[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 119 (Monday, August 1, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5831-H5839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 365, BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 384 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 384

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 365) 
     to make a technical amendment to the Education Sciences 
     Reform Act of 2002. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate, with 30 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Rules, 15 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 15 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, after months and months of debate, we have 
arrived at the ultimate goal to which we are all committed: a 
bipartisan agreement to avert the debt ceiling crisis looming right 
before us. Even more importantly, we have crafted a plan that addresses 
the real underlying challenge of our ballooning national debt.
  The bipartisan agreement before us today is an historic achievement. 
Mr. Speaker, this is the 76th time that we have raised the debt ceiling 
since 1962. Seventy-five times it has been raised. This is the 76th 
time. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is the very first time that we have done so 
while making corresponding cuts in spending that exceed the ceiling 
increase. To most of us, this is just good common sense. It's the only 
responsible thing to do. Yet 75 times before, no connection was made 
between the debt ceiling and efforts to tackle our debt.
  With today's underlying legislation, we are fundamentally changing 
the way business is done here in Washington. We are setting a new 
precedent for fiscal discipline and accountability. This is a 
tremendous achievement that will have a profound and lasting impact on 
our budget and our economy in both the short, medium and long term. 
This is an especially critical point to focus on.

                              {time}  1500

  Today's legislation has dramatic implications for both the budget and 
our economy. Mr. Speaker, as you know very well, the two are 
inextricably linked. This is why our fiscal situation is so important. 
We don't need a balanced budget for the sake of a balanced budget, we 
need to balance our budget because job creation and economic growth 
depend on it.
  There is a reason why the major credit agencies have said that our 
AAA credit rating is in jeopardy if we don't dramatically cut spending. 
Multitrillion-dollar deficits and a national debt that approaches 100 
percent of GDP are not sustainable. Democrats and Republicans alike 
recognize that. If we want to inspire confidence in the U.S. economy, 
create jobs, and restore our position as the world's most vital and 
dynamic economy, we absolutely must chart a new fiscal course.
  The bipartisan agreement that we will consider today does just that. 
It makes meaningful, immediate spending cuts. It sets up a process that 
guarantees votes in both Chambers by Thanksgiving on an even bigger 
package. This will give us the time necessary to go beyond cuts to 
significant new reforms. That includes reforming entitlement programs 
to keep them solvent and ensure that they don't force us back onto a 
path of spiraling deficits and debt.
  Mr. Speaker, by setting up this process, we can responsibly make the 
hard but essential choices that will restore our economy and unleash 
its power to create new opportunities for Americans. The underlying 
legislation will also impose additional automatic cuts, should Congress 
fail to continue on a path to real reform.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all in this together, Democrat and Republican 
alike. We all stand to suffer tremendously if we fail to either raise 
the debt ceiling or take this opportunity to fundamentally change 
course. We will all suffer if we fail to continue the process of 
meaningful reform. But by coming together and enacting real reform, by 
remaining committed to this joint effort into the future, we can all 
share in the benefits of a surging economy and job market. We can't 
approach a challenge of this magnitude as Republicans and Democrats 
first, but as fellow Americans who share a commitment to our prosperity 
as a Nation now and into the future.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from California, my good friend, 
Mr. Dreier, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, after a tense standoff over a self-
inflicted crisis, I'm extremely disappointed with the solution that is 
being proposed today.
  It's important that we raise the debt ceiling; in fact, it is the 
duty of every Member of Congress to ensure we pay our bills. 
Unfortunately, we have reached this point because some on the other 
side see paying our bills as optional and have asked a king's ransom 
for doing so. In the process, the majority has shown the world that our 
democracy is currently dysfunctional. Even if we avoid default, the 
process that got us to this point has already shown the world that the 
greatest nation on Earth can barely keep the lights on.
  Recently, IMF Chief Christine Lagarde told CNN in not so many words 
that we are destroying the world's faith in our ability to be the most 
powerful economy on Earth and our ability to pay our bills. This 
dysfunction is only highlighted further by the proposed creation of a 
so-called ``Super Committee,'' a closed-door committee that will 
determine how to cut another $1 trillion in government spending while 
523 elected Representatives are told to sit on the sidelines and vote 
up and down when all is said and done. I repeat what I said last week, 
my constituents did not send me to Congress to sit on sidelines while 
the most important issues of our time are being decided.
  The crumbling faith in our democracy is already having an effect on 
our

[[Page H5832]]

