     providing any repayment incentive not otherwise authorized 
     under this part to encourage on-time repayment of a loan 
     under this part for which the first disbursement of principal 
     is made on or after July 1, 2012, including any reduction in 
     the interest or origination fee rate paid by a borrower of 
     such a loan, except that the Secretary may provide for an 
     interest rate reduction for a borrower who agrees to have 
     payments on such a loan automatically electronically debited 
     from a bank account.''.

     SEC. 504. INAPPLICABILITY OF TITLE IV NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 
                   AND MASTER CALENDAR EXCEPTION.

       Sections 482(c) and 492 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1089(c), 1098a) shall not apply to the amendments 
     made by this title, or to any regulations promulgated under 
     those amendments.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 2 hours, 
with 1 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.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) each will control 30 minutes; the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the measure before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it's about 1\1/2\ minutes after 3 p.m. on 
July 28, 2011. At this moment, we begin the debate on one of the most 
crucial items that we have had or will have before us.
  Since 1962, on 75 different occasions, the United States Congress has 
chosen to increase the debt ceiling to ensure that we paid our past 
obligations. It has been done 75 times without ever having any strings 
attached whatsoever.
  Last November, we all know that there was an overwhelming message

[[Page H5699]]

that was sent by the American people to Washington, DC; and that 
message was, number one, create jobs, get our economy back on track, 
and in so doing, rein in the dramatic increase in the size and scope 
and reach of government that we witnessed in the past several years. We 
all know that in the last 4 years we've had an 82 percent increase in 
non-defense discretionary spending. And so the message that was sent 
was: That has to come to an end.
  So Speaker Boehner, when asked by the President of the United States 
to move an increase in the debt ceiling, said that he was willing to do 
that. He recognized, as I believe an overwhelming majority of both 
Democrats and Republicans in this institution recognize, it is 
absolutely essential that we increase the debt ceiling. We have to do 
everything that we can to ensure that Social Security checks get to 
those retirees. We have to make sure that the many other obligations 
that we have are in fact met.
  And on that one issue of Social Security, we know that on July 12 the 
President of the United States in a speech said that if we don't see an 
increase in the debt ceiling by August 2, he could not guarantee that 
on August 3 those Social Security checks would go to our retirees. And 
so, Mr. Speaker, what happened was Speaker Boehner said we want to make 
sure that those Social Security checks get out. We want to make sure 
that we increase the debt ceiling so our Nation doesn't default and 
follow the pattern of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and other countries in 
the world that have gone through tremendous economic devastation.
  But what the Speaker said is that, while we are going to, in 
increasing the debt ceiling, meet those obligations of the past, we are 
not going to do it the way it has been done the last 75 times. We are 
going to get to the root cause of why it is that we have to increase 
the debt ceiling, and that is the runaway spending that Democrat and 
Republican, alike, decries regularly. And so the Speaker said that he 
would increase the debt ceiling, but he wanted to ensure that we cut 
spending in an amount that was greater than the level of the debt 
ceiling increase.
  And so he began discussions, recognizing that Republicans--those who 
won this majority last November--only controlled the United States 
House of Representatives. Speaker Boehner does not look at the world 
through rose-colored glasses. He knows that the Republicans don't 
control the United States Senate and he knows that he has to work with 
President Obama. But he does know that the last statement that was made 
by the American people in November of last year was we've got to have a 
dramatic change in the course that we have been on. And so he began 
negotiating. He began discussions. He began working over the past 
several weeks and months to try to put together a bipartisan effort so 
that Democrats and Republicans, alike, could come together and ensure 
that those Social Security checks get out and that the other 
obligations that we have are in fact met and that we do increase our 
debt ceiling.
  We've all followed, and the American people are following very 
closely, the global markets are following closely, this debate and the 
discussions that are taking place. It came to a head last weekend when 
we know that the President of the United States had requested a 50 
percent increase in the level of taxes to be increased from $800 
billion to $1.2 trillion, and the Speaker of the House said that that 
was a nonstarter. So the Speaker said that he wanted to work with the 
bipartisan leadership of the United States Congress, both Houses of 
Congress. And so last weekend we know that Speaker Boehner and the 
Democratic Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid, 
came together and fashioned, by and large, the measure that is before 
us today.
  Now, I'm the first to say that Harry Reid no longer supports this 
measure. Harry Reid has indicated that he does not support it. We have 
this letter from the 53 Senators. We have word that they're going to 
table this measure when it passes the House of Representatives. But 
it's important, Mr. Speaker, for everyone to recognize that what is 
before us today is, by and large, a measure that is not what Speaker 
Boehner would write if he were doing it on his own. It's a measure that 
is the byproduct of bipartisan discussion and, as the Speaker likes to 
say, the ability to find common ground.
  We are, today, in a position where we face, in just a few days, the 
prospect of those Social Security checks not going out. And, Mr. 
Speaker, that's why I don't like this measure, but I'm voting for it. 
I'm voting for it because I want to get those Social Security checks 
out, I want to make sure that the United States of America does not 
default, and I believe that that's the responsible thing for us to do.
  What we have before us in the House of Representatives is the closest 
thing to a bipartisan agreement. First of all, we know that, by and 
large, there have been no other plans put forward, but the plan that 
does exist--there are very few plans put forward. The plan that has 
been put forward by Senator Reid is one that does not enjoy bipartisan 
support and it was not put together in a bipartisan way. This one was, 
by and large, even though it does not have the support of Senator Reid 
any longer, was put together based on the discussions they had. I 
believe that this measure is deserving of strong bipartisan support 
here in the House of Representatives and from our colleagues in the 
United States Senate as well.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, in the name of sanity and in 
the name of ensuring that we maintain the solvency and the strength of 
the greatest nation the world has ever known, that we pass this measure 
and that we send it to our colleagues in the United States Senate so 
that they can do the same, and so that when it's placed on the desk of 
the President of the United States, he will have his opportunity to 
ensure that what he predicted as a possibility for August 3, that being 
that Social Security checks do not go out, will not happen.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1510

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek 
to control the time of the gentlewoman from New York?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Yes, I do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to open debate, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There is no common ground here, nor was it sought. We find ourselves 
at an unprecedented place today. America stands on the brink of 
default. It stands there, my friends, because the leadership of this 
House has failed to act in a timely and responsible way. This is an 
unprecedented status for America, an intolerable place, and Americans 
are understandably outraged at this politically caused impasse that 
confronts us, the consequences of which for every American and our 
country have been correctly characterized as ``catastrophic.''
  For more than two centuries, an American default has been 
unthinkable. The men and women who came before us in this Chamber built 
up the full faith and credit of the United States until it became the 
bedrock of the world's economy. Despite their differences, they agreed 
that the honor that comes from paying our bills responsibly and on time 
was a moral obligation.
  Now our Nation is on the verge of breaking that trust. If America 
fails to pay its bills and default comes, the wound to the global 
economy, to jobs across this country, to our standing among nations, 
that wound will be entirely self-inflicted. It cannot and must not come 
to that.
  Americans have overwhelmingly called on us to come to a balanced, 
bipartisan solution, one that pays our bills, reduces our deficit, and 
draws common contributions from all Americans--not only the vulnerable 
and the unconnected, but also those who have enjoyed our Nation's 
prosperity.
  That is the consensus of the vast majority of the people who sent us 
here. They understand that ``my way or the highway'' is no way to 
govern. They understand that all of us who had a hand in accumulating 
our debt must share the work of paying it off. They understand that the 
prosperity and prestige of our country are at stake right now. And they 
are relying on the

[[Page H5700]]

ability of this body to put partisanship aside.
  There will, in fact, be bipartisan opposition to this bill, but I 
predict there will be no Democrat for this bill because bipartisanship 
was not sought.
  So I am deeply concerned that the short-term plan offered by Speaker 
Boehner would put us right back, right back here on the precipice of 
imminent default in just a few months, casting a pall of uncertainty 
over our economy and leading to a job-destroying credit downgrade.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Each of us, ladies and gentleman of this House, has a duty 
to end this impasse. Let's live up to that duty by voting down this 
partisan legislation.
  And then let's come together on a balanced, bipartisan solution to 
reduce our deficit and pay our bills. I suggest to my friend from 
California that Majority Leader Reid has offered just such a plan. In 
fact, it incorporates exactly what Speaker Boehner suggested in his 
speech in New York City. Let us embrace that plan. After this fails, 
let the Senate send it to us.
  This is a moment of great crisis for our country and for our 
citizens, a crisis that demands our putting aside partisanship and 
politics for the good of our people. We're not there yet, but it is my 
great hope that we as a body can live up to that challenge. Our fellow 
citizens expect it, our duty demands it, our oath requires it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my very good friend from 
Maryland, the distinguished whip, that bipartisanship has been sought, 
and I am seeking it right now. So I hope very much that we will be in a 
position where we will be able to enjoy bipartisan support for this.
  I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentlewoman from 
Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a hardworking member of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a single Member of Congress or the 
administration who did not know that this day was coming. Washington 
was spending tax dollars faster than ever before, and the debt ceiling 
was caving in.
  The question is: How do we respond? Do we protest? Do we argue? Or do 
we govern?
  Last November, the voters asked for change. That's how this House 
stopped the largest tax increase in history and cut spending this year 
to levels not seen since 2008.
  Today, we have the opportunity to take the next step by passing the 
Budget Control Act. This is a balanced compromise that will avert a 
default and stop the cycle of debt that is draining our economy. It 
makes nearly $1 trillion in immediate cuts--more than the debt 
increase--caps future spending, and lays the groundwork for additional 
savings in a balanced budget amendment.
  In a perfect world, some of us would like more cuts. Those on the 
left also want a bigger plan--or at least a big enough debt increase to 
carry the President beyond the next campaign.
  But the American people care about jobs, not politics. They want 
solutions that will restore confidence, credit, and growth in the 
United States. And neither a default nor a 2-year budget gimmick will 
accomplish that task. This bill will.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides to recognize that good politics is 
about doing what's right for the American people. Let's take this 
opportunity, cut spending, and put America back on a sound fiscal path 
to prosperity.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we are 5 days away from a historic, 
unprecedented, and needless default. Instead of acting responsibly and 
in a bipartisan way to raise the debt ceiling, the Republican majority 
continues to hold the American economy hostage to press their agenda.
  Even though the debt ceiling was raised seven times under President 
Bush, even though 110 current Members of the majority have voted to 
raise the debt ceiling in the past, the majority continues its 
dangerous game of brinksmanship.
  Included in this bill is $917 billion in cuts mostly to critical 
public investments like education, infrastructure, biomedical research, 
law enforcement, and food safety. They will all be slashed. And yet 
these programs, which are called discretionary programs, they are only 
3.1 percent higher than they were 5 years ago, less than what it was 
under both Ronald Reagan and the first Bush administration.
  It is disingenuous for this majority to pretend that these public 
investments, critical to job creation and economic growth, are the 
source of our deficit problems. The primary reason the deficits have 
grown is because revenues are lower than they have been in 60 years--15 
percent lower thanks to the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy--and 
because we initiated two wars on the Nation's credit card.
  If the majority was serious about deficit reduction, they would allow 
for additional revenue by asking the wealthiest Americans and corporate 
special interests to share in the sacrifice rather than seeking to 
protect them--which they do--in this legislation.
  The majority is not serious. This bill is not about deficit 
reduction. It is about using the threat of default to enact a radical 
agenda, one that will cost jobs and undermine the American economy, 
where middle class families would have an opportunity for a decent 
retirement.
  In a few months they are coming back, $1.6 trillion in cuts to Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This form of hostage taking is not 
responsible leadership. It's the wrong direction for our country. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this incredible, outrageous piece of 
legislation, and I call on the majority to quit playing political 
games.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend that I believe 
that the majority is serious, and I believe that the Democrats are 
serious in their quest to ensure that we don't default. This is their 
opportunity to step up to the plate and make sure that it doesn't 
happen.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good 
friend from Gold River, Mr. Lungren, the hardworking chairman of the 
Administration Committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, what is incredible, 
what is outrageous, what is unprecedented is the amount of debt that we 
are incurring on a daily basis and have been doing for some time. Those 
who are being held hostage are our children and our grandchildren and 
their futures. The question we have is whether or not we are going to 
reach a balanced approach.

                              {time}  1520

  What do I say a balanced approach would be? A balanced approach is 
when we are once again creating jobs in this economy.
  What those on the other side have led us to believe is that the 
answer to our problems is to follow the European experience over the 
last 30 to 40 years, and that is to rely more on government, higher 
taxes, with the net result of a shrinking private economy and fewer 
jobs.
  What is unprecedented is that we are now in the longest period of 
continuous unemployment that we've seen since the Great Depression. 
What is unprecedented is that if you call this a recovery, it is the 
most jobless recovery in the history of modern-day United States. What 
it is, is very much like what we've seen in Europe over the last 30 
years.
  So the question before us is do we follow the European experience 
with greater reliance on government; greater balance, which translated 
means ``taxes,'' when we know that not a single economist of any repute 
would tell us that the answer to our jobless situation is to tax those 
who create the jobs?
  That's why this is such an important vote for us today. That is, we 
will show that the way to the future is the American way; the way we've 
done it in the past: reliance on the private sector, allowing the 
ingenuity, the creativity, the risk-taking, the courage of the American 
people to bring us back to prosperity.
  Those on the other side, the gentlewoman from New York just suggested 
that the way to do that is through the expansion of government 
programs.

[[Page H5701]]

That's not the essence of how we create jobs.
  We are in an unprecedented period of time; that is true, Mr. Speaker. 
We must act in an unprecedented way, and that is to follow the Boehner 
plan.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Robert Greenstein, the president of the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities, says that if enacted, the Boehner bill 
could well produce the greatest poverty and hardship produced by any 
law in modern history.
                                                  Center on Budget


                                         and Policy Priorities

                                                    July 25, 2011.

Statement: Robert Greenstein, President, on House Speaker Boehner's New 
                            Budget Proposal

       The plan is, thus, tantamount to a form of ``class 
     warfare.'' If enacted, it could well produce the greatest 
     increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in 
     modern U.S. history.
       This may sound hyperbolic, but it is not. The mathematics 
     are inexorable.
       The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary 
     programs of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, and it 
     then requires additional cuts that are large enough to 
     produce another $1.8 trillion in savings to be enacted by the 
     end of the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling 
     again at that time.
       The Boehner plan contains no tax increases. The entire $1.8 
     trillion would come from budget cuts. Because the first round 
     of cuts will hit discretionary programs hard--through austere 
     discretionary caps that Congress will struggle to meet--
     discretionary cuts will largely or entirely be off the table 
     when it comes to achieving the further $1.8 trillion in 
     budget reductions.
       As a result, virtually all of that $1.8 trillion would come 
     from entitlement programs. They would have to be cut more 
     than $1.5 trillion in order to produce sufficient interest 
     savings to achieve $1.8 trillion in total savings. To secure 
     $1.5 trillion in entitlement savings over the next ten years 
     would require draconian policy changes.
       Policymakers would essentially have three choices: 1) cut 
     Social Security and Medicare benefits heavily for current 
     retirees, something that all budget plans from both parties 
     (including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's plan) 
     have ruled out; 2) repeal the Affordable Care Act's coverage 
     expansions while retaining its measures that cut Medicare 
     payments and raise tax revenues, even though Republicans seek 
     to repeal many of those measures as well; or 3) eviscerate 
     the safety net for low-income children, parents, senior 
     citizens, and people with disabilities. There is no other 
     plausible way to get $1.5 trillion in entitlement cuts in the 
     next ten years.
       The evidence for this conclusion is abundant.
       The ``Gang of Six'' plan, with its very tough and 
     controversial entitlement cuts, contains total entitlement 
     reductions of $640 to $760 billion over the next ten years 
     not counting Social Security, and $755 billion to $875 
     billion including Social Security. (That's before netting out 
     $300 billion in entitlement costs that the plan includes for 
     a permanent fix to the scheduled cuts in Medicare physician 
     payments that Congress regularly cancels; with these costs 
     netted out, the Gang of Six entitlement savings come to $455 
     to $575 billion.)
       The budget deal between President Obama and Speaker Boehner 
     that fell apart last Friday, which included cuts in Social 
     Security cost-of-living adjustments and Medicare benefits as 
     well as an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, 
     contained total entitlement cuts of $650 billion (under the 
     last Obama offer) to $700 billion (under the last Boehner 
     offer). The Ryan budget that the House passed in April 
     contained no savings in Social Security over the next ten 
     years and $279 billion in Medicare cuts.
       To be sure, the House-passed Ryan budget included much 
     larger overall entitlement cuts over the next 10 years. But 
     that was largely because it eviscerated the safety net and 
     repealed health reform's coverage expansions. The Ryan plan 
     included cuts in Medicaid and health reform of a remarkable 
     $2.2 trillion, from severely slashing Medicaid and killing 
     health reform's coverage expansions. The Ryan plan also 
     included stunning cuts of $127 billion in the SNAP program 
     (formerly known as food stamps) and $126 billion in Pell 
     Grants and other student financial assistance.
       That House Republicans would likely seek to reach the 
     Boehner budget's $1.8 trillion target in substantial part by 
     cutting programs for the poorest and most vulnerable 
     Americans is given strong credence by the ``Cut, Cap, and 
     Balance'' bill that the House recently approval. That bill 
     would establish global spending caps and enforce them with 
     across-the-board budget cuts--exempting Medicare and Social 
     Security from the across-the-board cuts while subjecting 
     programs for the poor to the across-the-board axe. This would 
     turn a quarter century of bipartisan budget legislation on 
     its head; starting with the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, 
     all federal laws of the last 26 years that have set budget 
     targets enforced by across-the-board cuts have exempted the 
     core assistance programs for the poor from those cuts while 
     including Medicare among programs subject to the cuts. This 
     component of the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance'' bill strongly 
     suggests that, especially in the face of an approaching 
     election, House Republicans looking for entitlement cuts 
     would heavily target means-tested programs for people of 
     lesser means (and less political power).
       In short, the Boehner plan would force policymakers to 
     choose among cutting the incomes and health benefits of 
     ordinary retirees, repealing the guts of health reform and 
     leaving an estimated 34 million more Americans uninsured, and 
     savaging the safety net for the poor. It would do so even as 
     it shielded all tax breaks, including the many lucrative tax 
     breaks for the wealthiest and most powerful individuals and 
     corporations.
       President Obama has said that, while we must reduce looming 
     deficits, we must take a balanced approach. The Boehner 
     proposal badly fails this test of basic decency. The 
     President should veto the bill if it reaches his desk. 
     Congress should find a fairer, more decent way to avoid a 
     default.

