[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12478-12494]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 383 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 383

       Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill (S. 
     627) to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information 
     Act Processing Delays, as amended, pursuant to House 
     Resolution 375, the further amendment printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall 
     be considered as adopted.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentlewoman from 
Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the measure before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as I began yesterday, when we launched the 
debate, it was exactly 3 p.m. It's 4:01 on Friday, July 29. And as we 
stand, as I do, or sit here, as any many of our colleagues do, we're 
exactly 4 days away from that August 2 date at which time

[[Page 12479]]

the Department of Treasury has calculated that the Federal Government 
will run out of money. At that point, we, as a country, will face 
impossible choices about what obligations to default on first.
  As I said, with this August 2 date rapidly approaching, we know that 
we are faced with the potential of running out of money. We also know 
that under that kind of scenario, there are no winners, and there are 
no losers. We have a profound responsibility to resolve the crisis at 
hand and avert the economic catastrophe that will come if we do not 
join together and find a way to raise the debt ceiling.
  But this looming crisis is not the fundamental problem. We're facing 
this crisis because of a much larger, much longer-term problem. The 
Federal Government spends more than it has. If you think about it, 
Madam Speaker, we don't have a debt ceiling problem; what we have is a 
debt problem. The former cannot be resolved without addressing the 
latter. You can't address the debt ceiling issue unless you address the 
debt issue that is before us. That's precisely what today's process and 
the amendment that we are putting to the measure that we debated all 
day yesterday is all about. And the rule before us is moving us toward 
addressing the root cause of the problem.
  We're adding another layer of accountability, something that 
Democrats and Republicans alike regularly talk about. Accountability is 
being added to the plan that Speaker Boehner is moving forward. With 
the amendment that we're going to consider that this rule will make in 
order, the House will proceed with the critical business at hand. We 
will pass a bold and credible plan to rein in our debt and responsibly 
avert the crisis that looms just a few days from now.
  It's extremely unfortunate that this process has become so lengthy 
and partisan. I think everyone feels very saddened at the fact that 
it's become such a lengthy and very, very partisan process. But Madam 
Speaker, time is running out. Today we have the opportunity to do our 
work, and with passage of this measure, we will be moving the process 
forward to help avert the crisis that we potentially face on August 2.
  When we pass this out, we will send a measure to the Senate, and as 
we all know, this is the only proposal that, when we pass it today, 
that will have passed either House of Congress. We need to have the 
support to do that. I hope very much that while many of my colleagues 
who are on the other side of the aisle may not be supportive of all the 
provisions in the Boehner plan, I hope very much to move the process 
forward so that we can ensure that our constituents get their Social 
Security checks on August 3, since we all know the President, in his 
July 12 speech, said that if we don't increase the debt ceiling by 
August 2, he couldn't guarantee that Social Security checks would go 
out.
  So to keep the process moving, to ensure that we get those checks out 
and address the other very, very important priorities that we need to 
have funding for, we can pass this in a bipartisan way so that we can 
get to the Senate, work out our differences as expeditiously as 
possible, and come back with what clearly has to be a bipartisan 
compromise to ensure that we are able to decrease spending, getting to 
the root cause of the problem, and at the same time, do what we all 
know has to be done and that is increase the debt ceiling.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California, 
the chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today we face a self-inflicted crisis, and the 
majority's proposed solution is no solution at all. The debt ceiling 
was created, ironically, to avoid forcing Congress to approve every new 
issue of debt. The debt ceiling was originally introduced to pay for 
World War I and was designed to be a formality that would help our 
country and economy operate smoothly and without interruption. All 
these years later, it having done that, the debt ceiling now appears to 
have outlived its usefulness. In fact, I believe we should abolish the 
debt limit altogether and never face a crisis like this again of 
whether we will be a responsible country that pays our bills. Only one 
other country has the debt limit, and that is Denmark. I think we 
really need to look at this as an anachronism from 1917.
  Regardless, throughout the life of the debt ceiling, raising the 
ceiling has never been questioned. Since 1960, the ceiling has been 
raised 78 times. Throughout this time, there's been no quid pro quo 
demanded to raise the debt ceiling, no ransom demanded in exchange for 
raising our debt ceiling and preventing default. That is, until today. 
Bringing our Nation to the brink of collapse has been a conscious 
decision of the majority party. Placing ideology before country, they 
are demanding controversial and unacceptable cuts or else they are 
willing to let our Nation default.
  We have been warned by the United States Senate and the President of 
the United States that the proposed legislation will not be passed into 
law. They have said it repeatedly. They have said it clearly. Yet the 
majority continues to believe this bill can actually avert the danger 
of default. They're playing a dangerous game of chicken, asking the 
Nation to give into their demands if we want the American economy to 
live to see another day. I simply cannot agree to the extreme demands 
being put forth by the majority today.