economy. Just last week, Roll Call reported that the prolonged debate 
over raising the debt ceiling resulted in an increase in Federal 
borrowing costs--a fancy way to say that interest rates for car loans 
and home mortgages are higher now than they should have or would have 
been.
  Furthermore, today's agreement does nothing to create jobs for the 25 
million Americans who failed to find full-time jobs last month. On 
Friday, we will receive a jobs report that will provide even more 
evidence that while Congress has shrugged aside the urgent need to 
create jobs, millions of Americans continue to suffer. This bill does 
nothing to serve them.
  The majority has steadfastly refused to consider a balanced approach 
to reducing our deficit, rejecting attempts to close tax loopholes for 
the rich and extend unemployment benefits for those unable to find 
work. Instead, they have decided to only consider the draconian cuts 
that threaten to reverse whatever fragile economic recovery is 
underway.
  On Sunday, Mohamed El-Erian, the CEO of a major financial firm, spoke 
of the damage that proposed cuts will inflict on our economy. While 
speaking on ABC, he said, ``Unemployment will be higher than it would 
have been otherwise, growth will be lower than it would have been 
otherwise, and inequality will be worse than it would have been 
otherwise.'' He added, ``We have a very weak economy. Withdrawing more 
spending at this stage is going to make it even weaker.''
  Today's agreement will endanger the potential for new jobs while 
asking absolutely nothing of those in our country who are the most well 
off.
  Democrats will continue to vigorously fight for Social Security, 
Medicaid and Medicare to ensure that not a penny is cut from the checks 
of seniors and working people who rely on these programs every day. It 
is a contract.
  We believe that ultimately we must take a balanced approach to 
reducing our deficit. Tax loopholes must be closed, and those who have 
benefited the most in this country must be asked to pay their fair 
share. And regardless of the outcome of today's bill, these are the 
priorities for which I will continue to fight.
  Especially as the debt debate continues, I urge my colleagues to look 
towards a balanced approach and return this country to its rightful 
place as a shining example of democracy and equality for which we 
should once again aspire.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that this is a very unique moment for us. We have the ability to 
come together at a time when we are faced with a deadline. That 
deadline, as we all know, is midnight tomorrow.
  The commitment that has been made to Social Security, Medicare, our 
veterans, and other programs is one which we, as Republicans, clearly 
stand by. And I've got to say that we know that since those programs 
have been put into place, when it comes to Social Security and 
Medicare, every working American has been forced to pay into the 
Medicare and Social Security funds through their FICA tax. By virtue of 
that contract that we have, we stand here strongly committed--contrary 
to what many people may say--to ensuring the solvency and the strength 
of Social Security for today's retirees and future generations as well. 
And I believe that this package that we have here today, that will 
enjoy bipartisan support, reaffirms that exact commitment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. My colleagues, I'm voting against the rule because, in 
the later years in this Congress, I've seen a whole lot of things, but 
it's never been this polarized, it's never been in terms of attacking a 
President, and it's never been risking the whole fiscal credibility of 
the great United States of America in order to make political gains.
  Clearly, when everyone talks about everyone must make a sacrifice, I 
assume that we're talking about a sacrifice in cutting the budget, not 
receiving the benefits; the protections of some programs and not 
others. And then on the other side, I have to pause because I don't see 
any sacrifice. It's assumed by the general public that the sacrifice 
means that maybe if you became wealthy under the great support that you 
received from this country, that you'll make some small sacrifice; or 
maybe that sacrifice could be interpreted as that when you received 
preferential treatment in the Tax Code for all of these years, that 
you're willing to say I don't need it now, you were there when I needed 
you.

                              {time}  1510

  But I think it's safe to say that the American people will be making 
sacrifices, and they're making it for a crisis that they're so far away 
from.
  The people that enjoyed the crisis in terms of financial gain are not 
asked even to say ``I'm sorry.'' And the people that really love, 
respect, and hope, and dream, that lost their homes and their jobs, 
their self-esteem, these are the ones that will make further 
sacrifices. Only this time it won't be the executive branch. It 
certainly won't be the courts. It would be our own colleagues, from the 
Senate and from the House. A group of ``super members'' will go into a 
room to decide for us what the next trillions of dollars is going to be 
cut from a budget.
  And if they can't succeed, then there would be an automatic cut right 
across the board regardless of whether or not some programs should 
survive and others should be abolished.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. May I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds, Mr. 
Speaker, and I ask him to yield to me.
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the distinguished chairman of this great 
committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the 
patriotism that you have shown not only to the committee and the 
Republican Party but to this great country over the years.
  I'm just so sorry on this great occasion that you would take your 
chairmanship to produce a rule like this that Americans cannot see 
their way clear to say this has been fair and this has been equal.
  I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you so much.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend, and I would like to 
have a discussion with him, if I might. I would yield an additional 30 
seconds and ask him to yield to me, especially if he wants to continue.
  Mr. RANGEL. I'm so sorry.
  Mr. DREIER. I yielded time to my friend and then asked him to yield 
to me.
  Mr. RANGEL. Oh, yes, I didn't understand you had made that request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
again expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I will yield an additional 30 seconds, and I would hope 
that he would continue what he was saying in the first half of his 
presentation about me rather than the last half.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that it is very clear that what we have 
before us is in fact a bipartisan agreement to do exactly what my 
friend at the end of his statement was saying. We want very much to 
ensure that people are able to keep their homes. We want to ensure that 
people are able to see their businesses thrive. We want job 
opportunities to be created for every American.
  I know my friend agrees that getting our fiscal house in order, it is 
going to be critically important to do that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
again expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would say to my friend that frankly we're in a position where 75 
times since 1962 we've increased the debt ceiling without focusing on 
the challenge of the debt itself.
  Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Thank you.
  The answer to this problem is three things: jobs, jobs, and more 
jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I totally associate 
myself