  At this point I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this smoke-and-mirrors bill before us today 
actually stands to increase--yes, increase--the deficit of the United 
States of America by over $100 billion.
  Let me walk the Speaker through the math here. This is why credit 
ratings matter: countries that have AA credit ratings--this is a group 
of them--pay an average interest on their sovereign debt of 3.75 
percent. Countries with a AAA rating--this is a 10-year bond, but it 
would carry across 3-year, 5-year, 30-year in similar degrees--
countries with AAA pay 2.98 percent. That's 1.75 percent, almost a 2 
percent difference between AAA and AA.
  In passing this bill today, which only has a 6-month extension, we 
are jeopardizing our AAA rating that will be incredibly hard to ever 
earn back. And in addition to paying 2 extra percentage points on your 
variable rate home mortgage that middle class families can't afford, 2 
points more on your credit card debt, 2 points more on your car debt, 
in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the government, the biggest borrower 
in the country, will pay more interest on the debt. Over 10 years that 
1.75 percent difference, which is just taking the average between AAA 
and AA, costs over $100 billion a year in extra interest on the debt. 
Over a 10-year period, over $1 trillion of additional interest paid on 
the Federal debt.
  So what are we doing? Cutting $915 billion and risking adding over $1 
trillion in additional expenditures.
  This smoke-and-mirrors effort before us today risks increasing the 
Federal deficit at a time when we all know we need to decrease Federal 
spending, we need to decrease our deficit. The last thing we need is to 
set motion forward to actually up our interest rate, jeopardize our 
credit rating because of the short-term nature, and increase the 
interest payments on our Federal debt.
  I encourage my colleagues to look at these numbers and vote ``no'' on 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my 
friend that he is absolutely right: if we go into default, if we don't 
extend the debt ceiling, we are, in fact, going to see an increase in 
interest rates. The fact of matter is the ratings agencies like 
Standard & Poor's say that we not only have to increase interest rates 
but we have to put into place a deficit reduction plan that will pay 
down our debt, and that's exactly what's happening.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to our hardworking 
colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlewoman from 
Brentwood, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for the 
Budget Control Act of 2011, what I like to call Cut, Cap, and Balance 
3.0.
  Last week the House passed Cut, Cap, and Balance 1.0 in bipartisan 
fashion. Not surprisingly, Senator Reid and his Democrat colleagues in 
the Senate failed to even allow for a vote. Speaker Boehner then 
offered Cut, Cap, and Balance 2.0, which, according to the CBO, failed 
to generate sufficient savings to accompany the debt ceiling increase. 
So the Speaker went back to the drawing board, found more cuts and 
reductions, and I applaud him for that.
  Today the House will once again ensure that our Nation will take 
another step by enacting legislation that cuts spending more than any 
increase in the debt ceiling, does not raise taxes on

[[Page H5702]]

America's families and job creators during a time of economic hardship, 
and ensures an up-or-down vote on the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. And I thank my constituents and the small business owners 
who have called to encourage me in this process to say let's get this 
job done.
  Let it be known that this is merely a small foundational step to 
ensure that we put this Nation on the road to fiscal health, and it is 
historic. By passing the Budget Control Act, we will take away 
President Barack Obama's blank check. For the first time, debt limit 
legislation will cut spending, lock in these cuts, cap future spending, 
does not raise taxes, ensures that balanced budget amendment vote, and 
keeps our attention on the Nation's fiscal problems.
  House Republicans are saying the buck stops here. Let's get to work 
addressing our Nation's fiscal woes and cutting the spending problem in 
Washington, D.C.
  For that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Budget Control 
Act.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a 
recent New York Times editorial entitled ``The Republican Wreckage.''

                [From The New York Times, July 25, 2011]

                        The Republican Wreckage

       House Republicans have lost sight of the country's welfare. 
     It's hard to conclude anything else from their latest 
     actions, including the House speaker's dismissal of President 
     Obama's plea for compromise Monday night. They have largely 
     succeeded in their campaign to ransom America's economy for 
     the biggest spending cuts in a generation. They have warped 
     an exercise in paying off current debt into an argument about 
     future spending. Yet, when they win another concession, they 
     walk away.
       This increasingly reckless game has pushed the nation to 
     the brink of ruinous default. The Republicans have dimmed the 
     futures of millions of jobless Americans, whose hopes for 
     work grow more out of reach as government job programs are 
     cut and interest rates begin to rise. They have made the 
     federal government a laughingstock around the globe.
       In a scathing prime-time television address Monday night, 
     President Obama stepped off the sidelines to tell Americans 
     the House Republicans were threatening a ``deep economic 
     crisis'' that could send interest rates skyrocketing and hold 
     up Social Security and veterans' checks. By insisting on a 
     single-minded approach and refusing to negotiate, he said, 
     Republicans were violating the country's founding principle 
     of compromise.
       ``How can we ask a student to pay more for college before 
     we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower 
     rate than their secretaries?'' he said, invoking Ronald 
     Reagan's effort to make everyone pay a fair share and 
     pointing out that his immediate predecessors had to ask for 
     debt-ceiling increases under rules invented by Congress. He 
     urged viewers to demand compromise. ``The entire world is 
     watching,'' he said.
       Mr. Obama denounced House Speaker John Boehner's proposal 
     to make cuts only, now, and raise the debt ceiling briefly, 
     but he embraced the proposal made over the weekend by the 
     Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, which gave Republicans 
     virtually everything they said they wanted when they ignited 
     this artificial crisis: $2.7 trillion from government 
     spending over the next decade, with no revenue increases. It 
     is, in fact, an awful plan, which cuts spending far too 
     deeply at a time when the government should be summoning all 
     its resources to solve the real economic problem of 
     unemployment. It asks for absolutely no sacrifice from those 
     who have prospered immensely as economic inequality has 
     grown.
       Mr. Reid's proposal does at least protect Medicare, 
     Medicaid and Social Security. And about half of its savings 
     comes from the winding down of two wars, which naturally has 
     drawn Republican opposition. (Though Republicans counted the 
     same savings in their budgets.)
       Mr. Boehner will not accept this as the last-ditch 
     surrender that it is. The speaker, who followed Mr. Obama on 
     TV with about five minutes of hoary talking points clearly 
     written before the president spoke, is insisting on a plan 
     that raises the debt ceiling until early next year and 
     demands another vote on a balanced-budget amendment, rejected 
     by the Senate last week. The result would be to stage this 
     same debate over again in an election year. Never mind that 
     this would almost certainly result in an immediate downgrade 
     of the government's credit.
       We agreed strongly when Mr. Obama said Americans should be 
     ``offended'' by this display and that they ``may have voted 
     for divided government but they didn't vote for a 
     dysfunctional government.'' It's hard not to conclude now 
     that dysfunction is the Republicans' goal--even if the cost 
     is unthinkable.

  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem in this country is not 
that the American Government is about to breach its debt ceiling; it's 
that too many American families have already breached their debt 
ceilings. We have a jobs crisis in this country, and this should be our 
principal focus.
  Now, somewhere in America today, some decision-makers are not getting 
much help with that jobs crisis. A hospital that's thinking about 
adding a rehab lab and adding a couple hundred jobs wonders how much 
Medicare revenue it's going to get. This bill says wait 6 months and 
we'll let you know.
  An entrepreneur who has a software company who is about to finally 
get off the ground is thinking about borrowing some money to hire more 
people, but she doesn't know what the interest rates are going to be. 
This bill says wait 6 months and we'll let you know.
  And, yes, there's a diabetic, a person who's worried about whether 
they should keep their house or not because their health care bills are 
rising and they're worried that Medicare may not pay as many of their 
diabetic bills as they have right now. And we're saying to her wait six 
months; we'll let you know.
  We can't wait to solve this problem. The Republicans should listen to 
their own leadership, who spoke out against a short-term fix to this 
problem: ``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.''
  I completely agree with Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who said that in 
June. We should listen to Mr. Cantor's advice. We should adopt a long-
term plan and put America back to work, get back to the negotiating 
table today.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. DREIER. I yield 2 minutes to our thoughtful and hardworking 
colleague from Allentown, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Budget Control 
Act. First and foremost, we, the United States House of 
Representatives, have an obligation to govern. We have a tremendous 
responsibility to the American people to consider this plan that 
ensures our Nation does not default on our Nation's commitments while 
at the same time places this country on a sustainable fiscal path.
  Let me be clear: Defaulting on America's obligations to our 
creditors, to our seniors, disabled veterans, activity military 
personnel, college students, and many others is not an option. This 
bill prevents a default and it pays our bills. Congress must act 
swiftly to deter a ratings downgrade of our U.S. Government, a 
downgrade that will affect families and small businesses across the 
country. Only a sound, credible plan that places us on that sustainable 
trajectory will prevent that downgrade, driven in part by an 
unprecedented spending binge by this administration which has blown up 
the fiscal balance sheet.
  A previous speaker said a few moments ago that we're playing games. I 
can assure you this is no game. This is serious stuff. And speaking of 
serious, the White House has still refused to offer a serious specific 
plan in writing that we can review. In fact, in a stinging rebuke of 
the administration, the nonpartisan Director of the CBO, Doug 
Elmendorf, said, ``We don't estimate speeches.''
  The Senate has dug in its heels, too. It would be nice if they passed 
the bill, any bill. It's been 800 days since there's been a budget. 
It's time for them to act and to move to prevent this type of a fiscal 
calamity that many have predicted.
  Again, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. It's a step 
forward. It may not be the final product, but it moves this process 
forward. I encourage the Senate to take it up.
  Most importantly, we have a sacred duty and a solemn obligation to 
lead and to act. We do have that affirmative obligation to govern for 
the benefit of our country and for the American people. The world is 
watching. Americans are watching. It's time for us to lead and 
demonstrate American exceptionalism.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Tonko.

[[Page H5703]]

  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
  We're here today, at long last, to vote on the Republican default 
plan. After 200 days without a jobs agenda, after 200 days of saying 
that those hardest hit by the recession should bear the burden of 
unbalanced cuts, after 200 days of rhetoric and walking away, my 
Republican colleagues have finally brought their top secret default 
plan to the floor for a public debate and a vote.
  So, what did they offer up? Courageous leadership? A grand bargain? 
Sadly, no. When you walk out of negotiations and spend more time 
talking to the press than to the President, I'm not sure we expected 
more.
  We have before us the same tired policies that got us into this 
mess--cut taxes for millionaires, give kickbacks to special interests, 
pay for it all with cuts to the middle class. And never forget the 
central tenets of the conservative agenda: end Medicare and privatize 
Social Security.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will no doubt come to 
the floor to say the bill explicitly protects Medicare and Social 
Security from cuts. That claim is blatantly false. It's a desperate 
campaign speech to counter the backlash that comes when the American 
people read the bill, like they read the Ryan budget.
  So I would ask my colleagues to take another careful look at the bill 
before us. It is only 57 pages long. There is even a summary online 
through the Rules Committee Web site. After that careful examination, I 
would ask you to come before my constituents, before the American 
people, to myself, and promise us with a straight face that you have no 
intention of using this legislation to dismantle Medicare and cut 
Social Security in the next 12 months. You can't.
  I don't support these policies, and I cannot support a plan that puts 
us back in the same bitter, vilifying debate in January. It may be good 
politics, but it's not good government. I'm tired of it, my 
constituents are tired of it, and anyone who's watched the nightly news 
for the last 6 months is tired of it.
  Washington loves to kick the can down the road. That's how we got 
here in the first place. This is our moment. We need a plan, not 
another Republican manifesto. There are better plans out there. Let us 
vote on them.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and get back to work.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to a good friend and Presidential candidate, the gentleman from 
Livonia, Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman from California.
  We hear a lot of talk about plans. We hear a lot of talk about secret 
default plans, Senate plans, the Reid plan, but we've yet to hear about 
the President's plan.
  We live in a period of time where we are engaged in a struggle 
against economic stagnation, where 30 million people can't trade jobs 
because there are no better ones out there, where 14 million people are 
unemployed. We live in a period of time where inflation is rising, real 
wages are declining. In short, we live in a period of time in which we 
are being neither led nor governed.
  We are seeing postures, not plans--with one exception. The House 
Republicans have endeavored to meet the duty that was entrusted to them 
by the American people, which is to put forward a plan that will 
prevent the default of the United States and a diminishment of our 
economic credibility in the world. Unfortunately, what we get in 
response is not an attempt at honest bipartisan collaboration. Instead, 
it is more political rhetoric, more partisanship, more posturing.
  At this point in time we have before us a plan that can work. It is 
not a perfect plan. People on both sides of the aisle have their qualms 
with it. And yet it is a plan that can be helpful to the American 
people, that can be helpful to ensuring that our economy does not 
further deteriorate, a plan that can make sure that Big Government no 
longer crushes the aspirations of the American people to grow this 
economy, to find employment, to secure their pursuit of happiness 
around their hearth and home.
  For that, I will support this bill, and I would urge my colleagues to 
do it, because the American people deserve no less.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. What's not safe under the Boehner default plan?
  Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are not safe under the 
Boehner default plan. In just 7 months, it forces nearly $1.6 trillion 
in cuts from these programs. They will be unrecognizable.
  Jobs are not safe under the Boehner default plan. It will force 2 
million Americans to lose their jobs, putting greater strain on 
struggling families.
  Our economy is not safe under the Boehner default plan. This short-
term deal could lead to an automatic tax increase for every American 
with a mortgage, car loan, or credit card. It would leave a cloud of 
uncertainty. Businesses won't invest and our economy won't grow.
  Nothing is safe under the Boehner default plan except tax breaks for 
Big Oil, companies that ship jobs overseas, and the rich.
  We must reject this ideological approach and come together on a 
balanced solution that will ensure that every American will have a safe 
and secure future.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 12\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 17 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, according to Grover Norquist, who's 
apparently the real Republican strategist, this is about ensuring that 
Democrats will never again have the revenue to govern as Democrats. But 
what does he mean by that? Is he talking about when Roosevelt rescued 
us from the Great Depression in the 1930s or when we saved the world 
for democracy in the forties or when we built the middle class with the 
GI Bill in the late forties? Or when we won the race to space in the 
early sixties or when we started Medicare and passed civil rights laws 
in the mid-sixties? Or when President Clinton raised taxes, balanced 
the budget, generated 20 million new jobs, cut poverty, grew the middle 
class, passed on projected surpluses as far as the eye could see, and 
enabled those at the top tax rates to take home more after-tax income 
than in any prior time in American history?

