[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 136 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6156-H6168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         DISAPPROVAL RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEBT LIMIT INCREASE

  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
392 and as the designee of the majority leader, I have a motion at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Reed moves that the House proceed to consider the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 77) 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 August 2, 2011.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3101A(c)(3) of title 31, 
United States Code, the motion is not debatable.
  The question is on the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the title of the joint 
resolution.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 77

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3101A(c)(4) of title 31, 
United States Code, the joint resolution is considered as read, and the 
previous question is considered as ordered on the joint resolution to 
its passage

[[Page H6157]]

without intervening motion except 2 hours of debate, equally divided 
and controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) as the 
proponent and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) as the opponent.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in 
which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous 
material on the subject of the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REED. I am pleased to offer this resolution of disapproval of the 
request from the President of the United States to borrow an additional 
one-half trillion dollars. Dealing with this national debt is one of 
the primary reasons why I ran for Congress. It is to stop the endless 
borrowing of Washington, D.C. on the backs of our children and our 
grandchildren. I am also pleased to offer it in the House as the 
demonstration of a commitment to ending the decades-old borrow-and-
spend practices and mentality that runs rampant here in Washington.
  Our national debt has reached its breaking point. The need to make 
serious decisions to get our spending under control has never been more 
urgent. We have all heard the words of Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When asked what is the most direct threat to 
our Nation, his immediate and clear response was that our national debt 
is the greatest threat to our national security. The recent downgrade 
of our national credit rating by S&P further demonstrates the necessity 
of making significant structural changes to the way we spend money in 
Washington, D.C.
  My focus here today, because we know the Senate has acted and this 
resolution did not pass the Senate--and is likely not to result in the 
borrowing of the President getting the additional half a trillion 
dollars of borrowing--but it's to send a message to the Nation that we 
need to act proactively in this Chamber and in both Chambers of this 
House. We need to recognize the national debt. And rather than deal 
with it in a crisis situation, we should be mindful of it in a 
proactive, strategic, open and honest manner so that we have good, 
sound policy responses to the issue that we face and finally tame this 
beast known as the national debt.
  We have spent over $15 trillion of money we did not have. That 
national debt is growing at the rate of $58,000 per second. That's 
$55,000 owed by every man, child and woman in America. That level of 
borrowing, that level of spending is just not acceptable because it 
jeopardizes our Nation and, more importantly, jeopardizes our Nation 
for the generations yet to come.
  The American people have made it clear. They spoke loudly in November 
2010, and we are listening. More borrowing won't solve the problem. In 
fact, it will dig the hole even deeper. Borrowing even more before we 
can enact significant spending cuts to begin dealing with the root 
problem is a foolish errand. We have a responsibility to future 
generations to take immediate action.
  I will continue along the path of working on both sides of this 
Chamber to try to identify common ground to solve this crisis on the 
national debt. The continuing resolution last spring and the Budget 
Control Act, which requires this vote, are only the beginning.
  This war on our national debt is going to go on for many years to 
come; but we need to take those first steps because with every journey 
it takes the first step to get us on the path too success. I know the 
battles ahead will not be popular, and there will be tremendous 
political pressure on all of us to continue to borrow and spend as 
usual, but we must stand up to that political pressure. We must honor 
our oath to do our duty and do our job in this Chamber, and that means 
standing up and changing the path of Washington, D.C. Making difficult 
decisions now is the only way we can win this war on what is a common 
enemy we all face, our national debt.
  It is my hope this resolution continues to show the President how 
serious we are about this issue and at the same time that we are 
dealing with this issue we will focus on jobs, we will focus on the 
economy. We, in the United States Congress, have to be able to walk and 
chew gum at the same time. We are competent men and women in this 
Chamber who love our great Nation.
  We must come together on all fronts at all times, not only on the 
national debt but on our economy, on getting Americans back to work. 
And I think, with that bipartisan attitude, it will be amazing what we 
can accomplish in order to achieve all those goals, the national debt 
being one of the critical ones that we must face head on today.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, we should not even be considering this resolution. I 
repeat, we should not even be considering this resolution. We should be 
moving forward, not backwards. This resolution is a dangerous 
distraction from the unprecedented challenge before us.
  Fourteen million Americans are looking for work. The Census Bureau 
reported just yesterday that the poverty rate is higher than it's been 
in 17 years, and median income in this country is at 1996 levels.
  The President has proposed a jobs bill that one knowledgeable 
observer, Mark Zandi, estimates would create 1.9 million new jobs and 
add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year. We need action to spur 
economic growth and job creation. That's what we should be considering 
today.
  Instead, through this resolution, Republicans want to prolong the 
agony of the debt limit debate and take us back to the brink of 
default, which would be where we would be if you succeeded.
  This bill can pass the House only if Members who voted ``yes'' in 
August on this issue decide in essence to vote ``no'' in September. 
``Yes'' in August, ``no'' in September.
  This Nation wants us to be guided by the needs of the Nation, not the 
internal politics of a caucus or a conference. We have seen the 
consequences of that kind of Republican brinkmanship. Standard & Poor's 
said, in downgrading our credit rating: ``It involved a level of 
brinkmanship greater than what we had expected earlier in the year.''
  In August, consumer confidence dropped by the largest amount since 
the peak of the financial crisis in 2008, and the conference board 
noted a direct link between the fall and the debate over default. I 
think we need only to check 401(k) statements from August to remember 
the precipitous drop in the stock market.
  Were this resolution to become law, all those who speak or vote for 
it have to understand that the U.S. would default on its obligations 
for the first time in our history. This would throw our economy back 
into deep recession, trigger $400 billion in immediate job-destroying 
cuts, and call into question our ability to pay earned Social Security 
and Medicare benefits.
  Madam Speaker, we should not be considering this resolution today. We 
should be moving forward on the President's plan to jump-start our 
economy and create jobs for American workers.

                              {time}  1310

  The American Jobs Act will put more money in workers' pockets through 
a temporary tax cut, saving the average family $1,500. It would also 
keep over 6 million workers from losing their unemployment benefits 
while they continue searching for work and provide new employer 
incentives to help get them hired.
  If we don't act on these issues, over a million people will lose 
their unemployment benefits in January and over 2 million in February. 
So we need to act. We need to look ahead, not just try to go backwards.
  So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution so 
we don't waste one more minute on a renewal of Republican 
brinksmanship. Fourteen million Americans who are looking for a job and 
43 million Americans who are living in poverty cannot afford to wait 1 
minute longer.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).

[[Page H6158]]