[[Page H5833]]

with the remarks of my very good friend from New York and say that 
jobs, jobs, jobs continue to be our top priority. And I believe that 
this legislation before us is going to go a long way towards doing just 
that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to 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, I think that my friend from California, the 
chairman, my friend from New York, the chairman emeritus, have it 
exactly right. The issue is jobs. And that's really what this bill on 
the floor today is about.
  One of the reasons, but for sure not the only reason, that our 
companies aren't hiring and our economy is not growing is uncertainty 
about interest rates. If you're thinking about adding on a new store or 
hiring more people to do more R&D and you think the interest rates are 
going to rise, you don't to it. If you're not sure what they're going 
to do, you don't do it. And we've been living under a period of 
uncertainty for two reasons with respect to interest rates.
  The first is are we going to default on our national obligations? The 
House today will and should emphatically say no, we will not. And then 
the second question is will Uncle Sam continue to eat up too much of 
the entrepreneurial capital in this country to finance ever-growing 
Federal deficits?
  The House today will and should, in my view, approve the bill before 
us that will begin to make a reduction in that deficit. This bill will 
reduce our projected deficit by anywhere from 25 to 35 percent. And 
it's important to understand what history tells us about sincere and 
legitimate deficit reduction.
  In 1993, President Bill Clinton's plan was supposed to reduce the 
deficit by 28 percent. It did not. It reduced the deficit entirely. 
That bill was supposed to generate $500 billion in deficit reduction. 
In fact, it generated $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction. That's the 
elixir that the American economy needs now.
  And I do not, my colleagues, believe that this is the only step that 
we need to accomplish in order to reduce unemployment. But it is an 
essential step. And for that reason, I am pleased to join with both 
Republicans and Democrats in voting ``yes'' for this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DREIER. I would like to thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend for his very 
thoughtful statement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, that if we look back on the 
juxtaposition of that projected $500 billion in deficit reduction and 
the $1.6 trillion that we attained, we know why it is that that came 
about. It was gross domestic product growth. And my friend and I have 
been working together for many years focused on how it is that we can 
get our economy growing.
  In so doing, I believe as we continue to focus on that, that we will 
be able to see benefits beyond those anticipated today when it comes to 
deficit reduction if we're able to generate--unfortunately, we have had 
1.3 percent GDP growth reported from the last quarter. If we can get to 
3, 4, 5 percent GDP growth, my friend knows very well that we're going 
to be in a position where we will be able to see an even greater 
reduction of the deficits in years to come.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I agree with him, and I think that we owe it to the 
country to find common ground on economic growth.
  The best deficit reduction plan is full employment. And the best full 
employment plan will be one that we could come together on. I think 
today is an important first step. It came too late, it was ugly getting 
here, but I'm glad we got here.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful remarks.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady, my good friend from 
New York.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery 
in contravention of the rules of the House. The Sergeant of Arms is to 
remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order 
to the gallery.
  The Sergeant of Arms will restore order to the gallery.
  The Sergeant at Arms will remove the disturbance from the gallery.

                              {time}  1520

  The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had no idea that 
my pending remarks would lead to such a wellspring of apparent support.
  I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the last rejoinder between 
the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from California, 
spending cuts at this level are not going to create any jobs. The idea 
that spending cuts and deficit reduction will lead to unprecedented 
economic prosperity is absolutely a false economic premise. Getting 
control of our fiscal house to make sure that we make productive 
investments and create jobs will create jobs.
  With respect to the proposal underlying this rule, Mr. Speaker, 
there's plenty for members of both parties to find objectionable, and 
they might be right, but the choice before us is not that between this 
proposal and some platonic ideal. It is between this proposal and 
catastrophic default tomorrow.
  Unlike the cynical bill this Chamber passed on a party-line vote last 
week, this bill commits America to meeting its obligations for the 
longer term, it leaves all options on the table, including revenue for 
the bipartisan committee this fall to further reduce the deficit, and 
having triggers, painful for both parties, adds real accountability and 
strict enforcement.
  The American people understand we need a balance to restore fiscal 
responsibility and grow our economy. Recent GDP and manufacturing 
numbers are painful reminders, Mr. Speaker, of the fragility of our 
economy and its recovery, and the actions of House Republicans, sadly, 
have only exacerbated that by pulling back on key investments in 
infrastructure and innovation.
  It's time to end the reckless game of chicken being waged here in 
this House. I commend President Obama and other leadership for leading 
the adult conversation to bring about this compromise. It is now time 
for us to do the responsible thing and bring to heel the wolf at the 
door.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it is 
very interesting that as we have come together in a bipartisan way to 
address the crisis of increasing our debt ceiling, tackling the 
challenge of reducing the $14.3 trillion national debt that we have, we 
had this disruption in the gallery.
  Now I turned around, Mr. Speaker, and looked up there, and I will 
tell you--I don't know if you saw the placard that they were carrying--
it had in great big letters across it, Create Jobs. Create Jobs is the 
message that they had. And, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we are 
doing, again working very diligently in a bipartisan way to ensure that 
we do just that.
  With that, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a hardworking 
member of the Committee on Rules, my good friend from Grandfather 
Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from California, the distinguished 
chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding.
  I just did an interview with the TV station in my district. One of 
the questions that the interviewer asked is, ``What does this mean to 
the average person in your district? People are paying attention to 
what's going on in D.C.''
  And I said, ``That's probably the best thing that's happened out of 
this whole debate, that people are paying attention. Had they been 
paying attention

