[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8377-8388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             INCREASING STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1954) to implement the President's request to increase the 
statutory limit on the public debt.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1954

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

     SECTION 1. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that the President's budget proposal, 
     Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, 
     necessitates an increase in the statutory debt limit of 
     $2,406,000,000,000.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.

       Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation 
     contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``$16,700,000,000,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last December, the President's own Fiscal Commission 
offered a plan to rein in our budget deficits and debt. While I did not 
support the final package--especially the tax increases it proposed--it 
did contain several meaningful suggestions for ways to get our Federal 
spending under control. Yet last February, when the President submitted 
his budget for 2012, he ignored their advice and provided no plan to 
rein in deficits and debt. Last month, Standard and Poor's

[[Page 8378]]

downgraded the outlook for the U.S. credit rating because Washington 
appeared to have no plan to rein in our budget deficits and debt.
  In recent weeks, many congressional Democrats were proving them right 
when over 100 of them called for an unconditional increase in the U.S. 
debt limit. They signed a letter calling on their colleagues to 
establish ``the Democratic position in favor of a clean extension of 
the debt ceiling,'' something Secretary Geithner has also repeatedly 
called for.
  It's time to come clean with the American people about our deficits 
and debt. At over $14 trillion, our debt is as large as the entire U.S. 
economy and is putting the American Dream at risk for future 
generations. It has become an anchor on economic growth, costing us 1 
million jobs at a time when the unemployment rate has not been this 
high for this long since the Great Depression.
  Erskine Bowles, who chaired President Obama's Fiscal Commission and 
served as Chief of Staff to President Clinton, has said that the era of 
debt denial is over. While it doesn't appear that all of his Democrat 
colleagues have gotten the message, with today's vote this House will 
declare to the American people and to the credit rating agencies that 
business as usual in Washington is over. Not only is the era of debt 
denial over, but so is Washington's out-of-control spending.
  Today, we are making clear that Republicans will not accept an 
increase in our Nation's debt limit without substantial spending cuts 
and real budgetary reforms. This vote, a vote based on legislation I 
have introduced, will and must fail. Now, most Members aren't happy 
when they bring a bill to the floor and it fails, but I consider 
defeating an unconditional increase to be a success because it sends a 
clear and critical message that the Congress has finally recognized we 
must immediately begin to rein in America's affection for deficit 
spending.
  Research by international experts clearly demonstrates that spending 
reforms, not tax increases, are the most effective path to fiscal 
consolidation. That means that together we must look for responsible 
ways to tackle our runaway spending. And though it's difficult and not 
always popular, it requires us to deal with entitlement reforms that 
are the largest driver of America's deficits, including health care 
spending programs like Medicare.
  We all know that failing to act and address our debt head-on would be 
very similar to defaulting on our debt. In both cases, we would 
experience a significant downgrade in our credit rating, which 
increases interest rates, making payments for things like a car and 
home loans more expensive. It would also increase the cost of imports, 
meaning higher gas prices. And it would make an already shaky economy 
even worse, leading to less job creation.

                              {time}  1650

  The greatest threat to the U.S. economy and to international 
financial markets would be simply increasing the debt limit without 
cutting a penny of spending. This vote makes clear that deficit 
reduction will be part of any bill to increase the debt limit and is a 
necessary part of this process.
  A ``no'' vote today is a vote to put us on the path toward exactly 
what the markets and the American people are demanding, an America that 
is a strong, reliable, and secure financial investment for the future. 
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unconditional increase.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Bringing up this bill in this fashion is a ploy so egregious the 
Republicans have had to spend the last week pleading with Wall Street 
not to take it seriously and risk our economic recovery.
  If Republicans were being truthful, they'd admit they're looking for 
political cover. But in their doing so, they risk blowing a hole in our 
Nation's economy. They'd acknowledged that their timing is an effort to 
change the subject less than a week after their plan to end Medicare 
was dealt a major setback by voters in a New York special election 
whose democratic winner will be sworn in tomorrow.
  To act in good faith to solve our Nation's fiscal problems, the 
Republicans should focus not on this ploy but on the budget 
negotiations being led by the Vice President. Our Nation's debt is 
indeed a problem that requires serious solutions--not ploys that risk 
another global financial crisis.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell), a member of our committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we better not forget how we got here in 
the first place. The President, when he raised his hand in January of 
2009, inherited a $10.6 trillion debt. Let us not forget history. I 
know this is like a Kabuki dance today.
  You're not only not sincere about this, but this is all process. The 
American people, the folks in my district, are not interested in 
process. They're interested in results. What are the results? How does 
this help the guy or gal on Main Street? That's what we should be 
talking about.
  This bill we know is going to fail. You already told your Wall Street 
friends, ``Don't worry about it. Don't take it serious.'' That's just 
like a reality show. The Republicans have warned their Wall Street 
friends, and as The Wall Street Journal said today, they are in on this 
``joke.'' But as in poker, they're not all in.
  Alexander Hamilton, who founded my city of Paterson, New Jersey, 
understood that good credit is integral to being a world power. It is 
by no means a joke.
  Failure to act will have immediate and dire consequences. Now, the 
world is not going to collapse this afternoon or tomorrow when this 
legislation goes down in a few hours. The majority is willing to risk 
all of that in order to play political games to force their failed 
economic policies. It didn't work in the last 10 years. It's not going 
to work now.
  Mr. Speaker, this is serious business. This is not a joke.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. There's no more important agenda item currently 
facing Congress than ensuring America pays its bills and honors its 
obligations. The accumulated choices of Congresses and administrations, 
past and present, have created the debt and the need to honor the 
obligations--like an unfunded war in Iraq that's going to cost 
trillions of dollars, or an unfunded Medicare prescription drug program 
both from our Republican friends.
  We're not going to default on our debt. With over a hundred of my 
colleagues, I signed a letter calling for a clean extension and 
offering to work with the Republican leadership so they wouldn't be 
held hostage to the most extreme members of their party in order to 
push through draconian proposals that have no chance of being passed, 
which would unsettle the markets and do damage to things that Americans 
care about, like the reckless proposal for ending the Medicaid 
guarantee to seniors and additional tax cuts that are unaffordable.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership decided not to treat this 
seriously. They're bringing a bill to the floor which they're not 
supporting. They put it on the suspension calendar so it had no chance 
of passage, and they think somehow this is constructive. Well, it's 
not.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time for us to be serious, to avoid taking 
legislative hostages. Maybe the Chamber of Commerce thinks that Wall 
Street is in on the joke that is represented by their legislative ploy 
here today, but I'm not certain the American public is. It's time to 
stop the games.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say during the 8 years of the Bush administration, the 
debt limit was raised seven times for a total

[[Page 8379]]