                              {time}  1540

  The fact is that Democrats have made this Nation great by investing 
in all our people and by raising the revenue necessary to meet our 
obligations and to secure our future. This is the alternative. This is 
about an ideology that lowers our sights, diminishes our stature and 
sells short our future. That is why it should be rejected.
  Mr. DREIER. In light of the disparity here, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague, Mr. Lynch.
  Mr. LYNCH. I rise today in opposition to the Budget Control Act 
because I honestly believe that this Nation is better than this bill 
reflects.
  Just so we're clear on the differences here between our positions, 
this amendment seeks to place the overwhelming burden of this crisis on 
the backs of senior citizens, and it forces seniors especially to make 
enormous sacrifices while, at the same time, it allows the richest 
Americans and oil companies and hedge fund operators to escape any 
responsibility or sacrifice.
  This is not how we should be treating America's Greatest Generation, 
who survived the Great Depression, who fought in World War II, and who 
made the sacrifices in their time when their country called upon them. 
This is not the way to treat the frail elderly or any senior, who, at 
the end of their working lives, are now on a fixed income.
  The way we deal with this crisis will say a lot about America. I 
think Hubert Humphrey said it best when he said that the true test of 
any society is

[[Page H5704]]

how we treat those citizens in the dawn of life, our children; those in 
the twilight of life, our elderly; and those in the shadow of life, our 
poor and disabled.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LYNCH. I just want to say, as Republicans are rallying to the 
ramparts to save the millionaires from suffering from any loss of a tax 
loophole, I take a full measure of pride at where the Democrats in this 
House are standing on this issue. I urge my colleagues to stand with 
seniors and to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that last November sent 87 new 
Republicans to the House of Representatives. To one of them, I yield 2 
minutes, the very thoughtful gentleman from Newburgh, Indiana (Mr. 
Bucshon).
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for America's financial 
future.
  We are at a time when we need to make every effort to save our 
Nation's credit rating. The rating agencies have said that raising the 
debt ceiling is not enough. While I would have preferred the Cut, Cap, 
and Balance plan, the Budget Control Act vote today and the balanced 
budget amendment vote tomorrow is the best remaining approach to reduce 
spending and help avoid a downgrade.
  We can institute real reforms today as a first step on a long path to 
fiscal stability. However, the bill isn't perfect. I wanted more, and 
frankly, all of our constituents deserve more. The reality is our 
friends on the other side of the aisle won't allow it.
  With years of reckless spending by the Federal Government, instead of 
making tough choices to address our spending problems, the other side 
wants to raise taxes on the American people to continue funding 
Washington, D.C.'s spending spree. In addition, they want us to give 
the President a blank check to get him through the 2012 election. Well, 
that's not going to happen. The United States has always maintained a 
AAA credit rating, and the threat of inaction by our colleagues in the 
U.S. Senate and no plan offered by the administration puts that at 
risk.
  The House has and will take action.
  We need to send a clear message to the American people that we are 
willing to make the tough choices and work together on behalf of our 
Nation's citizens. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this bill and to take the first step to restoring 
fiscal responsibility to our Nation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress' approval rating is now down around 10 percent, 
and given the debate on this politically induced default crisis, I have 
to ask myself: Who are these crazy 10 percent? The American people are 
looking at this institution right now, and they're asking: What on 
Earth are you thinking?
  They're sick of these games and they're sick of us. They want this 
default crisis resolved now, and they definitely don't want to repeat 
it 6 months from now. They understand that a real solution means a real 
compromise. Our constituents have made it clear that they want shared 
sacrifice where millionaires, billionaires and oil companies contribute 
their fair share. They want their Social Security and Medicare benefits 
to be protected.
  Yet this bill, the Republican default agenda, does none of that. In 
fact, this reckless bill is actually a stealth attack on Medicare and 
Social Security because it requires large cuts next year that can only 
come from those programs. The Boehner plan would increase borrowing 
costs across the entire spectrum of American society, including local 
and State governments, businesses, and our citizens--producing, 
essentially, a backdoor tax hike on the American people. It does all 
this damage to seniors and middle class families while sparing the 
wealthy from even the slightest inconvenience.
  We weren't elected to Congress to run our economy and our country 
into the ground--to fail to respond to a crisis of our own creation, 
but here we are. The American people deserve better and are demanding 
better. We need to defeat this bill so we can move on to a real 
solution.
  Mr. DREIER. At this juncture, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, frustrated in that, as we sit 
here on the brink of the financial unknown, families in my district are 
left hanging, worrying about jobs.
  The bill we're debating today fails to address America's number one 
priority of creating jobs. Instead, it puts us in the exact same 
position 6 months from now, threatening working families with deep, 
unbalanced, unfair cuts while protecting tax cuts for millionaires and 
big corporations that ship jobs overseas.
  It has been 200 days of this new Republican-led Congress, and what 
have we seen? We have seen them target Medicare, working families, the 
environment, and education--we've even seen them use up time to target 
energy-efficient light bulbs--but what we haven't seen them do is 
target job creation.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this risky plan and to 
responsibly raise our debt limit so America can pay its bills and so 
this Congress can get serious about creating good-paying jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 10\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  Mr. LUJAN. I don't think there is a question. It is very clear that 
we have to act to prevent a default and a downgrade of our Nation's 
credit rating. Sadly, the House Republican leadership's plan is not a 
serious plan to avoid such a downgrade.
  It's more smoke and mirrors. We've heard that talked about lately. It 
will put us right back in the same position in a few months, requiring 
another vote to raise the debt limit, putting America into a further 
area where we might be able to see the potential downgrade, costing 
Americans $100 billion a year and $1 trillion over 10 years.
  A short-term increase in the debt limit has already been rejected by 
economists and credit rating agencies, which have made it clear that 
this plan will likely result in an unprecedented downgrade to our 
credit rating, leaving higher interest rates for mortgages and student 
loans for all Americans. In addition, this reckless plan leaves the 
door open to the same damage as did the Ryan plan.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield for just one second, Mr. 
Speaker?
  I would just like to ask the gentleman if he might cite where that is 
from, the quote of that.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico didn't 
yield.
  Mr. DREIER. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the gentleman had yielded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico controls the 
time.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask for order. I don't believe that I did 
yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico controls the 
time.
  Mr. LUJAN. After that interruption, may I ask how much time is left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 10 seconds.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 15 seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 25 seconds.
  Mr. LUJAN. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
  In addition, this reckless plan leaves the door open to the same 
damage as the Ryan's plan, to attack Medicare, Medicaid and Social 
Security, while protecting tax breaks for billionaires and 
corporations.
  It is important that we talk to the American people about this and 
that we have this conversation. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
partisan

[[Page H5705]]

gamesmanship and seek a responsible and balanced solution to this 
crisis.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very happy to yield 2 
minutes to the next Governor of Indiana, the gentleman from Columbus, 
Mr. Pence.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to rise in support of the Budget 
Control Act of 2011, which is a negotiated compromise between the 
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and the 
Republican and Democratic leadership of the United States Senate.
  Let me say that again: the Budget Control Act that we will bring to 
the floor today is a compromise. At a time when people across America 
long for a Washington, D.C., that is able to reach across the aisle, 
lower the volume, solve the problem, this legislation comes to the 
floor. And I'm proud to support it.
  The truth is it is a difficult time for people across my beloved 
Indiana and all across this country. Our economy is struggling. 
Unemployment is at 8.3 percent in Indiana, 9.3 percent nationally. And 
I believe that runaway Federal spending by both political parties is a 
cause and a barrier to our economic recovery today. We simply must put 
our fiscal house in order.
  Now, I know the administration wanted us simply to raise the debt 
ceiling without conditions, but that was rejected I think almost 
unanimously in the United States Senate, and we rejected it as well in 
this body.
  What needs to be done today is we need to recognize that if you owe 
debts, pay debts. We have to raise the Nation's debt ceiling so that we 
have the money to pay the Nation's bills. But we also owe a debt to 
this generation of Americans struggling in this economy and to the next 
generation of Americans that we can only repay through fiscal 
discipline and reform, and the Budget Control Act does that.
  The Budget Control Act does two things that I believe are worth 
highlighting.
  Number one, it ensures in this first installment that there will be a 
dollar in budget cuts for every dollar in increase in borrowing 
authority by the United States. That's crucial.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I would like to yield my friend an additional minute.
  Mr. PENCE. Secondly, the agreement around the Budget Control Act also 
ensures that there will be a vote in this body now tomorrow and a vote 
in the United States Senate this fall on a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States.
  There are other aspects of this bill that are meritorious--hard-
spending caps, more enforceable than spending caps of the past; the 
creation of a bipartisan commission to negotiate spending discipline 
and reforms for the next installment of a debt ceiling increase.
  But for my part, making sure that any increase in the debt ceiling is 
matched dollar for dollar with spending cuts in this bill and for the 
first time in 15 years bringing a bipartisan version of the balanced 
budget amendment to this floor of the House and soon to the floor of 
the Senate are worthy of note. And they should endorse this approach.
  This is a very serious time, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the Budget 
Control Act as evidence that Congress can still compromise. We can 
still come together across the aisle. We can find a way to pay the 
Nation's bills and do so in a way that reflects our commitment to 
fiscal discipline and reform.
  Mr. McGOVERN. At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado, a former member of the Rules Committee, and we miss him, Mr. 
Perlmutter.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we've got to go back 10 years and just talk 
about where we were at that time.
  Under Bill Clinton, this country had a surplus. Revenues exceeded 
expenses. Things were going along great. We were adding jobs by the 
millions. Then we have a Republican administration. Two tax cuts, 
couple trillion dollars, lower revenue. Two wars, couple trillion 
dollars, more expense. A crash on Wall Street, $3 trillion in expense 
to this country.
  That's where this expense comes from. That's why we have bills to 
pay. We had a tough 10 years, most of it under Republican 
administration. We've got to pay those bills. But the Republican 
leadership has brought us to the brink of default--something the United 
States has had full faith and credit for 235 years and they want to 
bring that right to the brink of default.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we are better than that. We have a 
responsibility. We can't live in turmoil. We need to rebuild the 
American Dream for people who want a shot at getting ahead in this 
life, not this brinksmanship.
  This is a bad bill and must be defeated.
  Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia who serves on the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Scott.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. America, we really need to pay close 
attention here.
  First of all, this is a terrible bill at the wrong time. Here we are, 
the number one issue facing the American people is jobs, and this bill 
is a major job-killer of the highest magnitude. It will average a loss 
of 40,000 public service jobs in the public sector each month. All we 
have to do is look at the record from the month of June. In the month 
of June, the private sector created 58,000 jobs; but because of massive 
cuts in the public sector, there was a loss of 40,000 jobs each month.
  In addition to that, this bill will drastically end Medicare. It will 
reduce Medicaid payments to the States, and it will severely cut back 
the checks to our Social Security recipients by an average of $1,000 
each month.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an 
additional 30 seconds.
  And will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Well, since you've yielded 30 seconds, 
which you actually have already taken my last 30 seconds.
  Mr. DREIER. I will yield the gentleman additional time if he needs 
it.
  I just am asking my friend where in this bill he can point to where 
cuts in Medicare are going to take place. I've gone through it and I've 
not seen it.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. You know perfectly well, Mr. Dreier, that 
the announced cuts in this bill and the setting up with this 
commission, and, also, your party has already set your record on a 
road. Your number one target has been to end Medicare.
  But let me go back, and I just wanted to answer your question.
  It's very important, Mr. Speaker, that we also understand that the 
other dangerous part about this bill is that in 6 months we will be 
right back here again which will add greater instability to the markets 
and further undermine our credibility ratings.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds simply to say that 
there are in fact exemptions that are in this bill to ensure that 
Social Security and Medicare are not touched, and we need to remember 
that. When it comes to this sequestration process, it is not touched.
  And for those who are saying that this measure will in fact bring 
about those cuts, they have not read the bill and are mischaracterizing 
it.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I must respond.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to ask my friend from California a 
question, and then I would yield.
  Is the gentleman saying that the text says that if the commission set 
up by this bill reports back a cut in Social Security benefits that 
that may not be enacted by the commission?
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me say it's the sequestrations in this bill. Obviously, a 
bipartisan commission that comes forward----

[[Page H5706]]

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about the sequestrations. 
I'm talking about the fact that this commission's instructed to find 
$1.8 trillion in cuts and Medicare and Social Security are not exempted 
from those cuts. This is a roadmap, this is a users guide as to how to 
cut Social Security and Medicare. We reject it.
  I yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me say this is not a commission. Members should not refer to this 
as a commission, because the idea of a commission, some sort of outside 
entity, we're talking about our colleagues in the House and Senate who 
will be members of the Joint Select Committee who have a 
responsibility, as colleagues, to report this back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time of the gentleman 
from New Jersey has again expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 10 more seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. The gentleman is correct. This is not a commission. It 
is a committee that is empowered to cut Medicare and Social Security. 
We will not stand for it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my 
friend this is not a committee that is empowered to cut Social Security 
and Medicare. It is a committee, a joint select committee, that is 
empowered, for the first time, to submit to both Houses of Congress 
recommendations that we will have an up-or-down vote on.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying 
bill. This is nothing more than political posturing by the Republican 
majority. And I think it's important for the American people to 
understand that this majority has asked us time and time again to vote 
to end Medicare, to cut Social Security, to cut Medicaid, and they're 
doing it once again. No question about it. What's being offered up by 
this majority is nothing short of recklessness, absolutely nothing.
  The Speaker and the Republican Party know that the President and the 
Senate are going to reject the bill. I don't even know why we're here 
on this floor, Mr. Speaker. Rather than spending the last several 
months developing a real plan that would avoid default, the Republicans 
have spent months stripping away health care protections, attacking the 
EPA, jeopardizing jobs, not creating jobs. And here we are, once again, 
ready to end Medicare, Social Security, cut away Medicaid benefits, and 
attack the most vulnerable in our communities.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, if it weren't sad, it would be laughable. 
The plan would require $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 
10 years, cut $915 billion at the offset, and another $1.8 trillion in 
December. They're coming after Americans' Social Security checks. 
They're coming after Medicare. They're coming after Medicaid. That's 
what this majority is doing. Let's not be fooled by it. It's time for 
the American people to stand up.
  The bill threatens our ability to pay our obligations. They're not 
interested in paying our obligations. These are debts that we've 
already incurred. And yet they won't take the money that they've given 
away to the wealthiest 2 percent of this country. No, they can't give 
up theirs. The oil and gas companies can't give up theirs. The 
companies that have offshored jobs can't give up theirs; but they're 
asking the American people to sacrifice Social Security, Medicare, 
education, Medicaid.
  It's unfair, and we won't stand for it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my very 
good friend from Maryland, she has just adequately, very accurately 
described the measure that has been proposed by the Senate majority 
leader, Harry Reid.
  With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from 
Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a hardworking member of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I think there was a gross distortion of 
what's being proposed here. And again, the previous speaker just 
condemned the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's bill in the U.S. 
Senate. That's the only Democratic bill we've had. So it seems to me 
that there's a little bit of a fight going on on the other side of the 
aisle between their House Members and the Senate.
  To my friend from New Jersey, this committee that's formed is a 
committee of active sitting Members of the House and Senate. So in 
order for anything to be recommended by this committee, it would 
require, in all likelihood, all of the Democrats to support it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. If that committee wanted to close tax loopholes, would 
they need a simple majority or a two-thirds vote of the House?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. It would be a simple majority.
  Mr. ANDREWS. So it's your position that a simple majority of both 
Houses could raise taxes?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. That's right. That's what we need. We need that to 
force some movement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my privilege to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the 
distinguished assistant leader.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, while the clock is ticking, the Republican majority is 
dickering and the American people are hurting. Our financial markets 
are on pace for their worst week in nearly a year. State governments 
are bracing for downgrades in their borrowing capacities, and the gap 
between those in our society who have a lot and those who have very 
little is growing.
  The Republican majority continues their efforts to divert attention 
from the self-inflicted crisis with manufactured controversies, holding 
the American economy hostage to their reckless and dispassionate 
demands. As the clock ticks toward default and the pain it would bring 
to middle-income families and those who aspire to become middle income, 
my friends on the other side continue to play politics. Speaker Boehner 
does not even pretend that this is a serious attempt to solve the 
problem. He sold this bill to his conference by telling them that it 
wasn't bipartisan. And with divided government, a plan that isn't 
bipartisan is no plan at all. It's just a game.
  The President and the Democrats in Congress as well as the American 
people have advocated a balanced approach to reduce the deficit by 
growing the economy and protecting the most vulnerable, including 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security beneficiaries. We have been 
willing to make tough, politically difficult compromises.
  This bill on the floor today, just like the bill from last week, is 
yet another partisan time-waster. Our constituents are not interested 
in any of us voting to cut Medicare or cap Social Security or balancing 
the budget on the backs of Medicaid recipients. A 6-month extension is 
another waste of time.
  We must resolve this matter now and ensure the full faith and credit 
of the United States. Let's defeat the Boehner bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend how 
many speakers he has remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am the final speaker.
  Mr. DREIER. I would encourage my friend to proceed, and then I will 
offer some closing remarks.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to solve our long-
term fiscal challenges because everybody here knows that this isn't 
going anywhere. Instead, it's a political stunt. Instead, it hurdles us 
closer and

[[Page H5707]]

closer to a devastating default. For years, Presidents and Congresses 
of both parties have raised the debt ceiling, recognizing that 
endangering the full faith and credit of the United States would be a 
grave mistake.
  It's amazing to me how many Republicans I've heard who dismiss the 
potential of default as no big deal. No big deal? Tell that to the 
family who would have to pay higher interest rates on their mortgage, 
their car loan, their student loan. It would be a very big deal to 
them.
  Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't just stand 
by as we created these massive deficits. They were active participants. 
They voted for two huge tax cuts--mostly for wealthy people--that 
weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for, a massive 
prescription drug program that wasn't paid for, and now their solution 
is to punish the very Americans who can least afford it, all in the 
name of keeping their rich friends and their special interests happy.
  The Boehner plan is unbalanced and unfair. It slashes programs like 
Social Security and Medicare that benefit the middle class and the 
poor. But the Republicans insist on protecting tax breaks for oil and 
gas companies. Just today, ExxonMobil announced profits of $10.7 
billion for the second quarter. Do they really need special tax breaks? 
The American people sure don't think so.
  Poll after poll shows that a vast majority of American citizens 
prefer a balanced approach. Yes, we need to cut spending. Yes, we need 
to reform our government. But everybody needs to chip in to do their 
part, including the very wealthy who have benefited the most.