[[Page H5834]]

the last 40 years, we wouldn't be in the situation that we're in.''
  I then pointed out to her that in today's dollars, Federal spending 
per U.S. household went from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. That 
tells us all that we need to know. The Federal Government is addicted 
to spending. We need to cut spending, not raise taxes, and this 
compromise bill does that.
  Mr. Speaker, as the distinguished gentleman from California said, we 
want to create jobs, and the best way to do that is to stop taking 
money out of the private sector, stop overtaxing the people in this 
country, leave that money in the private sector and allow it to be used 
to create jobs.
  This is not a perfect bill. We all say it's not a perfect bill, both 
sides of the aisle. That generally means that it's a good bill because 
it's not perfect, and when people want compromise and they hear that, 
then they know that's right.
  But the change in direction is historic. We're going from seeing how 
much money we can spend to how much can we cut. I am intrigued at a lot 
of my colleagues across the aisle, they've obviously been on the road 
to Damascus, because their whole language has changed in response to 
this bill, but I am glad they have finally seen the light and I hope in 
the future they're going to join us in more efforts like this.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Tea Party for 
extorting a deal made in their image and their image alone. The cuts 
will be deep, they will be lasting, and they will weaken an already 
depressed economy. What's clear is that the Tea Party is so 
ideologically driven to kill government that they're willing to kill 
the private sector, kill jobs, and kill growth in the process.
  What's more, these cuts will be loaded onto the backs of seniors and 
the American middle class, all while asking the wealthiest among us to 
sacrifice nothing. Once again, the rich will feel no pain and the 
vulnerable will pay for their spoils.
  Mr. Speaker, the process in which we got here has undermined our 
democratic system. While Democrats and the President negotiated in good 
faith, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle demonstrated a 
craven willingness to risk financial collapse for their extreme 
demands. As Democrats conceded time after time and provision after 
provision on this deal, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
just continued to issue new demands, all the while compromising 
nothing. Moreover, I am very concerned with the precedent set by this 
``super committee'' whose establishment threatens our democratic 
process with its unconstitutional structure.
  Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say if this bill passes, it may be the 
single worst piece of public policy to ever come out of this 
institution. I cannot support this rule, and I urge my Democratic 
colleagues not to be complicit in a Republican plan to eventually cut 
Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and investment in our future, all 
while asking the rich to sacrifice nothing.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my 
fellow Angeleno that, while I've associated myself with the remarks of 
most of my other colleagues, I'm hard-pressed to associate myself with 
her remarks.
  With that, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another hardworking 
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I was excited to come down here today, because when I ran for 
Congress, there was just a short list of things that I wanted to do 
when I got here. I'm one of the new guys, one of this crowd of 96 new 
freshmen.
  Two things among those: Number one, folks back home said we're 
spending too much. $1.091 trillion is how much we spent in 
discretionary spending in 2010. This bill that the Rules Committee 
brings to the floor today brings it down to $1.043 trillion, a $50 
billion cut from 2 years ago, not decreasing the rate of growth but 
actually changing the trajectory of spending in this country. That's 
what folks back home said they wanted me to do.
  Number two, I hold in my hand the United States Constitution. I turn 
to the back; conveniently enough in my edition, there's a little blank 
space after Amendment 27. There is space for Amendment 28, and for the 
first time in 15 years, this bill guarantees us a vote on a balanced 
budget amendment. If you don't trust your Members of Congress, trust 
your United States Constitution, and trust that this bill gives the 
American people a vote that they have not had in far too long.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Collinsville, Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I am not coming down here to blame one side 
or the other for the financial position that we are in because we all 
have a part to play in the story, but this is a great day. I was also 
asked earlier about how I felt about today, and I told them I felt 
relieved.
  I was afraid of the credit markets. I was afraid of rising interest 
rates. Whatever recovery we are having, I was afraid that it could stem 
that tide. So I do feel a great relief. This is one of the few times, 
in the 103 times that we have actually cut spending, when we tried in 
attempting to raise the debt limit. We can no longer continue to spend 
and borrow 42 cents of every dollar that we spend. It's ridiculous, and 
this is starting to change that process.
  We are going to have discretionary cuts. We are going to have 
entitlement reforms.
  I do like the supercommittee: bicameral, bipartisan, equally divided. 
When have we had a committee where we have equally divided the 
decision-making not upon majority and minority side, but equally 
divided, three Republicans, three Democrats in the House; three 
Republicans, three Democrats in the Senate? If this committee can't 
start addressing our entitlement reforms, then I am afraid we are never 
going to do it.
  So I have great faith in my colleagues who will be put on this 
committee. We really have to make the great choices.
  I appreciate the Rules Committee for bringing this to the floor, and 
my good friend, David Dreier. And I hope that we will continue to move 
forward, pass the rule, and pass the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself 30 seconds to comment on the 
supercommittee.
  When was the last time we had a bipartisan group like that? Simpson-
Bowles, which got absolutely nowhere; the Gang of Six in the Senate, 
again which got absolutely nowhere. And six and six, I can imagine what 
it is going to be like to get somebody to be the seventh vote on the 
other side.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that there is a great big difference between 
the commissions that have been established in the past and the fact 
that this is a congressional committee, for the first time made up of 
our colleagues from the House and the Senate.
  The gentlewoman is absolutely right. These outside commissions that 
have been there have made recommendations and they have gone virtually 
nowhere.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. If I may respond to the gentleman, I don't think the 
Gang of Six was any outside committee.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from New York for yielding to me.
  I rise today in opposition to the Budget Control Act amendment. Over 
the past months, I have been urging for a clean vote to raise the debt 
ceiling, a vote that has taken place 75 times since FDR was President, 
18 times under Reagan, eight times under Bush. And I think that's what 
we should have done, and then put our heads together.
  You see, I disagree with my friends on the other side of the aisle. 
It isn't just entitlement reform that we need;