  Mr. MACK. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution of 
disapproval because Washington will continue to have a deficit spending 
problem until we say enough is enough and we put a stop to it. The 
gentleman across the aisle would like to say this is going backwards. 
Every time I hear someone on the left speak, it ends up costing us more 
money. We need to stop the insanity here in Washington. We need to stop 
this overspending. It seems like the only proposals that are coming our 
way are more spending and more taxes, so I strongly support this 
resolution.
  I opposed the debt deal because we can no longer wait to make deep 
spending cuts and balance our Federal budget. We need to act now. Today 
we have an opportunity to prevent some of the debt deal from going into 
effect and disallow the government from borrowing another $500 
billion--borrowing another half trillion dollars.
  Recently, we heard the President keep saying on his new proposal: 
Pass this bill now. Pass this bill now. Pass this bill today. I'm 
saying and the American people are saying: Stop the spending now. Stop 
the spending today. Stop putting this burden on our children and 
grandchildren. Yet the President wants to continue to go out there and 
sell a jobs plan that is more of the same, and he wants to pay for it 
mysteriously, shockingly, by raising taxes that will do nothing but 
kill jobs. So his own proposal that he wants the Congress to take up, 
in effect, will destroy jobs.
  Somehow we have to convince the people here in Washington and the 
President that it's not the government that creates jobs. It's the 
individual. It's the entrepreneurs, the people willing to take risks. 
But they are not willing to take risks in an economy where the 
President continues to try to push more regulation and more laws and 
more taxes. It just doesn't make sense, and the American people are fed 
up. They've had it. Enough is enough. We've spent way too much money.
  During the August district work period, over 500 people showed up to 
my town hall meeting in Fort Myers, Florida. And do you know what I 
heard over and over again? ``Hold the line on government spending.'' 
``Stay strong.'' ``Reduce government.''
  And this one I love: ``It's not your money; it's my money.'' See, 
only in Washington do the people in this room look at it as their 
money. They look at your money as their money. It's not. It's the 
people's who have earned it.
  Now a comment was made by a constituent of mine, Edward Benet, which 
I think speaks directly to this issue. He said: ``We have to reduce the 
size and scope of government. I'm unemployed, but just because I don't 
have a job doesn't mean my neighbor should have to pay for me.'' And 
then he continued on: ``The best way for government to help is to step 
aside, get out of the way, and let individuals and businesses do what 
they do best.''
  He and his family are willing to sacrifice to preserve the economic 
freedom for Americans. We must cut spending now. That's why I 
introduced the 1 Percent Spending Reduction Act, commonly known as the 
Mack Penny Plan. With this plan, we can balance the budget in 8 years 
by capping spending at 18 percent of GDP in the 7th year and cutting 1 
penny out of every Federal dollar for 6 years. One penny. Everybody at 
home, every business, every individual has had to take more than 1 
penny out of their home budget or 1 penny out of their business budget 
over the last 4 to 6 years. And for the Federal Government to instead 
be talking about spending more money every year, we need to cut 
spending. We need to balance our budget. My plan will balance the 
budget in 8 years.
  And for those people who might want to say we're not for just across-
the-board cuts, great. What we've said is Congress decides where the 1 
percent comes from. But if the Congress fails, then we're going to 
require an across-the-board cut. So we can either work together, or one 
way or another we'll get the 1 percent across the board.
  The deficit spending has to stop. Like I said before, enough is 
enough. I support this resolution, and I would encourage all of my 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join me in supporting this 
resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the 
gentleman, working together won't work if you undo the work that we did 
together.
  I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Financial Services 
Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I'm a great fan of the 
tradition of comedy in America, and I want to salute my Republican 
colleagues for this tribute to one of our great comedians who died 
tragically early, Gilda Radner, who in the early days of ``Saturday 
Night Live'' invented the character of Roseanne Roseannadanna, who 
would get on the news segment and say something outlandish. And then 
when she was corrected, her response was, ``Never mind.''
  This is the ``never mind'' resolution that the Republicans have 
brought forward. People should understand what this says. It says that 
the bill that we passed that kept the government from shutting down--
and I didn't like the bill, but I liked the part of it that kept the 
government from shutting down. I was ready to vote just for an increase 
in the debt limit. Singling out the increase in the debt limit and 
canceling it, that's what this does. What this says is--and here's the 
problem. We have a majority that has a problem with reality. They have 
a problem with reality in the field of science. They have a problem 
with reality in the field of the economy.
  One of the manifestations of that is their objection to raising the 
debt limit that was in large part necessary because of debt they 
incurred. You know, when the debt limit came up, it struck me: It 
wasn't my debt limit; I didn't vote for the war in Iraq at a cost of a 
trillion dollars; I didn't vote to give millionaires a tax cut that 
they didn't need and that had no beneficial effect on the economy. But 
I did, out of a sense of responsibility, vote to raise the debt limit. 
Now, I voted against one of them, but I voted for several others.
  What this bill says is this: Yes, we had to, because we were getting 
a lot of pressure, vote to raise the debt limit, but now that that is 
safely behind us, we're going to pretend that we were really against 
it. So this is the ``never mind'' resolution. People should understand 
this. What this resolution would do would be to undo what just 
happened.
  So we have Members on the majority side who have trouble explaining 
to their primary voters why they had a temporary embrace of reality. 
Now they're not comfortable with that. Their primary voters aren't 
comfortable with that. So having done what they had to do, they now 
want to pretend that they're going to undo it.
  The Senate has already killed this. They don't want it to pass 
because, understand what it would do, it would put us right back in the 
debt limit situation crisis.
  And, by the way, these are people who are putting this resolution 
forward who purport to believe that a major concern with the economy 
today is the uncertainty that faces investors. So what do they do? They 
bring up a resolution today that would re-create--if anyone took it 
seriously, and I will give them the credit of saying that they don't. 
But if anyone took it seriously, it would re-create the greatest source 
of uncertainty we've seen in a long time, whether or not the Federal 
Government was going to shut down. So that's the phoniness of this.

                              {time}  1320

  Now let's talk about the substance. My colleagues claim to be against 
spending. Apparently, in their world, the nearly $700 billion that is 
spent annually by the Pentagon isn't spending. I don't know what it is. 
We have a situation in which this year in the budget the Republicans 
brought forward a bill to increase military spending by $17 billion 
while funds for local police and funds for local street repair were 
cut. So that's the problem.
  Yes, I am for reducing spending. I am for reducing a swollen Pentagon 
budget. We had the President reduce by 10,000 the troops in 
Afghanistan. Many on the Republican side, including their leadership, 
criticized him for that. Do they think 10,000 troops in Afghanistan are 
paid for with ``funny'' money?
  The fact is that while on the one hand we hear these complaints about 
spending, we have people who are pushing for more and more spending. 
And I

[[Page H6159]]

have to say here that I would include my administration in this. And I 
think if the President expects us to go along with certain restraints 
elsewhere, adding billions of dollars to what we have already wasted in 
Iraq by keeping thousands of troops in Iraq beyond this--and, by the 
way, why are we keeping troops in Iraq? One of the leading advocates 
for keeping troops in Iraq, a leading Republican Senator, Senator 
Graham, said we must keep our troops in Iraq because we have to police 
the border between the Arabs and the Kurds, that at a time when we are 
denying funds to our cities to police their own areas.
  So, let's be clear. First of all, this sham says, You know what? We 
had to vote to raise the debt limit. We're now going to engage in this 
mock exercise of taking back what we did. If anybody takes it 
seriously, it will send waves of uncertainty back into the economy. 
But, secondly, going forward, yes, join us. And that includes some on 
the Republican side--unfortunately, a small minority. Don't give more 
and more and more for the military not to defend America, not to fight 
terrorism. Those things are not in controversy, but to subsidize the 
wealthy European nations.
  Madam Speaker, the NATO nations outside the United States spend an 
average of 1.7 percent of their gross domestic product on the military. 
We spend 5.4 percent--more than three times as much. And my Republican 
colleagues have resisted reducing that. What they want to do is 
subsidize the social safety nets and the spending of Western Europe at 
the expense of spending here. And how do we do that? By allowing them 
to hold down the military.
  So people who want to keep troops in Iraq; people who objected when 
the President began a withdrawal that was too timid, in my judgment, 
from Afghanistan; people who want to continue to spend unnecessarily 
and unwisely not to defend America but to keep America the worldwide 
policemen have no credibility in complaining about spending.
  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my 
colleague from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais).
  Mr. DesJARLAIS. I thank the gentleman.
  For too long, the Federal Government has been allowed to engage in an 
irresponsible spending spree that has resulted in the accumulation of 
over $14 trillion of debt, and $3 trillion of that debt occurred in 
just the last 3 years under President Obama.
  Does anyone really believe that the American people have received a 
good return on their investment? I know that many of my constituents in 
Tennessee's Fourth District don't. Unemployment is still above 9 
percent, and our economy is still not creating jobs. And now this 
President claims to need a $2.4 trillion blank check to continue with 
his failed policies. That means our national debt would be close to $17 
trillion by the end of next year. Enough is enough.
  The latest assessment of our debt indicates it will reach 109 percent 
of GDP in the next decade. That will only further degrade employers' 
confidence in our economy and hinder their ability to create jobs. We 
cannot allow that to happen. I was elected by the people of Tennessee's 
Fourth Congressional District to come to Washington to finally make the 
Federal Government learn to live within its means. No more borrowing 40 
cents out of every dollar, no more trillion-dollar deficits, no more 
stimulus spending, and, most importantly, no more expecting our 
children and grandchildren to pay for all of this.
  The debt limit debate provided us with a real opportunity to put our 
Nation back on a fiscally sustainable path by finally forcing the 
Federal Government to make difficult, but badly needed, spending 
decisions--decisions that I am more than willing to make. I believe 
that we missed an opportunity to open up the books and do something 
that should have been done years ago--prioritize our spending.
  It is hard to believe that with all the waste, fraud, and abuse that 
occurs within the Federal Government that we would have any problem 
cutting enough spending so that raising the debt limit would be 
unnecessary. When families in my district have spent more than their 
budget allows, they look to how they can cut back, not how they can 
borrow more money. Maybe they don't take a vacation that summer. Maybe 
they go out to eat less often or hold off on purchasing a new car. The 
point is they know that the answer to getting back on the right fiscal 
track is spending less, not borrowing more. The same should hold true 
for the Federal Government.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this joint 
resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to another member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution 
because it is in favor of the United States defaulting on its debts. 
The Republican Party is calling for the United States to default, to 
tell the whole world: we don't pay our debts. That's what this is 
about, and it doesn't do one single thing to help American workers or 
businesses with jobs.
  Now, make no mistake: The House of Representatives is being used by 
the Tea Party as an attack machine on the President. They will delay 
action on anything that helps the economy. The President came up here 
on Thursday with a plan. Where's the schedule for bringing it out on 
the floor to create jobs? No, we have to come up here with this 
resolution. For the majority, delaying economic recovery is a small 
price to pay if they can win an election. They don't care about 
ordinary folks, working people. They only care about people on the top. 
Instead of doing something to help create jobs, they have brought up 
this bill to gin up their extreme base that thinks the only thing 
Americans should build together are roads and a Defense Department. 
That is what the U.S. Government is all about. Nothing else makes any 
difference. We don't need to invest in health or science. What do we 
need science for? It will work out. Don't worry.
  In this resolution the Republicans are voting for the United States 
not to pay its bills. That's what we're spending time on. Today is just 
another day in the Alice in Wonderland of the Republican House. Pure 
politics and nothing to help the American people get jobs. This whole 
Republican Congress is about the Presidential election. It has been 
from the beginning back in January. Not helping the middle class. What 
have they done for foreclosures in this country? What have they done 
for youngsters trying to go to school? What have they done for anything 
except try and get the President? They are trying it by stopping the 
economy from moving forward.
  I urge my colleagues not to just vote ``no'' on this but for the 
majority to withdraw it and bring up the American Jobs Act. The 
President brought it up here. It deserves to be brought up to the floor 
and debated and amended and passed.
  I sometimes wonder when I listen to the discussion about this doing 
stuff to pay someplace down the road, some long-term investment, if a 
Republican has ever bought a house. I remember when I bought my first 
house in Seattle. I was 25 years old. I was a medical resident. I paid 
$16,400 for it. And I wondered if I would ever be able to pay for it, 
because I wasn't making that much money in those days.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Lo and behold, I bought the house. And you know what? 
Thirty years later I paid off that house. That's what investment is 
about. What the President is saying is that we have to invest in this 
country if we're going to bring it out of the problems it's in. And 
that means infrastructure on the ground and it means in human beings in 
education.