                              {time}  1610

  Now, there are certainly places to save. How about ending wars that 
aren't paid for? Right now, we borrow $10 billion every month for 
military operations in Afghanistan alone, to prop up a corrupt and 
incompetent Karzai government.
  How about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies?
  How about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax 
rates as their secretaries?
  The truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal 
situation is to grow our economy. That means creating jobs and putting 
people back to work. The last election, I thought, was about jobs. We 
haven't talked about jobs at all since the new Republican majority came 
to power. That means investing in things like education and 
infrastructure and green technology and medical research. That's the 
kind of economic future the American people deserve.
  The Boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong 
direction, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
reject it.

                    [From Bloomberg, July 26, 2011]

     Republican Leaders Voted for Debt Drivers They Blame on Obama

                            (By Lisa Lerer)

       House Speaker John Boehner often attacks the spendthrift 
     ways of Washington.
       ``In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as 
     usual,'' the Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised 
     address yesterday amid debate over the U.S. debt. ``I've got 
     news for Washington--those days are over.''
       Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House 
     Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch 
     McConnell all voted for major drivers of the nation's debt 
     during the past decade: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 
     2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug 
     benefits. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief 
     Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the 
     auto industry.
       Together, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News, 
     these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation's 
     accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of 
     $1.5 trillion.
       As Congress nears votes to raise the $14.3-trillion debt 
     ceiling to avert a default on U.S. obligations when borrowing 
     authority expires on Aug. 2, both parties are attempting to 
     claim a mantle of fiscal responsibility. They both bear some 
     of the blame: Many Democrats contributed to the expenses that 
     are forcing lawmakers to boost the nation's debt limit, as 
     have Republican leaders at odds over how much borrowing 
     authority to hand President Barack Obama and when.
       ``There's plenty of blame to go around,'' for the debt, 
     said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord 
     Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that advocates 
     for balanced budgets. ``If there had been no Barack Obama, we 
     would still be bumping up against the debt limit.''


                            Debt Has Doubled

       Since 2001, the debt has grown from $5.8 trillion.
       Republicans say the long-term growth of entitlement 
     programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, 
     along with depressed tax revenues due to the worst recession 
     since the Great Depression, drive the current debt level.
       ``Blaming Bush for the structural deficits we've known 
     would come since the early 1990s is beyond irresponsible.'' 
     said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Cantor.
       In his address yesterday, Boehner accused Obama of going on 
     the ``largest spending binge in American history.''
       Obama's 2011 annual budget, Republicans note, drove federal 
     spending to a record $3.8 trillion. Non-defense discretionary 
     spending also grew by 24 percent during the first two years 
     of the Obama administration, they say, adding $734 billion in 
     spending over the next 10 years.


                       Recession Worsened Deficit

       The recession, Obama said in a televised address from the 
     White House yesterday, lowered revenue and required his 
     administration to ``spend even more'' on tax cuts, 
     unemployment insurance and state and local aide. ``These 
     emergency steps also added to the deficit,'' he said.
       Some Democrats also supported the Bush administration 
     programs. In the Senate, Obama voted to finance the wars in 
     Afghanistan and Iraq and TARP. He signed legislation 
     extending the Bush-era tax cuts for two years in December.
       ``Both sides are claiming they're fiscally responsible,'' 
     said Rudolph Penner, director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office under President Ronald Reagan. ``But I don't see much 
     difference in that regard.''


                             Bush Tax Cuts

       The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which lowered tax rates on 
     income, dividends and capital gains, increased the federal 
     budget deficit by $1.7 trillion over a decade, according to 
     the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan 
     left-of-center group in Washington that studies fiscal 
     policy.
       The two-year extension of those tax cuts that Obama signed 
     will cost $857.8 billion, according to the Congressional 
     Joint Committee on Taxation.
       Boehner has defended the tax cuts, arguing that they didn't 
     lead to the deficit.
       ``The revenue problem we have today is a result of what 
     happened in the economic collapse some 18 months ago,'' he 
     told reporters on June 10, according to The Hill newspaper.
       The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost almost $1.3 
     trillion since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 
     according to a March 29 analysis by the Congressional 
     Research Service. Operations in Iraq have cost $806 billion, 
     and in Afghanistan $444 billion. The analysis shows the 
     government has spent an additional $29 billion for enhanced 
     security on militia bases and $6 billion remains unallocated.


                         Medicare Drug Benefit

       The 2003 Medicare prescription program approved by 
     President George W. Bush and a Republican-dominated Congress 
     has cost $369 billion over a 10-year time frame, less than 
     initially projected by Medicare actuaries.
       Nine Senate Republicans, including Nebraska's Chuck Hagel, 
     along with 25 Republicans in the House, voted against the 
     bill. Hagel argued that it failed to control costs and would 
     add trillions in debt for future generations.
       ``Republicans used to believe in fiscal responsibility,'' 
     Hagel wrote in a 2003 editorial in the Omaha World Herald. 
     ``We have lost our way.''
       TARP, the $700-billion bailout of banks, insurance and auto 
     companies, has cost less than expected. McConnell, Boehner, 
     Cantor and Ryan all voted in October 2008 for the program, 
     which stoked the rise of the Tea Party movement.
       Many institutions have repaid the government. The latest 
     estimated lifetime cost of the program is $49.33 billion, 
     according to a June 2011 report by the Treasury Department. 
     That figure includes the $45.61 billion cost of a housing 
     program which the administration never expected to recoup.
       Rank-and-file Republicans are eager to pin the blame on 
     Democrats, frequently pointing to the economic stimulus 
     signed by Obama in 2009. The total cost of the stimulus will 
     be $830 billion by 2019, according to a May 2011 
     Congressional Budget Office report.
       That's half the cost of the Bush tax cuts and less than 
     two-thirds of what has been spent on the wars in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my friend from the other side of the 
aisle, Mr. McGovern, talk about what has caused the problem that we're 
in right now, he failed to mention the failed stimulus bill. He failed 
to mention the failed health care bill, both horribly expensive.
  But I think it's important for us to look at the facts on one of the 
items that he mentioned. They continue, Mr. Speaker, to engage in this 
class warfare, us versus them, the multibillionaires, all this sort of 
stuff over and over and over again.

[[Page H5708]]

  We happen to recognize that we're all in this together, and there 
should, in fact, be shared sacrifice. That's why I think it's important 
for us to look at the facts. Let's look at the facts here.
  As we continue to hear people decry the so-called Bush tax cuts, 
which, as we all know, are no longer Bush tax cuts, they are the Bush-
Obama tax cuts. They became that last December when President Obama 
supported the extension of them.
  Let's look at what happened with the 2003 growth-oriented tax cuts. 
In 2003, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government had $1.782 trillion in 
revenues. That was in 2003 before the growth-oriented 2003 tax cuts 
went into effect.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Federal Government had a 44-percent 
increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, by virtue of 
those 2003 tax cuts. They went from $1.782 trillion to $2.567 trillion. 
That's a $785 billion increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal 
Treasury after the now Bush-Obama tax cuts were put into place. So this 
malarkey about the notion of those who are successful are not paying 
their fair share of taxes is absolutely preposterous.
  Now, I want to take the time that I have remaining to shatter a few 
myths that are out there. First of all, we know right now that we're 
facing a crisis. Both Democrat and Republican alike in these remarks 
have made it clear that we're facing a crisis. I have yet to hear 
anyone--I think maybe the minority whip mentioned the Reid plan. All 
anyone's done on the other side of the aisle is malign the Boehner plan 
and mischaracterize it quite frankly, Mr. Speaker. But I think it's 
important to look at what it is that we face.
  We know that the President of the United States said that if we don't 
increase the debt ceiling by August 2, on August 3, he does not know 
whether or not the Social Security checks will actually go out.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we all want to make sure that the Social Security 
checks go out. This is going to be our one opportunity to vote for a 
measure that will ensure that we increase the debt ceiling so that 
those checks will go out and, for the first time in the 75 times that 
the debt ceiling has been increased since 1962, we're going to get to 
the root cause of the problem.
  In the past 4 years we've had an 82-percent increase, an 82-percent 
increase in non-defense discretionary spending. And guess what?
  The American people last November said that has to come to an end. 
And you know what? It's going to come to an end when we pass this 
measure.
  I also want to say that we know that the threat of default is out 
there, and if we don't take action, we know that our credit rating will 
be downgraded. We know that that will happen. All of the rating 
agencies have predicted that.
  They've also said that simply increasing the debt ceiling is not 
adequate. We need to make sure that we get ourselves on a path that 
reduces the debt and reduces our deficits.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, what we need to do is we need to recognize also 
that those agencies have said these proposals are that path. Now, there 
was a report that S&P had said that in fact if we didn't have $4 
trillion in cuts, which I frankly wish we could, but in light of the 
fact that this is a bipartisan effort, we're not going to get that 
high, but they said that if we didn't have $4 trillion in reductions, 
that we would still threaten the credit rating.
  Well, yesterday, Deven Sharma, the president of Standard and Poor's, 
testified before the Financial Services Committee and said while we 
must get on a path towards reducing the deficit and debt, it was 
inaccurate to say that it had to be a $4 trillion level. And that's 
why, as my friends have been quoting these different sources, I was 
trying to get them on record to say who, in fact, is saying this.
  We have to increase the debt ceiling, and we have to get ourselves on 
a path that will, in fact, reduce our annual deficits and the national 
debt. The plan that we have before us is far from perfect. Speaker 
Boehner doesn't like it, I don't like it, I don't know of any 
Republican who likes it. But Speaker Boehner and the rest of us 
recognize that we have a Democratic President and we have a Democratic 
United States Senate. And so if we are going to increase the debt, and 
we are going to, for the first time ever, change the course on the 
issue of debt ceiling increases by cutting spending, we have to pass 
this measure.
  It grew from this bipartisan compromise last weekend. Harry Reid no 
longer supports it. I've not heard anyone on the other side of the 
aisle say that they support it, but it was a bipartisan compromise that 
was the basis on which Mr. Boehner is proceeding.
  Let's support this measure, Mr. Speaker.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I come today in strong support of the Budget Control 
Act, a legislative approach that cuts out-of-control Washington 
spending and is a responsible and necessary plan to avoid a default on 
our Nation's debt.
  As we all know, under President Obama we are experiencing our third 
straight year of deficits in excess of $1 trillion. In 4 years, 
President Obama's actions and projected budgets will add more than 
twice to our debt than was added during the previous 8 years. All told, 
the debt will double under President Obama's watch and reach a 
staggering $26 trillion by 2021. That's double the debt in half the 
time when compared with the previous administration. Congress must act 
to cut spending and get our debt under control, and that's what the 
legislation before us does.
  First, the bill cuts more than $900 billion in Federal spending and 
meets the expectations of the American people that we cut spending more 
than we increase the debt limit.
  Second, the bill guarantees the House and Senate will vote on a 
balanced budget amendment. More than half of the States have a balanced 
budget requirement, and it's time Washington's books are balanced as 
well.
  And third, the bill also demands reforms to the way Washington works 
by setting up a joint House and Senate committee to find at least $1.6 
trillion in additional savings. Its work product would enjoy expedited 
consideration in the House and Senate and could not be filibustered.
  I'd also like to take a moment to point out that, despite what you've 
heard from the critics of this approach, that this is the most common 
way the debt limit is increased, for a short duration and tied to 
spending reforms. And history is pretty clear on this point.
  Over the last 25 years, Congress and the President have acted 31 
times to increase the debt limit. Twenty-two of those 31 times were for 
less than a year. Only 3 of those 31 increases lasted longer than 2 
years.
  These debt limit increases are often tied to spending reforms and are 
preceded by very short-term increases. Three examples of those include:
  In 1987, there were three short-term debt limit increases prior to a 
longer term increase that included deficit targets and automatic 
sequestration provisions.
  In 1990, there were six very short-term increases before a longer 
term increase that included PAYGO, discretionary caps, and other 
programmatic changes.
  And in 1996, there were two very short-term increases to ensure full 
funding of Social Security and other Federal funds before a longer-term 
increase included in the Contract with America Advancement Act.

                              {time}  1620

  So what we're doing today is what has happened before.
  I would also point out that the increase in the debt limit and the 
binding process to achieve spending reform in Washington is exactly 
what the financial markets need and expect from us.
  Time is short, and this bill may be our last best chance to prevent a 
default. If we fail to act and the government defaults on its debt, the 
financial and economic shock waves that will ripple across this country 
are both unpredictable and unimaginable.
  Finally, I want to say a few words about something that's not in this 
bill, and that's tax increases. While the President continues to insist 
that tax increases be a part of any debt limit legislation, he has 
failed to convince even his own party that tax hikes are a

[[Page H5709]]

good idea. In December of last year, when Democrats controlled both the 
House and the Senate, Congress refused to raise taxes. And now even 
Senator Reid's own plan to increase the debt limit, which the President 
has now thrown his support behind, does not include tax increases.
  Given the need to avoid default today and get our fiscal house in 
order for the future, we must pass the Budget Control Act. I urge a 
``yes'' vote on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. You know, as I've been listening to this debate, I think 
it's critical that the House needs some truth in speaking.
  This bill is not bipartisan. The vote will soon show that. This bill 
is not a compromise. It does not seek bipartisan common ground. Indeed, 
it is orchestrated only to find enough common ground among House 
Republican partisans.
  This bill does not reflect compromise. It would compromise, indeed, 
Medicare and Social Security. It forces massive cuts, consistent with 
the ideological Republican budget that was unanimously opposed by 
Democrats.
  This bill does not promote certainty for our Nation's economy. 
Instead, it brings more uncertainty for families facing major financial 
decisions, for businesses deciding whether to invest or hire, for 
markets unsure when the next shoe might drop.
  This bill is not balanced. Instead, it embraces the Republicans's 
one-dimensional mantra just again expressed by the chairman of our 
committee: no end to unjustified tax loopholes or to tax breaks for the 
very wealthiest, even as so many middle class families have been losing 
ground.
  In a few words, our Nation's economy and jobs are too much to risk on 
a bill that is a bridge to nowhere between our two Houses.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, we must act now to enact critical spending 
reforms. While the White House has refused to offer a plan, the Budget 
Control Act would accomplish this goal.
  Will it solve all of our economic problems? No. But instead of 
discussing how much more Washington will spend, we're now talking about 
reducing our spending and how to live within our means, just like all 
Americans must do. For example, the Budget Control Act would cut nearly 
$1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years, establish firm spending 
caps, and require the Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment.
  I urge the Senate and President Obama to stop playing politics and 
support this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding the time.
  This argument today is not about new spending. The argument today is 
about paying our bills. This is the credit card that has come due for 
the irresponsibility that we witnessed in this Chamber and across this 
Congress for 8 years of the Bush administration: two wars and $2.3 
trillion worth of tax cuts, a prescription D Medicare drug bill that 
came due.
  Lawrence Lindsey, the President's chief economic advisor at the time, 
said it was going to cost $300 billion in Iraq. They fired him. Dick 
Cheney said $60 billion in Iraq and in and out in 6 to 8 months. Ten 
years later, we're in Iraq.
  We have created 2.2 million new veterans. They are going to need our 
care for years to come in our health centers for the VA. It's going to 
be expensive. Paul Wolfowitz: In and out of Iraq in 2 months, a few 
billion dollars. The bill, our friends, has come due.
  We cannot send a message to markets anywhere that the full faith and 
credit of the United States of America is at risk. In the aftermath of 
World War II, when finances were strained as never before, President 
Truman had the vision not only to pay off the debt of World War II, but 
to embrace the Marshall Plan, one of the greatest achievements in 
American history.
  Think of what Mr. Lincoln, who served in this Chamber, by the way, 
think of what Mr. Lincoln might have said in the midst of the Civil 
War, America's worst moment, that America would forfeit its 
expenditures as the bill has come due.
  Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hamilton met in New York with one of the most 
fateful decisions in American history, to accept the debt of the 
States, which moved us away from the Articles of Confederation to a 
constitutional system. And now, at this moment, a political party in 
our history that always embraced fiscal responsibility, the bill has 
come due, and it's our obligation to pay it.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee and the chairman of the Joint Economic 
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Camp, the bill, ladies and 
gentlemen, has come due.
  Because Congress holds the purse strings, we just ran the numbers. 
Since World War II, Democrats in Congress have run up 90 percent of the 
debt that's held by the public. Ninety percent of the debt that we owe 
to foreign countries, to other corporations, to you and me have been 
run up by one side of the aisle. Wouldn't it be great if Democrats 
joined us in paying the bills that they ran up? But they won't.
  Today, Republicans will take responsibility for their mess. We're 
going to make sure this country pays its bills, but we're going to make 
sure we start cutting up the credit cards, we change the financial 
behavior of this country, and that we actually give our kids and 
grandkids a future that they can count on, that they can afford, a 
country that's much stronger than the one we're facing today if we 
don't address this debt problem.
  As a conservative, you can't cut soon enough or deep enough for me, 
but the Budget Control Act starts us on the right step. It cuts $2.7 
trillion in two steps. We cut more than we allow to be borrowed, we 
make sure there are no tax increases on our children, on our small 
businesses, on your families. We make sure there is finally a real 
straight up-and-down vote on a constitutional amendment to finally 
balance Washington's budget. We get more than half of the spending cuts 
in the Republican budget proposed by our Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. 
More than half of those cuts are put in place because of this bill.
  It doesn't solve the problems of America, but I'll tell you what: If 
you vote this bill down, all we've done is write a blank check to the 
President; we've given everyone a free ride in Washington until next 
election, and they will not be held accountable, no one in Congress, 
for getting our financial house in order.
  This bill is the first step. It's the right step. It's where we need 
to move forward.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett), another member of our committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, my neighbors in Texas are saying work 
together to resolve this crisis without jeopardizing Medicare and 
Social Security. Adopt a balanced approach that balances the budget by 
closing some tax loopholes at the same time we cut spending.
  But agreeing has not been possible so far when so many of our House 
colleagues pride themselves on being disagreeable. Instead of 
protecting the full faith and credit of these United States in the same 
manner as our Republican colleagues voted to do seven times for 
President George W. Bush, today's bill really represents little more 
than a ransom note from those who are using this critical issue to hold 
our country hostage.
  As their price for ensuring our national creditworthiness, they 
demand that we jeopardize the security for the very young with 
educational opportunities, and for the old with Social Security and 
Medicare. Their ransom demands do not share the sacrifice, but they 
sure do spread the pain--to the young, to the old, to those who are 
trying to climb up the economic ladder or just not slide backwards.