of $5.365 trillion. According to the CBO, the Congressional Budget 
Office, the nonpartisan CBO, the scorer of President's Obama's fiscal 
year 2012 budget, the debt limit will have to be raised a total of 
$5.385 trillion during the 4 years he's President. So 8 years versus 4 
years. That means that President Obama will have raised the debt limit 
at twice the pace that President Bush did.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I think, Mr. Camp, Standard and Poor's did not downgrade. They 
threatened. Let's be accurate.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. I think those of us who are Members of Congress or within 
the Beltway understand that this is a political thing that's going on 
at one of the most serious financial times that our Nation is facing.
  I only wonder whether or not our friends and creditors abroad, or 
those that respect the United States and even try to follow our fiscal 
ways in thinking that this is the strongest country in the entire 
world--for them to follow what we are doing, it is an embarrassment to 
the House, as well as the Senate, that the President of the United 
States of America would ask that our country be safe from a fiscal 
point of view by allowing the traditional increase in the debt ceiling. 
Notwithstanding the political differences we had, we come together as a 
Nation, not to play games on each other for political reasons, but we 
come together as a symbol for the free world to understand that if it's 
the United States of America, you can depend on us.
  But now on the suspension calendar--which is an insult to those 
people who have studied the Constitution--in the House of 
Representatives, which is reserved for noncontroversial issues, when 
the whole world knows that this is controversial and is certainly not a 
subject that should be on a calendar called the suspension calendar.
  So we still have some time to rehabilitate ourselves. I don't know 
how more ridiculous we can get, but I do hope that we avoid this in the 
future.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady from 
Texas.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Members, America is undergoing a 
terribly subpar recovery, one of the worst we've seen; three times 
worse of an economic recovery than under President Reagan, a worse 
recovery than even what President Obama promised us when he spent all 
those hundreds of billions of dollars of the stimulus money. We have 13 
million Americans out of work. Our unemployment rate is sky high. And 
the only reason it's come down a little is that we have fewer people 
working in the workforce than we have had for a quarter of a century.
  One of the strongest signals we can send to consumers and families 
and to businesses to restore their confidence is to make sure they 
understand America is going to get its financial house in order. 
Republicans in Congress are going to send a statement today that 
America will get its house in order. This vote today basically says 
we're not going to grant the President an unconditional increase in how 
much America can borrow. Here is a good reason why.
  We took a look at who ran up the debt for America over the years. 
This chart shows we basically said, Who controls the purse strings? 
Congress. We took a look at all the debt that's been incurred since 
World War II, and what it shows is that the debt held by the public, 
that's by people, by countries like China, like firms in the Federal 
Reserve Board, 90 percent of the debt that's been run up since World 
War II has been accrued by Democrats, 10 percent by Republicans.
  Now, that doesn't leave us, as Republicans, off the hook. As a matter 
of fact, we're committed to lowering this debt and getting control of 
spending. But there is a special obligation by our Democrat friends and 
the President to get this spending under control, to put discipline on 
the size of government, to restore some financial soundness, to, in 
effect, cut up the credit cards. That's what Republicans are committed 
to do. That's what Americans, poll after poll, say we need to do as a 
Nation. That's why a ``no'' vote on this unconditional debt increase is 
the right vote, not just for the country but for our future.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time is there on each side, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
14\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 13 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the 
ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a political stunt. I just heard my 
friend from Texas on the Republican side say Republicans wanted to tear 
up the credit card. It was just a few weeks ago when the Republican 
budget passed this House. All but four Republicans voted for it. Let me 
show you what that did to our credit card.
  Here it is. We are at about $14 trillion in debt. The budget all but 
four Republicans voted for takes us up toward $23 trillion, $24 
trillion in debt. An $8 trillion increase in the national debt by 
passing the Republican budget, so that clearly this isn't about tearing 
up the credit card.
  What is this about? This is about threatening to default on the full 
faith and credit of the United States unless we put into place the 
Republican budget, including their plan to end the Medicare guarantee 
and to slash Medicare benefits. That's what this is all about. They've 
said, Whoa, we're going to hold this whole thing up until we get our 
way.
  Let me tell you what their way would do to seniors. And we've seen it 
before on the floor of the House. What it means is that seniors will be 
paying thousands and thousands of dollars more for Medicare or getting 
their benefits slashed beginning in 2012. And it gets worse and worse 
and worse, so that by the year 2030 you're talking about seniors having 
to pay $12,000 more for their Medicare because the support they're 
getting is going down, while the costs in the private market, which the 
Republican plan forces them to go into, go up and up and up. So while 
the costs they face go up and up and up, the help they get under 
Medicare goes down, down, down, and they're left holding the bill.
  What's been interesting in the last couple weeks in connection with 
this debt ceiling debate is to hear these Republican proposals that 
say, Hey, don't worry about it. You know what? We'll pay China. We'll 
pay our overseas foreign creditors on our bonds. We'll take care of 
them. But guess what? We don't have to pay our full faith and credit on 
our obligations to America's seniors. We don't have to pay Medicare. We 
don't have to pay Social Security. Pay off the bond holders. Take care 
of them. But let's follow through on this plan to decimate Medicare. 
And at the end of the day, that's what this is all about.
  Because we all understand that we've got to get the deficit under 
control. We're having negotiations with the Vice President to come up 
with a responsible, balanced plan. But you're trying to force the 
Republican plan, which Newt Gingrich just the other day acknowledges 
was a radical right-wing piece of social engineering, until of course 
he was bludgeoned by the right wing to withdraw his statement. He was 
calling the shots as they were. He was saying, You know what? This 
isn't such a good idea.
  And what's really outrageous about this charade is you are now 
threatening the entire U.S. economy in order to get your way on a 
radical right-wing Medicare plan that's bad for America's seniors.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington because I knew that we

[[Page 8380]]

had a debt problem. But you know what? Once I got here and I started 
getting all the facts, I realized that we didn't have a debt problem. 
We have a debt crisis. We are $14.2 trillion in debt. And you know 
what? That number is even hard to comprehend, it's so large.
  Over and over we hear from economists, both conservative and liberal, 
that we've got less than 5 years to turn things around or the United 
States is going to sink under all this debt. We've seen what has 
happened in Greece and Ireland, and I reject that future for the United 
States.
  The time is now to fix this, because we're out of time and we have an 
opportunity to change for the good the way Washington is spending. But 
it doesn't seem the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue thinks that we 
should change anything. They're happy to keep kicking the can down the 
road. But you know what? The road has run out. In fact, the 
administration and over 100 Democrats in this Congress want a straight 
up or down vote on the debt ceiling. Well, that's what we're going to 
get today.
  And when this measure to raise the Nation's debt limit fails on the 
House floor tonight, we will be sending the White House a message loud 
and clear: You will not get another blank check from us, Mr. President. 
That's because I and 87 of my freshman colleagues were sent here to 
Washington with strict marching orders to change the borrow-and-spend 
cycle that is bringing our country down.
  Tonight, the people back home can see that we listened to them and 
that we are acting for them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BLACK. The American people reject the idea of a clean debt limit 
vote and so will the House tonight. Enough is enough.
  The gig is up, Mr. President. So now is the time to get serious: Get 
serious about ending this debt; get serious about ending Washington's 
spending addiction; and get serious about getting this country back on 
track.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address their 
comments to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Becerra), a member of our leadership and a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the last thing that we need right now is for our 
Republican colleagues to play Russian roulette with a recovering 
economy by threatening to default on America's bills and triggering an 
escalation of interest rates and mortgage rates that will have 
repercussions on every single American family, and certainly on every 
sector of our economy. Yet that's what we have today.
  Republicans have presented a bill that they've said they're going to 
vote against. So this whole charade, which is costing taxpayers money 
because we have to pay for the lights, for the printing, for all the 
Members of Congress and our staffs who are working, we have to pay for 
this so we can simply send a message that we're going to vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1710

  The New York Times further tells us today that Republican leaders 
have ``privately assured Wall Street executives that this [vote] is a 
show.'' Furthermore, they cite that an executive from the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce tells us that ``Wall Street is in on the joke.''
  The reality is that what our colleagues on the Republican side are 
trying to do is furiously try to deflect the public's attention from 
what they recklessly tried to do to Medicare by ending it, because that 
is in their proposal in their budget. They are doing everything they 
can to try to get people to stop focusing on the fact that seniors are 
being asked to pay for this debt by getting less when it comes to 
Medicare and certainly every single American as they age into seniority 
as well.
  Mr. Speaker, every family in America has to balance its checkbook. 
They have to do so responsibly. They have to pay the mortgage and pay 
the credit card bills. This Congress should do the same. This is not 
the time to play jokes. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say that the Medicare trustees have said that Medicare goes 
broke in 2024.
  So if you support an unconditional debt limit increase, as 100 
Democrats wrote to their leaders and asked to be made a position of the 
Democrat Caucus, that does nothing about preserving and protecting 
Medicare for the future.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMP. No, I will not yield.
  So I would say that by supporting an unconditional increase in the 
debt limit, as more than 100 wrote in a letter to their leaders, again, 
it would do nothing about preserving that program for the future.
  At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In my district people ask, what is this vote about, this debt ceiling 
vote, and so I have created a simple chart that just says it as plainly 
as we can. We are spending $3.5 trillion in the country each year, and 
we are bringing in 2.2 trillion.
  It doesn't work for your family, it doesn't work for your business, 
and it's not working for the country. In order to make up the 
difference, we have to borrow that money except that our bankers are 
saying no more, just as your bankers would say no more. So we are 
printing the money to make this system work. It's a scheme that's not 
working.
  This chart in the upper right-hand corner says that the whole economy 
collapses about 2038 so OMB and CBO both are saying that we must take 
care of the spending problem that we have in this country; that's what 
the debt ceiling is about. We have a law that says we can't borrow more 
than a certain amount of money.
  If we just extend with no provisions for reform, then we are going to 
continue to spend this much money every year that we don't have. So 
let's take care of the problems; let's do structural reforms in the way 
that we are spending our money. Let's do structural reforms on our 
budget; let's get it under control so that we don't give our kids a 
failed economy.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
a member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL. Thank you very much, Mr. Levin.
  The gentleman just raised the issue in question. He said, let me tell 
you what this is about. Well, let me tell you what this is about. I 
just came from the Holyoke Soldiers Home this morning; 287 veterans. I 
represent the North Hampton veterans hospital. That's what this vote is 
about.
  The gentlelady from Tennessee, I wish she was here on January 20 of 
2001 when that political party spent their day and night saying, yes, 
Mr. President, to George Bush. They went along with everything he said. 
They never even bothered to read article I of the Constitution.
  This vote is about one thing and one thing only: paying your bills. 
They ran up the debt, and now they don't want to pay their bills.
  January 19, 2001, Bill Clinton said goodbye to the country, a $5.7 
trillion surplus on hand, $2.3 trillion in tax cuts, a war in Iraq over 
weapons of mass destruction, a drug prescription benefit called part D, 
and they are talking about who owes the bill? This is about 
responsibility. This is about those VA centers. This is about those men 
and women in Iraq that need to be equipped with the best possible 
weaponry. This is about paying the credit card bill that has come in 
from what they did for all of those years.
  I would debate any member of the Republican Party--you choose the