                              {time}  1330

  If we don't invest, as the Greatest Generation did after the Second 
World War--here came Eisenhower and said, hey, we've got to build 
roads. Nobody said, well, you know, we can't go in debt for all that. 
Nobody said we can't invest in human beings.
  We did the GI Bill of Rights, and that's what made us the strongest 
country in the world. We took every veteran who came back from the war 
and said here's a college education; get

[[Page H6160]]

it and take it out and make this country work. That was investment. But 
not today's Republican Party. Oh, no, we can't, we mustn't.
  Don't you understand investment?
  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Speaker, it's been said that leadership is willing to make hard 
choices, fact-based choices to come up with solutions to solve problems 
and deliver results.
  Now, we gathered here last Thursday in this Chamber to hear the 
President, with a much-touted plan beforehand that he was going to 
bring forth to the American people that was going to help solve the 
high unemployment in this country and get our economy back on a 
competitive basis. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, I sat there and I 
listened very intently, and I left this Chamber with great 
disappointment because it's not enough.
  Furthermore, he is proposing taxes, new taxes, taxes on energy 
production, American energy production. Now, let's look at the facts of 
what happened.
  Yes, we had an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and it was dealt 
with. It was a tragic situation, but it has been dealt with. The fact 
of the matter is we need American energy production to move this 
country forward. And now what we're seeing with the lifting of the 
moratorium is this continued de facto moratorium because of slow-
walking of exploration plans and permits.
  Now, what does this mean? If we brought back the permitting process 
to the same timeframe we had before--without sacrificing safety--bring 
it back into a reasonable amount of time, let's say 30 days to take 
care of these permits, in 1 year, the year 2012, 230,000 jobs would be 
created, new jobs, good, high-paying jobs. And not only that, a third 
of those jobs would be beyond the Gulf Coast States around this 
country, in California and Florida and in the central part of the 
country. This would add $34 billion to our GDP. And that's just getting 
things back to where they were. That's not even talking about expanding 
exploration in these shale formations or looking at the east and west 
coast where we can do more or Alaska. These energy jobs are good-paying 
jobs. And not only that, it would bring in, in 1 year, $12 billion more 
into the Treasury and reduce our bill on foreign oil by $15 billion. 
And that's just getting us back to where we were.
  Now, I stood here and listened to the President. Instead, he offers 
taxes, $45 billion more in new taxes on independent oil and gas 
companies. That's going to hurt American energy production, it's going 
to kill American jobs, and it's going to do nothing to help solve our 
economy.
  Furthermore, he chided us about the trade agreements. We have three 
trade agreements sitting there. They've been there for 3 years. They've 
been negotiated. They're ready to go. And he said Congress needs to 
pass them. Well, Mr. President, the answer is: Send them to Congress 
and we'll pass them. That's the process.
  And beyond that, what is our trade policy? This country is losing 
credibility globally and it's losing its leverage because we have no 
trade strategy, a strategy that's going to promote American-
manufactured goods, American farmers and their commodities so that we 
can sell these around the world to open markets. That will get our 
economy going.
  If we want to solve our debt problem, yes, we've got to balance our 
budgets, yes, we've got to deal with the debt problem--we've taken some 
steps--but I saw nothing that the President offered. That's why I'm 
here supporting this resolution, to push this President to consider the 
steps that need to be taken to promote American competitiveness, 
private sector job growth. That's what we need in this economy.
  Now, the President had the answer. He was standing here at this 
podium and he had the answer right up there on the wall of the House 
behind him. There is a plaque up there, and it's a quote from Daniel 
Webster. And that first sentence of the quote says, ``Let us develop 
the resources of our land.'' What's wrong with that, Mr. President?
  For God's sake, we need American energy production, and it's simple. 
With the stroke of a pen, he could solve this permitting problem and at 
least get us back to where we were, create 230,000 jobs next year and 
add to our GDP growth. And this would be a start, a down payment to a 
comprehensive energy strategy for this country. This is a no-brainer.
  We need natural gas as part of our transition strategy. His policy is 
going to lock out natural gas production in this country. Ninety-seven 
percent of it is done by small domestic companies here in the U.S., and 
these taxes will put many of these companies out of business.
  Mr. President, read the plaque. Let's develop our natural resources. 
Let's do what we have to do. Let's promote a very aggressive, export-
oriented trade policy.
  And we need a willing partner to move forward with tax reform. We're 
getting half-hearted signals. This country needs fundamental tax 
reform. We want to do it on the House Ways and Means Committee. We're 
ready. We stand ready as willing partners, but yet we're getting 
signals--mixed signals. This administration has not shown a serious 
intent to move forward with fundamental tax reform that will unleash 
American ingenuity and entrepreneurship in this country.
  And that's what I heard all through August when I was back home in my 
district when I talked to folks. They want to see an energy strategy. 
They want to see comprehensive tax reform that simplifies our Code and 
lowers rates and clears up some of the loopholes. They want to make 
sense out of this Tax Code. And they want to see us selling goods 
overseas, letting our ports expand.
  He didn't even mention maritime infrastructure. We've got bills right 
now that would improve our maritime infrastructure without costing one 
penny more in deficit spending. Why aren't we acting on these things?
  We're tired of rhetoric. We're tired of political talking points. And 
what we need is action. The American people have had enough. And I say 
let's get to work. Let's get this House moving on fundamental changes 
that will improve this economy and create private sector jobs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I want to say to the gentleman from Louisiana, I listened intently, 
and I don't understand how he could have voted ``yes'' to raise the 
debt ceiling in August and now, in essence, he's going to vote ``no'' 
and bring this country back to the brink of chaos.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts, a very active member of our committee, Mr. Neal.
  Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I'm fascinated by this argument, for the 
people that are viewing it, largely because this is not an argument 
about new spending; this is an argument about paying for past spending. 
So when Bill Clinton said ado, said goodbye to the American people on 
January 19, 2001--this is fact, not opinion--America was staring at a 
$5.6 trillion surplus. On January 20, George Bush took the oath of 
office, and when he left 8 years later, we were looking at a $10.6 
trillion deficit.
  Let's recount those years: Two wars, $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts, 
and a prescription D benefit that was unfunded. And all of the money 
they applied to those arguments--and I am very pleased by the fact I 
voted against those tax cuts, spoke against them, and voted against the 
war in Iraq. But all of the money that I've just referenced was 
borrowed money by the Republican Party. They borrowed all of the money 
for it--fact, not opinion. And now the bill has come due, and they're 
on the floor talking about fiscal rectitude.
  Now, here's what I think is important: The gentleman from Florida 
opened this debate, my friend, Mr. Mack, by talking about our money and 
how that money is utilized. Well, guess what? The veterans hospitals, 
35,000 men and women wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, is he saying that 
that's not our money that ought to pay for those hospitals?