[[Page H5835]]

although, we do need entitlement reform. It isn't just for government 
to spend less that we need; although, we do need government to spend 
less.
  But what happened to fairness? Why are we asking this bill to balance 
our budget on the backs of the middle class and poor people? Why do we 
not have anything in this bill that makes millionaires and 
billionaires, who can afford to pay a little bit more, pay a little bit 
more? Why don't we close tax loopholes so that Big Oil and gas and 
other corporations pay their fair share? Why don't we do any of that 
whatsoever?
  So this bill is unbalanced to begin with. Now we are talking about 
some supercommittee, even amounts of Democrats and Republicans, even 
amounts from the Senate and the House. To me, that's a recipe for 
gridlock. And I guarantee you, my colleagues, we're going to be here at 
that point after Thanksgiving when nothing is going to happen, and we 
are going to wind up with entitlement cuts that are going to hurt my 
seniors and your seniors with Medicare and graduate medical education 
in New York, which is so important. Hurt that, hurt the providers.
  Who are we kidding? We're going to cut from the providers, the 
hospitals and think it's not going to impact on patient quality and 
patient care? What about the doc fix, when our doctors say, We're not 
taking Medicare patients anymore?
  This bill, to me, is a pig in a poke, and I'm not willing to buy a 
pig in a poke.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I first yield myself 30 seconds.
  I was engaging in a colloquy with my good friend from Rochester, the 
distinguished ranking minority member, and I would be happy to yield to 
her in just a moment, Mr. Speaker. But back to this issue of this joint 
select committee that is going to be charged with coming up with $1.5 
trillion in proposed cuts, and their recommendations will be sent to 
both Houses of Congress for an up or down vote.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented, because unlike the commissions 
that have been put together, the Bowles-Simpson Commission, unlike this 
little caucus of Senators that my friend just mentioned, this Gang of 
Six, there is no legislative authority or power.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  There is no legislative authority or power. This time this 
demonstrates that Members of the House and Senate will, in fact, come 
together and work in a bipartisan way to ensure that we bring about 
meaningful spending cuts to the tune of $1.5 trillion. That's the 
difference that exists with this proposal that is before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend 
from Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question this isn't a perfect bill. There's 
a lot of things that I would have liked and I know that other Members 
on my side of the aisle would have liked. We would have liked deeper 
spending cuts. We would have certainly liked some entitlement reform in 
this. We would have preferred to mandate that this House and the other 
body take up a balanced budget amendment and give the people in the 
States an opportunity to render a decision on that. Those things aren't 
in this bill.
  I know there's things that some of my friends on the other side 
wanted: higher taxes, no changes in entitlements. They didn't get 
everything they wanted either.
  But this bill does adhere to the principles our Speaker laid out at 
the very beginning of the negotiations.
  First, most importantly, and both sides agree on this, it avoids 
default. It avoids the United States not paying its obligations for the 
first time in 235 years. I am glad both sides cooperated and got that 
done.
  Secondly, it actually cuts spending and links those spending cuts to 
the raising of the debt ceiling. There's more spending cuts than there 
is increased borrowing going forward. That's a good thing.
  Third, no new taxes, something that would be a killer on the new 
economy.
  And, finally, while we don't get a guarantee of a balanced budget 
amendment, we do get a guaranteed vote.
  This is exactly what the American people have asked us to do: come 
together, compromise, work together on their behalf, and let them get 
about their business without creating additional problems for them.
  With this bill, we put the American people first. We're going to 
continue to work on their problems. So I urge that we pass the rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  I thank my friend for giving me the time to speak.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is a challenging day. 
It's a difficult day, but it's a day that we're making a decision, a 
big decision, an important decision that the United States of America 
will not default on its obligations. This sends stability to the 
financial markets all around the world, and it really embellishes our 
stature as the gold standard. And that is very important.
  It also gives us until 2013 for us to be able to revisit this again, 
as the President of the United States asked. And I think another 
important thing that it does is it helps us to hurry up and get this 
all-consuming issue of the debt and the deficit and the raising of the 
debt ceiling off the front burner so we can immediately put jobs back 
on the front burner.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, we must focus our attention now on jobs. 
That's what the American people want us to do. On this Friday, we're 
going to have a jobs report. And I want us to carefully look at that 
jobs report, and especially look at that side of the jobs report that 
shows the number of jobs we're losing in the public sector.