[[Page 8381]]

 forum--in the House or the Senate, and we will go through what those 8 
years were about. Count me in.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am certainly concerned about the last 8 years, but I am more 
concerned about the last 2. I think we have got the third year in a row 
of trillion dollar deficits, a Presidential budget that doubled the 
debt in 5, tripled it in 10.
  I quote from the Standard and Poor's report on the United States 
debt:
  ``Because very large deficits and rising government indebtedness and 
the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our 
outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable.''
  The path to addressing these is not clear. We think it absolutely 
essential that we not have an unconditional increase in the debt limit, 
that we have the spending reductions, that we have the structural 
reforms that we so desperately need in this country.
  We have 110 Members of the other party who wrote a letter saying we 
want an unconditional increase in the debt; just keep spending. Don't 
bring in any spending reductions, don't bring any long-term reforms; 
just keep going the way we have been going.
  Well, Standard and Poor's says that if we don't address this issue--
and what does that mean that ``we have revised our outlook on the long-
term rating to negative from stable''? It means buying a house is more 
expensive; buying a car is more expensive. Certainly our ability to 
sell our bonds around the world will be very difficult to do and make 
it that much more expensive.
  A downgrade in our debt limit would have the same impact as not 
increasing the debt limit at all. Financial markets would be disrupted, 
borrowing costs would skyrocket, the dollar would plunge, driving up 
the cost of imports like gasoline and causing higher inflation. It 
would wreak havoc on our economy.

Research Update: United States of America ``AAA/A-1+'' Rating Affirmed; 
                      Outlook Revised To Negative


                                Overview

       We have affirmed our ``AAA/A-1+'' sovereign credit rating 
     on the United States of America.
       The economy of the U.S. is flexible and highly diversified, 
     the country's effective monetary policies have supported 
     output growth while containing inflationary pressures, and a 
     consistent global preference for the U.S. dollar over all 
     other currencies gives the country unique external liquidity.
       Because the U.S. has, relative to its ``AAA'' peers, what 
     we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising 
     government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is 
     not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term 
     rating to negative from stable.
       We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policymakers 
     might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and 
     long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is 
     not reached and meaningful implementation does not begin by 
     then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile 
     meaningfully weaker than that of peer ``AAA'' sovereigns.


                             Rating Action

       On April 18, 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services 
     affirmed its ``AAA'' long-term and ``A-1+'' short-term 
     sovereign credit ratings on the United States of America and 
     revised its outlook on the long-term rating to negative from 
     stable.


                               Rationale

       Our ratings on the U.S. rest on its high-income, highly 
     diversified, and flexible economy, backed by a strong track 
     record of prudent and credible monetary policy. The ratings 
     also reflect our view of the unique advantages stemming from 
     the dollar's preeminent place among world currencies. 
     Although we believe these strengths currently outweigh what 
     we consider to be the U.S.'s meaningful economic and fiscal 
     risks and large external debtor position, we now believe that 
     they might not fully offset the credit risks over the next 
     two years at the ``AAA'' level.
       The U.S. is among the most flexible high-income nations, 
     with both adaptable labor markets and a long track record of 
     openness to capital flows. In addition, its public sector 
     uses a smaller share of national income than those of most 
     ``AAA'' rated countries--including its closest peers, the 
     U.K., France, Germany, and Canada (all AAA/Stable/A-1+)--
     which implies greater revenue flexibility.
       Furthermore, the U.S. dollar is the world's most used 
     currency, which provides the U.S. with unique external 
     flexibility; the vast majority of U.S. trade flows and 
     external liabilities are denominated in its own dollars. 
     Recent depreciation of the currency has not materially 
     affected this position, and we do not expect this to change 
     in the medium term (see ``Apres Le Deluge, The U.S. Dollar 
     Remains The Key International Currency,'' March 10, 2010, 
     RatingsDirect).
       Despite these exceptional strengths, we note the U.S.'s 
     fiscal profile has deteriorated steadily during the past 
     decade and, in our view, has worsened further as a result of 
     the recent financial crisis and ensuing recession. Moreover, 
     more than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, 
     U.S. policymakers have still not agreed on a strategy to 
     reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term 
     fiscal pressures.
       In 2003-2008, the U.S.'s general (total) government deficit 
     fluctuated between 2% and 5% of GDP. Already noticeably 
     larger than that of most ``AAA'' rated sovereigns, it 
     ballooned to more than 11% in 2009 and has yet to recover.
       On April 13, President Barack Obama laid out his 
     Administration's medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, aimed 
     at reducing the cumulative unified federal deficit by US$4 
     trillion in 12 years or less. A key component of the 
     Administration's strategy is to work with Congressional 
     leaders over the next two months to develop a commonly agreed 
     upon program to reach this target. The President's proposals 
     envision reducing the deficit via both spending cuts and 
     revenue increases, and the adoption of a ``debt failsafe'' 
     legislative mechanism that would trigger an across-the-board 
     spending reduction if, by 2014, budget projections show that 
     federal debt to GDP has not yet stabilized and is not 
     expected to decline in the second half of the current decade.
       The Obama Administration's proposed spending cuts include 
     reducing non-security discretionary spending to levels 
     similar to those proposed by the Fiscal Commission in 
     December 2010, holding growth in base security (excluding war 
     expenditure) spending below inflation, and further cost-
     control measures related to health care programs. Revenue 
     would be increased via both tax reform and allowing the 2001 
     and 2003 income and estate tax cuts to expire in 2012 as 
     currently scheduled--though only for high-income households. 
     We note that the President advocated the latter proposal last 
     year before agreeing with Republicans to extend the cuts 
     beyond their previously scheduled 2011 expiration. The 
     compromise agreed upon in December likely provides short-term 
     support for the economic recovery, but we believe it also 
     weakens the U.S.'s fiscal outlook and, in our view, reduces 
     the likelihood that Congress will allow these tax cuts to 
     expire in the near future. We also note that previously 
     enacted legislative mechanisms meant to enforce budgetary 
     discipline on future Congresses have not always succeeded.
       Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also 
     advocated fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4 
     trillion, during the coming 10 years, but via different 
     methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's plan 
     seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by 
     cutting non-defense spending. The plan also includes 
     significantly reducing the scope of Medicare and Medicaid, 
     while bringing top individual and corporate tax rates lower 
     than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
       We view President Obama's and Congressman Ryan's proposals 
     as the starting point of a process aimed at broader 
     engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting 
     U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the 
     path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the 
     parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk 
     that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement 
     on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 
     Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first 
     budget proposal that could include related measures would be 
     Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and 
     we believe a delay beyond that time is possible.
       Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending 
     and revenue measures the Congress and the Administration 
     might conclude are appropriate. But for any plan to be 
     credible, we believe that it would need to secure support 
     from a cross-section of leaders in both political parties.
       If U.S. policymakers do agree on a fiscal consolidation 
     strategy, we believe the experience of other countries 
     highlights that implementation could take time. It could also 
     generate significant political controversy, not just within 
     Congress or between Congress and the Administration, but 
     throughout the country. We therefore think that, assuming an 
     agreement between Congress and the President, there is a 
     reasonable chance that it would still take a number of years 
     before the government reaches a fiscal position that 
     stabilizes its debt burden. In addition, even if such 
     measures are eventually put in place, the initiating 
     policymakers or subsequently elected ones could decide to at 
     least partially reverse fiscal consolidation.
       In our baseline macroeconomic scenario of near 3% annual 
     real growth, we expect the general government deficit to 
     decline gradually but remain slightly higher than 6% of GDP 
     in 2013. As a result, net general government debt would reach 
     84% of GDP by 2013. In our macroeconomic forecast's 
     optimistic