[[Page H5710]]

  They talk about tightening the belt. The only belt they're really 
tightening is right around the neck of the hostages that they've taken.
  I believe now is the time to stand firm for those families and to 
affirm that America will always pay our bills by rejecting this bill 
and then moving forward with more reasonable legislation.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about the past 
and how we got here. The American people get it. We have debt, serious 
debt, a threat to our national security and a threat to our economic 
prosperity; and a default, putting the full faith and credit of the 
United States on the line, would make that worse.
  This House has passed Cut, Cap, and Balance. We stood up to our 
responsibility and passed a bill. Now we have a second bill because it 
didn't get through the Senate. We have a second bill brought forward 
consistent with our principles. We're going to cut more than we're 
going to borrow. We're going to cap spending with real statutory caps, 
and we're going to ensure that there will be a vote on a balanced 
budget amendment in both Houses. That's what the American people want. 
They're demanding it. This is a solid first step to getting debt under 
control. We need to move forward now.
  Let me be clear: this House must act now. The time is running out. 
The Senate must act on this bill, and the President must sign it. Let's 
uphold our responsibilities. We have a responsibility to the American 
people. Let's uphold our responsibility and do what's right for the 
country.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could I inquire of our time, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) 
has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this proposal that is brought to us 
today can be characterized by three words: reckless, hypocritical, and 
abusive.
  It's reckless because for the first time in history we're having 
people play an elaborate game of fiscal chicken, threatening the full 
faith and credit of the United States for their own ideological agenda; 
102 times we have increased the debt limit since 1917, seven times for 
George Bush, even though he was fighting unfunded wars and proposing 
massive tax cuts. People are already paying the price right now as we 
are starting to see the stock market slide, premiums are increased for 
ensuring our debt, and there is doubt about where we are going forward.
  It is hypocritical because the Republicans have refused to actually 
back up some of their fanciful rhetoric in their Cut, Cap, and Balance 
amendment that would require massive cuts to budgets.
  Earlier this week, one of our friends from the Republican Study 
Committee had the temerity to offer an amendment to the bill that is 
being debated this week on appropriations for Interior and EPA that 
would have been 11 percent. And what did the Republicans do when faced 
with a bill that would actually make them impose the cuts that they 
envision? They ran away from it; 104 of them voted with responsible 
Democrats saying we're not going to go that way. They don't want to go 
that way. They're not stepping up and actually doing the cutting. They 
want to do it far in the future.
  Last, it's abusive. We have a divided government. The American public 
wants a balanced solution. They welcome tax reform and modest closing 
of loopholes to be able to avoid massive cuts in the future and to be 
able to get on a path to fiscal responsibility. But the Republican 
minority has decided, no, it is our way or the highway even if it means 
threatening our fiscal future.
  Reject this sham.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Buchanan), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, we need to cut spending today and reduce 
the deficit and avoid the dangerous prospects of putting America for 
the first time in default.
  The bill before us today will accomplish that without raising taxes 
on the American people. With unemployment being what it is today, in 
terms of looking at small businesses, it also will not raise taxes on 
small businesses who are the job providers. I support the Budget 
Control Act because the time is now for Congress and the President to 
do what is in the best interest of the American people.
  Our economy is struggling. Our current national debt is over $14 
trillion, and we're adding $4.5 billion a day to our deficit and debt. 
Let me break that down. That is $188 million per hour to our deficits 
and debt, $4.5 billion a day.
  This reckless pattern of borrowing and spending has put our country 
on the road to bankruptcy. Washington needs to show the American people 
that we can deal with these challenges today and in the future. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Budget Control Act.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell), another distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest amount of respect for 
the chairman of our committee, the Ways and Means Committee. But I 
think you're wrong on what you're trying to do today.
  Do you remember May 31 of this year, Mr. Chairman? We took a vote May 
31. In fact, we took a vote on raising the debt limit. The vote was 
based upon a resolution introduced in this House by the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee; and he said when he introduced the piece of 
legislation on this floor that he hoped it would fail. He said we're 
not going to get enough votes to get this done. And so he set out to 
undermine his own resolution.
  Now JFK said: I do not shrink from this responsibility; I welcome it.
  I welcome my responsibility today and what I have to do. I'm going to 
have a pleasure to vote ``no'' because I know what has happened since 
May 31, a day of infamy. So we'll make it known that the bill couldn't 
pass so the American people understand that. The American people don't 
want us to tell them what they need or what they want. They should tell 
us what they need and what they want. We think we know, and most of the 
time we don't know on either side of the aisle.
  They're choosing to extend the state of political and economic 
turmoil another 6 months in this bill. We want to go through the 
holidays doing this back and forth? Won't that be sweet. We'll make 
people think we're working.
  It has been over 200 days and still not one piece of job legislation 
from the majority on this floor. Decades of the majority's policies 
exploded the deficit. You know what the cause of it is. The cost of 
just the Bush tax cuts will be 40 percent of the Federal debt by 2019. 
And when you add in the two wars, it'll be 47 percent. Who are we 
kidding here? The Republican budget bill this year added $6 trillion to 
the national debt.
  I rest my case. Live up to your responsibilities. That's what the 
American people want us to do.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reed), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill. As a 
proud member of the freshman class that came to Washington, D.C., in 
November 2010, I can tell you the culture of this city is changing.

                              {time}  1640

  I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle put forth the 
argument that because we've raised the debt ceiling 102 times and seven 
times under President Bush that somehow it makes it right for us to 
raise the debt ceiling without dealing with the problem that's causing 
it to exist in the first place, and that is the uncontrolled spending 
that has gotten us to this point of $14.4 trillion of national debt.
  As a member of the freshmen class, we have changed the culture of 
this place because now the debate is happening on the floor of this 
House, and we're going to take it to the Senate so that they take it to 
the floor of the Senate and for once openly and honestly debate the 
issues of the day. Yet they still in the Senate have not heard

[[Page H5711]]

that call, but through this process, they will.
  We wanted more, but we realize that this is just a step in the 
process. The battle will go on. We will act responsibly today by 
passing this out of the House and cure the risk that comes from the 
risk of default.
  But don't make any mistake about it: The battle will go on, and this 
is just the beginning.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to another 
distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from the great 
State of California, Xavier Becerra.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are way ahead of the politicians. 
They have been telling us over and over again: We want a balanced 
approach to reducing our deficits.
  One in five Americans has said very clearly: We support the 
Republicans' slash-and-burn default plan that we see before us that 
only cuts services to Americans to try to help us balance our budget. 
But nearly three times as many Americans have been saying over and over 
again: We want to see a balanced approach between those cuts to very 
important services, a little bit of pain, but also tax increases on all 
those folks who have been taking advantage of those tax loopholes and 
making a ton of money.
  The American people don't think it's a good idea to cut Medicare and 
Social Security and to cut Medicaid to protect tax loopholes for 
special interests. They've been saying that over and over.
  But here's the biggest clue that our Republican colleagues aren't 
listening to: The American people have said over and over that the 
biggest deficit our country faces today is a jobs deficit. After 204 
days as the majority, Republicans have only given us slash-and-burn 
politics that have created not one single job for hardworking middle 
class families. In fact, instead of creating jobs, their major pieces 
of legislation could potentially cost 2 million more Americans to lose 
their jobs.
  The worst thing about this whole charade is that every single person 
here in this room today knows that this bill that we're discussing 
today won't go anywhere. We face the very real possibility of an 
historic default in under a week, and here we are spinning our wheels.
  We all agree that our Nation must not default on its past 
obligations. The Republican Members here must abandon their ``my way or 
the highway'' approach and work across the aisle on a balanced, 
bipartisan agreement to reduce our deficit, create jobs, and protect 
our seniors and our middle class.
  I say to my Republican friends: America is not short on work ethic; 
we're short on jobs. It's time for us to get to the business of America 
and create those jobs.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who is a member of our committee and the 
chair of our caucus.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
  Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, the whole world is watching in on 
the United States Congress.
  It is a sad day for the United States Congress. We in America, the 
preeminent military, economic, and cultural leaders in the world, are 
governing like we're a Third World country. It is a sad time for this 
body that we cannot come together. Sad is the American public who looks 
in at this and recognizes that it's theater, except that it's become 
the theater of the absurd.
  In a frail recovery where Americans are already overburdened, what we 
have in front of us is a manufactured ideological crisis. Eighteen 
times the debt ceiling was raised for Ronald Reagan, eight times for 
George Bush, because they would never stand in this body to see a 
default on the full faith and credit of the United States. As the world 
looks in and we default on a global economy and we march towards 
defaulting on a national economy, the most ruinous thing is that we are 
defaulting on household economies.
  What this body should be focusing on is dealing with this deficit and 
focusing, as Mr. Becerra said, on the real default that's taking place 
in Congress: the lack of job creation, the need to put people back to 
work so that we can restore the dignity that only comes when people are 
able to sit across their dining table and look at one another and know 
that they have the dignity that comes from a job.
  We need not go through this ideological hostage situation. Why are we 
holding the American people hostage? Let's put America back to work. 
We're a better Nation. We're a better body than that.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. 
Sewell).
  Ms. SEWELL. As a freshman Member of this distinguished body, I am 
completely disappointed in our failure to work together.
  Our constituents sent us here to solve America's problems, not create 
more problems for them. The constituents of the Seventh Congressional 
District of Alabama sent me here to make sure that I better their 
lives, not create fear and instability.
  The entire world is watching us, and what are we showing them? We're 
showing them that we're completely detached from reality. We're showing 
them that we don't care about what their families, local governments, 
States, and businesses are facing.
  America's debts are serious. We all know that. We have to put our 
fiscal house in order. No one is disputing that. It's how we go about 
it. No matter how we got here, we have bills to pay and we must pay our 
bills. That's what we, as Americans, do. We pay our bills.
  The Republican bill that's before us does not do that. What it does 
is it holds hostage America's promise, the promise that we made to 
students and to seniors for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. 
It's unfair.
  I ask my colleagues in this House to vote against the bill on the 
floor.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. In a few words, what is endeavored here is an abdication 
of responsibility.
  This bill is going nowhere. It tries to bind the wounds of a divided 
Republican caucus. We should do better. We'll have to do better.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have been listening to my friends on the other side over the course 
of this afternoon, and I would just say to them: Where is your plan? 
Where is your legislation to address the debt problems of the United 
States? Where are your ideas in legislation that is scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office so that you could bring your alternative to 
the floor? This isn't the direction that you want to go; where is your 
plan?
  I notice in the other body, the majority has not passed a budget in 
more than 800 days. Frankly, if they passed a budget on the other side, 
we might not be in this situation because we would have the avenue of 
reconciliation potentially available to us. This is the second Congress 
the other body hasn't passed a budget. We've got no ideas from my 
friends on the other side on how to address this issue.
  So this is the second proposal that we have put forward that has been 
in legislative form, that has been scored, where you can address the 
problems that are facing this country.

                              {time}  1650

  We've had lots of rhetoric from the other side, but no concrete 
plans. We've had lots of press releases from the other side, but no 
proposals. Even the President has not articulated one spending cut 
after giving us 3 years of trillion-dollar deficits, after putting us 
on a path to more than double the debt of this country in less than 
half the time of the previous administration.
  So I would say this is the proposal that will get our country onto a 
fiscal path that will prevent default, that will address the long-term 
debt obligations that this Nation has run up, frankly, under both 
parties. But we need to address them now because the

[[Page H5712]]