                              {time}  1610

  After pulling yesterday's legislation from the floor, the majority 
has introduced a piece of legislation that demands the impossible. 
Today's bill doesn't just require a vote on a constitutional amendment; 
it demands that a constitutional amendment be approved by both Chambers 
of Congress this fall. If the amendment doesn't pass, then we not only 
face the prospect of default again 6 months from now, but we have even 
fewer options to avoid default.
  If previous proposals are any guide, the constitutional amendment 
would place the burden of debt reduction squarely upon the middle 
class, threatening Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and Members 
of Congress would be given a Sophie's choice: Do we vote against this 
amendment and protect Medicare or do we vote for the amendment to avoid 
economic default? This is totally unnecessary.
  In effect, this legislation releases one hostage and takes another. 
Six months from now, we would be forced to choose between a 
constitutional amendment and putting the Nation back on the brink of 
default. I refuse to trade hostages with the majority and prolong this 
crisis for another 6 months.
  I urge my colleagues to put the country before any ideology and come 
together to solve an urgent and serious crisis that we are facing 
today. It's our duty to put the welfare of the country before all else. 
That is why we were elected by the people who expect us to do just 
that, and that is what we swear to do. It is time we answered the call.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's bill and urgently, 
urgently, get back to serving the American people. And we spent far too 
much time on the useless bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I would say to my good friend that I would like to totally associate 
myself with her remarks at the end in which she said it is absolutely 
essential for us to work together in a bipartisan way to resolve this 
issue. But I know this will come as a surprise. When she began her 
remarks and said that we on our side are working overtime making a 
conscious decision to bring our Nation to the verge of collapse, that 
is a slight mischaracterization of exactly where we are.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Spring Hill, 
a hardworking and not-too-well-rested member of the Rules Committee, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
  Mr. NUGENT. I thank the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee, 
Mr. Dreier, for allowing me to speak.

[[Page 12480]]

  I will be perfectly honest with you. There is a lot about this rule 
that I don't love but, quite frankly, we don't have much time left. We 
need to get something done and we need to get something done now. This 
rule provides us with the tools and the mechanisms that we need to get 
our jobs done and bring our economy and our country back from the brink 
of default.
  Default is not an option. The underlying legislation, the Budget 
Control Act of 2011, saves us from default. Most of all, I support the 
Budget Control Act of 2011 because it means both Chambers of Congress 
must pass a balanced budget amendment before the President can raise 
the debt ceiling once again.
  Do I like everything in the bill? No, I don't.
  Does it do what the American people and the American economy need and 
deserve? Yes, it does. And that's why I support both the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking 
member on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. The gentleman from California has been talking about 
moving the process forward. It does not move the process forward to 
pass a bill that's dead before arrival in the Senate. It doesn't move 
the process forward to pass a bill that is even more partisan than the 
one yesterday.
  You know, the country has to be wondering, we are 1 day closer to 
default and, indeed, one step backwards. The Republicans are trying to 
squeeze out a majority here, and what they are doing is inserting a 
provision that requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the House, 
and that's completely a nonstarter.
  The American public is looking for a solution, not a stalemate, and 
the House Republicans have become the party of gridlock. Passing this 
only increases it. It's a move backwards, maybe to protect your flank, 
but not to protect America.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my 
good friend that there's a bit of a disconnect from my perspective. So 
failure to act is not gridlock; passing legislation out of the House of 
Representatives is, in fact, gridlock.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Our national debt stands at a staggering $14.3 trillion and we 
currently borrow more than 40 cents on every dollar we spend, and our 
President and Democrats in the other body say that a balanced budget 
amendment is ``dead on arrival.''
  Fifteen years ago, the balanced budget amendment passed the House 
with a bipartisan vote only to lose by one vote, one vote in the 
Senate. A constitutional amendment is the only way to ensure that 
future Congresses live within their means and end the spending binge.
  Our colleague, Congressman McClintock, might have summed it up best 
in a Washington Times op-ed earlier this week. He said: Imagine a 
family that earns $50,000 a year but is spending more than $88,000 a 
year and has a credit card balance of $330,000 a year.
  That's us. We're bankrupt, and Washington is broken.
  Why are Senate Democrats and the President so afraid of making a 
commitment to balance our budget?
  Stop the spending. No more empty promises. No more excuses.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. You know, yesterday when the Speaker failed to secure 
the votes for his misbegotten deal, I thought all these Republicans 
would need to get under way today was a professional physical therapist 
to help heal the twisted arms, the sprains, perhaps even a dislocation 
as all that pressure was applied by the Speaker to get those final 
votes; you know, a therapist to kind of fit the slings and apply the 
splints.
  But, no, the professional obstructionists among the Republicans have 
yielded for far less than a deep muscle massage. All they need is a 
meaningless vote on an amendment that is designed to fail, that they 
know will never rewrite the United States Constitution the way they 
would like to rewrite it to enshrine a little Republican dogma into the 
supreme law of the land.
  I will admit that, through the years, the balanced budget amendment 
has gained more interest on my part. It became much more appealing as I 
saw years of Republicans entering wars without paying for them, 
insisting upon the mythology--no, indeed, it's really a political 
theology of Republicans--that you can cut taxes, raise spending, and 
everything will work out okay.
  Their approach, even though their experts told them these tax cuts 
would drive us into deficit, they insisted on the political alchemy 
that they could take tax cuts and turn them into surpluses, just as if 
they could turn hay into gold. If there were one vote I could take to 
do something about the George W. Bush administration dripping in red 
ink, I would certainly want to take it, but a constitutional amendment 
is not a solution. It's an excuse for not having a solution, for not 
grappling with the financial problems we have. And the only reason it's 
being brought up this weekend is just to delay this crisis nearer and 
nearer to the precipice to which this Republican irresponsibility has 
taken us.
  The creditworthiness and the full faith and the credit of the United 
States is endangered by the refusal to adopt a balanced approach that 
would close some tax loopholes and reduce spending all at once. That's 
what we need. Instead of putting all the burden on the many, demand a 
little from the few at the top.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of our very 
capable and thoughtful new Members of the 112th Congress, the gentleman 
from Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak.
  As we've been talking so much, I hear so much about a balanced 
approach. What we really need is a balanced budget.
  The concern right now, as I talk to the many phone callers who are 
calling in, is that America has taken the time to tighten their belts 
at home; and when you talk to business people, they've made the tough 
decisions, and they're looking to us now to make the tough decisions as 
well.
  And that's what I think this legislation has done, legislation which 
we can look at right now and we can put away the arguments from each 
side, the Republican side and the Democratic side. This is about 
America right now. The people who are calling in, who are watching, 
they are watching right now and greatly concerned because of the fact 
that they feel their economic security is at risk because we can't deal 
with the long-term implications of this budget and this debt.
  There is a plan, and the Republicans in this House have put together 
a plan. And I'm not going to get into the partisan rhetoric. Let us go 
around this plan. If we've got differences, let us resolve those 
differences effectively for the American people. Let us get to work in 
this House, get it to the Senate, pass it today so we can get the good 
work done that will allow America to get back to work with a sense of 
confidence in the future of our economy, get people back to work 
creating jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to compliment him on his very thoughtful remarks, Madam 
Speaker, and say that as I listen to this newly elected Member of the 
House, it is very difficult to imagine that he would consciously engage 
in an effort to bring our Nation to the verge of collapse, because we 
want to solve this problem and ensure that we can have a strong and 
vibrant United States of America, creating jobs and getting our economy 
growing.
  I thank my friend for his thoughtful comments.