[[Page 8382]]

     scenario (assuming near 4% annual real growth), the fiscal 
     deficit would fall to 4.6% of GDP by 2013, but the U.S.'s net 
     general government debt would still rise to almost 80% of GDP 
     by 2013. In our pessimistic scenario (a mild, one-year 
     double-dip recession in 2012), the deficit would be 9.1%, 
     while net debt would surpass 90% by 2013. Even in our 
     optimistic scenario, we believe the U.S.'s fiscal profile 
     would be less robust than those of other ``AAA'' rated 
     sovereigns by 2013. (For all of the assumptions underpinning 
     our three forecast scenarios, see ``U.S. Risks To The 
     Forecast: Oil We Have to Fear Is . . .,'' March 15, 2011, 
     RatingsDirect.
       Additional fiscal risks we see for the U.S. include the 
     potential for further extraordinary official assistance to 
     large players in the U.S. financial or other sectors, along 
     with outlays related to various federal credit programs. We 
     estimate that it could cost the U.S. government as much as 
     3.5% of GDP to, appropriately capitalize and relaunch Fannie 
     Mae and Freddie Mac, two financial institutions now under 
     federal control, in addition to the 1% of GDP already 
     invested (see ``U.S. Government Cost To Resolve And Relaunch 
     Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Could Approach $700 Billion,'' 
     Nov. 4, 2010, RatingsDirect). The potential for losses on 
     federal direct and guaranteed loans (such as student loans) 
     is another material fiscal risk, in our view. Most 
     importantly, we believe the risks from the U.S. financial 
     sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008, 
     as our downward revisions of our Banking Industry Country 
     Risk Assessment (BICRA) on the U.S. to Group 3 from Group 2 
     in December 2009 and to Group 2 from Group 1 in December 2008 
     reflect (see ``Banking Industry Country Risk Assessments,'' 
     March 8, 2011, and ``Banking Industry Country Risk 
     Assessment: United States of America,'' Feb. 1, 2010, both on 
     RatingsDirect). In line with these views, we now estimate the 
     maximum aggregate, up-front fiscal cost to the U.S. 
     government of resolving potential financial sector asset 
     impairment in a stress scenario at 34% of GDP compared with 
     our estimate of 26% in 2007.
       Beyond the short- and medium-term fiscal challenges, we 
     view the U.S.'s unfunded entitlement programs (such as Social 
     Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) to be the main source of 
     long-term fiscal pressure. These, entitlements already 
     account for almost half of federal spending (an estimated 42% 
     in fiscal-year 2011), and we project that percentage to 
     continue increasing as long as these entitlement programs 
     remain as they currently exist (see ``Global Aging 2010: In 
     The U.S., Going Gray Will Cost A Lot More Green,'' Oct. 25, 
     2010, RatingsDirect). In addition, the U.S.'s net external 
     debt level (as we narrowly define it), approaching 300% of 
     current account receipts in 2011, demonstrates a high 
     reliance on foreign financing. The U.S.'s external 
     indebtedness by this measure is one of the highest of all the 
     sovereigns we rate.
       While thus far U.S. policymakers have been unable to agree 
     on a fiscal consolidation strategy, the U.S.'s closest 
     ``AAA'' rated peers have already begun implementing theirs. 
     The U.K., for example, suffered a recession almost twice as 
     severe as that in the U.S. (U.K. GDP declined 4.9% in real 
     terms in 2009, while the U.S.'s dropped 2.6%). In addition, 
     the U.K.'s net general government indebtedness has risen in 
     tandem with that of the U.S. since 2007. In June 2010, the 
     U.K. began to implement a fiscal consolidation plan that we 
     believe credibly sets the country's general government 
     deficit on a medium-term downward path, retreating below 5% 
     of GDP by 2013.
       We also expect that by 2013, France's austerity program, 
     which it is already implementing, will reduce that country's 
     deficit, which never rose to the levels of the U.S. or U.K. 
     during the recent recession, to slightly below the U.K. 
     deficit. Germany, which suffered a recession of similar 
     magnitude to that in the U.K. (but has enjoyed a much 
     stronger recovery), enacted a constitutional limit on fiscal 
     deficits in 2009 and we believe its general government 
     deficit was already at 3% of GDP last year and will likely 
     decrease further. Meanwhile, Canada, the only sovereign of 
     the peer group to suffer no major financial institution 
     failures requiring direct government assistance during the 
     crisis, enjoys by far the lowest net general government debt 
     of the five peers (we estimate it at 34% of GDP this year), 
     largely because of an unbroken string of balanced-or-better 
     general government budgetary outturns from 1997 through 2008. 
     Canada's general government deficit never exceeded 4% of GDP 
     during the recent recession, and we believe it will likely 
     return to less than 0.5% of GDP by 2013.


                                Outlook

       The negative outlook on our rating on the U.S. sovereign 
     signals that we believe there is at least a one-in-three 
     likelihood that we could lower our long-term rating on the 
     U.S. within two years. The outlook reflects our view of the 
     increased risk that the political negotiations over when and 
     how to address both the medium- and long-term fiscal 
     challenges will persist until at least after national 
     elections in 2012.
       Some compromise that achieves agreement on a comprehensive 
     budgetary consolidation program--containing deficit reduction 
     measures in amounts near those recently proposed, and 
     combined with meaningful steps toward implementation by 
     2013--is our baseline assumption and could lead us to revise 
     the outlook back to stable. Alternatively, the lack of such 
     an agreement or a significant further fiscal deterioration 
     for any reason could lead us to lower the rating.
       Standard & Poor's will hold a global teleconference call 
     and Web cast today--April 18, 2011--at 11:30 a.m. New York 
     time (4:30 p.m. London time). For dial-in and streaming audio 
     details, please go to www.standardandpoors.com/cmlive.


                     Related Criteria And Research

       Sovereign Credit Ratings: A Primer, May 29, 2008.


                              Ratings List

     Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Action
     United States of America (Unsolicited Ratings) (To--From) 
       Sovereign Credit Rating (AAA/Negative/A-1+) (AAA/Stable/A-
       1+)
     Ratings Affirmed
     United States of America (Unsolicited Ratings) Senior 
       Unsecured (AAA)
     United States of America (Unsolicited Ratings) Transfer & 
       Convertibility Assessment (AAA)

       This unsolicited rating(s) was initiated by Standard & 
     Poor's. It may be based solely on publicly available 
     information and may or may not involve the participation of 
     the issuer. Standard & Poor's has used information from 
     sources believed to be reliable based on standards 
     established in our Credit Ratings Information and Data Policy 
     but does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or 
     completeness of any information used.
       Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of 
     RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal at 
     www.globalcreditportal.com. All ratings affected by this 
     rating action can be found on Standard & Poor's public Web 
     site at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box 
     located in the left column.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 5 seconds.
  Mr. Camp, you were the ones who said just keep spending. We don't say 
that.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Today's vote represents just one more step in the 
Republican effort to dismantle Medicare. This contrived procedure, 
demanding an extraordinary two-thirds vote, right after the Republican 
majority announces they won't vote for it, is just a gimmick. You don't 
have to be much of a math whiz to know if you don't have half the votes 
in this body, you probably are not going to get two-thirds of the vote.
  But it's not about the vote. It's about Republicans, who are 
withholding their support of an eventual necessary increase in the 
limit, by demanding that any agreement on that include a weakening of 
Medicare by imposing something like the Ryan Republican Medicare 
voucher plan that they all voted for, or some other scheme, to just let 
Medicare wither on the vine.
  Republicans are willing to jeopardize the full faith and credit of 
the United States of America, exposing us to great potential economic 
harm. They think the President will once again yield to their ransom 
demands, as he did last December, by yielding on more tax breaks for 
billionaires.
  Don't yield to this maneuver, Mr. President. Say ``no'' to gimmicks 
and say ``yes'' to Medicare, one of the best programs ever initiated by 
this Congress to ensure a little retirement security.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to 
address their remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second 
person.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today, not talking about something as the 
other side would contend is a joke. This is a very serious issue, and I 
rise in opposition to an increase in the debt ceiling that would just 
give the President another couple of trillion dollars to keep spending 
the way he has been spending for the last 2 years.
  I think Americans across the country recognize that this wild 
spending spree the President has been on the last 2 years has to come 
to an end, and it's going to start here on this House floor where we 
are going to finally invoke fiscal discipline. And, of course, over 100 
Members of the other side have asked for a clean vote. They want 
another trillion to keep going along,

[[Page 8383]]

maybe 2 trillion, to keep spending money that we don't have.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. In fact, if you look at their plan, their plan not only 
will double the national debt in 5 years, which I guess they are okay 
with, but it also allows Medicare to go bankrupt. We are not going to 
sit by and let Medicare go bankrupt. We are not going to sit by and let 
them keep spending money that we don't have.
  We are finally going to say enough is enough.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. We are going to put spending controls in place. Frankly, 
it would be irresponsible to increase the debt ceiling without reforms 
that actually start cutting spending and putting our country back on a 
path to a balanced budget.