                              {time}  1340

  Joe Stiglitz has estimated that the cost of disability for the war in 
Iraq will be between $500 billion and $900 billion.

[[Page H6161]]

  I hope people pay attention to what I'm about to say. Almost one out 
of two people who have served us honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
they're coming back with a long-term disability. Those VA hospitals are 
going to be stretched for years to come.
  Now, whether you were for Iraq or against it, our responsibility is 
to pay for those men and women who served us honorably: 20 years old, 
life expectancy of 80, they're in our care for the next 60 years.
  I would note with some humor that the Republican leadership did not 
send out, today, people that were here for the tax cut vote or for the 
vote on the war in Iraq. Remember weapons of mass destruction and how 
that vote was to take place?
  Friends, this is about paying our bills. This is not about new 
spending. And I hope there's no confusion in the hinterlands. Today, 
because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, every American citizen has 
a bill of $17,000.
  They helped bring us to this path of fiscal irresponsibility during 
their years of borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, and they ask the 
American people to embrace amnesia. They set the fire, and now they're 
calling the fire department.
  This is a very simple vote. It's about paying our bills.
  Mr. REED. I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from 
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman from New 
York for yielding on such an important subject that we're talking about 
today.
  I would like to make a couple of points in reference to what the 
gentleman from Massachusetts just made regarding the Republican Party. 
And I would say that the Republican Party did make mistakes at the 
beginning of this decade. I would say the Democrat Party has made some 
mistakes in the last several years. I think there's plenty of blame to 
go around for both parties in Washington.
  But there's a new crew in town. There's 87 new Republicans that were 
elected last November from all across this country who have joined 
those in our party who are saying stop the spending. Stop the madness. 
We're working against ourselves, folks.
  Madam Speaker, I would say that we wouldn't have to continue having 
this discussion if we would stop spending, stop borrowing, and then we 
would focus on the economy. It's going to take both sides to come 
together to fix the problem within our economy.
  We're going to have to control our spending. We're going to have to 
help those Americans who are out there and those who are actually 
establishing jobs, those who are creating jobs. It's not the U.S. 
Government that is going to create the jobs for those who are 
unemployed.
  I believe that we have a great opportunity right now to again say, 
let's stop this sort of spending binge in Washington, D.C. We're 
passing on debt to our kids and our grandkids. This is an opportunity 
for us to come together, both parties, and say, let's forget about the 
sins of the past. Let's pay those bills. But let's not continue to 
spend the way that we're spending today.
  From a debt of $79 million when the Revolutionary War ended, the 
United States has racked up a debt of nearly $14.6 trillion. It would 
take nearly everything that Americans produced in all of last year to 
pay off the existing national debt.
  Right now I see two competing visions in Washington and across this 
country, Madam Speaker. The first vision is the ``business as usual'' 
vision. And we see a lot of that right here in Washington. It says we 
need to blindly increase our debt; and if people complain, call it 
investment instead of debt.
  In May, President Obama called for a no-cuts-attached increase to the 
debt ceiling. He didn't give up his call for a blank check until his 
request had failed here in this House by an overwhelming and bipartisan 
vote of 97-318.
  The second vision that I hear a lot about back in Indiana is the same 
vision and the same work that families do every year. You figure out 
how to live within your means. You have real cuts, not budgetary 
gimmicks. You don't fool yourself when you're sitting around the 
kitchen table trying to figure out the mess that you find yourself in. 
It's based on the truth.
  Families sit down at the kitchen table and have the heart-to-heart 
talks about the situation that they're in. Two conclusions that they 
usually come to are, we have to cut spending, and we're going to have 
to figure out how to bring more dollars in. It accepts the challenge, 
Americans accept the challenge, knowing that these things are not easy.
  We know that the ``business as usual'' vision, it's broken, and it 
will inevitably lead us to ruin and more ruin. This vote is a vote 
against that vision.
  I come to the floor to support the second vision, the vision that 
Americans across this country support, a vision that is shared by the 
men and women of northeast Indiana. It is a vision of prudence, honest 
conversations, and optimism.
  When we get pulled into these discussions because of the continual 
discussion about more spending, we cannot focus on the important part 
of getting people back to work and growing our economy. Government 
doesn't create jobs. Governors don't create jobs. Americans create 
jobs. I believe in the American people, and that hope is still a part 
of our vocabulary.

  I believe that we're also changing the discussion here in Washington. 
Career politicians have had their day in Washington, and it's time to 
talk about cuts. And since we've talked about cuts, the sky has not 
fallen. Optimism is a part of what the American fabric is built upon. I 
believe that this Joint Deficit Committee needs to find common ground 
for actual cuts and that the Senate will pick up the job growth bill 
that we passed right here on the floor of the House of Representatives 
this Congress.
  We all knew that this debt ceiling debate was never going to be our 
final battle in a struggle for balanced budgets and fiscal 
responsibility. It gives us the chance to continue to talk about it. 
And if we want to continue to raise the debt, if we want to continue to 
increase spending, we'll continue to talk about why we need to restrain 
Washington politicians.
  I'm going to continue the dialogue. I believe it's crucial. It's an 
important part of saving this country's economic future for my kids, 
for our children and for our grandchildren across this country.
  Government has, for too long, continued this business as usual and 
the status quo vision that I talked about earlier. Americans are going 
to have to pay back all of this debt. This may not be a tax increase, 
but inevitably and indirectly it is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. REED. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. So, Madam Speaker, I come to the floor in support of 
this resolution because I believe that we need to all agree, 
Republicans and Democrats, that we're going to limit spending, we're 
going to stop borrowing.
  We can pay our bills back. But at the same time we're going to focus 
on job creation, getting people back to work, as the gentleman from 
Louisiana mentioned, the energy jobs that were talked about. That was 
one of the things the President didn't discuss in his address the other 
night is he didn't talk about energy.
  We are the leaders in the world on production. I come from a district 
of a lot of manufacturing; and I believe that if we would focus on 
energy, cut spending, we need to reform government. That's what's going 
to get people back to work. The economy's going to grow. We will still 
be number one in the world.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  This resolution isn't about a new vision. It's really about blind 
rage. There may be a new crew in town; but if this were to pass, it 
would be a wrecking crew because, essentially, we would be back on the 
edge, once again, of default.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, America was united in its 
disgust at the spectacle in Washington during the debt ceiling fiasco. 
The Republican threat of default ranks among the most reckless and 
destructive political stunts in modern American history. It undermined 
the fragile, but recovering, economy and reduced faith in

[[Page H6162]]

the United States of America. It has also undermined the American 
people's trust in its government.
  There's no reason to have a debt ceiling at all. It doesn't restrain 
spending since the spending has already been committed. It just 
threatens our credit, and it weakens our country.
  That's why I, Representative Nadler, and Representative Moran 
introduced this morning the Full Faith and Credit Act, a bill to do 
away with the debt ceiling once and for all.