[[Page 12481]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a constitutional scholar.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, this rule provides for debate 
of legislation that was slapped together behind closed doors, providing 
for trillions of dollars in unspecified cuts. The final version was 
sprung on the House after being made public just this morning, and now 
we're expected to vote the whole thing up or down, without amendment, 
in spite of the fact that 53 Senators are already on record saying that 
they will oppose it.
  This legislation is in response to a manufactured so-called 
``crisis.'' We can avoid default on our obligations the same way we 
have done it almost once a year over the last half century, just 
increase the debt ceiling. And now this final version calls for default 
on our obligations unless we pass a constitutional amendment mislabeled 
a ``balanced budget amendment.''
  The so-called ``balanced budget amendment'' reported from the 
Judiciary Committee does not require a balanced budget. In fact, it 
will make it more difficult to balance the budget, and it will 
certainly jeopardize Social Security and Medicare. It will also include 
a provision that requires a three-fifths vote to increase the debt 
ceiling, as if this week's drama isn't enough of a spectacle.
  Madam Speaker, we should end this manufactured crisis, increase the 
debt ceiling to avoid default, and then seriously focus on legislation 
that will create jobs and restore fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, the inevitable consequence of this bill 
is that when the United States wants to extend the debt ceiling to pay 
our bills, we will have to reduce Medicare and Social Security. That is 
the inevitable consequence of these balanced budget amendments. 
Therefore, inevitably, this bill will not see the light of day in the 
United States Senate.
  What we ought to do is get to our inevitable obligation, which is to 
come to an agreement that extends our debt ceiling and makes a 
responsible down payment on our deficit. The President of the United 
States this morning outlined a way to do that, and that's what we ought 
to be working on. He talked about commonality between the two Houses 
and the two parties on cuts in annual programs in the area of 5, 6, 7 
percent--painful, but necessary.
  He talked about a fair process where a body that would act between 
the House and the Senate would consider all the options with respect to 
entitlement programs. Protecting Medicare and Social Security benefits, 
and looking at a contribution from the wealthiest Americans, the former 
revenue, would be considered and voted on. And certainly that approach 
would get us out of this period of uncertainty by extending the debt 
ceiling for the country as was done 17 times without condition for 
President Reagan, seven times without condition for President George W. 
Bush.
  This is an inevitable waste of time, this bill. It's a bad idea. 
Let's get on to the better idea of approaching this problem and fixing 
the problem for this country. Vote ``no'' on this underlying bill and 
this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to yet 
another constitutional scholar, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Speaker, I think this may be the absolute worst 
resolution I have seen before this House in the 19 years I've been 
here. It brings to continuing debate a bill that has already been 
debated yesterday with an amendment, but there is only 1 minute left in 
the debate.
  And the change that is being made requires the passage of an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States in order to ever 
raise the debt limit again. The effect of that is that we have 1 
minute--we don't even have it, the majority has the 1 minute that's 
left in the debate. We have no time left in the debate on our side to 
debate whether we will pass an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States that literally holds a gun to the head of the economy of 
the United States of America. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves 
legislating in this way. This is a terrible way to legislate to provide 
for a constitutional amendment. If we're going to do it, we ought to at 
least debate it in good faith.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, this is a Republican-contrived bankruptcy.
  A decade ago, the majority party inherited surpluses as far as the 
eye could see, and then they promptly took away the revenue that 
enabled us to balance our budget. They crippled this country with deep 
tax cuts. In fact, we have the lowest revenue that we've had at any 
time since before Medicare and basically at any time since before the 
Great Depression.
  What this is going to do and the reason we oppose this is that if 
this were on the books, we never would have had the ability to rescue 
the world from the Great Depression in the 1930s; we never would have 
had the ability to win the war for democracy in the 1940s; we never 
would have created a permanent American middle class with the GI Bill 
that provided the working class with homes and higher education, we 
never would have won the race to space for the free world in the 
sixties; we never would have been able to establish Medicare and civil 
rights legislation in the mid-sixties.
  And certainly, had we been stuck in this fiscal straightjacket, 
President Clinton never could have raised the needed revenue to balance 
the budget so we never would have been able to create 20 million new 
jobs as we did in the 1990s, and reduce poverty, and expand the middle 
class, and create all those trillions of dollars of projected surpluses 
that the majority inherited and promptly squandered.
  This bill will make us a weaker, poorer and smaller country, and 
that's why it should be defeated.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very privileged to yield 
2 minutes to my very good friend from Glendale, Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, Mr. Obama and the Democrats have constantly and 
consistently said we need to take a balanced approach to the debt 
crisis facing America, but they steadfastly refuse to even consider the 
one truly balanced approach to this program, that being a balanced 
budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
  This effort today will be the second time that the House of 
Representatives will have passed legislation requiring a balanced 
budget amendment, which would actually create a permanent solution to 
this crisis and make sure that economic freedom can be available for 
Americans today and for future generations.