                              {time}  1720

  Now maybe some on the other side don't want to see us get to a 
balanced budget, which is why they've dramatically increased spending 
over the last 4 years up until when Speaker Pelosi was fired. But, 
frankly, the American people have said, enough is enough, stop the 
spending binge, enough of giving the President this uncontrolled use of 
the American credit card. Let's start reining in spending. Let's put 
those controls in place. Let's get our country back on a path of fiscal 
sanity so we don't have these groups like S&P saying that they will 
downgrade the bond rating of the United States of America. That's not 
something we can tolerate.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. Maybe the gentleman on the other side might want to, and 
I'm sure during your time you'll have the opportunity to address that, 
but, frankly, what we've got to do is start installing fiscal 
discipline back in this House, and we're going to start doing it now. 
It means no more blank checks and no more unbridled spending. The 
President is going to have an opportunity to join us in that debate. 
But, frankly, it starts tonight, and we say we're not going to keep 
giving that credit card limit to the President without real reforms.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the whip, Mr. 
Hoyer from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Unfortunately, this is a serious issue on which serious time has not 
been allotted because you put this on suspension. This is a serious 
issue. Our country is in crisis from a fiscal standpoint.
  Now I wanted the gentleman to yield because I don't think the 
gentleman has any idea what the facts are. Eighty-nine percent increase 
in the debt under Ronald Reagan. He could have vetoed every one of 
those bills. Under George Bush, 115 percent increase in the debt. Under 
Bill Clinton, less than 40.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this issue is an important issue that is being 
treated not as an adult. This is not the adult moment of which Speaker 
Boehner spoke. And you didn't mention that the budget you voted for, I 
presume, I'm not sure, increased the debt by $1.9 trillion between now 
and October 1 of this year.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is not an honest debate. This is not an 
honest proposal. This is a serious issue. TARP was a serious issue, and 
the American public didn't want to see it passed. And had it not 
passed, we would have gone into depression. Who said that? George Bush, 
Hank Paulson, the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, and Ben 
Bernanke, the Republican appointed head of the Federal Reserve. It was 
a tough vote.
  And so what did we do for America? We came together, Republicans and 
Democrats, more Democrats supporting the Republican President's request 
than his own party, to save America from depression.
  We need to deal with this issue, ladies and gentlemen, of America 
seriously, not in 20-minute debates on each side, not as a simplistic 
suggestion that somehow President Obama caused this. One point three 
trillion in wars we haven't paid for, a drug prescription bill we 
haven't paid for, tax cuts that your party voted for--not mine--that we 
didn't pay for. Should we have tax cuts? That's fine. But we ought to 
pay for them, not have my great-grandson, who was just born a week ago, 
pay for it. That's what you're doing.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to vote ``no'' on this. We ought to 
vote for this. We ought to have a clean bill. And we ought to have both 
sides coming together and saying America needs this for debts that we 
have incurred. What I tell town meetings is, it's like you go to 
Macy's, you take out your credit card, and you charge $200 worth of 
goods. And then you go home that night, your husband or your wife and 
you sit down and say, look, we've got too much debt, we need to have a 
debt limit. Put a $100 debt limit on us. And then Macy's sends you a 
bill, and you send them back a letter and say, no, I've got a debt 
limit. It's 100 bucks. So you send them a check for $100. They send 
back a letter saying, hey, no more credit, and guess what? We're suing 
you.
  This debt limit extension is for what we have already incurred. This 
debt limit extension vote is about whether or not we are going to pay 
our bills. But I will tell you this, we'll see how many of your folks 
vote for paying our bills.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. The whip is so eloquent, I yield the gentleman another 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. I'm looking forward to seeing how many of your folks are 
going to say, yes, we need to pay our bills, America. We need to be a 
good debtor as well as a good creditor. We're going to see how many of 
your folks vote. I've got just a sneaking suspicion it's not going to 
be very many, if any. It's a good demagogue vote, frankly, ladies and 
gentlemen. And if we vote for it, guess what? Oh, you're for raising 
the debt limit without any fiscal discipline.
  Well, when we were in charge, when the President of the United States 
wouldn't let you do some of the things you wanted to do, Bill Clinton 
was there to veto things, we had a surplus for 4 years in a row, and we 
didn't increase the debt once.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HOYER. Under George Bush, we increased it seven times. I urge a 
``no'' vote on this irresponsible piece of legislation that should have 
been handled in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  One hundred fourteen members of the other party signed a letter to 
the leader who just spoke and asked for an unconditional increase in 
the debt limit. I know that's not maybe a fact they want to acknowledge 
now, but it is so important that we have a clear path forward on this 
given what the rating agencies are saying about our debt. They're 
saying it's not clear how we are going to deal with our indebtedness.
  It is so important that we set forward that when we address this 
issue, there are going to be the kind of spending reductions and 
structural reforms we need. That is going to have to be part of this 
discussion. We can't continue to have it clouded with this idea that we 
might have a debt limit increase without any of those. That's why it is 
so important to send this very strong signal today.
  I hope all of the members of your party join me in voting ``no'' on 
this bill.
  At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate the chairman for yielding me 
this moment to address the American people and the students that might 
be watching on TV or here in the gallery.
  Once again, you see the problem that we have here in Washington. We 
cannot have a fact-based conversation with the American people, which 
they desperately want. I talked to a lot of students back at home, and 
I said, how many of you are going to have a summer job? A lot of them 
raised their hands. I said, okay, we're going to say

[[Page 8384]]

you're going to make $220 a week. But you've got a problem. We're going 
to take your credit card, and you're going to spend $370 a week. How 
long do you think you can do that as you're saving up for college, as 
you're saving for that car or that piece of computer equipment? Can you 
do that all summer? The kids look at me and say, of course not. Don't 
be dumb. You can't do that.
  Then I say, do you know what? Add 10 zeros to it. Add 10 zeros to 
that, and that's exactly what we are doing here in the United States 
Congress, what we have been doing repeatedly, both sides of the aisle, 
with both administrations. It doesn't matter. We have got to get this 
under control. Because when you add those 10 zeros, just like my friend 
from New Mexico was talking about, we take in $2.2 trillion a year, we 
spend $3.7 trillion a year.
  It's time to tear up that credit card, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains from our minimum 20 minutes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Berg).
  Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, every time I talk to North Dakotans, one 
message is clear: Washington is on an unsustainable path, and it needs 
change. Out-of-control spending is unacceptable. A rising debt is 
unacceptable. And allowing this debt to grow without reform is 
unacceptable.
  This country borrows $4 billion a day. Fixing this mess will require 
real reforms. It requires a serious, honest conversation about where 
this country stands today and how we want to leave this country for the 
next generation. It's irresponsible to leave our children with a Nation 
that has a mountain of debt.