                              {time}  1540

  So as we are here engaging, and some of my friends are celebrating, 
the whole issue of us cutting $2.5 trillion out of our budget over the 
10-year period, it is important to know that there is a cost for this, 
my friends, and that cost is a loss of public jobs.
  So as we set this new commission up, this new committee, we have got 
to make sure that as these cuts go forward that we understand the 
sensitivity of trying to make these cuts away from putting more of our 
people on the jobless rolls. Right now, the greatest contribution that 
the Federal Government is making to jobs is putting more people out of 
jobs.
  So I ask that we take time now, now that we are going to put this 
issue behind us, to focus like a laser beam on jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of our 
diligent new members of the freshman class, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Dold).
  Mr. DOLD. I want to thank the distinguished chairman from San Dimas, 
California.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, our getting our fiscal house in order 
is one of the most important things that we can do in this body to 
jump-start our economy.
  Just recently our economy has seen weak economic growth, especially 
over the last two quarters. Just today we find out that manufacturing 
is at its lowest level in the last 2 years. In my district, the 10th 
District of Illinois, we have one of the largest manufacturing 
districts in the country, and there is no doubt that families--not only 
in the 10th District, but across the land--are struggling.
  Today I am optimistic that Washington is finally coming together in a 
bipartisan way to find some common ground on this debt ceiling debate. 
We must, we must move forward. Hardworking taxpayers have had enough, 
and I get it. We have spending discipline here in Washington, no more 
budget gimmicks, no more accounting tricks, no more empty promises. 
American families have had to tighten their belts all across the land. 
American businesses had to do the same. They should expect the Federal 
Government should follow suit. Now is the time to move forward and 
focus on jobs.
  If we were serious about paying down our debt and increasing revenue, 
then we must empower job creators. Small businesses in our Nation are 
overburdened by economic uncertainty, government regulations, and 
redtape. We need to implement commonsense solutions and create jobs to 
get our economy moving again.

[[Page H5836]]

  As a small business owner, Mr. Speaker, I employ just under 100 
families, and for me that's an enormous responsibility. We have to move 
forward. We have to empower job creators. We have to talk about getting 
9.2 percent unemployment down so that we can get our economy going and 
bring additional revenues into the Federal coffers by putting more 
people back to work.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Budget and Ways and Means 
Committees.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.
  Well, we are facing an artificial Republican debt crisis that was a 
crisis of choice, of their choice. Remember, we have repeatedly 
increased the debt ceiling for Republican and Democratic 
administrations and congresses year in and year out.
  This proposal moving forward is very troubling on several levels. 
First, it empowers the most reckless and extreme elements, not just in 
the House Republican Caucus today, but it is a blueprint for mischief 
for either party in the future.
  Next we are starting down a path of more budget cuts at a time when 
all the experts assure us this will weaken the economy, when, instead, 
we should be strengthening, dealing with economic growth, not reducing 
demand. It's all the more frustrating because there is a path going 
forward that is clear.
  The public strongly supports a balanced approach, which should 
include tax reform that would raise money while make the Tax Code more 
fair and simple. Do we need a commission to implement suggestions, to 
right-size the military, both its mission and its budget? Absolutely 
not.
  There are lots of ideas and support on both sides of the aisle that 
could be enacted to achieve this goal. But the magnitude of the trigger 
actually invites mischief. Again, when we have seen the Republican 
``take no prisoners'' attitude, what leads anybody to believe they 
won't do it in this case?
  Most important, we should be revitalizing the economy by rebuilding 
and renewing America, financed by modest increases in user fees. This 
has support all across the business community, labor, environment, 
local government, even some of my Republican friends, but they take 
this off the table.
  And, last but not least, one of the most simple things we could do 
would be to implement agricultural reform to save money and help people 
who farm and people who eat, rather than lavish subsidies for large 
agribusiness. These are things that we should be doing. These are 
things that actually could have bipartisan support.
  Unfortunately, this agreement, if it goes forward, will delay that 
important work of reform and fiscal responsibility while it weakens 
both the economy and the decisionmaking process for years to come. 
Government on autopilot in a slow, downward spiral is not a victory in 
anybody's book.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I would say to my very good friend that I agree with some of the 
remarks that he made on doing things like eliminating agricultural 
subsidies. I would say to my friend from Oregon, who is still in the 
Chamber here and now walking off the floor, I would say to my friend 
that I agree with his remarks about the need for us to focus on 
agriculture subsidies and bringing about a reduction there.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  I would say that we are trying to work this out with a spirit of 
bipartisanship. My friend began his statement by saying that this was a 
crisis developed by Republican policies.
  Since we are working in a bipartisan way, I think the notion that 
recognizing that an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary 
spending over the past 4 years clearly played a role in getting us 
exactly where we are.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another one of our hardworking new Members 
of Congress, the gentleman from Little Rock, Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, when I announced and wanted to run for Congress, my 
focus primarily was on the debt, on the issue of the debt and the 
impact that the debt was going to have on my daughter and my little 
boy. My daughter, Mary Katherine, is sitting with me right here today 
for this historic day. It's critically important to me. And a lot of 
the folks back home that I hear from, when they contact me, they 
contact me about the debt and about spending.
  Now I came up here to do something about it, and I have been watching 
this debate closely, and I have been a supporter of the Speaker both on 
the plan last week, and I am a supporter of the agreement that is going 
to come before us today. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it great? 
Absolutely not. It is good? It's a good first step.
  I would say this: If a President and a Senate that I agreed with put 
this type of plan forward, I would reject it out of hand.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. If a deal, an agreement like this, came from 
a President with which I generally agree, and a Senate with which I 
generally agreed, I would reject it out of hand. But that's not what we 
have. We have divided government. We have this Chamber controlled by a 
different vision for America.
  So I believe this is about as good as we are going to get, and I am 
supporting it because it is consistent with my principles. There are no 
tax increases. It controls spending now, controls spending in the 
future, and allows us to vote on a balanced budget amendment.
  These are all things that I can support. These are the principles 
that we have been fighting for over the last few months. And I would 
say this: If this were the only step ever in dealing with the debt, I 
would vote ``no,'' but it's not.