                              {time}  1350

  But if we are going to have a debt ceiling, the threat by Members of 
Congress to refuse to raise it is an outrage. We've already made these 
commitments; yet some would have us default. Some would undermine the 
full faith and credit of the United States. Some would do irreparable 
damage to our economy and our standing in the world. It's a disgrace. 
It's a total disgrace.
  And the American people see it for what it is: part of a concerted 
effort to undermine this economy in order to undermine the President 
and fulfill the congressional Republicans' Inauguration Day vow to do 
everything within their power to ensure that President Obama would be a 
one-term President.
  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate the gentleman from New York yielding to 
me.
  I do support this resolution.
  Here in this Chamber--actually, here in America--we often talk about 
achievements in terms of metrics: the larger, the better. For a private 
company, it's impressive when it has a large budget, a large workforce, 
and a large profit and a large presence.
  The Federal Government, as an institution, should not talk this way, 
even though similar assertions would all be true. Washington spends too 
much, employs too many people, and is too intrusive in the lives of all 
Americans.
  The major difference is that private business makes investments that 
deliver returns, and failure to do so is the demise of the business. 
The Federal Government's spending, though, often fails to deliver real 
results. But the Federal Government does not meet its demise; rather, 
the all-too-often negative consequences fall on taxpayers and usually 
result in a new government program or one or dozens more.
  But if we were thinking like a businessperson, we would consider the 
results that have come from past investments before making another.
  Two-and-a-half years ago, the previous Congress and this current 
President implemented a stimulus that ultimately will cost Americans 
more than $1 trillion. This mega-investment was supposed to create 3.5 
million jobs. This investment was supposed to bring an unemployment 
rate of 6.4 percent last month. But what has actually happened? The 
President is more than 6 million jobs short and unemployment stood at 
9.1 percent last month. That's not even counting the millions of 
Americans who are underemployed.
  The Budget Control Act, which the President signed, was supposed to 
be about putting an end to Washington's business as usual: spend and 
borrow, spend and borrow some more. Yet when the President came before 
us here in this very room a week ago tomorrow, all we heard was a 
recycled idea: another stimulus, another $450 billion exercise in 
excessive spending that will underperform and underdeliver.
  Spend, spend, spend, raise taxes and borrow more to pay for that 
spending. Raise those taxes from the very individuals and businesses 
that can actually create jobs that will get the economy out of this rut 
and put millions of Americans to work. And along the way, let's 
demonize job creators. That's what happened in this Chamber.
  I believe the Federal Government should function as efficiently and 
as effectively as a private business; but it, by no means, should be 
able to brag about a large budget that fails to deliver and which only 
adds to the red ink each year.
  Before adding to the $15 trillion in debt this country already has or 
sustaining more years of trillion dollar annual deficits, we have no 
choice, and the American people expect no less, cut current spending 
and cap future spending obligations and pass a balanced budget 
amendment.
  I support this resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to another 
active member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
  I think it's clear that this resolution is just not my cup of tea, 
but I can tell you if we followed the path that was just recommended, 
Republicans could drive us deeper into recession or even depression.
  It's as if the Republicans who are here today wanted to start 
Halloween early because they keep trying to bring back to life, as if 
it were some zombie, the specter of debt default that has already 
caused us so many problems.
  Building on their earlier success in sowing panic and reaping fear in 
our global financial markets that contributed to the first-ever 
downgrade of our Nation's credit rating, these professional 
obstructionists are determined to keep trying to wreak havoc.
  As families are demanding action on the economy, a response to jobs, 
the Republicans instead are focusing on pandering to a small group of 
people for whom reality doesn't seem to make much difference. The 
problem is reality has a Democratic bias when it comes to this question 
of the economy and job creation.
  I think if the Republicans really want to help us close the debt gap, 
the best way to do that is to get this economy moving. An increase in 
economic growth will do more than any of the things that he just 
mentioned--some amendment that might be approved years from now--will 
do more to help us get the debt under control than most anything else.
  Of course, how did we end up with the debt that we have today? Much 
of it is directly related to the policies of the Bush-Cheney years when 
Republicans were totally ignoring the issue of debt: unpaid wars, tax 
cuts based on the mythology that they would pay for themselves when 
they just dug us deeper into debt. And now we face the need to try to 
get our economy moving again. Their solution? Do less. Jeopardize the 
full faith and credit of the United States.
  I think one of the problems that we have here, and it afflicts the 
Democratic Party to some extent as well as the Republicans, but 
especially with our Republican colleagues, is that we've just got too 
many certified smart people here in Washington. They're so smart they 
know what they know; they just don't know what the American people are 
experiencing. You don't have very many people advising about this 
economic recovery.
  Whoever had to drive a truck for a living? You don't have people who 
even had to worry about whether they could make their next truck 
payment. And you sure don't have people advising who've had their house 
foreclosed and had to move their family into a truck. But that's the 
plight that too many Americans face today, and we need to be responding 
to their legitimate concern that what we need to do is focus on the 
demand side of the equation and help improve demand and get this 
economy going again.
  I like the idea of focusing on our roadways, our trucks, our 
crumbling bridges and the like, building the infrastructure that will 
help American business as well as the people who would do that 
construction work.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I believe that focusing on our infrastructure, our 
roads, bridges, our schools, focusing on what is happening inside our 
schools with so many teachers threatened with dismissal around the 
country with the cutback in State and local budgets, that's the kind of 
focus that can help get America moving and address the debt issues at 
the same time.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's empty political 
resolution so we can focus on what really makes a difference to working 
families across this country.
  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from New York, Charles Rangel.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H6163]]

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise against this resolution.
  I had thought that the Congress had already passed this very, very 
embarrassing experience.
  When you read the papers today and see the pain that exists 
throughout these United States, it is not Republican or Democratic 
pain. It's pain that they're feeling as a result of the lack of 
economic growth in our great country.
  And when you see the number of years and decades that this Congress 
has approved the President's authority to increase the debt ceiling for 
the purpose of maintaining the fiscal integrity of our country and, 
therefore, the democracy-loving countries that depend on the 
credibility of our fiscal condition, I would have hoped that we would 
think of this issue not in terms of the political implications, but how 
does the world perceive us to be.
  Quite frankly, without being political, in watching the debate the 
other night, it wasn't that it annoyed me, but I was just so 
embarrassed that the world might think that that represented the 
principles of my country, people laughing about execution and laughing 
about people dying.
  I'm certain nobody in this body takes pride in that type of thing. 
But to go against the President's ability to maintain the integrity of 
the United States of America, I think it is just so wrong.
  There are good reasons that we can't challenge as to why our polling 
as a body is so low.