                              {time}  1730

  It is unacceptable to increase our debt without making any attempt to 
reduce it. We cannot continue to do the same thing over and over and 
expect different results.
  I've heard the North Dakota people, and I will not support any debt 
limit increase that does not contain significant spending cuts and 
budgetary reforms. It's time to stop the reckless spending. It's time 
to reduce the size of government. It's time to enact policies that will 
put America back on track.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I signed that letter, I led that letter, and I will tell 
you why I did. America faces two challenges. One is we must pay our 
bills. Whether those bills were incurred for a war that you supported 
or you opposed; whether those bills were incurred by a Congress you 
served in or you didn't; whether it was for a prescription drug program 
that you were for or against, a bill incurred, an obligation incurred, 
is an obligation that must be paid. That is the fundamental 
responsibility that I acknowledge as a citizen, that I acknowledge as 
an American, that I acknowledge as a Congressman.
  Second, this question of a long-term deficit reduction plan, we need 
it. You are right. We understand that.
  Where is it?
  You have the opportunity in this legislation to present your plan 
that will get us on a glide path to fiscal balance. It's not here, 
suggesting either you don't have a plan or the plan you want to present 
doesn't have the support of the American people.
  We are playing Russian roulette with a loaded gun in the American 
economy, and the deficit clock is ticking. This requires a substantial 
response. The approach taken, a suspension vote, trivializes both our 
short-term obligation to pay our bills and our long-term obligation to 
have a long-term deficit reduction plan.
  And the fact that this is done, being sponsored by folks who 
immediately say they are against what they proposed and then quietly 
making phone calls to Wall Street saying they are for what they just 
voted against, is what is Washington business as usual that people are 
tired of and is not solving our problem.
  The default clock is ticking.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would ask the gentleman from Michigan, do you have other 
speakers?
  Mr. CAMP. Not at this time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if the Treasury had a dollar for every time 
someone says they want to cut the deficit, we wouldn't have one. So 
let's stop talking about cutting the deficit and talk about how we can 
cut the deficit.
  Let's let Medicare negotiate the price of prescription drugs, rather 
than pay whatever the drug companies demand, and save $300 billion over 
10 years.
  Let's stop occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and paying their bills, to 
the tune of $110 billion a year, and bring the troops home.
  Let's stop giving $80 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies that 
made record profits last year.
  Let's require people who make more than $1 million a year to pay just 
a little bit more to help reduce this problem.
  And let's have sensible reductions in other departments of 
government.
  This is not a time for us to be providing cover to a political party. 
It is a time for us to cover the obligations to our seniors, not by 
abolishing Medicare but by improving it, to cover obligations to our 
veterans, and cover obligations to the country. We will come back in a 
couple of weeks and do what we should be doing tonight, which is to 
raise this debt ceiling and protect this country.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield our final minute to our leader, who will close on 
our behalf, Ms. Pelosi, from the great State of California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Levin, for your compliment to my great 
State of California.
  Mr. Speaker, when I first heard this legislation was coming to the 
floor, I anticipated with some positive thoughts of, yes, this is the 
right thing to do. America must pay its bills. We know how to do that. 
We want to go forward, assuring the American people that, when we 
decide not to default on our debt, we are showing our strength, even 
though it may be difficult for people to support that.
  Then I heard that it was going to come up like this. On Sunday, they 
told us it would be up on Tuesday and that the bill is predicated on a 
false premise. It says the Congress finds that the President's budget 
proposal, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, 
necessitates an increase in the statutory debt of $2.4 trillion.
  Well, that is just absolutely not the case. First of all, that bill 
never passed the House and it never passed the United States Senate. 
What did pass the House, though, was the Republican budget plan, which 
abolishes Medicare, gives tax increases to Big Oil, gives tax breaks to 
corporations sending jobs overseas, weakens the middle class, and does 
not create jobs. And, in fact, increases the deficit by $1.9 trillion. 
It increases the deficit by $1.9 trillion.
  So what are we doing here today? What are we doing? The Republicans 
have introduced a bill which they have now resoundingly said that they 
will oppose. So where is the good-faith effort here? We are, I believe, 
in a good-faith effort, in a bipartisan way, House and Senate, 
Democrats and Republicans, working with Vice President Biden to find 
ways to make sure we don't find ourselves in this situation again.
  As a mother and as a grandmother, I have absolutely no intention of 
passing any bills, personal or official, on to my

[[Page 8385]]

children or grandchildren. And let me say, the Democrats know how to 
clean up the debt. We have had to do it before. The Reagan-Bush debt 
that President Clinton inherited was a massive debt, and because we 
took the vote for the economic plan in 1993, we were on a path to 
fiscal soundness. The last four budgets of the Clinton administration 
were in balance or in surplus. I believe the Democratic whip, Mr. 
Hoyer, addressed these numbers earlier, and I associate myself with his 
remarks and his passion on this subject.
  Coming into the Bush years, President Clinton put us on a path of 
$5.6 trillion, a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. One of the 
biggest turnarounds in the fiscal situation in our country happened 
under President Bush. So all of this talk about deficits and their 
immorality and the rest, I agree. But where was everybody when 
President Bush was giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our 
country, which did not create jobs, giving away the store to the 
pharmaceutical industry in the Medicare part D bill, at a tremendous 
cost to the deficit, and not paying for the wars?
  Again, we place our men and women in uniform in harm's way. They make 
us the home of the brave and the land of the free. We want them to have 
what they need. They want us to pay for it. We owe them an obligation 
to build a future worthy of their sacrifice, and that future does not 
contain unlimited growing debt, unlimited growing debt.
  Never before in the history of our country have we lowered taxes for 
the rich while we were at war. This is an all-time first. So here we 
are. We inherit this debt of the Bush administration. That's why we are 
in the situation we are in.
  So as our colleagues try to characterize this as we're raising the 
debt limit so there can be more spending, no, we're not. We're avoiding 
default of the massive debt accrued during the Bush administration. 
That's why we are here.
  So to predicate this legislation, which I really, coming out of last 
week, thought maybe it was something I would support, unencumbered 
legislation so that we would pay our bills and not be a deadbeat 
nation, instead they predicate it again on a false premise.
  The facts are these: The Republican budget did pass this House; the 
Republican budget. They just want to change the subject from Medicare. 
That's all. They just want to change the subject from Medicare, so 
let's just bring this up at the drop of a hat in the first hours back 
from Memorial Day. They want to change the subject from Medicare.
  But the facts are these: In their Republican budget, which is the 
predicate for this legislation, they abolish Medicare. Not only that, 
they make prescription drugs more expensive for seniors.

                              {time}  1740

  They eliminate prevention services for seniors, services which make 
them healthier and lower costs to us. They do all of this while also, 
as far as the children are concerned, cutting education for our 
children, the reading teachers for our children, making college more 
expensive for nearly 10 million young adults--all of this a travesty in 
terms of our hopes and aspirations of middle-income families in our 
country.
  Then to add insult to that injury, they come in here with a bill that 
they have to bring up immediately so that they can oppose it. Well, 
even the Chamber of Commerce has said, We're all in on the joke, but it 
just isn't that funny if you're a struggling family in America, hoping 
to keep your job, your home, to be able to send your children to 
college, save for the future, have some confidence about your economic 
security. If you're a senior or others who depend on Medicare, to have 
it abolished hurts your economic as well as your health security.
  So this is about priorities. A budget should be a statement of our 
national values, what is important to us as a country: the education of 
our children, the respect of the dignified retirement for our seniors, 
job creation, in that we have a moral obligation to create jobs so we 
have jobs for our workers and so they can have better futures, as well 
as to make our country more competitive, reducing the deficit. We've 
done it once, the Democrats did. We can do it again, hopefully in a 
bipartisan way under the auspices that have been created for this 
purpose. We are right in the middle of it. We come in and say, Okay, 
let's introduce a bill based on a false premise, and then let's all 
oppose it. Well, I'm glad you're opposing it, because you're opposing 
the false premise that you have in this bill.
  Let's get serious. Let's get serious about this. The American people 
are crying out for help.
  Do you know that the tax cuts on which this deficit has grown, the 
tax cuts to the wealthy, did not create jobs? They increased the 
deficit. They did not create jobs. More jobs were created in the second 
year of the Obama administration in the private sector than in the 8 
years of the Bush administration. So this talk that tax cuts to the 
high end were going to create jobs just didn't happen. We don't want to 
talk about the past. We want to know what we're going to do in the 
future, but it's important to learn from the past so we don't do it 
again, so we're not in this situation again.
  As I said, as to the thought of an unencumbered bill that would come 
to the floor, if that would be the case, I looked favorably upon that 
until I saw what was in here, which isn't right. I'm glad that, 
hopefully, it will have a big, strong vote against it.
  I want to commend my colleague, Congressman Welch. In his letter, he 
is not demanding anything. He is saying let's get together and talk 
about how we can pass a bill that is a clean debt limit bill. That's 
what he is talking about. Why don't we follow his lead on that and get 
together and talk about how we can do this in a way that is clean and/
or at the same time has a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit so that 
we can do just that as we increase jobs and strengthen the middle 
class.
  Thank you, Mr. Welch, for your leadership in that regard. I know that 
it has been mischaracterized here, but I salute you for your leadership 
on that score.
  So, my colleagues, you'll vote the way you'll vote, but the fact is 
what is happening on this floor is not serious. It's not serious, but 
the subject it addresses is serious. It is time for this Congress of 
the United States to get serious about debt reduction, job creation, 
and to stop this assault on Medicare, which is the basis for this 
legislation today.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 1954.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last February, when the President submitted his budget for 2012, he 
did not provide any plan for reining in deficits and debt. The 
administration called for a clean increase in the debt limit, or an 
increase in the debt limit that was unconditional, one that had no 
spending reductions or structural reforms to try to address the problem 
that we face, and it assumed $2.4 trillion in borrowing authority, or 
an increase in the debt limit of about $2.4 trillion. One hundred 
fourteen Democrats have asked the leadership of their party for an 
unconditional vote on the debt limit.
  My colleagues on the other side have been very reminiscent about the 
Bush years, and I would just say that, in 4 years, the debt under the 
Obama administration will exceed that of the Bush administration's in 8 
years; or another way of putting that is the debt under this President 
is going up at twice the rate it did under President Bush.
  So it is important that we send a clear signal that there is not 
going to be an unconditional increase in the debt limit and that we are 
serious about addressing our debt and deficit problems as a country. 
We've seen the signals that we've gotten from the financial markets, 
and we've heard what our constituents have said. It is very