trajectory has become so much worse in recent years. This is the plan.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be yielded to the 
Budget Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan's remaining 2 minutes will be yielded to the chairman of the 
Budget Committee.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford) a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak in 
support of this bill.
  I came on as a freshman, and in January of this year we were already 
talking about this moment. For months, the conversation has been: How 
do we reach a point of agreement? There have been lots of different 
ideas floated around. Very few of those have been put down in writing. 
But the ideas that have been floated around seem to circle around a 
central theme: How can we find a middle ground to be able to resolve 
this issue? I propose this bill is that middle ground.
  The debt reduction that's in it was a framework that was formed in 
the Biden talks. The Select Committee that's in it is something very 
important to the Senate, that Harry Reid raised that idea. The proposal 
to have a balanced budget amendment is very important to Republicans to 
say, Let's have a moment to be able to discuss that. And the statutory 
caps that are coming are very important to Republicans.
  This is a bill that has been discussed in its essence and in its core 
in a bipartisan fashion. And while we search for a compromise, I would 
suggest we have found it. And we are about to vote on it. This is a 
moment to be able to look at it and say it is not the draconian monster 
that it has been described as. It allows a simple way to be able to 
handle one of the most difficult issues that we have dealt with in a 
very long time.
  Ultimately, we bump up against an issue that is significant because 
of this one key truth: Why has this not been a problem before? Why 
haven't we passed it? Why haven't we just added to the debt ceiling 
year after year after year? We've done that. But now we have reached 
$14.3 trillion. We've now reached 100 percent of GDP. We have to start 
dealing seriously with how do we start paying down our debt. And not 
just paying our interest payments, but how do we start paying down our 
debt. At this moment in time it becomes a key moment to say, Let's 
resolve the problem, let's start dealing with difficult issues and work 
on these together, both parties both Houses, to be able to settle the 
issues. But let's do it in a way that forms long-term solutions.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It's high time that we stopped playing Russian roulette with the 
American economy and American jobs. And yet that is exactly what this 
measure does, for the following reason. It says, Okay, America, we're 
going to pay America's bills, but only for 5 more months--and only if 
we put in motion a plan that will end the Medicare guarantee and slash 
education. The proposal before us today will put the American economy 
and American jobs at even greater jeopardy over the next 5 months than 
they are today. It deliberately, by choice, keeps the economy under a 
cloud of instability and uncertainty. It chooses to risk higher 
interest rates and shrinking retirement funds that hit on every 
American family.
  So why would we choose to intentionally keep this cloud hanging over 
the country and the American people? We're told that we have to do it 
in order to force this Congress to reduce the deficit. That's what 
we're told. But the actions tell a very different story. The actions 
suggest this is not about reducing the deficit. It's about reducing the 
deficit in a particular way--the way the Republican plan wants to 
reduce the deficit. That's why our Republican colleagues walked out of 
talks three times. That's why they've rejected the balanced approach 
and framework put forward by the President that says, Let's do $4 
trillion in deficit reduction, and we'll do $3 trillion in spending 
cuts and $1 trillion in revenue. Three dollars of spending cuts to 
every dollar in revenue from cutting special interest tax breaks and 
asking the folks at the very top to go back to the rates they were 
paying during the Clinton administration.
  Our Republican colleagues rejected that approach to reducing the 
deficit because they don't want to end these tax breaks for the purpose 
of reducing the deficit. In fact, we passed a piece of legislation just 
a week ago that says we're going to keep America from paying our bills 
unless we enact a constitutional amendment that makes it easier to cut 
Medicare and Social Security than it does to cut special interest 
subsidies. It would say a majority vote, let's just cut Medicare and 
education, but you need two-thirds, a supermajority, if you want to cut 
corporate tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit.
  So that's what it's all about. This particular issue on the debt 
ceiling is a manufactured crisis. We've all heard when President Reagan 
was President, he raised it 17 times. So this is a manufactured crisis 
in order to try and force and squeeze through a particular deficit 
reduction plan--a deficit reduction plan that would end the Medicare 
guarantee, cut education, and yet protect those special interest tax 
breaks and breaks for the very top.
  If we want to be serious about the deficit, we need to do a balanced 
approach, but let's not hold the entire American economy hostage. Let's 
not put us on 5-month to 5-month interest rate and creditworthiness 
watches in order to jam through a particular idea on deficit reduction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I enjoyed listening to the talking points from my friend. I just 
don't think they apply to this bill.
  Russian roulette. This is the second piece of legislation we've 
brought to the floor to responsibly raise the debt limit while cutting 
spending. Manufactured crisis. Who went on television to scare senior 
citizens that their Social Security checks might be in doubt? The 
President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the cuts in this bill were agreed to in a bipartisan 
group. The level of cuts in this bill that go into effect immediately 
are $2 billion off the Senate majority leader's cuts in his bill. These 
were agreed to on a bipartisan basis. We're cutting spending not as 
much as we want, but at least we're cutting spending. Russian roulette 
is raising the debt limit without getting borrowing under control. A 
manufactured crisis is trying to scare seniors and the country into 
giving this government another blank check to keep spending money we 
don't have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire, a 
member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Guinta.
  Mr. GUINTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the bill before us, the Budget 
Control Act of 2011. Mr. Speaker, this is about leadership. This is 
about an ability and a willingness of this body to do something right, 
not for partisan purposes, but for spending reductions and for the 
country. I hear from the other side that they are concerned about this 
component or that component. But what I don't see is a plan and a 
solution. We have not put one, but two different proposals. The one 
that I cosponsored, Cut, Cap, and Balance, I think is the best and most 
appropriate way to move forward. But the Senate has decided that they 
don't want to take up that piece of legislation. So we're here to 
compromise. We're here to work with the other side of the aisle to get 
something accomplished on behalf of real structural change in how we 
spend taxpayer dollars--other people's money.

                              {time}  1700

  I took an oath to make sure I uphold the Constitution. I will also 
make sure that I represent New Hampshire in the manner in which they 
would like me to represent them. I contend that they would like us to 
reduce expenditures, to reduce our debt, to reduce our deficit. This 
bill does that. They also want to see us cap spending. We all have to

[[Page H5713]]

live within the means we have. We take in $2.2 trillion a year, and 
we're spending about $3.7 trillion. Nobody in America has that type of 
balance sheet.
  The time to act is now. No more partisan politics. No more baseless 
charges from Members of this body. Let's do the right thing. Let's make 
sure that we can send a message to the country that we can work in a 
bipartisan fashion to do what everybody in the country understands we 
need to do, which is to spend no more than we take in. That is the 
goal. That is the objective.
  In exchange for that, we allow this President to raise the debt 
ceiling, to pay for the 41 cents of every dollar that we continue to 
borrow. That policy has to stop. Those days are over.
  I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues here in the House and 
the Senate to do the same.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We keep hearing from our colleagues that there wasn't 
a proposal put forward by the President. The framework is pretty clear, 
and we can sort of solve this particular piece of it today, if 
possible. He said he will do $3 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue for 
deficit reduction. If someone wants to take us up on that offer while 
we're talking about it on the floor, that would be just terrific.
  Because our Republican colleagues walked out of that discussion, 
Senator Reid did put on the table a proposal that has been scored by 
the Congressional Budget Office. I have their score in my hand, dated 
July 27, 2011. It would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion, more than 
the $917 billion score in the Republican proposal. This is a 
nonpartisan, independent CBO score. The difference is he would raise 
the debt ceiling for 2 years so we don't keep the economy under a 
cloud, so we don't keep the threat of higher interest rates going into 
effect, which would be a hit on every American family.
  Why we would choose to deliberately keep the economy under a cloud 
and put jobs at risk is a mystery. The only answer is our Republican 
colleagues want to use that as a forcing mechanism to ultimately put in 
place their budget plan, which does end the Medicare guarantee, which 
does slash education and does protect corporate tax loopholes.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to a terrific member of the Budget 
Committee, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. We are faced with an important moment for our Nation: a 
moment of enormous economic uncertainty, a moment to significantly 
reduce our deficit and make the right choices for our future.
  The Boehner bill does neither. As a result, it has little support 
from either side of the aisle because it does not seriously reduce the 
deficit. It will ensure uncertainty in the markets for many, many 
months ahead, and it cuts $1 trillion over 10 years.
  Speaker Boehner had the opportunity, in working with the President, 
to reduce the deficit, not by $1 trillion but by $4 trillion, and he 
walked away from that plan. The Gang of Six made a bipartisan effort to 
reduce the deficit by $3 trillion, and he rejected that plan as well. 
This moment is about choices. Speaker Boehner made a choice to walk 
away from the plans that offered trillions of dollars in deficit 
reduction, and he substituted, instead, a political document with 
significantly less deficit reduction.
  This is not a serious proposal, and we have little time to avoid 
default. Let's stop wasting time. Members from both sides of the aisle 
should reject this bill because it is an inadequate response to both 
deficit reduction and because of the harm it will do to our Nation's 
economy.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Every now and then, Mr. Speaker, you need to just step back and look 
at the record and put the rhetoric aside.
  When this majority showed up in January of this last year, we found a 
situation where our friends on the other side had failed to write a 
budget for this year, had failed to pass any appropriations bills and 
had just sort of gone home.
  We had a President who had appointed a debt reduction commission but 
yet failed to embrace any of their actions at all--not one. Then we 
heard the President come and address us in this Chamber in a state of 
the Union message, but for 35 minutes, he didn't bother to mention the 
looming debt crisis--35 minutes.
  The first serious proposal we got from that President, our President, 
was for a $400 billion reduction over 10 years that was so laughable 
that, when it was brought up in the United States Senate, which is 
controlled by his party, it failed 97-0.
  Then the President wanted to have a free vote on raising the debt 
ceiling. Let's just raise it. Go ahead and see what happens. We 
obviously don't support that as we think there ought to be some 
spending reductions, but we said, sure, you've got the vote. Fewer than 
100 of my friends on the other side supported their own President when 
he asked for that vote. They clearly weren't sufficiently motivated to 
do that.
  Now we've reached a point where, last week, we actually did raise the 
debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion. We did institute cuts that, frankly, are 
going to happen anyway--they coincide with my friend Mr. Ryan's 
budget--and we put caps on long-term spending. We said just give the 
American people a chance--just a chance--to vote on a balanced budget 
amendment. We're not asking that it pass, but don't you think they 
ought to have the right through their State legislatures to make that 
decision? We were denied that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. COLE. Now we're at a point where we are about to, once again, 
raise the debt ceiling and to do it in a responsible way, in a way that 
I predict, frankly, will probably become the pattern in the future. 
This body should never raise the debt ceiling again automatically. 
We've certainly done it on our side, and our friends on the other side 
have done it. We should always couple it with spending restraint and 
reform, and that's exactly what we're doing in this measure.
  This majority has enacted a budget. My friend has taken a lot of 
arrows for that budget, but I'm proud to be associated with him. This 
majority will have twice raised the debt ceiling and coupled it with 
historic spending cuts.
  As for the President's plan that we hear about, I'd just like to see 
it, just once. I haven't seen anything or heard anything like this 
since Richard Nixon had a secret plan to end the war. The President 
must have a secret plan, because it's not on paper; it has not been 
scored, and it has not been publicly presented to anybody.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. COLE. If the majority leader's plan scores at $2.2 trillion--and 
I take my friend's word on that--I guess we really have a $4 trillion 
deficit, because we have $3 trillion, and we don't even count the extra 
$1 trillion, which is automatic because the wars are ending. So I think 
we ought to up ours. We have a $4 trillion plan. We ought to give the 
majority leader the credit for finding that additional $1 trillion.
  If you'll just vote for this, you'll have your magic $4 trillion plan 
done--our 3, Senator Reid's 1. That adds up to what the President 
wanted. So let's pass this, give the Senate an opportunity to pass it, 
and give the President of the United States an opportunity to sign it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. As I was listening to my friend, I really don't think 
the American people want us to be doing this every 5 months so that it 
becomes business as usual that we put the country through this crisis 
situation and with the threat of rising interest rates and all the 
other negative economic consequences that would happen.
  Because the grand bargain is now off the table, Senator Reid has put 
forward a proposal. Again, I have the CBO scoring of it right here: 
$2.2 trillion, with more cuts than in the proposal that's on the table 
here from our Republican colleagues, the big difference being he 
doesn't want to say every 5 months ``let's put the country into 
economic crisis'' and deal with all the uncertainty between now and 5 
months from now that that will create.

[[Page H5714]]

  With that, I yield 1 minute to a terrific member of the Budget 
Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  One of the issues we want on the table here is revenue. The top 400 
wealthiest people in the United States of America pay a 17 percent tax 
rate. My constituents in Youngstown and Akron, Ohio, pay a heck of a 
lot more than 17 percent.

                              {time}  1710

  We hear our friends on the other side say how all of these changes 
need to occur, how all of these problems need to be solved. But heaven 
forbid, Mr. Speaker, we ask the 400 wealthiest families in the United 
States of America to maybe be a little bit patriotic and help us out. 
And you'll say, Well, these are the job creators. These taxes aren't 
going into place for another year or two. We've got to get through this 
downturn.
  But we need to send the message to the bond market that we are 
serious. And for us to be this irresponsible and not ask the 
wealthiest--what are they being asked to sacrifice here? The top 1 
percent, what are we asking them to sacrifice?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. One final point.
  The debt that we now are debating was run up by our friends on the 
other side--two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and a prescription drug plan 
all on the credit card. And now the same people who've worked their way 
up in the leadership positions are saying, We're not going to pay the 
bill. This is irresponsible.
  Let's solve this in a balanced way, and let's ask for some shared 
sacrifice.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The gentleman, my friend over from Maryland, keeps talking about the 
Reid plan, the Senate majority leader over in the Senate. His plan. 
I've got the CBO score, too. It says it's a $2.7 trillion increase. 
That means it doesn't raise the debt limit less than we cut spending, 
so it cuts less. But more importantly, $1.3 trillion of that money is 
accounting tricks and budget gimmicks.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of all of the accounting 
tricks and the budget gimmicks that go on in Washington. Let me explain 
what $1.3 trillion of this does. It says that imagine that we're at war 
for 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq at surge levels. We assume we're 
going to be fighting this war for 10 more years with over 100,000 
troops in Afghanistan and, oh gosh, wait. We're going to withdraw our 
troops in 2014. Trillion dollars in savings.
  I've got a better idea. Let's pass a bill to cover the Moon with 
yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. And then let's pass a bill the 
next day to cancel that bill. We could save $5 trillion. Wait. I got a 
better idea. Our debt is $14 trillion. Let's come up with a new plan to 
spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let's save $14 
trillion.
  This stuff is fiscal fantasy. You can't make this stuff up, Mr. 
Speaker. Suggesting that we're going to be in a war at these levels for 
10 more years when everybody knows we've already decided not to do 
that, that does not get us $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. Only in 
Washington can you add up math like that. We need real spending cuts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional minute to say 
this is getting serious, Mr. Speaker, very serious. We can't keep 
spending money we just don't have. Now 42 cents of every dollar coming 
out of this place is borrowed money. It doesn't just threaten our 
children and grandchildren any more. It is hurting our economy today.
  Half of that money is coming from other countries like China. Why on 
Earth do we want to give the President a blank check to keep doing 
that, giving our sovereignty and our self-determination to other 
countries to lend us money to fund our government. Those days have got 
to end.
  This bill doesn't cut as much as we want. We passed a budget cut $6.2 
trillion in real spending cuts. This cuts about a trillion.
  Let's cut this trillion, bank that money, and then go cut some more. 
That's what we're trying to do to be responsible.
  The problem in this town is not that we don't tax Americans enough. 
The problem is we're spending way too much money.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, of course we should be reducing the 
deficit. Of course we should make sure that we don't rely on the 
Chinese as our bankers any more, which is why it's so ironic that our 
Republican colleagues refuse to cut subsidies for oil companies by one 
penny for the purpose of reducing the deficit so we don't have to rely 
on borrowing from China anymore.
  In fact, if you look at Exxon's quarterly profits today, they're 
through the roof. Now, I'm all for having Exxon make money. But why 
should they have taxpayer money on top of it? And yet our Republican 
colleagues get up here and they talk about how we're dependent on 
China. But they don't want to break that dependency if it means 
actually asking the top oil companies to get rid of their subsidies for 
the purpose of deficit reduction. So let's get serious.
  Now, with respect to the plan that has been put forward by Senator 
Reid. I listened to my colleague. I would point out to the body that if 
you look at the Republican budget and the documents that accompanied it 
when they pointed out what their savings were relative to the CBO 
baseline, they also show a trillion dollars in savings from the global 
war on terror. As my friend the chairman knows, that is a function of 
the way the Congressional Budget Office scores.
  But it is also a fact that when the Republican budget was presented, 
they presented it both relative to the President's baseline and the 
congressional budget baseline. I would further make the point that even 
if you took that off the table, the proposal by Senator Reid cuts 
immediately more on spending than the Republican proposal before us 
today, the difference being he doesn't keep the economy hanging under a 
cloud for 5 months and make this country go through this exercise just 
by the end of December.
  With that, I would yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member of 
Congress from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Soon my colleagues will be quoting Dr. 
King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, and here's a quote they will not read 
and they will ignore: ``In a sense, we've come to our Nation's Capital 
to cash a check. When the architects of our Republic wrote the 
magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of 
Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every 
American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, 
black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the `unalienable 
rights' of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'
  ``It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory 
note in so far as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of 
honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the people a bad 
check, a check which has come back marked `insufficient funds.' ''
  But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. The 
problem, Mr. Chairman, is not that we spend. It's that we don't honor 
our obligations. We are a Nation that spends billions of dollars to put 
a man on the Moon, fund the war in Afghanistan, fund the war in Iraq, 
but we can't find the money in this Congress to put a man on his own 
two feet right here in America.
  And there is something more fundamental, Mr. Speaker, that is going 
on here. This President is being treated differently than other 
Presidents. No other President has been ``stook up,'' shook down, or 
held hostage as this President of the United States over this debt 
vote. This is fundamentally unfair, Mr. Speaker, to change the rules in 
the middle of the game.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respectfully ask that 
Members heed the gavel and only consume the amount of time yielded to 
them by the floor managers.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of

[[Page H5715]]

the House Republican Conference, Mr. Hensarling.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation has a debt crisis not because we are 
undertaxed but because Washington spends too much. And here we are days 
before the President's August 2 deadline, and the President of the 
United States has yet to submit a plan to deal with the debt crisis. 
Here we are days away from the President's August 2 deadline, and the 
United States Senate has yet to pass a single plan.
  Days before the President's August 2 deadline, not only have House 
Republicans passed their first plan, in a manner of hours we will vote 
yet again on another plan to deal with the debt crisis that we must 
remember is spending driven. It's the President's spending that brought 
us here.
  Now, the bill that we're bringing to the House floor, Mr. Speaker, is 
not the ultimate solution. But, Mr. Speaker, it ensures that this 
Nation pays its current bills, like families, like small businesses 
have to. It gives us the opportunity to actually cut spending.