                              {time}  1400

  I don't think anyone can walk away feeling proud--liberal, 
conservative--about what's going on. The reason is because people don't 
go to sleep at night worried about what we're doing and debating on the 
question of revoking, of giving the power to the President to protect 
the integrity of our great Nation. No. They're going to bed at night 
having hope that maybe tomorrow they'll get a job, that maybe they'll 
be able to guarantee their health insurance, that maybe their kids will 
have a better life, that maybe we'll stop fooling around, playing 
politics with the future of this great country, that just maybe, one 
day, we'll be more concerned about the lack of default and the credit 
of our country than our own reelections.
  I know it seems absurd that we can wish that; but if you think about 
it, they're not talking about Democrats' polls being low, and they're 
not just talking about Republicans' polls being low. They're talking 
about all of us.
  The greatest thing about America, far beyond our military and 
economic wealth, is the trust that people used to have in government. 
Once they lose that, whether they're poor or whether they belong to 
that small number of people who hold the Nation's wealth, then the 
country is in desperate trouble.
  So I hope that people who witness this debate recognize that the 
opposition is not speaking for the country or the Congress, but 
probably for the Republican National Committee.
  Mr. REED. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. This pointless exercise that the House has embarked 
upon here today illustrates the challenge that we have to try and deal 
meaningfully with the very real problems that America expects us to 
make progress on. This resolution has already been laid to rest in the 
Senate. It has been defeated. Ain't going to happen. So, no matter what 
the result of the hours of debate that we have here today, it will make 
absolutely no difference.
  It is an extension of what happened with the totally manufactured 
crisis surrounding the debt ceiling earlier this year. The debt ceiling 
increase was to deal with bills that we had already incurred, for which 
Congress over the years had already approved the spending, and we'd 
borrowed the money for it. It made no difference about future debt. It 
made no difference about the spending commitments that had already been 
made. Yet we watched tremors go through international markets, not 
because America couldn't pay its bills, but because some politicians, 
for their own purposes, were willing to risk that America didn't pay 
its bills.
  Unprecedented.
  We've raised the debt ceiling over 100 times. There was no doubt that 
we would, in fact, honor our commitments; but there were people talking 
crazy enough that cast doubt. That, I think, at least in part, is why 
we have seen the markets in the United States be on a roller coaster 
and people watch their 401(k)s maybe become 301(k)s one afternoon 
before they go up a little again and then go back down.
  It doesn't have to be this hard if, instead of a pointless exercise, 
we would spend some time on areas where actually Congress could come 
together and cooperate on dealing with the infrastructure crisis in 
this country, where there is broad support from the business community, 
organized labor, contractors, local government, environmentalists to 
move forward to rebuild and renew this country, putting not tens of 
thousands but millions of Americans to work in strengthening our 
country and our economy. We could be dealing with something like this, 
but we're not.
  We could deal with reforms in agriculture that would put more money 
in the hands of America's farmers and ranchers, less in mega-
agribusiness. We'd save money, and we'd improve the state of 
agriculture. While we're at it, we could probably improve the health of 
our children in school with their nutrition, but we're not dealing with 
that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Most tellingly, we should be accelerating the reforms 
that the last Congress enacted. When they started, most of them were 
bipartisan ideas that have been implemented, in some cases, by 
Republican Governors. The difference between what America spends on 
health care this year and what the second most expensive country, 
Switzerland, spends is $3,000 a person, $3 trillion over 10 years. If 
we could just spend as much as the second most expensive country in the 
world.
  We ought to be working on things like this that will make a 
difference for America, put them back to work, have fiscal stability--
and maybe regain a little confidence in the political process instead 
of pointless exercises like this. I hope--I hope--that we will get this 
out of our system, get down and get to work. America deserves our best, 
not our worst, which is on exhibit here today.
  Mr. REED. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my good friend from Michigan for 
yielding.
  Let me take this opportunity to thank the 174 Republican Members of 
this House who voted with us in a bipartisan fashion just last month to 
avert the first Federal default in the Nation's history. It may not 
have been an easy vote for some, but it was the right thing to do to 
prevent a catastrophe that would have certainly shaken further our 
fragile economic recovery. Today's vote is no different.
  I urge my colleagues to not give in to the political gamesmanship 
that Standard & Poor's cited as the very reason for its bleak 
downgrading of the United States' credit rating. We must reaffirm our 
commitment that America will meet its obligations, and we don't want to 
find ourselves politically explaining how we voted for it before we 
voted against it.
  Make no mistake that voting in favor of this resolution will, in 
fact, lead to the very default we voted to avoid with the Budget 
Control Act. You cannot now be for default after having just voted 
against it. We must reject this resolution and move on to the real 
challenge of working with a bipartisan supercommittee to restore fiscal 
responsibility, revive our economy and, most importantly, re-instill 
confidence in the American citizen and the American business community.
  Mr. REED. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the gentleman from New York have any more speakers?
  Mr. REED. I have one additional speaker, and then I am prepared to 
close after that, I believe.

[[Page H6164]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. I know of the intentions of my colleagues across the 
aisle. You want to try to make America a better place.
  We had the prior speaker indicate that tremors were sent through the 
financial markets because some politicians, for their own purposes, put 
the financial integrity at risk. The Democratic speaker before that 
indicated that we should not go against the President's ability to 
protect the integrity of the United States. The Democratic speaker 
before that said that no one was apparently advising Republicans who 
had missed a truck payment. Things like that.
  Guess what. I know that was not intended to be misleading. I know the 
intent was not that, but the fact is some of us go home as we did in 
August.

                              {time}  1410

  Some of us get out into the far reaches, the most rural areas of 
America, our districts. We talk to those people. They're struggling 
with gas prices. They are having all kinds of trouble making ends meet, 
and they cannot understand how the people that are sent to Washington 
as representatives don't get it, how we could come up here and we can't 
control our spending.
  So I wanted to help illuminate those friends who are mystified as to 
what our own purposes were in opposing a debt ceiling bill that jacked 
up the debt ceiling and then says, you know, we are going to cut 1, 
maybe 2, 2.5 trillion over 10 years when everyone in this body either 
knows or needs a good education to know that there is not a court, 
there is no way in the world you can bind a future Congress into making 
cuts that they have not agreed to. You can't do that. It's not 
enforceable. So the trick here in Washington is to back load all of the 
massive cuts, have a little trickle of cuts now.
  So our own purposes boil down to this: I didn't deserve to be born in 
America. None of us that were born here did. We weren't born here 
because in the womb we did something deserving of being born in 
America. We are the most blessed nation in the history of the world, 
and it's not because of what anybody living today has done. We were 
blessed. We were born here. So many have been able to immigrate here 
and be blessed because of what prior generations have done: the 
responsibility, putting their lives on the line in war, struggling 
through depression to be accountable, struggling through the earliest 
days when they pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor. 
Those people are the reason we have been blessed.
  So to make clear about what our own purposes were in opposing that 
debt ceiling, that didn't really do any kind of significant cuts in the 
next year, 2 years, back loaded them for 10 years, because that's 
irresponsible. And if future generations have any hope at all of being 
blessed as we have been, it's up to us. We can't repay the people that 
paid the ultimate price and that scraped and saved and were responsible 
in Congresses for 200--well, not 200, but 150 years or so that lived 
within their means. We can't repay them, but we can repay them by being 
responsible for the future.
  So to come in and to have a debt ceiling increase time after time 
after time is not a real debt ceiling. And it is not an adequate 
defense to say, well, Bush did it; well, Clinton did it; well, Bush did 
it before him or Reagan did it, and just go on down, Carter did it. At 
some point we have to be responsible for our own actions and quit 
playing the pointing game and say, look, our time is now. We are 
elected to be responsible now. Our own purposes are to be responsible 
for the debt that we are incurring now. The $4.5 trillion more than has 
been brought in is pretty irresponsible. That's no way to go.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. REED. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. GOHMERT. But if you want the numbers, if we are only able to save 
a trillion dollars over 10 years, which is quite possible under the 
debt ceiling deal that passed, then it will take 150 years before the 
budget balances if we continue to cut 1 trillion every year, and it 
will only add about $120 trillion to the 14 trillion we have now. If we 
could save 2 trillion every 10 years, then we are looking at 80 years 
before we balance the budget and only adding 72 trillion to the debt 
that we have.
  That's irresponsible. This country won't be around in this form, this 
Congress, and therefore that is our special purpose for doing this. 
That is why we say it's time to stop the debt ceiling bill from where 
it was, get responsible, and propose real cuts so this Congress does 
what the people who are missing payments are trying to do--live within 
their means.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I want to say to the gentleman from Texas I disagree with his 
position, but I respect it. I can understand that those who voted 
``no'' will now vote ``yes.'' What is not understandable is that those 
on the Republican side who voted ``yes'' are now voting ``no.''
  I yield 4 minutes to our distinguished whip, the gentleman from the 
proud State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The previous speaker voted to go deeply into debt. Frankly, I voted 
for some of those programs myself, two of which were to support the 
efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We didn't pay for them.
  As has been said, I didn't vote for it initially, but I think it's a 
good program. We have made it better for the prescription drug program, 
and the gentleman wasn't here when we passed that, but we didn't pay 
for it. He is correct: It doesn't matter which side didn't pay for it; 
we haven't paid for it.
  This bill is about whether or not we are going to stand up and say, 
yes, we voted to pay for it but, guess what, we had our fingers 
crossed; we are not going to do it. We said we were going to do this. 
We took some tough action. Both sides joined together, both leaderships 
joined together and said we are going to do this.
  Now, this bill is a phony. This is posturing. This is politics. This 
is pure politics because the United States Senate has already rejected 
this bill and only one House needed to reject it. We are going to have 
an extension of the debt.
  The extension of the debt will simply mean that those items that we 
all voted on will be paid for, that we won't welsh on our debts, that 
America will pay its debts.
  Now, this bill is about, oh, no, let's not pay our debts. Let's 
pretend that they don't occur, that we really don't have to pay them. 
America's welshing on its debts really won't have much consequence; 
although the overwhelming majority of people believe that if we welsh 
on our debts it will have extraordinary consequences. In fact, it's 
having extraordinary consequences on our economy right now, as we 
speak. It's undermined the confidence in America that we had this 
confrontation about whether America was going to pay its bills.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, to urge my colleagues to vote down this 
resolution of disapproval which is transparently political and which 
will do nothing to secure our Nation's fiscal future. In fact, this 
resolution is premised on the assumption that the American people are 
ignorant--I don't believe that--ignorant about the nature of our debt 
ceiling and the sources of America's fiscal challenges.
  As often as some in this House attempt to falsely persuade the 
American people that raising the debt ceiling means taking on more 
debt, we will be here to repeat the truth. This is about nothing more 
than paying the bills we have already incurred. The American people 
understand that fact, as evidenced by their disgust with the partisan 
brinksmanship that almost brought America to the brink of default.
  What Americans want to see is us coming together to take real action 
on two issues they are deeply concerned about: jobs and our mounting 
deficit.
  One of the most important things we can do to reduce the deficit is 
to create jobs, grow our economy, get people back to work.
  The President has put forward the American Jobs Act, which 
incorporates many elements of House Democrats' Make It in America 
agenda to create jobs. I hope my Republican colleagues bring it to the 
House floor for a vote as soon as possible.