[[Page 8386]]

important that we bring the kinds of spending reductions and reforms to 
this debate that we need to, so I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1954, the Debt Limit Extension. For weeks, Congressional Democrats 
and Republicans and the Obama Administration have been engaged for 
weeks in bipartisan deficit reduction talks. Today's vote on the debt 
limit extension brought to the floor despite House Republicans 
promotion to vote against the bill is a dangerous stunt of political 
theatrics that could jeopardize those serious bipartisan negotiations. 
Our country cannot afford to take the debt limit negotiations lightly. 
It is reckless for Republicans to send confusing signals to 
international markets that could jeopardize our own fragile economic 
recovery. This bill is a gimmick, by Republican leadership and 
something as serious as our country's debt limit should not be part of 
political games. I stand with my fellow Congressional Democrats and 
remain committed to responsible deficit reduction.
  We must protect our citizens. Medicare guarantees a healthy and 
secure retirement for Americans who have paid into it for their entire 
working lives. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of 
fairness and respect for our seniors that all Americans cherish. I am 
committed to addressing the budget deficit by putting America's working 
families first. We should not be cutting programs that protect the 
everyday lives of Americans.
  An attack on Medicare and Medicaid are examples of wrong priorities 
and are wrong choices for seniors and middle class families.
  Facts About Medicare and Medicaid:
  Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances. 
While many beneficiaries enjoy good health, a quarter or more have 
serious health problems and live with multiple chronic conditions, 
including cognitive and functional impairments. Most people with 
Medicare live on modest incomes. Today, 43% of all Medicare 
beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 years old and 12% are 85 or older. 
Those who are 85 or older are the fastest-growing age group among 
elderly Medicare beneficiaries. With the aging and growth of the 
population, the number of Medicare beneficiaries more than doubled 
between 1966 and 2000 and is projected to grow from 45 million today to 
79 million in 2030.
  Medicaid is the nation's largest health coverage program measured by 
enrollees (53 million). Through its 40 year history, the program has 
transformed from a welfare-based health coverage program to a health 
insurance and long-term care program serving both low income 
individuals and families and providing long-term care services for 
individuals with disabilities and the low-income elderly. Because 
Medicaid has such a diverse set of obligations and is run jointly by 
federal and state governments there is much misunderstanding about 
facts related to the program.
  Managed care is an example of an innovation that became a standard 
option--about 60 percent of beneficiaries are in managed care. A 
current innovation that several states are experimenting with is moving 
long-term care services towards a home and community based setting. 
Additionally, Medicaid's structure has allowed it to expand and readily 
adapt to emerging issues in the American health system like the HIV/
AIDS crisis.
  Sixty percent of nursing home residents are not on Medicaid at the 
time of their admittance into a facility. With the average annual cost 
of nursing home care being $60,000, the longer an individual remains in 
a facility, the more likely they are to deplete their financial 
resources and qualify for Medicaid coverage. Even after individuals 
deplete their assets, they are still required to apply their income, 
including Social Security and pension checks, towards their care costs, 
except for an average monthly $30 personal needs allowance.
  Compared to private health programs, Medicaid has lower 
administrative costs per claims paid when compared to private sector 
plans. Medicaid per capita growth has been consistently about half the 
rate of growth in private insurance premiums. Both of these factors 
show that despite program growth, Medicaid is an efficient program.
  Mr. Speaker, not only will allowing America to default on its debt 
wreak havoc and chaos on financial markets around the world, but it 
will also be damaging to the most vulnerable members of our society. In 
essence it takes a hatchet to the programs Americans truly care about. 
In my district in Houston, Texas, there are 190,035 people living under 
the poverty line as well as 82,272 seniors and over 58,500 seniors. If 
House Republicans' self destructive economic policies are allowed to 
play out it will threaten the viability of the programs that our 
Nation's seniors, children, and poor depend on for health and well 
being.
  Despite countless warnings from economists, business leaders, and 
Wall Street executives about the economic consequences, House 
Republicans are still holding the economy hostage by threatening to 
default on our debt and are putting the economy at risk by suggesting 
America might not pay its bills.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said defaulting on our debt 
would ``at minimum'' lead to ``an increase in interest rates, which 
would actually worsen our deficit and would hurt all borrowers in the 
economy.''
  Additionally, a coalition of 62 of the nation's largest business 
groups urged Congress to raise the debt limit: ``With economic growth 
slowly picking up we cannot afford to jeopardize that growth with the 
massive spike in borrowing costs that would result if we defaulted on 
our obligations.''
  But in case that isn't convincing enough, Third Way, a well respected 
moderate think thak, released a report outlining the consequences of 
not paying America's bills:
  642,500 jobs lost
  GDP would decrease by 1%
  Every mortgage would increase by $19,175
  Stocks would fall, the S&P dropping 6.3%
  And every 401(k) holder would lose $8,816
  The House Republican majority needs to stop threatening the American 
people and get to work to increase the debt ceiling so that our country 
can pay its bills. The real issue that we should be focusing on is that 
we must raise revenues while also reducing spending. They must 
complement each other. Congressional Republicans must accept the 
challenge that everything must be on the table, including ending the 
tax cuts to the top 2% of the wealthiest people in our country.
  We need a serious debt ceiling increase bill so that we can have 
deliberative discussion on how to cut spending without cutting Medicare 
and Medicaid. We do not need to hold the American economy hostage, and 
we need to begin these discussions in order to show the world that we 
are fiscally responsible.
  If not, the failure to extend our Nation's debt limit would have 
harmful effects on job creation and the programs necessary to ensure 
the health and safety of out constituents. I support a clean bill that 
is not layered down with Republican Christmas tree ornaments that are 
made for special interests. This will raise our debt. We must pay our 
bills otherwise this will be detrimental to our Nation and that I will 
not support.
  Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, when the United States Congress was faced with 
raising the debt ceiling in 2006 Senator Barack Obama stated ``The fact 
that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign 
of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay 
its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial 
assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless 
fiscal policies.''
  I will not be party to a failure of leadership when it comes to the 
debt ceiling. Today, I will do what I stated when I ran for the House 
of Representatives, I will vote against increasing a debt ceiling 
absent of spending control measures to right our fiscal ship of state.
  This resolution would increase the current statutory debt limit by 
$2.406 trillion, from $14.294 trillion $16.7 trillion. The 16.8 percent 
increase would be the fourth time the debt ceiling has been increased 
since February 2009.
  Over the past two years, President Obama and congressional Democrats 
have overseen the largest budget deficits in the history of the United 
States. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chastised the Republicans and 
President George W. Bush in 2006 when he stated ``Why is it right to 
increase this Nation's dependence on foreign creditors? They should 
explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they are right. I 
doubt it, because most Americans know that increasing the debt is the 
last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the baby boomers 
are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist 
would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.''
  The American people have sent a Republican majority to the House of 
Representatives to reduce spending and put our country on a sustainable 
financial footing. If I were to close my eyes and abandon my 
principles, and vote yes to raising the debt limit I would allow 
Congress to continue to spend the taxpayers' money with no clear plan 
to reduce our long term debt. The problem in Washington is we do not 
have a revenue problem--the facts are clear we have a spending problem 
in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this debt increase and I will not 
vote for a debt limit increase unless all of the following criteria are 
met, or included in the final bill that would aim to raise the debt 
limit:
  The United States Congress must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States.

[[Page 8387]]