                              {time}  1720

  The amounts are not what they should be, but for the second year in a 
row, we will have the opportunity to actually reduce spending to save 
our country and save our children's futures. But most importantly, 
within this legislation is the opportunity that brings us the ultimate 
solution, and that, Mr. Speaker, is a balanced budget amendment to the 
United States Constitution. Every family, every small business, almost 
every State has a provision that says, we have to balance our budget. 
Should we expect less of a great Nation? Maybe that's why we have the 
$14 trillion debt. We must act today, approve this bill, balance the 
budget for our Nation and future generations.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 2 minutes at this time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  This legislation before us today is a down payment. Does this cut the 
amount of spending we need to save the country from a debt crisis? No. 
Our budget does do that. This is two-thirds of the spending cuts we 
called for in this category of spending, discretionary spending. Is it 
100 percent of the cuts we asked for? No, it's two-thirds of the cuts 
we asked for.
  What does the President's budget do? It actually spends $130 billion 
more. I will take two-thirds of the step in the right direction instead 
of going in the wrong direction, the President's plan.
  The Congressional Budget Office, we asked them to take a look at the 
President's framework. The CBO director told me under oath that they 
can't score speeches. This plan rejects the President's fiscal demands 
for tax increases, and it rejects his political demands for a blank 
check to get him through the election.
  What we are doing here today is getting serious about getting 
spending under control. The spending cuts that are in this bill were 
already agreed to by bipartisan talks. Why are people hiding from that? 
This is the second bill we will have passed to avoid a default. That's 
responsible. It has been 820 days since the Senate even tried passing a 
budget.
  The President, as we know, has yet to offer a plan to fix this 
problem. We passed a budget to fix this problem. We passed a plan to 
deal with the debt limit. And now we are passing another plan, based 
upon mutually agreed to spending cuts that get two-thirds of the cuts 
we already called for in this category of government. That's 
reasonable. That's responsible. And that is what we should be doing. 
Instead, we hear all this empty rhetoric and all this call for a blank 
check and all these accounting gimmicks and budget gimmicks from the 
other side who are trying to do everything they can to do anything but 
cut spending.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, just to be very clear, the Democratic 
Senate leader Mr. Reid has put on the table a plan that would cut more 
immediately than the Republican plan before us today, even if you don't 
include the overseas contingency account funding. The difference is, he 
would not put our economy in jeopardy again just 5 months from now, as 
the Republican plan did.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about being 
serious. And here we're considering a $2 trillion bill, $200 billion a 
year, slapped together behind closed doors and sprung on the House less 
than 24 hours after it was printed, an up-or-down vote, no amendments, 
and is legislation that 53 Senators already say they are going to 
oppose.
  We have a situation where last December, we passed $400 billion a 
year in tax cuts, and now everybody says we need $400 billion a year in 
deficit reduction. This bill does not cut anything. It has caps, 
promises for cuts in the future. And we don't know what those cuts are 
going to be. But we know in the continuing resolution, food inspection 
was cut, FBI agents, air traffic controllers, flu shots, clean water 
grants, schools, scientific research, community health centers, 
transportation--we can expect all of those to be cut in the future, all 
to preserve tax cuts, many for millionaires and oil companies. That's 
not right. Let's go through the regular process so we know what we're 
doing.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, you know what we've seen play out here 
is, a few years back, we provided the tax breaks that went 
disproportionately to the very wealthy in this country. Now all of a 
sudden--oh, well, we can't pay our bills anymore, a good part of that 
reason being the tax cuts. But how are we going to deal with those 
bills? We're going to sock it to middle class America, whether it's 
through cuts in education or cuts to Medicare, and all because we don't 
want to cut subsidies for the oil companies.
  Again, as I said, just today, Exxon reported huge profits. God bless 
them for making all that money. But why do they need any of ours, our 
taxpayer money? And that is the rub of the issue. It's not whether we 
reduce the deficit; it's how.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains on either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 1 minute, 
and the gentleman from Maryland has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will continue to reserve the balance of my 
time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself 45 seconds just to say that we, as a 
body, need to do two things: Number one, we need to make sure the 
United States pays its bills. We need to make sure it pays its bills, 
and we shouldn't do it in a way that puts the American economy in 
jeopardy every 5 months. Just listen to the folks, the experts who have 
been monitoring this. They have said that if you do this on a 5-month 
period, you will risk interest rates going up. Second, we need to 
reduce the deficit. Of course we do. Let's do it in a balanced way. The 
President has proposed $3 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue, but we 
can't get our colleagues on the Republican side to get one penny--not 
one penny--of revenue from closing a corporate tax loophole if the 
purpose is deficit reduction. And there is the rub.
  So let's reject this wrong approach. Senator Reid has a proposal on 
the table. It cuts more than the one that the Republicans have, but it 
doesn't put the economy in jeopardy every 5 months.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the last minute to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the terrific Democratic leader in the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his 
tremendous leadership. We couldn't be prouder of the way he has 
represented the values of the American people, both as the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee and also at the table in the bipartisan 
talks with Mr. Clyburn under the leadership of Vice President Biden. 
It's too bad that the progress that was made in those meetings, to have 
a balanced, bipartisan initiative to bring to the floor, to give 
confidence to the markets, and to give confidence to the American 
people, did not succeed because the Republicans walked away from those 
talks.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, said he 
couldn't reach an agreement with President

[[Page H5716]]

Obama because they have different visions of our country. President 
Obama shares the vision of the American people. When we look to find 
our common ground and take it to a higher ground, I think all Americans 
agree that we want to educate our children for their own self-
fulfillment but also to keep America number one by having innovation, 
which springs from education and from the classroom. I think all 
Americans share the higher ground, the common ground when it comes to 
the creation of jobs, good-paying jobs here in America for the economic 
stability of America's families and of our economy.

                              {time}  1730

  I think all Americans agree that we must have a dignified retirement 
for our seniors, where they have health and economic security. That's 
why Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are so important to the 
American people.
  I think all Americans agree that we must keep the American people 
safe, both in our national security and our economic security, and we 
must do so in a fiscally sound way without adding to the deficit. That 
is President Obama's vision of our country, and I'm sure that Speaker 
Boehner must share those views. So if that is the reason, the different 
vision of our country, maybe it is, hopefully it is not. Hopefully they 
share that vision.
  Why are we where we are today? I believe it is because it wasn't 
about not sharing a vision for our country. I believe it is because the 
purpose of these talks was to reduce the deficit. My belief is that the 
Republicans came to the table not to reduce the deficit, but to go way 
beyond that and to dismantle decades of progress made in a bipartisan 
way for America's great middle class.
  If, in fact, the purpose was deficit reduction in a very strong way, 
we were on that path. In the Biden talks and in the talks subsequent to 
it, we all agreed that there had to be substantial cuts, that we had to 
subject Federal dollars spent to make sure that we got our money's 
worth for U.S. taxpayers.
  Democrats wanted revenue. We wanted sharing of the sacrifice in all 
of this. Republicans did not.
  But we still could come to a place, as Senator Reid did and as our 
distinguished ranking member referenced, to a place that used the 
proposals that Republicans had in the Ryan budget and in proposals that 
they had agreed to in the talks to reach a strong deficit reduction 
number that would enable us to come to agreement and to put this matter 
to rest until February of 2013, so we would remove all doubt in the 
markets that we were going to honor our debts, we were not going to 
default on previous spending. The purpose was not to lift the ceiling 
so we could spend more. The purpose was to lift the ceiling so we could 
pay for previous obligations, and that there would be that 18 months of 
certainty.
  Instead, the Republicans have come forth with a proposal that, as I 
said, dismantled. This isn't about deficit reduction. This is about 
dismantling the public sector. And in doing so, they want to do it for 
6 months, which means the minute this thing would be accomplished, and 
God forbid that it would be accomplished, we would have to start all 
over again.
  I believe the American people are disappointed that this has taken so 
long, then angry that it is happening because of the uncertainty it 
brings to their lives, and, next, disgusted with the whole process. And 
they are so rightly so, because if our purpose is to reduce the 
deficit, we certainly can do that. If our purpose is to dismantle 
progress to the middle class, we won't be a party to it.
  I think that the 6-month plan, not only in terms of uncertainty, is 
also a job killer. It has front-loaded cuts that will deter, impede the 
growth of our economy, our comeback, and, again, kill jobs. Every day 
that we are debating this is another day that we are not talking about 
job creation. Every day.
  Republican bills that they have brought to the floor in the first 200 
days of their majority, now it's 205, would amount to nearly 2 million 
jobs lost, just under 10,000 jobs a day lost by the proposals they have 
brought to the floor.
  The American people's top priority is the creation of jobs. Jobs, 
jobs, jobs, jobs. Instead of this prolonged dismantling of the public 
sector attempt, we should instead have reached agreement--we still 
can--on a balanced bipartisan approach.
  I want to say something as a mom about this dismantling of the public 
sector. I view my role in politics as an extension of my role as a 
mother and now a grandmother. As parents, all of us know that we want 
to do everything we can for our children to help them grow, be healthy, 
to learn, to reach their fulfillment, but there are things we can't do 
for them. We have to look to the public sector in order for them, and 
moms can identify with this, I'm sure, to make sure that they have 
clean drinking water, that the air they breathe is clean, that there is 
food safety. We can't do that ourselves. We can't do that ourselves. 
That is a public role.
  The list goes on about the education of our children, the health 
security of our grandparents. Now, being a grandparent myself, but in 
terms of Medicare, Medicaid, all the things that are important to 
children, their health, their education, the economic security of their 
families, the pension security and health security of their 
grandparents, the safety of their neighborhood, some of these are 
private roles, some of these are public roles, some are public/private 
roles.
  But, as a mom, I call upon all mothers across the country to 
understand what this bill does to the health and well-being of 
America's children. And really, it's quite ironic, because any speech 
that you hear on the floor, in meetings and all the rest, they say we 
must reduce the deficit because it's immoral to pass along deficits to 
our children. Well, I think it's wrong to pass along private or public 
debt to our children.
  But what we are doing here is to pass along to our children a future 
less bright because of, again, I'll say it again, this dismantling of 
the public sector, which is an ideological goal long held by our 
friends. They would rather see seniors pay more for Medicare. They'd 
rather cut Medicaid and jeopardize Social Security while they give tax 
subsidies to Big Oil making record profits, tax breaks to corporations 
sending jobs overseas, and tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our 
country at the expense of the education of our children and the health 
and well-being of our country.
  I hope that the House will reject this measure. I know that people of 
good intention to reduce the deficit can find a path to do that. It 
can't be too late because we have a deadline on August 2.
  But I want to pay my respects to President Obama, who has been 
respectful of every suggestion proposed by the Republicans, giving it 
the time and attention that they thought it deserved. He tried to 
accommodate all of those to have a balanced bipartisan approach. And 
what did the Republicans do? Walk away from the table.
  Well, the American people know about this. That's why 50-some percent 
of the American people support the balanced bipartisan approach that 
the President says we should strive to achieve, and only about 19 
percent of the American people support the proposal that is put forth 
by the Republicans.

                              {time}  1740

  This House should reject that. We should come together and use the 
work that has been done already to do something that will remove all 
doubt that we pay our bills, to remove all doubt that we are a strong 
economy that recognizes the role we play in the global economy, but 
also recognizes that all of this has an impact in the lives of everyday 
Americans as they sit around their kitchen table thinking about what 
they will do if the cost of credit goes up.
  And that means their credit card bills, their car payment, their 
house payment, student loans and the rest are more expensive to them. 
This is very costly in terms of confidence and in terms of making ends 
meet.
  Let's be responsible. Reject this bill and get back to work so that 
on Tuesday we will have met our obligations. That's the least that we 
can do for our children.
  Mr. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to Speaker 
Boehner's flawed plan to address our urgent need to raise the debt 
limit and our longer term challenge of reducing our nation's debt.

[[Page H5717]]

  First, the Speaker's plan is a short-term band-aid, when our economy 
and markets need certainty. Under the Speaker's plan, we would be back 
where we are now in a few months, facing yet another possibility of 
defaulting on our debt. We should pass a debt limit extension that will 
take us through 2012. Playing with the creditworthiness of the United 
States is a game that never should have been started.
  Second, this bill virtually guarantees cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, 
and Social Security while protecting oil companies and the wealthiest 
in our country from any pain or paying their fair share. Billionaires 
are not being asked to pay more in taxes; loopholes that benefit the 
few are sacrosanct. But the programs seniors and children rely upon 
receive no such consideration.
  Finally, this bill ignores the central problem facing our nation 
today: we need to put more people to work so they can afford to buy the 
products and services that will get our economy growing at a healthier 
pace. We need to make investments that will pay long-term dividends. 
Cutting funding for infrastructure, education, and child nutrition are 
short-sighted decisions that will hurt us in decades to come.
  The people of Hawaii want Washington to change its ways. They want a 
compromise. They'd like a plan that is fair and balanced. They want us 
to reduce the deficit by cutting wasteful spending. They also want the 
wealthy to pay their fair share. Most of all, they want us to create 
jobs.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
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 dollars 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.
  We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman 
Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated in a recently before the House 
Committee on Financial Services. ``We really don't want to just cut, 
cut, cut,'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little 
bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the 
potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in 
fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program 
that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.''
  The Boehner plan does just that it will cut, cut, cut without taking 
into full consideration the serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, 
and Medicaid. 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. This is 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 
will be hit again for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits. Anyone who believe that this 
plan will not result in a serious cut to Social Security should 
consider this . . . Social Security represents 20 percent of all 
federal spending, making it unrealistic to think such large cuts in 
mandatory spending will not affect Social Security benefits.
  I state here today that the Boehner proposal is ill-conceived and 
fails to offer a balanced approach to decreasing the deficit. Instead 
of requiring shared sacrifice, the Boehner plan places the entire 
burden on the backs of seniors, the middle class and our nation's most 
vulnerable citizens, while doing nothing to close corporate tax 
giveaways and increase taxes on those most able to afford them.
  The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary programs of 
$1.2 trillion over the next 10 years through strict new spending caps. 
Most experts predict that the first round of cuts would target 
discretionary programs, including education, infrastructure, job 
training and law enforcement. The Boehner plan would then require 
an additional $1.8 trillion in savings to be identified by the end of 
the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling again at that 
time. Given the magnitude of these additional required savings, it 
would result in deep draconian cuts in federal entitlement programs 
such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A repeal of health 
reform's coverage expansions. And a dramatic reduction in safety net 
programs for vulnerable Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment 
and disability insurance. This is unacceptable, and each is avoidable 
if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder a fair share 
of this burden.

  The Speaker's plan requires a vote on an ill-advised constitutional 
balanced budget amendment in both chambers of Congress by the end of 
this year. The details surrounding exactly which proposed 
constitutional balanced budget amendment will be voted on are unclear. 
However, earlier proposals that have appeared in the House of 
Representatives, including H.J. Res. 1, would have a devastating impact 
on discretionary spending and on our modest economic recovery.
  Passing an amendment to the Constitution is one of the most serious 
processes the United States Congress can undertake, requiring a two 
thirds supermajority of support in both the House and Senate and 
ratification by three-fourths (\3/4\) of the States. The Founders 
purposely made the amendment process a long and arduous one. Do my 
Republican colleagues really expect Congress to capriciously pass an 
amendment altering our Nation's founding document on such short notice; 
an amendment that will fundamentally change our country without 
reasonable time for debate; without the opportunity for a hearing or 
questioning of witnesses; without any reports as to what impact it may 
have?
  By tying the fate of whether the United States pays its debt 
obligations to the historically prolonged Constitutional amendment 
process, the Republicans who support this bill have demonstrated, at 
this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly 
irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly 
bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it.
  The Speaker's plan will result in for $2.7 trillion in deficit 
reduction and a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt limit in two stages, 
with the two debt ceiling increases being conditioned upon enactment of 
an initial set of spending cuts and a later, second deficit reduction 
measure.
  I do not believe that Congress should yield its authority to what 
amounts to a Commission. Boehner's plan creates a 12-member joint 
congressional committee to develop a plan for an additional $1.8 
trillion in deficit reduction that Congress would vote on in December. 
In addition the Speaker's plan authorizes the president to submit a 
$900 billion increase in the, $14.3 trillion debt ceiling immediately 
after enactment of this bill, and a $1.6 trillion increase if the $1.8 
trillion deficit reduction measure is enacted. Both debt limit 
increases would take effect automatically unless Congress enacted 
resolutions of disapproval. The Speakers plan also requires the House 
and Senate to vote by the end of the year on a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. As I have stated before this will tie 
the hands of congress.
  Finally, as noted above, the Boehner proposal provides only a short-
term extension of the federal debt ceiling. This means that the 
gridlock that now prevails in our government will continue for the 
remainder of the 112th Congress. According to the Center on Budget and 
Policy, recent reports have suggested that rating agencies will 
downgrade the U.S. credit rating if the Boehner proposal is enacted. 
This would result not only in higher interest costs to the federal 
government but also would raise the, interest rate paid by individuals 
and families on car loans, credit cards and mortgages throughout the 
United States. Taken together, all of these factors would undermine the 
nation's fragile recovery.
  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 American 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

[[Page H5718]]

2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the US 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% 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% of households 
in the state struggle with food insecurity.
  There is no doubt that we must reduce the national debt, but my 
Republican colleague's 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 500,4300 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. 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 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. 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 3rd, 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 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.