[[Page H6165]]

  Over the long term, though, we must lay out a path to restore fiscal 
sustainability. And the only path that is feasible fiscally, 
politically, and morally is one that is balanced and asks everyone to 
pay their fair share, not let some of the special interests and favored 
few be left out of the obligations to bring fiscal responsibility to 
this Nation. All of us need to be included. A balanced solution is 
favored by an overwhelming majority of Americans and even three-
quarters of Republicans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction must put 
aside partisan politics and put some hard choices on the table, choices 
that encompass both spending and revenue, and we must support their 
efforts to reach agreement.

                              {time}  1420

  That's what the American people deserve. That's the difference 
between posturing on our fiscal future, as this vote today does, and 
leading on our fiscal future. I urge my colleagues, let's vote down 
this empty resolution which is a pretense, a pretend, a statement that 
we don't like debt. Nobody likes the debt we've incurred, and everybody 
ought to join together in paying it down.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is an issue of responsibility. It's not 
easy. It's not always politically popular. We've incurred a debt. It is 
our responsibility collectively, not as Republicans or Democrats, but 
as Americans to come together and pay down this debt and not pretend 
that simply by defeating a resolution, or passing a resolution of so-
called disapproval--which is already a dead letter, and everybody on 
your side of the aisle knows it's a dead letter because the Senate has 
already voted.
  This is just a statement that I don't like debt. None of us like 
debt. Let's join together and reduce it as we did in the nineties.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear.
  My dear friend from Maryland said there were those on this side who 
wanted to welsh on our debt, and that's not the case. The thing that we 
want to do is stop incurring debt. We are all about being good for the 
debt we incur. We don't want to welsh on any agreements. I didn't ask 
my friend for time, so my time is very limited. I just wanted to 
correct the record. We're not out to welsh on anything. We're here to 
say, let's quit incurring debt. That's the whole point.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think we have already set 
the parameters for this discussion. We can see by the throngs that are 
on the floor of the House how keenly important this is to the American 
people. The reason why I say that is because important discussions draw 
Members even away from their duties elsewhere. But we know that the 
reason why we are speaking to empty seats is, one, because the other 
body has resoundingly denounced and voted this particular provision 
down because we have reached a compromise, a respectable compromise 
that we realize we have to pay our bills.
  But of course those who believe that they are not in the people's 
House, they can put this resolution on the floor because if they look 
to what the people want, 46 percent of the American people believe that 
jobs are more important than reducing the deficit. More than 65 percent 
believe we should be doing a jobs bill. We have the greatest poverty 
among children of all sectors in all areas of the country right now as 
I speak. And the new population of the impoverished are those recent 
college graduates. All of the stars in the eyes and excited parents 
who've paid large amounts of dollars to ensure that their young ones 
have an opportunity for a college education, there are no jobs.
  Now, I don't concede to the fact that the only initiative that should 
come about should be from the government, but we are the umbrella on a 
rainy day. This is a small measure that the President has offered, a 
small, constructive measure, his jobs bill. It is balanced across the 
board. It provides relief for small businesses. It provides the jobs 
that they will create. It gives incentives to hire someone. It works 
with our larger companies as well. And, of course, it puts back to work 
what has been a devastating phenomenon in our communities, taking away 
firefighters, police and teachers. You're going to feel the pinch when 
your young children are in classes that are 50 and 60 persons. So this 
is realistic.
  It also addresses the question of the 46.2 million Americans who are 
living in poverty. As I indicated, a disproportionate share of those 
are children.
  So what we are doing today goes smack against what the people want, 
and this is the people's House. I am concerned that we are not only 
being redundant, but we're saying to the world: smack us as 
irresponsible. We have the money to pay our bills, but we want the word 
to go out: we are irresponsible. We're not paying any bills. We're not 
Greece, we're not Spain, we're not Italy. We are Americans, and we have 
the know-it-all and the commitment to be the greatest country.
  I've never taken seriously the pundits about America's decline; but 
it is a decline if we get on the floor of the House and ignore the 
needs of our brothers and sisters, ignore the needs in the Northeast 
where there's been a devastating hurricane, ignore those in the 
Southwest where 1,400 homes have been burned to the ground in Texas. 
Who is going to help those folks besides their private insurance? They 
need the Federal Government, the rainy day umbrella on a rainy day or 
when a fire is there, the hose for the fire.
  So I ask my colleagues to consider being realistic and rational. Vote 
this down. Put a jobs bill on the floor and do what the people want, 
create jobs now.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 77, a 
Resolution of Disapproval intended to prevent President Obama from 
raising the debt ceiling by $500 billion as he is authorized to do by 
the debt ceiling agreement reached last month. This resolution will 
obstruct the federal government from meeting their financial 
obligations; measures like this one have already failed in the Senate. 
This is a colossal waste of valuable legislative time. The message has 
been heard loud and clear, we must address the debt limit; however 
another message is being muffled--the need to focus on jobs. Here we 
are once again with another proposal before the House that appears to 
throw caution to the wind. This joint resolution is gambling on our 
financial future, if this amendment passes then we will fail to raise 
our nation's debt limit and will allow our nation to default.
  We should have learned a valuable lesson from what happened the last 
time my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to suggest that 
we should allow our nation to default. The stock market reacted 
immediately and a well known credit company lowered our nation's credit 
rating. We need to maintain our creditworthiness to meet the needs of 
the very people we have been sent here to serve. I am disappointed that 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are more interested in 
playing political games than creating jobs or improving the economy.
  Attempting to prevent the President from raising the debt ceiling to 
pay for the needs of the country and functions of the government will 
only lead us to the brink of another crisis. This is a continued effort 
by my Republican friends to ransom the American economy in order to 
extort the American public.
  Instead of working toward a bipartisan job creation bill, 
congressional Republicans are attempting to constrain the ability of 
Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job 
creation troubles.
  There has been a consistent theme this Congress of failing to bring 
forward measures that will create jobs. My Republicans colleagues have 
set the agenda. They seem focused on cutting programs that benefit the 
public and those in need, while making no concrete attempt 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 186, 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

[[Page H6166]]

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 2010, there were 46.2 million Americans living in poverty 
nationwide. According to the 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.
  Attempts to prevent President Obama from raising the debt ceiling 
threaten our ability to keep paying for programs that benefit the least 
among us, and I for one, will not turn my back on the Americans who are 
the most in need of compassionate leadership and responsible governing.