                              {time}  1630

  Yet Mr. Reid says he will kill this bill as soon as it comes to the 
Senate, or at least strip out the balanced budget amendment that's in 
it.
  Madam Speaker, if we can get Mr. Reid here and the President himself, 
and I guess we would have to put out an APB on the President because we 
can't find him. He is AWOL in this debate. But if we could, I would ask 
him two questions: First, what is your plan to deal with this issue? 
Secondly, what on earth is so radical about having a balanced budget 
amendment to create a permanent solution to this problem?
  Now, I doubt we would get an answer, Madam Speaker. So today, we will 
have to do as we have done before, and we will try to proceed without 
them and try to do something truly historic that will save this Nation 
and its people from economic ruin.
  Madam Speaker, long ago, right after the Constitution was finished, 
Thomas

[[Page 12482]]

Jefferson said: ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment 
to the Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the 
reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine 
principles of its Constitution; I mean, an additional article, taking 
from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.''
  Madam Speaker, Thomas Jefferson was right. And how I wish his 
contemporaries had listened to him about the balanced budget amendment, 
but they didn't. Now we have a crisis of $14 trillion facing us as a 
result of not having this amendment, and it could crush us in a way 
that no military power has ever done. And in this moment in history in 
America, we may get a second chance. I hope my colleagues will join us 
in this historic effort.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking Democrat 
on the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, we have a sad spectacle 
today of a substantive mess brought to us by a procedural bigger mess. 
But I can't entirely blame Speaker Boehner. We have seen him all week 
forced to retreat continually from an effort to be conservative but 
somewhat responsible to a position where today we have a bill that no 
one thinks will solve the problem because it makes as a prerequisite to 
raising the debt a constitutional amendment that no one thinks will 
pass.
  I remember Speaker O'Neill when I got here, and there's one thing he 
and Speaker Boehner seem to have in common, and that's a theme song. 
Speaker O'Neill's theme song was ``I'll Be With You in Apple Blossom 
Time.'' By now, Speaker Boehner is entitled to take as his theme song 
``It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To'' because his party has 
forced him to retreat, first of all, from the position he tried to take 
to get this thing done; and, secondly, from a set of promises he made 
procedurally. As a result of where we are today, with martial law rules 
and amendments being sprung and amendments not being vetted, there is 
no procedural promise that the Republicans made that they have left 
unbroken.
  So we have a flawed bill, brought to us by a weakened Speaker, under 
an unfortunate and undemocratic process. Once it's out of the way, once 
whatever impulses have driven members of his own party so to undercut 
him are satisfied, maybe then in an adult way we can sit down and work 
this out.
  Now, I expect to vote for something I don't like because we have to 
compromise, but this bill doesn't even begin to meet any kind of 
serious test.
  Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I'm shocked. We spent 4 hours on the 
floor of the House of Representatives in January reading the 
Constitution, and now we get to spend a minute debating it. It's pretty 
amazing how much the folks on the other side value the Constitution of 
the United States.
  I'm opposed to the rule, the bill, everything that's connected with 
it. We approach this August 2 deadline. The markets have closed down 
yet one more time before this weekend begins. And President Obama has 
been crystal clear. He said that any agreement to increase the debt 
ceiling has to extend it to 2013. And yet here we are considering 
something that the President has said is a nonstarter, the Senate has 
said is a nonstarter, the American people have said is a nonstarter, 
and here we are again debating something that will never go anywhere.
  The Republican majority really should be embarrassed for the American 
people. They are putting everything in jeopardy and leaving nothing up 
to the President to decide come August 2 when this debt ceiling 
deadline approaches. And placing at risk our retirement security, 
placing at risk our ability to get credit, our ability to get a home 
mortgage, all of that because of this recklessness.
  The bill that Speaker Boehner brought to the floor yesterday and this 
constitutional amendment that was hurriedly drafted today just to 
please the far right elements of the Tea Party, I can't even believe we 
are here today trying to satisfy the far right when we're not busy 
satisfying the needs of the American public and the markets around the 
world. Why are we voting on this plan and not one that has a fighting 
chance of avoiding default?
  I want to say, Madam Speaker, it's time for America to get busy here, 
understanding that the Republican majority is ready to jeopardize our 
entire future and put at risk our entire future for this garbage.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the bill proposed last night 
by the House Republicans set us up to fail and risk a catastrophic 
default. Today's gimmick is more of the same. But to win over the crowd 
calling for default, House Republican leadership would now make the 
disaster even more likely by including a constitutional amendment 
likely requiring a three-fifths vote to avoid any future default.
  As our Republican colleagues sadly demonstrated yesterday, that 
threshold will be impossible to meet today and in the future. Their 
blind adherence to the demands of the default caucus stands in sharp 
contrast to the desire of most Americans who, according to every poll, 
are demanding a balanced compromise.
  This bill is a blatant, cynical exercise in raw political muscle and 
nothing more. To the House Republicans bent on turning our Founding 
Fathers into deadbeat dads, I would respond using Speaker Boehner's own 
words from last year: Hell no, you can't.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  Madam Speaker, there is a little pattern emerging here. First we had 
our Republican colleagues walk out of the Biden talks. And then twice 
they walked out of talks with the President. And then they totally 
rejected a proposal put forward by the Republican leader in the Senate, 
Mitch McConnell. And last night they said ``no'' to the proposal put 
forward by their own Speaker. And that brings us to where we are today.
  In order to accommodate the more extreme elements of the Republican 
Caucus, they had to change the bill once again. Now what they are 
proposing is that ultimately we turn budget authority over not to the 
elected Representatives but to a Federal judge who would ultimately 
decide how we're going to deal with our budget. You talk about passing 
the buck, you talk about not taking responsibility, now is the time to 
come together to come up with a reasonable compromise, not to move the 
parties far apart.
  The last point I want to make with regards to the deficit: We want to 
make sure that we have a plan, a balanced plan, to reduce the deficit. 
I'm just waiting for my colleagues on the other side to say that 
they're willing to get one penny from eliminating taxpayer subsidies to 
the oil companies or closing corporate loopholes for jets--just one 
penny--for the purpose of deficit reduction. Then we'll know that 
they're serious about that.
  The President has said let's do $3 in spending cuts and $1 in 
revenue. But apparently asking $1 in revenue by eliminating a subsidy 
for the oil companies, that's too far. Oh, yes, we owe China. We need 
to do something about our debt to China, but asking the oil companies 
to take less taxpayer dollars, Federal taxpayer subsidy dollars, no, we 
can't do that.
  Let's be serious about balancing the budget and getting the deficit 
under control, but let's do it in a balanced way. This proposal takes 
us further in