  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 in the minds of 
citizens.
  The Speaker's plan is a short term fix for a long term issue. It is a 
patch rather than a proper repair. Boehner's plan requires that 
Congress address debt-ceiling once again in a short span of time, which 
will once again lead to market uncertainty in a time when we are trying 
to rebuild our nation. This plan is not good for Wall Street and it is 
not good for the American People. The Speaker's bill is a short-term 
debt limit increase that will only ensure that Congress will go through 
this exact

[[Page H5719]]

same standoff again in the next few months. Short-term proposals risk 
further uncertainty and the potentially damaging downgrade of the U.S. 
credit rating. The markets have made it clear that a short-term 
extension is not sufficient and could result in very serious 
consequences. While Democrats support deficit reduction, we support 
doing it in a balanced way that provides certainty to the economy.

  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 reduce 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.
  If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the 
possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to 
United States Constitution, Section four, which states ``the validity 
of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be 
questioned.'' The argument can be made that if Congress will not 
resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the 
interest of our nation must act. The President would then have to 
consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him 
the authority to raise the debt ceiling, on his own through executive 
order and if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by the August 2, 
2011 deadline. As a body we should not place the President or our 
country in this position.
  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.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, with six days left until we default on our 
national debt, there is simply no excuse for the partisan gridlock that 
has blocked all progress toward a fair and balanced agreement. This 
week, Congressional switchboards lit up and websites crashed under the 
sheer volume of outreach from citizens who wanted their voices heard in 
this debate. I hope my colleagues were listening. The resounding 
message I received from Rhode Islanders was that they are tired of 
political games. They want their leaders to work together to solve this 
problem in the best interests of the country. We have an opportunity to 
do that, and we literally can't afford to squander it with the usual 
Washington politics.
  Our surest path to success includes a balanced approach of spending 
cuts and revenue increases that will reduce our budget deficit, 
stabilize our rising debt, reassure global markets and create greater 
economic certainty to bolster our fragile recovery. I will not support 
a plan that forces benefit cuts in Social Security, Medicare and 
Medicaid or places the entire burden of deficit reduction on middle-
class families, seniors, the disabled and others already struggling 
through the effects of a deep recession. We must all be willing to 
share in the sacrifice, and that includes multinational corporations 
and the richest 2 percent of income earners who received the lion's 
share of tax breaks under the Bush tax cuts. This approach has 
bipartisan support in the Senate, as well as from officials in previous 
Democratic and Republican Administrations.
  However, my Republican colleagues in the House have opted to turn a 
deaf ear to reason, choosing instead to put forward ``The Budget 
Control Act,'' a politically motivated proposal that makes clear their 
willingness to drive our nation into default rather than compromise in 
the best interests of Americans. This short-term extension contains 
arbitrary spending caps and a Balanced Budget Amendment so conservative 
in nature that it would deem unconstitutional the fiscal policies of 
Presidents Reagan and Bush, as well as the budget passed by the 
Republican House earlier this year.
  The most egregious part of this legislation is that it only offers a 
short-term fix that will force Congress to revisit this same debate in 
a few months, setting the stage for another partisan fight as lawmakers 
gear up for the next election. It's hard to imagine how things could 
get much worse in Washington, but I can promise you we will find out if 
we have to replay this battle again next year. Moreover, it is exactly 
the wrong message to be sending the American people and the world. A 
short-term extension would fail to establish economic certainty, 
reassure businesses or provide market confidence. In fact, ratings 
agencies have warned that under the Republican proposal, the U.S. 
credit rating could still be downgraded, leading to higher interest 
rates and a tax on all American families.
  The Senate is considering legislation that, while imperfect, protects 
our most vulnerable citizens, cuts more than $2 trillion, and ensures 
we avoid a repeat of this dangerous game in a few months. While it may 
not represent my preferred approach of including both spending cuts and 
revenue increases, it at least offers a compromise that a majority of 
members should be able to accept. It is time for both parties to put 
their differences aside, if not for good, then for long enough to agree 
on a balanced approach to pay our nation's bills, reduce the deficit 
and give businesses and markets renewed confidence in the full faith 
and credit of the United States. They should never have had to doubt it 
in the first place.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget 
Control Act and urge its adoption.
  America pays its bills. Default on those obligations, by not raising 
the debt limit, would be dangerously irresponsible.
  However, the $14.3 trillion national debt is utterly unsustainable. 
Consider the fact that total government spending at all levels has 
risen to 37% of gross domestic product today from 27% in 1960--and is 
set to reach 50% by 2038. Today, our national debt has reached 100% of 
the size of our economy, up from 42% in 1980.
  These are trends that, left unchecked, will saddle future generations 
with burdensome debt and a lack of jobs and opportunities. In this 
regard, our efforts this week to raise the debt ceiling while firmly 
addressing the debt crisis is as much a moral as an economic decision.
  Over the past several months, we have told the President that we will 
not support his request to increase the debt limit without serious 
spending cuts, binding budget reforms and we will not support higher 
taxes on families and small businesses we are counting on to create 
jobs.
  Last week, I supported the ``Cut, Cap and Balance Act,'' legislation 
designed to immediately cut federal spending to 2008 levels, before all 
the ``bailouts'' and the failed ``stimulus'' bills. That measure also 
sought to put the federal budget on a glide path to spending no more 
than 20 percent of our economy and requires that Congress pass a 
Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
  Unfortunately, the same Senate Leadership that has not proposed a 
budget in over two years, will now not even allow a debate on this 
common-sense bill.

[[Page H5720]]

  Today, the House considers the Budget Control Act. While far from 
perfect, this measure finally begins to turn back the tide of federal 
red ink in several important ways:
  It cuts spending by $917 billion and does not raise taxes that would 
fuel additional spending. That is a vast improvement over current law.
  It keeps the pressure on the President and Congress to cut spending 
further by providing another opportunity later this year to debate and 
keeping the pressure on to cut spending.
  It creates a process that keeps our underlying fiscal policy problems 
front-and-center for the foreseeable future rather than ignoring them 
until 2013.
  Contrary to some published reports, the bill contains serious 
reductions. This legislation cuts $22 billion in FY 2012 and $42 
billion in FY 2013. Yes, these are still small numbers when placed in 
the context of overall federal spending. One reason is that the 2012 
and 2013 budgets are the only ones that will actually be under the 
control of this 112th Congress. But even more important is the greater 
reduction in the budget glide path that will be used in future years. 
In the years beyond the 112th Congress, the budget savings multiply.
  I would add that the Budget Control Act also keeps the focus on 
cutting spending, requiring a plan by December that cuts at least $1.8 
trillion more.
  It is important to note that the debt fight we're engaged in today 
has set an important precedent. From now on, increases in the debt 
ceiling will need to be accompanied by equivalent or greater cuts in 
spending.
  On this point, I would remind everyone of the words the President 
uttered just days ago in the White House briefing room. When asked 
about the current debt negotiations, he said, `I don't want to be here 
doing this. I'd rather be here talking about new programs . . .'
  `New programs'? Translated: `new spending.' Clearly, the President 
has not listened to the American people.
  That is why it is so important to prevent him and his Congressional 
allies from finding new ways to spend the taxpayers' money. This bill 
locks in spending cuts for the future.
  Of course, the next logical step is to enact permanent budget reforms 
like a Balanced Budget Amendment to our Constitution. I voted for a 
balanced budget amendment over ten years ago and I voted for the ``Cut, 
Cap and Balance'' bill last week. I look forward to voting for another 
balanced budget amendment in coming days and would urge my colleagues 
to give the American people the opportunity to weigh in on this common-
sense reform.
  Some well-meaning Americans have opposed the bill because they think 
it does not cut enough. While $900 billion+ of spending cuts is a 
genuine deficit reduction, I completely agree that it is far from 
sufficient to solve our underlying budget problems. In that respect, 
this House bill is a step in the right direction, nothing more.
  Mr. Speaker, I want deeper spending cuts and greater deficit and debt 
reduction. However, given the stubborn insistence of the President and 
his Congressional allies on a debt limit increase coupled with new 
taxes and still more spending, I cannot see how we achieve greater 
savings at this time.
  I, for one, will not give the President a blank check and urge 
approval of the Budget Control Act.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 627, 
Speaker Boehner's refusal-to-compromise, short-term bill that moves us 
closer to an unprecedented default.
  This bill is not designed to become law. The Senate has made clear 
the votes aren't there for passage. If it did somehow reach the 
President's desk, he's publicly declared his intent to veto it.
  Yet, here we are in the House of Representatives, wasting what little 
time we have left before the August 2nd deadline for default, 
considering this pointless piece of ideology just to appease the Tea 
Party.
  If this doesn't make clear to the American public that the House 
Republican Majority is incapable of governing, I don't know what does.
  The Boehner bill fails to address the number one crisis facing our 
nation: the instability of our financial standing. By providing only a 
short term debit limit increase--and guaranteeing we are in this same 
battle in a few short months--this bill would still lead to a 
downgrading of U.S. credit which would lead to higher interest rates 
and a tax on all American families.
  The Boehner bill forces our country into this dangerous predicament 
solely to drive the extreme Republican agenda that demands protection 
of special interest tax breaks at the expense of vital public programs 
which people's lives depend on: namely, Medicare, Social Security and 
Medicaid.
  By making clear their refusal to consider any tax increases--even 
proposals to end corporate welfare for Big Oil and tax breaks for 
corporate jet owners--Boehner's ``solution'' puts a target on Medicare, 
Medicaid and Social Security. Because the immediate savings in the bill 
would decimate discretionary spending for the next decade, the only 
other place to turn will be these social insurance programs that people 
have paid into their whole lives. Medicare, Social Security and 
Medicaid would be mined for savings at levels never before seen. The 
ability of these programs to continue to guarantee financial and health 
security to senior citizens, people with disabilities, and--in the case 
of Medicaid, families with low incomes--would be in serious jeopardy.
  Avoiding default is critical. It's something Presidents and 
Congresses from both sides of the aisle have always worked together to 
do. Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner's bill is strictly partisan. It 
fails to meet the goal of long-term stability and, at the same time, 
endangers fundamentally important programs that Americans depend upon.
  A yes vote on this bill means you don't think the threats of default 
are real and that you don't believe in guaranteeing Medicare and Social 
Security for our nation's seniors. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to this ill-
conceived legislation. Speaker Boehner's plan is not the answer to the 
urgent issue of raising the debt ceiling. If it becomes law, it will 
eviscerate the well-being of the American people.
  It is, in fact, a disgrace that we are considering this measure at 
this late hour when we are days away from defaulting on the full faith 
and credit of the United States. The Republican leadership should have 
reached a compromise with President Obama and Senator Reid weeks ago.
  When President George W. Bush was elected, he inherited from 
President Clinton a surplus of tens of billions of dollars. But during 
his Presidency, two wars, a series of tax cuts, and a pharmaceutical 
benefit plan that no one paid for increased our national debt by over 
$5 trillion.
  After years of irresponsibility, the Republican leadership now wants 
working families, seniors, pregnant women, children, and the poor to 
pay for their spending binge.
  And they are using the debt limit to try to enforce their extreme Tea 
Party agenda.
  Most of this terrible burden will fall on the programs that provide 
health and economic security to American families: Medicare, Medicaid 
and Social Security and the Affordable Care Act.
  These are programs I have fought for and supported throughout my 
service in Congress.
  But they face a terrible toll, inflicted in two cruel steps.
  First, the Republican plan imposes immediate cuts approaching $1 
trillion. Then, Congress is required to legislate, later this year, 
another series of massive spending cuts of at least $1.6 trillion.
  These Republican budget cuts would have severe consequences.
  They would end Medicare as we know it, ending its guarantees of 
coverage for hospital care, chemotherapy, doctor's visits, and 
prescription drugs. In its place, the Republicans want to substitute a 
voucher system where seniors would be forced into the private market to 
buy health insurance with only limited financial support from the 
government.
  The Republican budget plan already approved by the House will 
increase premiums and cost sharing by at least $6,000 per person. The 
cuts required by this legislation would be even deeper.
  The Republican budget cuts will destroy Medicaid too. Their budget, 
approved by the House, would cut Medicaid in half by 2022, leaving tens 
of millions of people without access to care. People in nursing homes 
would be cut off. The Republican budget would also slash support for 
the Children's Health Insurance Program which, together with Medicaid, 
cover over one third of America's kids.
  Medicaid is the primary payer for long-term care and the home and 
community-based services that help people stay out of nursing homes. 
Who will now bear the $72,000 per year cost of a nursing home for an 
85-year-old grandmother who collects $10,000 a year in Social Security 
benefits? Her children will try, but only the rich will be able to 
afford the costs in today's economy.
  Social Security is next in line. The Republicans claim this 
legislation doesn't affect Social Security. But with budget cuts of 
this size--and no new revenues--Social Security will be on the chopping 
block. This bill gives a new 12-member committee a blank check to raise 
the retirement age, cut benefits, and squeeze the poorest retirees even 
harder.
  The Republican cuts also go to the heart of other public health 
programs that are so essential to all of us. Budget cuts of the 
magnitude sought by the Republicans mean severe funding reductions in 
biomedical research to fund the cures we need for diseases like cancer, 
heart disease and Alzheimer's. Food safety enforcement will be 
curtailed. Programs to discourage tobacco use and prevent the marketing 
of tobacco to children will be threatened.
  It is almost unthinkable that we find ourselves in this position 
today. We are on the

[[Page H5721]]

brink of a fiscal emergency. If we do not pass a debt limit extension, 
the United States Government will default next week. Yet there still is 
no compromise.
  The President, the Treasury Secretary, and others have outlined in 
explicit detail that default risks another catastrophic financial 
crisis and severe harm to American families, including the stoppage of 
Social Security checks, paychecks to our armed forces, and government 
contracts with the private sector. Food stamps, disability and veterans 
payments, paychecks to federal workers, IRS tax refunds, and black lung 
disease benefit payments are all vulnerable to interruption. In all, 70 
million people and companies will be affected beginning next week.
  In addition, we will lose, for the first time in our history, our AAA 
credit rating that establishes the United States as the world's safest 
investment. As a result, it will cost more to borrow money across the 
board, and this will have the effect of a huge tax increase on American 
households across the country. Municipalities and counties in every 
state will face this same stark reality--as will small businesses, 
millions of American homeowners, and countless others.
  Speaker Boehner's legislation is fatally flawed because it provides 
for a two-step process to raise the debt limit. This is exactly the 
wrong approach. We need legislation that is long-term and balanced. 
That is the only thing that will provide the certainty and stability 
and confidence our economy needs and that the markets require. Keeping 
the debt limit on such a short leash only ensures that it will persist 
as the overriding, unresolved domestic policy issue for the next 
several months--perpetuating uncertainty and anxiety and discouraging 
investment and job creation.
  By distracting this House from coherent action on what we urgently 
need to do today--raise the debt ceiling--the Republicans are courting 
disaster for every American who makes a house payment, or a car 
payment, or is paying off a credit card balance, or who has a business 
loan or a personal line of credit.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at a very serious point. This is not the moment 
to engage in fantasy. This House must take its responsibilities 
seriously and do its proper duty for the nation. And that duty is not 
to wrap the budget and the American economy in a straightjacket. That 
proper duty is to authorize the payment of the debts we have incurred, 
restore certainty, and end the fear and anxiety their brinkmanship has 
instigated.
  The bill before us is a vicious assault on Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security, along with public health, scientific research and 
environmental protection. It is a prescription for default, a recipe 
for financial chaos, and a checklist of hardship and woe for the 
American people.
  I urge its defeat.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican Default Act.
  I oppose this bill because it does nothing but guarantee another 
default crisis in six months. It's nothing more than another partisan 
gimmick that will quickly be voted down in the Senate.
  The majority says it wants a plan to address our nation's deficit, 
and the President has worked with them to achieve this goal. He has 
negotiated in good faith and put everything on the table, demanding 
only that the plan be balanced and responsible. And how did the 
majority respond? They refused to compromise and walked out of 
negotiations . . . twice.
  Clearly, the majority is more focused on pushing their ideological 
agenda to end Medicare and preserve tax breaks for Big Oil and Wall 
Street than forging a good faith compromise to avoid default.
  Mr. Speaker, compromising is what the American people send us here to 
do. As the President said, they voted for a divided government, not a 
dysfunctional one. It's time to stop the gimmicks and ensure our 
country does not default on its obligations.
  Default would destroy close to 700,000 jobs, spike interest rates on 
credit cards and mortgages, and cause untold damage to our struggling 
economy.
  Ronald Reagan took the necessary steps to avoid default 17 times. 
George W. Bush did it 7 times. No games. No gimmicks. Just a clean vote 
to avoid default and maintain the full faith and credit of the United 
States.
  I urge my colleagues to come back to the table and forge the balanced 
and responsible compromise the American people deserve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of S. 627 is postponed.

                          ____________________