  A failsafe trigger mechanism must be put in place that would 
automatically cut spending if we reached a set percentage limit towards 
hitting the debt ceiling. In other words, as Federal spending 
approached the debt ceiling, once a certain level was reached, 
automatic cuts in spending to Federal programs would be triggered, 
ensuring that future Congresses and Administrations would not have to 
consider raising the debt ceiling in the future.
  Capping federal spending as part of the GDP at 18-20%.
  The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35% at the federal level and 39% when 
the average state corporate tax is included. The average rate in the 
other industrial countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development (OECD) is just 25%. Only Japan has as high a rate. 
Businesses and corporations in the United States cannot succeed in an 
environment where they are among the highest taxed in the entire world. 
It is paramount that Congress lowers the corporate tax rate for 
American businesses by at least 10% before any vote on raising the debt 
limit is considered.
  On May 14, 2011, the Wall Street Journal in article entitled ``What 
if the U.S. Treasury Defaults?'' interviewed Mr. Stanley Druckenmiller, 
the onetime fund manager for George Soros, regarding whether Congress 
should immediately raise the federal debt. Mr. Druckenmiller pointed 
out the grave danger if politicians give the government authority to 
borrow beyond the current $14.3 trillion without any conditions to 
control spending. He further went on to state that he was willing to 
accept a temporary delay in the interest payments he is owed on his 
United States Treasury Bonds ``if the results in a Washington deal to 
restrain runaway entitlement costs.''
  I cannot, and will not, be part of President Obama's, and more than 
100 of my Democrat colleagues in the House of Representatives, mantra 
that we need to raise the debt ceiling as a ``clean'' bill without any 
fiscal reform. For without making meaningful attempts to reduce on 
every increasing national debt, this would be a vote not on a debt 
ceiling but more a debt recommendation.
  The Congress would find themselves voting to increase the debt 
ceiling again, and again, and again. Enough is enough! Washington needs 
to stop spending money we do not have and not make our children and 
grandchildren pick up the tab for our reckless financial behavior.
  I am even pleased that then Senator Joe Biden agrees with my 
thoughts, for in 2006, he stated: ``This is a record of utter disregard 
for our Nation's financial future. It is a record of indifference to 
the price our children and grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt 
when it comes due. History will not judge this record kindly. My vote 
against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have 
incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a 
statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought 
us to this point.''
  Vice President Biden, I stand with you and refuse to be associated 
with the policies your Administration help precipitate, by spending 
beyond our means, and will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today's debt limit vote will fail to pass 
because neither Republicans nor Democrats have made meaningful progress 
on balancing the federal budget. The Republican 2012 budget makes 
devastating cuts to transportation, education, ends Medicare as we know 
it. Despite these cuts, they fail to balance the budget for three 
decades. The Democratic 2012 budget would take even longer to restore 
balance. Neither is a serious long term plan to restore fiscal sanity.
  Today's vote was necessary to conclude the debt limit theatrics and 
bring us closer to negotiating a comprehensive budget. Neither party 
has the necessary votes to extend the debt ceiling without a bi-
partisan deal on the budget.
  We need to pay our debts and obligations and I will be urging the 
Republican leadership to tie future debt ceiling legislation to a 
balanced budget amendment. I have long supported a balanced budget 
amendment and had it passed in 1995, we wouldn't be in this mess. A 
balanced budget amendment would force both sides to make some tough 
decisions on both budget cuts and raising revenue.
  Balancing the budget does not need to be a partisan issue. For 
example, in his second term President Reagan increased taxes several 
times to reduce the massive deficits created by the failure of supply 
side trickle-down policies. Again in the late 1990s, Clinton and a 
Republican Congress balanced a budget from 1998 to 2001 because they 
compromised on both spending cuts and increased taxes.
  With adoption of a balanced budget amendment Congress could balance 
the budget in ten years. This begins with repealing the Bush tax cuts, 
cutting the deficit in half. To reduce federal spending, Congress 
should bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, cut antiquated 
cold war weapons systems, and cut agriculture subsidies. Further cuts 
can be made by eliminating special interest tax breaks and subsidies 
for ethanol, big oil, and prescription drug companies. Finally, 
Congress should continuously scrub the rest of the budget for further 
reductions to ensure a balanced budget in ten years.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this legislation 
raising our nation's debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion without any spending 
cuts or attempt to balance our nation's budget.
  The fact that we have reached the $14 trillion debt ceiling should 
concern every American. Congress has to get our fiscal house in order 
and everything needs to be on the table.
  If we are going to have this debate, then let's bring everything to 
the table. Any discussion concerning raising our debt ceiling needs to 
include significant spending cuts, fiscal reforms to reduce the debt we 
are leaving our children, and a balanced budget amendment.
  We can't afford to continue the same path of spending more and more 
taxpayer dollars and hoping our nation's debt will somehow go down. And 
we certainly cannot afford another blind increase in America's debt 
limit.
  It is a fact of life. When you max out your credit card, you cut 
spending and pay down your debt. It is time Congress does the same.
  We have the chance to do the right thing, but this measure--raising 
the debt ceiling without any attempt to curb spending--fell far short.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
1954, a clean up-or-down vote on extending the debt limit, refusing to 
hold this critical measure hostage to other economic and political 
objectives.
  I must confess that I am perplexed to see the majority bring an 
utterly vital bill to the floor that it has no intention of passing--
and is actually urging its members to vote against. I must also note 
that it contains a poison pill: a hypocritical and deceptive clause 
that seeks to lay full blame on President Obama for the need for a debt 
limit increase.
  Mr. Speaker, how many members of Congress have voted for a tax cut or 
an appropriations bill over the past few Congresses? The answer is 
nearly all. While we may debate the merits of each of those past 
proposals and reach different conclusions on their merit, the bill for 
these prior legislative acts is now due. Not paying it would be 
reckless, and you don't have to be an economist to figure that out. 
Every American family knows that you must pay your bills when those 
bills come due. The United States can be no different.
  Passage of a clean debt ceiling bill would affirm that America always 
pays her bills. This isn't about authorizing new spending; it's just 
ensuring that we can pay for what we have already bought. Whether 
Congress is paying for tax cuts, tanks, or teachers, there's no free 
lunch.
  As troubling as the motivations behind this vote are, more troubling 
still is the majority's willingness to put the full faith and credit of 
the United States at risk to gain leverage over economic policy. 
Republicans should not be holding the economy hostage to advance their 
ideological agenda, especially when the economic recovery is still 
fragile.
  Earlier this year, I joined with my colleagues in asking House 
Republicans to support a clean debt limit increase, but today it's 
clear they will not. In short, the majority is playing with fire. 
Remember this: default would set off a catastrophic chain of economic 
consequences, putting not just the economic recovery at risk, but 
risking a new, deeper recession. It would affect every single American 
family, every single worker and every single retiree. There is no 
reason to manufacture a crisis, but we have seen this play before from 
the majority, who manufactured a crisis over funding the government in 
the 2011 fiscal year: a crisis that ended up costing taxpayers more 
money and realizing none of the promised savings this year.
  The majority can do better than partisan posturing, and it must. 
There are many members--on both sides of the aisle--who I suspect share 
this conviction. I have long advocated a comprehensive approach to 
deficit reduction. I believe any serious approach puts all the 
options--revenue, as well as domestic, defense and entitlement 
spending, carefully targeted in all cases--on the table as we chart a 
course back to fiscal balance. But where we cut and of whom we ask 
additional sacrifice should be consistent with our priorities and 
values.
  If we consider all the options, we can chart a course to fiscal 
balance, one that invests in the things that ensure our economic 
success: education, innovation, and infrastructure. If we consider all 
the options, we can safeguard our

[[Page 8388]]

commitment to seniors instead of undermining it by turning Medicare 
into a voucher program. Congress must do better than a budget that ends 
Medicare as we know it to pay for tax cuts to oil companies and wealthy 
individuals, and at the same time sinks the country $1.9 trillion 
further into debt. Not long ago, many responsible members of the 
majority party favored a comprehensive approach. As we move forward, I 
urge them not to wilt on the vine in the face of pressure from those on 
the far right.
  Congress must come together and negotiate in good faith if we are 
going to do the two critical things required of us: to put the American 
people back to work in a fully recovered economy, and to chart a course 
back to fiscal balance. I will vote for this legislation today, because 
America must pay its bills. But this Republican move is far more 
symbolic than serious, harnessing only Congress' power as an instrument 
of partisan politics, and not its power as an instrument to answer the 
country's problems.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I voted against allowing the United States to 
default on its debt.
  Although the preamble of the bill took a gratuitous poke at the 
President by stating erroneously that it is the President's budget for 
Fiscal Year 2012 that makes it necessary to increase the debt ceiling, 
this statement was insignificant in relation to the effective part of 
the bill.
  For more than two centuries, the United States has been a trustworthy 
creditor. In previous years, members of both parties have set aside 
their policy disagreements to ensure the United States fulfills its 
obligations to creditors and maintains its credit rating.
  Unfortunately, the Republicans didn't want Tuesday's vote on the debt 
ceiling to be about maintaining our creditworthiness. Instead, it was 
the latest in a series of reckless political games being played by my 
colleagues who brought this bill to the floor to have it fail. Even the 
author of this bill voted against it.
  We saw this brand of economic brinkmanship just last month, when 
Congressional Republicans brought the federal government to within 
minutes of a shutdown. While these actions may please some narrow 
ideological constituency, they endanger needlessly the financial 
security of the United States and the economic security of the American 
people.
  Whether one blames the debt on unpaid bills of the Reagan defense 
buildup, food stamps and other social programs, the Bush tax cuts and 
two wars not paid for, or any other action of government over the past 
decade or past century, this was not the place for that argument.
  Whether you think taxes are too low or spending is too high, this was 
not the occasion to try to impose one's own idea of a correction.
  This was not the occasion to reshape our economy or score ideological 
points. If House Republicans were serious about improving the nation's 
fiscal outlook, then they would have voted in favor of this measure so 
we could move on to legislation that will help Americans get back to 
work.
  I acted responsibly so the United States can continue to fulfill its 
financial obligations by voting in favor of this clean debt ceiling 
bill.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 1954.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds not 
being in the affirmative, the noes have it.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________