[[Page 12483]]

the wrong direction and doesn't bring us together to solve a problem 
for the American people. Now is the time to get serious.
  Mr. DREIER. At this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a very hardworking member on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, I think it is very revealing in the 
debate today that the American people can see that the opposition to 
the proposal before the House is that we are attempting to even suggest 
that there be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, not any 
specific amendment.

                              {time}  1640

  We want, as a constitutional conservative majority, to see a vote in 
the House and the Senate on a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, something I've coauthored since 2001. Yet the majority is 
strenuously objecting to that. The minority objects to our effort to 
control the debt and the deficit without raising taxes. They object to 
strong spending caps in the future, which by the way, exempts anyone 
over the age of 55 and under Medicare, Medicaid. They're exempt under 
the Paul Ryan budget; they're exempt on the proposal that Speaker 
Boehner has brought to us today.
  The Speaker has attempted to find the largest possible cuts with the 
strongest possible enforceable budget caps that could pass a Democrat 
Senate in order to get it on the desk of the President before the 
August 3 deadline. The Speaker and this new constitutional conservative 
majority are doing everything in our power to avoid a default while 
honoring the trust that the Nation put in us in this landslide election 
which just occurred in November. The Nation spoke decisively in 
electing this new majority to the House. We were sent here to control 
spending, to control the size of the government, to get the government 
out of our lives, out of our pocket, and back within the bounds of the 
Constitution as designed by the Founders. And we've attempted to do 
that.
  I applaud Speaker Boehner for working so diligently to find the 
largest possible cut that could possibly pass a temporarily liberal-
controlled Senate in the very short span of time that we've got here. 
We would all like to get more. But if you can get 60, 70 percent of 
where you need to go to get the Nation back on track to a balanced 
budget and avoid the brick wall that lies ahead of us on August 3, we 
need to do so to avoid a default.
  I applaud the Speaker for bringing this package to the floor and urge 
all the Members to support it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of 
the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady very much.
  Last night, the Democrats were here waiting while the Republicans 
could not get their own conference together. If any of you were 
watching the national news, it was not because we were not ready to 
vote and to move forward on a compromise. It was because those who 
believe they had a landslide victory are still talking about elections 
instead of talking about the American people.
  This is the worst bill that any American could ever imagine in the 
history of this Nation. I tell you that because this bill will in fact 
default the American Government in 6 months, and it will not adhere to 
the Constitution, which says the Declaration is the promise and the 
Constitution is the fulfillment.
  We actually have the authority, Mr. President, under the 14th 
Amendment to raise the debt ceiling by way of acknowledging that the 
public debt should always be recognized. But in this particular 
legislation, in 6 months if we do not cut by $1.6 trillion and pass a 
balanced budget amendment, the Nation will default.
  And the balanced budget amendment is not by a majority. It is 60 
percent of this Congress will stop the American people from receiving 
their just due. We will not have Social Security. We will not have 
Medicaid. We will not have Medicare. In actuality, the mandate will 
cause us to support the Republican Study budget, which is $9 trillion 
in cuts, 70 percent of discretionary funding. That means all of your 
Medicare, all of your Medicaid, all of your Social Security.
  Madam Speaker, I ask the American people to call in and say, stop the 
madness and compromise. Do what is right. Mr. President, if not, raise 
the debt ceiling under the Constitution. You have the authority.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to one of our thoughtful, hardworking new Members of this 
Congress, the gentleman from Manchester, New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
  Mr. GUINTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  What I want to say to the American people is: Let's stop the 
spending. Let's not call the President or the Congress to say stop this 
madness. Call this body and say: Stop the spending. Because we have a 
$14.3 trillion debt. We have a $1.6 trillion deficit. Most Americans 
know and appreciate that that is not sustainable.
  We today, through the will of the House and the work over the course 
of this week and past several weeks, have a piece of legislation that 
is responsible in that it cuts spending, caps future spending, requires 
a balanced budget amendment, so the country can finally have a voice--
have a voice in how people in this body spend taxpayer dollars.
  It's time for us to tell the American people the truth about how 
their money is being wasted. It is time to stop that spending. It is 
time to get responsible and serious. And we are here to do that. Not 
just my freshman class, but this Congress is here to do that. And I ask 
my friends from the other side to join us in that fight to protect 
taxpayers and vote for this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the ranking member, Ms. Slaughter, for her 
generosity.
  I advise my colleagues, budgets will balance when people go back to 
work. I rise against this amendment, the rule, and the underlying bill 
as ``inartful'' dodges from necessity. When a patient is weak, do you 
pull out their intravenous feeding tubes, or do you help them recover? 
Do you do everything possible to build their strength, or do you keep 
shutting off their oxygen machine?
  America's economy is struggling to grow after the deep Bush recession 
triggered by his bailout of Wall Street abuse, two wars, and trillions 
in tax cuts to the super-rich who, by the way, didn't create any jobs 
with it. Revenues to our Federal Government have fallen over $400 
billion a year due to unemployment. That's $4 trillion over a decade. 
So what does the majority do to the patient? They pull out the tubes, 
and they now shove them down the elevator chute.
  Never before has any political party chosen to hurt America when she 
was recovering by edging her toward default. Their dangerous behavior 
has already caused hundreds of billions of dollars of losses in the 
stock market, pension funds and annuities. Social Security and Medicare 
checks are threatened, and economic growth and jobs are stalled due to 
all this uncertainty in the markets.
  Madam Speaker, America needs a Congress and President that focus on 
economic recovery and job creation. Budgets will balance when people go 
back to work. To delude oneself the cause is otherwise is to take 
America down the proverbial black hole. Jobs are the answer--not more 
dodges, not pushing the patient down the shaft, and not proposing 
amendments that truly dodge the real question, which is full economic 
recovery for the people of this country.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my good friend from 
Rochester how many speakers she has remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I believe I have two.