  Threatening an increase in the debt ceiling threatens our ability to 
pay for Medicare, which 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.
  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.
  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, and last month, we were able to negotiate another compromise, 
and keep the country from default. I urge my colleagues not to 
undermine the agreement that was reached by attempting to block the 
President's ability to raise the debt ceiling.
  Once again, the American economy hangs in the balance as the act of 
the President raising the debt ceiling becomes an irrelevant spending 
debate that 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.
  This resolution is a petulant attempt to undermine President Obama. 
The bill itself says it is a joint resolution ``relating to the 
disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the 
debt limit''. Exercise of authority. It does not say unlawful exercise 
of authority, or unconstitutional exercise of authority. The language 
of the bill itself makes it clear the President has the authority to 
raise the debt ceiling as indicated in the agreement reached on August 
2.
  Passing this resolution will not decrease spending; it will merely 
compromise our ability to pay for spending already authorized. This 
bill does nothing to reduce the deficit, or address the budget, it only 
risks our economic standing and ability to pay our nation's bills, 
while simultaneously hurtling the nation toward another debt ceiling 
crisis.
  Instead of spending time on resolutions designed to cast the 
President in a negative light, it is time for this Congress to come 
together, and pass meaningful legislation that will benefit the 
American people. In his address to a joint session of Congress last 
Thursday, President Obama gave this body a great opportunity to achieve 
bipartisan, job creating legislation that will invest in small 
business, help families that have been struggling with chronic 
unemployment, assist veterans in finding jobs, and invest in our 
infrastructure.
  It is time for a new sense of bipartisanship. It is time for Congress 
to work together to aggressively take on job creation. It is time to 
end these divisive tactics and compromise to encourage the rapid job 
growth the American people deserve. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, to stand up and vote no on this partisan resolution; 
we can, and we must take this opportunity to declare our intent to do 
what is right, face what is hard, and achieve what is great.
  Instead of attempting to embarrass the President, I urge my friends 
on both sides of the aisle to come together, and focus on passing 
legislation that will help the American people by improving the economy 
and creating jobs. Now is not the time for partisan malice, now is not 
the time for H.J. Res 77; now is the time for this Congress to do all 
it can to usher in a new age of American ingenuity and prosperity. H.J. 
Res. 77 is simply a way to engage in past battles, and I am voting 
against it in order to focus on the future.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great State 
of New York, Representative Reed, for recognizing me, but most of all 
for bringing this resolution. I support it, and I urge everyone here to 
support it.
  As you may remember, it was a two-step process when the debt ceiling 
was increased: an initial $400 billion immediately to avert the 
possibility of a default. That has been done. But an additional $500 
billion will not go out if this resolution passes. I think we need to 
slow down and take a look at our spending before we commit another 
trillion dollars of debt.
  We did reduce next year's budget by, I believe, $31 billion over last 
year. That's a good step. That's a step in the right direction, but 
it's only a small step when you realize that this year's deficit is 
$1.3 trillion. So $31 billion is only a small step in the right 
direction. So this would give us more time and seriousness of purpose 
to look at additional savings.
  So with that prospect in mind, I would urge my colleagues to support 
this resolution. Let's slow down the adoption of an additional half 
trillion of debt. I urge support.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Very briefly, in one sense this is a meaningless resolution. My guess 
is that opinion makers in this country and I think abroad will consider 
it not meaningful, that it's going through the motions.
  But there is a real danger here, and that is what it says about the 
dynamics on the majority side. That's the worrisome thing. It isn't 
that we would slow things down. If this were to pass and become law, 
indeed, the ceiling would fall. We would go into default very soon.
  And I guess what this resolution being allowed to be brought up says 
is that there's a feeling within majority ranks that we have to let 
some bring this up, and perhaps a lot who voted ``yes'' now in essence 
vote ``no'' in order to bring some kind of peaceful equilibrium within 
the ranks of the majority.
  The problem is that we need to be able to reach across the aisle. 
Having set up a select committee, it says we need to worry less about 
the dynamics within our caucus or conference and more about reaching 
common ground.

                              {time}  1430

  That's why this exercise isn't meaningless. The danger is that it 
will become very meaningful and that we will become--this Congress--
essentially handicapped, if not imprisoned, by the inability of the 
majority on this side to step up to the plate and realize that in order 
to solve our problems there needs to be a balanced instead of 
imbalanced approach; that we have to look at revenues as well as 
spending cuts. That's the significance of this being brought up here.
  I think all of us need to take another look before we essentially 
change our votes. And, essentially, it would mean ``signaling.'' It 
will be still more difficult than the present perilous path to make 
meaningful our effort to move ahead in this country to address the job 
needs in this country, and yes, to address the deficit, but mainly or 
essentially to get our economy growing again. If we don't send that 
right signal here today, and send the wrong signal, I'm afraid this 
vote will become too meaningful.

[[Page H6167]]

  I strongly urge that people vote ``no.'' I strongly urge on the 
Republican side that those who stepped up to the plate last time, step 
up to the plate this time and not duck for what is essentially an 
internal political dynamic. The dynamics of this country in terms of 
jobs and job growth, those dynamics are too essential for partisan 
internal politics to reign supreme on this floor at this time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I truly appreciate the sentiments of my colleague from Michigan, and 
I truly appreciate the debate that we've had today on this resolution.
  It is time that we come together. As a member of the freshman class 
that's come to Washington, DC, I can tell you it is not a group of 
radical extremists, but men and women who have left their families, who 
have left their businesses, and have come down here to Washington, DC 
to accomplish what needs to be accomplished, that is, to get the fiscal 
house of Washington in order; it is to have the ability and skill to 
deal with the economy and put people back to work.
  We have the energy, we have the desire to reignite this country so 
that generations of our children and grandchildren will be able to 
enjoy the benefits that we have all benefited from. We come here 
sincerely to reach across the aisle to have an open and honest dialogue 
with each and every one of the Members of this House, and that is why 
this debate is such a positive thing, in my mind. Because we are now 
starting down the path of recognizing that the debt has to be dealt 
with once and for all, but at the same time we must work together to 
heal our country, to reignite our country's economy so that people can 
afford the American Dream that they so deserve and as each and every 
one of us has always benefited from.
  So I come here this afternoon and offer this resolution to send a 
message to the President, to the world, to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle that we cannot take our eye off the ball. We have to 
do all things. Because we are in a historic time when the issues we 
face can no longer be pushed down the road. It is now time to lead. It 
is now time to come together and act for this great Nation, the United 
States of America.
  In this vote, I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this 
resolution to send that message that we will deal with the debt, we 
will deal with the economy, we will deal with the jobs, and we will 
create an environment upon which the private sector will blossom again 
and people will benefit for generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 
77, a resolution disapproving of President Obama's exercise of 
authority to increase the debt limit. The recent decision by the 
President to raise the debt ceiling was not one made in haste or taken 
lightly, but rather it is one that absolutely must be made. The 
consequences of not acting are so grave that we could not let it be an 
option as it would do great irreparable damage to our economy. We 
played with fire last month, and although we ultimately approved an 
increase, we spooked world markets and caused an unprecedented 
downgrading of our country's heretofore sterling credit rating. In 
brief, we must raise the debt ceiling to prevent a default on our 
Nation's obligations, avert an international economic crisis, and 
prevent further harm from being visited upon middle class families.
  My colleagues have failed to recognize the damage their political 
posturing is doing to our economy. We have wasted plenty of floor time 
on theater, and in the meantime have let our Nation dangle on the 
precipice of default. Instead of rehashing old arguments and playing 
the same political blame games, we should come together and focus on 
the main problem facing Americans today: jobs. When I was back home in 
Michigan during the August recess, I heard firsthand from my 
constituents about the urgent need to create jobs, regenerate our 
economy, and get America going again. People across our Nation are 
hurting and are sick of the inaction in Washington.
  President Obama should be commended for taking the initiative on this 
important issue by unveiling the American Jobs Act. While we may 
disagree on the specifics of his proposal, it should be considered on 
merit alone and Congress should come together to reach consensus on 
what can be done to improve the economy. Resolutions such as this one 
are nothing but a distraction from this important mission, which is why 
I am voting against it today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the statute, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 186, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 706]

                               AYES--232

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

                               NOES--186

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     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
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)

[[Page H6168]]


     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Ribble
     Walsh (IL)
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Capuano
     Deutch
     Giffords
     Grimm
     Lewis (GA)
     Marino
     Nadler
     Towns
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1502

  Mr. DREIER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ROGERS of Alabama, GOODLATTE, WHITFIELD, ALEXANDER, and Ms. 
HERRERA BEUTLER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 706, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________