                              {time}  1550

  It's only the beginning. We didn't get in this mess with one bill or 
one piece of legislation. It took a long time and a lot of votes, and 
it's going to take a long time and a lot of battles to get out of it. 
And this is a good first step.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
references to guests on the floor of the House.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. At this point I'm very happy to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my good 
friend from St. Joseph, Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. I appreciate the minute.
  My constituents are saying get the job done. Vote for the rule and 
vote for the bill. The President said about a year ago, I want to say 
it was the State of the Union Address, the debt today is unsustainable. 
He's right. And for the first time, we are coupling an increase in the 
debt ceiling with real reductions in spending. No, this is not reducing 
the rate of growth in spending. This is actually reducing spending. In 
fact, at the end of the day, when we look at fiscal year 2012 versus 
fiscal year 2011, we are going to be spending less money in 2012 than 
we did in the 2011.
  Nobody--nobody--is coming to our offices and saying cut our spending. 
But, in fact, the American public is saying, Federal Government, cut 
your spending. That's what this bill will do. It's going to reduce 
spending. Yes, it's going to increase the ceiling on the debt, but it's 
coupled with real reforms that I think the American public want, and 
that's why it's going to have some bipartisan support when we deal with 
this issue a little bit later on this afternoon.
  So I commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle. Let's get the 
job done. Let's get it over with so we can get to the business of 
running the rest of the government and the country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another one 
of our thoughtful new Members, the gentleman from Drexel Hill, 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the opportunity 
to address the Chamber this morning.
  I am pleased to speak on behalf of this bill, a bill that will 
address the

[[Page H5837]]

terrible uncertainty that has been taking place over the course of 
these last few weeks--the seniors, the taxpayers, the small business 
people who have been speaking to me as I have been making the phone 
calls and talked with them about the concerns that they have in this 
era of uncertainty.
  I've heard commentary that this is identified as a crisis caused by 
Republicans when, in fact, the crisis has been the business as usual 
which has been taking place in Washington, D.C. This is finally a time 
in which we looked at the issues that are before us and made the tough 
decisions to address the long-term unsustainability of this debt; $14.2 
trillion in debt is going to be facing the next generation. I note that 
there are arguments that somehow it was policies of Big Oil and health 
care, the things that have been Republican policies when, in fact, if 
you look just at the beginnings of this administration, there was the 
commitment to Medicare, there were the subsidies to Big Oil, we were in 
with the subsidies, not just to Big Oil, but also involved in two wars 
and the debt was $162 billion. Now it's 1.2 trillion.
  We must take these kinds of steps and work together. This is a 
solution that will allow a genuine bipartisan opportunity to address 
this for the future generations, create predictability, and allow us to 
get back to creating jobs. I urge Members from both sides of the aisle 
to support this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee, Ms. Velazquez.
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the 
gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the era of debts and deficits must come 
to an end. However, in addressing this problem, we must look at what 
got us here. It wasn't overspending on low-income housing, job training 
or education--which all stand at historically low levels. It was two 
unfunded wars and the Bush tax cuts which keep on giving to America's 
wealthiest.
  Unfortunately, the legislation before us today keeps every tax break 
for the wealthy and means billions more in resources will be used to 
fund these two wars.
  We keep hearing how critical this bill is to getting our economy back 
on track. It is hard to imagine how this legislation will do so. I 
cannot support any proposal with such big cuts in education, economic 
development and job training that will hamper our recovery. In the 
weeks leading up to today there was a lot of rhetoric for shared 
sacrifice. Unfortunately, what we are considering today places the 
burden of the fiscal mess squarely on our Nation's working families, 
and that is something I cannot support.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on 
this ill-conceived legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say that your superb presiding over 
this House is only exceeded by the gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois 
(Mrs. Biggert), and I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it's been a long road and one with more uncertainty than 
the American people should have to put up with. Fortunately, the ugly 
part of the process is behind us, and it's time to come together behind 
a realistic deal that will restore strength to the economy and deliver 
peace of mind to the American public.
  I believe that this is that deal. It's not perfect, but with a 
majority in just one Chamber, House Republicans negotiated a compromise 
that will be part of the debt solution, not part of the debt problem. 
It will stop a job-killing default, but cut spending even more. And it 
will hold Congress and the President accountable with automatic 
spending cuts and a guaranteed vote on the balanced budget amendment. 
Most importantly, it doesn't raise taxes--something that would damage 
our recovery.
  We have changed the conversation. The President is no longer asking 
for a blank check; he is negotiating with us to cut spending. This is 
how we'll end this spiral of debt that is draining our economy of 
capital, competence and jobs.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have contributed 
to this discussion, and I urge them to support this bipartisan deal. 
Let's get the job done.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very happy to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to my good friend from Clinton Township, New Jersey (Mr. 
Lance).
  Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Chairman Dreier, for your leadership on this 
extremely important issue.
  I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in support the underlying 
legislation which is, by its nature, bipartisan, bicameral and a 
compromise that avoids default, adds certainty to our economic 
recovery, and puts our Nation on a sustainable path towards fiscal 
responsibility. What we need in America is jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, and 
this will help that effort forward.
  This support is consistent with my longstanding efforts to bring 
fiscal sanity to New Jersey and to be among those attempting to bring 
it here to Washington. The main portions of the compromise have been 
outlined, but for the first time the narrative on Capitol Hill is no 
longer how much can government spend, but how we can best reduce 
spending. This new awakening to fiscal prudence is in the best 
interests of the Nation and, indeed, I believe is the critical issue of 
our generation.
  I commend Speaker Boehner for his superb leadership on this issue, 
and I shall vote for the rule and the underlying legislation in the 
belief that it will help move our Nation forward.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 9 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we should never have found ourselves 
where we are today, facing a self-inflicted crisis and being asked to 
vote for a bill that has so many flaws. The prolonged debate that led 
us here has caused the world to question our Nation's credibility and 
already inflicted harm on the U.S. economy.