[[Page 12484]]


  Mr. DREIER. In light of that, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership.
  I rise in opposition to the Republican rule.
  We have all been getting numerous phone calls from our constituents 
who are rightly worried that the interest rates will be going up on 
their homes, on their cars, on their student loans, because they see 
that this Congress is in chaos. Already since last Friday, shareholders 
in U.S. markets have lost over $400 billion in value just due to the 
uncertainty and the lack of action. Our constituents' retirement funds 
have been taking a hit--and will continue to until this issue is 
decided. We have less than 4 days.
  We must stop this ``Republican roulette'' and get to work on a plan 
that is realistic, that can pass both Houses. This is a dangerous game, 
putting forward a partisan bill that, each time it comes back, is more 
partisan, appealing to a narrower sliver of America.
  Madam Speaker, we need to revisit a clean vote on the debt ceiling--
as we have done 78 times since 1960. If we don't, the President should 
do his constitutional duty and raise the debt ceiling on his own under 
the authority of the 14th Amendment. The Republican leadership has 
walked out on President Obama, on Vice President Biden, on McConnell, 
and even their own leader, Boehner. Then they want us to revisit this 
in 6 months and put the economy in uncertainty. This is the wrong 
direction.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. I oppose the Republican default bill 
because it will lead to drastic cuts to Medicare and Social Security. 
Also, I oppose the Republican default bill because it protects tax 
breaks and loopholes for those Americans who make millions and billions 
of dollars in income per year. I oppose the Republican default bill 
because it calls for another default summit, another default crisis, in 
6 months, thereby undermining the certainty that American businesses, 
investors, and families need to create jobs and move our country 
forward.
  With only a short-term increase under the Republican default bill, 
the full faith and credit of the United States will once again be held 
hostage to the differences in Washington. The Republicans' short-term 
plan that creates uncertainty will result in billions of dollars in 
increased interest rates that will hurt every single American and will 
hurt our country.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to join with the Democrats, to join 
with President Obama in creating a balanced plan with shared sacrifice 
that solves our debt crisis and eliminates this cloud hanging over our 
economy.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to the former mayor of one of the 10 most livable cities in the United 
States of America, the gentleman from Rogers, Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding some time.
  On my way over to the Capitol this afternoon, I was accompanied by 
some young people from back in my district, Payson and McKenna from 
Mena, Arkansas, and Adam and Grace Anne from Fayetteville, Arkansas; 
and we were having a conversation about the debate that's going on 
right now in Washington, the debate about the debt ceiling. I explained 
to these young people that the current debt of the United States of 
America, their share of that current debt, is well into the mid-$40,000 
range, $46,000-or-so of debt.
  It is for this very reason that we are proposing what we are 
proposing, because the only way to keep this debt on these innocent 
young people from soaring to greater and greater levels, to an area 
that they can no longer afford, is to restrain, constrain government; 
and the only sure way to do that, the only guaranteed enforcement 
mechanism that I know that can accomplish that very thing is a balanced 
budget amendment.
  So on behalf of these young people and on behalf of young people 
across America, let's quit piling more and more debt on our children 
and grandchildren. Let's pass the rule. Let's pass this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. In my 1 minute, I want to make a special 
appeal that we pay close attention to what I consider the most 
devastating, damaging part of this bill, and that is what we are doing 
and what the Republicans are doing to Social Security, to Medicare, and 
to Medicaid.
  In this bill, it requires that we set up a joint select committee. 
There are no protections in here. And it says in order for us to give 
the raise to the debt ceiling, we must concur and cut $1.6 trillion 
from the budget from discretionary funding. The Center for Policy and 
Budget Priorities has said that since 80 percent of the discretionary 
areas come from Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, it doesn't take 
a genius to know that we're talking about drastic cuts in this area, 
and they will come out to a tune of about a thousand dollars for each 
recipient.
  Now, I don't know about you all, but we have some people in this 
country who are hanging on by their fingernails. We have widows, we 
have seniors, we have youngsters who are depending upon Social 
Security, depending upon Medicare; and to say that in this measure that 
we will make these drastic cuts in Social Security and Medicare is 
totally irresponsible, and for that reason let us vote this measure 
down.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, this rule and the bill will further drive a 
wedge between the two parties rather than bringing us closer to an 
agreement, which we must have. It's been a week since the bipartisan 
discussions over the $4 trillion ``grand deal'' broke down, and we've 
seen little progress toward a solution since then.
  Missing in today's debate is a bipartisan approach toward our 
Nation's fiscal health. We must have a bipartisan approach. We can cut 
through the partisan rhetoric with a balanced package. For me, that 
means implementing the Simpson-Bowles recommendations to reduce 
spending by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, lowering tax rates, 
ensuring solvency of Medicare and Social Security, and stabilizing our 
debt.
  The House should also consider a clean balanced budget amendment, 
H.J. Res. 2, which says the country can't spend more than it takes in. 
This amendment and the Simpson-Bowles recommendations must be coupled 
with a debt limit increase to get us through the next 18 months.
  It's time for cooler heads to prevail. With the clock ticking down, 
our Nation's first-ever default is at hand. We cannot afford to wait a 
minute longer. Default is not an option.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Mr. Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  The Republican Party deficit plan is very simple:
  Number one, send the financial markets into a nose dive.
  Number two, drive up costs for home mortgages, student loans, and 
credit cards.
  Number three, spook businesses to stall job growth, bringing the 
Nation to the brink of economic collapse.
  Number four, repeat it all again and again until election day 2012.
  The Republicans don't want compromise; they want capitulation. The 
Republicans have brought to the floor a constitutional amendment to 
balance

[[Page 12485]]

the budget that's going nowhere. It is phony. But there's another 
sinister constitutional amendment being debated here, it's very real; 
and it will cause our country to default on its obligations.
  Amendment 14, section 4, of the Constitution says: ``The validity of 
the public debt shall not be questioned.'' But this bill would change 
the Constitution forever--forever.
  Under this Republican bill, our country would be pushed into 
defaulting on our obligations. The Republican Party would turn the 14th 
Amendment from a guarantee into a question mark. Now, under the 
Republican bill: ``The validity of the public debt shall be 
questioned.'' That is what they are doing this weekend.
  This is unacceptable and would have a disastrous effect upon our 
economy and the middle class. The only way to end this historic 
nightmare is to resolve another massive deficit, the leadership deficit 
in the Republican Party. We must vote down this constitutional 
amendment, which will have us not honoring the full faith and credit of 
the United States which was built into the 14th Amendment of our United 
States Constitution. They are amending that Constitution here this 
evening. They are leading us to a default which will be a violation of 
that Constitution.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from California, the Democrat leader, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and commend her and 
her colleagues on the Rules Committee for their important work in 
bringing legislation to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, the clock is ticking. The clock is ticking on the need 
for us to raise the debt ceiling so that we do not default on our past 
obligations, that we uphold the full faith and credit of the United 
States of America.

                              {time}  1700

  As we continue this debate today, one thing is very clear to me. If 
our goal were to find deficit reduction in a balanced, bipartisan way, 
we could certainly do that. We've had models by Simpson-Bowles. We've 
had the Gang of Six. We've had the President's conversations with 
Speaker Boehner. We could find a path to very serious deficit 
reduction, but I think it has become very clear that that is not the 
goal of the Republicans in the House of Representatives.
  They keep moving the goalpost, making it very evident that their goal 
is to reduce the public role in the lives of the American people. 
That's why, in other legislation on the floor, like the Interior bill 
that has been debated, you see the abandoning of clean air standards, 
clean water, food safety. I've said before I come to this Congress as a 
mother and a grandmother. We all want to do the best for our children 
personally, but we need a public role in their education and, again, in 
clean air, clean water, food safety. We can't do that for ourselves, 
but part of the Republican plan is to unravel 50 years--five decades at 
least--of bipartisan progress on behalf of America's middle class 
families.
  Flatout, this bill and the other bills accompanying it will end 
Medicare, will end Medicare, will say to seniors, You will pay more for 
your health care costs to get less so that we can give tax subsidies to 
Big Oil. We will say to those families, We're going to cut Medicaid. 
What that means to seniors in nursing homes is that we will give tax 
breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas. We will say to the young 
people, You're going to pay more for your college loans so that we can 
give tax cuts to the people at the highest end.
  We all know that we have to participate in reducing the deficit. 
Everybody has to ante up. Why is it that the Republicans insist on 
having the middle class pay the price so that the high end is off the 
hook?
  If we are concerned about addressing the problems of the American 
people, we would end this debate. This bill is going nowhere. It is a 
total waste of time. Every day that we spend on these wastes of time 
that are not going anywhere is another day we are not talking about the 
highest priority of the American people, which is job creation, job 
creation, job creation. That is their priority. We have an obligation 
to reduce the deficit and get on with it so we can create jobs.
  If we are concerned about the economic security of the American 
people and their families, we must recognize that, since the 
Republicans' most recent walking away from the table--they've done it 
on more than one occasion, but last Friday the Speaker and the 
Republicans walked away from the table--the stock market has dropped 
483 points, and the American people have lost over $400 billion in 
their personal assets, $400 billion. Every day that goes by and if the 
market goes down any more, it comes right out of what the American 
people have in their 401(k)s, in their pensions and other pensions, and 
in their savings for their children's educations.
  I remember when we had the debate on TARP. We cooperated with 
President Bush at that time to bring legislation to the floor. It was 
very unpopular. It was probably the most unpopular vote any of us will 
have to take, but we were on the brink of a financial crisis, and we 
had to act; but the Republicans did not step up to the plate, and the 
market went down 777 points the next day.
  Is that what they're waiting for, for the market to go down not 485 
points in the last few days but hundreds of points more, diminishing 
the personal assets and wealth of the American people? I certainly hope 
not.
  When the Speaker walked away and he made his statement, Speaker 
Boehner, our Speaker, said that we couldn't reach agreement, words to 
that effect, that we couldn't connect because we have different visions 
of America. I believe the Speaker when he speaks, but I don't believe 
we have different visions of America.
  President Obama's vision of America is one where we are committed to 
the education of our children so they can reach their personal 
fulfillment and so our country through innovation can continue to be 
number one--committed to creating jobs, good-paying jobs, for America's 
workers. I think that vision is the vision of the American people, the 
high ground of where we share values: in the education of our children, 
jobs for our workers, in the dignified retirement and health security 
for our seniors, and in the personal safety and national security of 
our people--all done in a fiscally sound way.
  I think that that's common ground on the high ground of values. If 
you believe that, if you agree with those values, as I think Speaker 
Boehner must agree with President Obama on that vision of America, you 
couldn't possibly vote for any of the legislation that the Republicans 
are bringing to the floor in these few days--you couldn't possibly--
because they do undermine the education of our children, the financial 
and health security of our seniors. The deep cuts early on hurt the 
economic recovery and the creation of jobs. This isn't done in a 
fiscally sound way as we've taken revenue off the table. Fifty-seven 
percent of the American people at least think we should have a 
balanced, bipartisan agreement to end this default and to do so in a 
way that doesn't take us down this path again.
  So let's be clear. What is on the floor today is a balanced budget. 
Balanced in what way? Balanced in whose favor? It looks like a seesaw 
to me in favor of the ``haves'' at the expense of a great middle class 
in our country. It must be rejected.
  For every day that we waste on another Republican ideological ploy or 
scheme is another day that we are not creating jobs. Since the 
Republicans took office, which is over 200 days ago--last Saturday it 
was 200 days, going on 207--the only bills that they have brought to 
the floor which they claim to be jobs bills are not job creators; they 
are job losers. H.R. 1 loses about 700,000 jobs--H.R. 2, a similar 
number; H.R. 34, a similar number with nearly 2 million jobs lost. 
Almost 10,000 jobs a day they're losing. Their infrastructure bill that 
they have brought in to committee--they haven't voted on it yet, thank 
God--is estimated to lose another 700,000 jobs when it's supposed to be 
the big job creator. Even