                              {time}  1600

  The irony of our situation is the other side claims to be bringing 
certainty to the market, but the reality is they have undermined faith 
in the United States Government's ability to lead the global economy. 
Throughout this debate, Congress has gotten lost in the crisis created 
instead of the true crisis of unemployment that faces our constituents. 
Nobody, even Members of Congress, especially Members of Congress, 
should have the ability to bring the faith in the American Government 
to its knees.
  It's high time we address the crisis of jobs in our country and 
resolve the self-inflicted crisis we are facing today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, 224 years ago this summer, the framers of our 
Constitution were in Philadelphia at Constitution Hall, and they were 
working very hard to put together what ended up being this inspired 
document authored by James Madison.
  On July 16, 1787, they actually completed a compromise. It was known 
as the Connecticut Compromise. The Connecticut Compromise is what 
established a bicameral legislature--two Houses of Congress. That 
Connecticut Compromise was also called the Great Compromise.
  I know that the word ``compromise'' is seen as a pejorative in the 
eyes of many, but what we have before us is a compromise. It hasn't 
been easy getting here. When James Madison was asked often about the 
first branch of government, putting together the process of lawmaking, 
he said that the process of lawmaking is an ugly, messy, difficult 
process. Over the last several months, we've seen, as we have been 
pursuing this day, we've seen an ugly, messy, difficult process.
  I am reminded that a couple of summers ago, I was talking with this 
amazing woman, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. She is the first woman to ever be 
President of any country on the continent of Africa. She is the 
President of Liberia. And we were talking about the development of the 
parliament in Liberia through this great commission called the House 
Democracy Partnership that

[[Page H5838]]

Mr. Price and I are privileged to lead. When we talked about the ugly, 
messy, difficult process of lawmaking, the President looked to me and 
she said: Ah, David, you've forgotten one thing. Yes, it is an ugly, 
messy, difficult process, but it works.
  So while we have so much time and energy and effort expended on 
partisan bickering, at the end of the day, this for me is a much, much 
more enjoyable time, when we are able to come together, tackling the 
serious problems that we as a Nation face and for the first time ever 
taking this issue of increasing the debt ceiling and actually dealing 
with the root cause of it.
  I like to say that we don't have a debt ceiling problem; we have a 
debt problem. We have a $14.3 trillion national debt. We all know that, 
fingers pointed from both sides of the aisle at the other on a regular 
basis.
  Yet today, today is a time for us to recognize that we have come 
together to deal with it. And, for the first time in that 75 times 
since 1962 that the debt ceiling has increased, we're actually going 
to, with the establishment of this joint select committee, see our 
colleagues, in a bipartisan way, from the House and Senate come 
together and recommend $1.5 trillion in proposed cuts. And there are 
mechanisms put into place, sequestration, which will actually force 
across-the-board cuts if they don't come up with recommendations.
  So we are looking at a very, very good proposal that will help us do 
that. We are increasing the debt ceiling to pay our past obligations. I 
don't like the fact that we went through an 82 percent increase in non-
defense discretionary spending over the past 4 years. Even though I 
voted against almost all of it, I have to say, those bills have to be 
paid. And that's why it is we're increasing our debt ceiling.
  I want to join in extending congratulations to all those who have 
been involved in this process in a bipartisan way.
  So I will say again, it has, over the past several months, been an 
ugly, messy, difficult process. But with the vote that we are about to 
have on this rule--and I look forward to working on the underlying 
legislation itself, and I'm convinced we will have a strong bipartisan 
vote for it--we will prove, as President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf reminded 
me, even though it is an ugly, messy, difficult process, it works.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 
a 15-minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 384, if ordered; and a 
5-minute vote on approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 184, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 686]

                               YEAS--242

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

                               NAYS--184

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Andrews
     Baca
     Cantor
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Hinchey

                              {time}  1632

  Ms. EDWARDS and Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. FORTENBERRY and KINGSTON changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 249, 
nays 178, not voting 5, as follows:

[[Page H5839]]

                             [Roll No. 687]

                               YEAS--249

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

                               NAYS--178

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Baca
     Boren
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Hinchey

                              {time}  1648

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________