[[Page 12486]]

the Chamber of Commerce has rejected it as something that will not only 
not create jobs but will lose current jobs.
  So let's get on with the business of job creation. Let's really be 
honest about what we're here to do in terms of deficit reduction and 
not use it as an engine for the destruction of the public role that is 
so important in the defense of our country, in the health of our 
children, in the security of our seniors and their retirements, and in 
the vitality and innovation of our economy--and again, do it in a way 
that is fiscally sound. I don't want to go into how we got here in the 
first place. Whatever it is, we have to go forward, and we must go 
forward in the way the American people want us to do: bipartisan, 
balanced, and with an eye to job creation.
  Reject what is on the floor now and support the American people. We 
owe it to honor the sacrifices of our Founders, the vision of our 
Founders, the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, the 
aspirations of our children and our families. This budget should be a 
statement of values that honors all of that, and if we are to honor 
that, we must reject what is being proposed here today.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I think the consequences of this bill are 
so dire and the circumstances of this constitutional amendment are so 
far-reaching and damaging that I implore everybody in the House of 
Representatives, in the name of the Founding Fathers, in the name of 
our soldiers fighting for our Nation, for people who kept the economy 
the envy of the world, for the sake of our children and generations yet 
unborn, to vote against this rule. I have never felt this way before. 
The process and everything about this is wrong. They are making it 
absolutely impossible the next time for us to meet our obligations, and 
we really should not besmirch the reputations that we have as 
thoughtful legislators by voting for this.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I 
have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman 
from California has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we began this debate at 4:01. It's now 5:11.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation so that as August 2 approaches, we will be able to say that 
we have reduced the size and scope and reach of government and we have 
not allowed our country to go into default.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete opposition to this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  I have never witnessed such a legislative and political travesty. The 
Republican majority is threatening to take the entire economy hostage 
unless we write their draconian budget--which would end Medicare and 
Medicaid--into the Constitution.
  Throughout this week, the Republican leadership and Republican caucus 
have been operating in a world of unreality. The Speaker and his team 
have persisted in passing legislation that everyone in the real world 
knows is dead on arrival in the Senate.
  Today, we have moved from unreality to fantasy.
  We are being told that if we do not pass a constitutional amendment 
to end Medicare and Medicaid, then the debt limit will not be raised--
the United States of America will default--and the American people will 
suffer grievously.
  I want to remind the House why the underlying Boehner legislation is 
so unacceptable. At its heart, this bill is a mortal threat to 
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the protections of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  The Boehner legislation will end Medicare as we know it by turning it 
into a voucher program and raising premium costs to beneficiaries by 
thousands of dollars per year.
  Medicaid will be eviscerated, throwing women and children and seniors 
in nursing homes into great distress.
  Social Security will be on the chopping block. The retirement age 
will be raised and benefits will be cut.
  And under a balanced budget amendment, Congress will be placed in a 
straightjacket and the government will not be able to respond to 
compelling humanitarian and public health needs in times of economic 
downturns.
  This is not the moment to engage in fantasy. This House must take its 
responsibilities seriously and do its proper duty for the nation.
  The bill before us, with the poison pill of a balanced budget 
amendment, is a vicious assault on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, 
along with public health, scientific research and environmental 
protection.
  I urge the defeat of this rule and the terrible consequences that 
will flow from it.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ``ayes'' appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 187, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 675]

                               YEAS--239

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

                               NAYS--187

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks

[[Page 12487]]


     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Baca
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Pingree (ME)
     Speier
     Waters

                              {time}  1735

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. NEUGEBAUER and FLEMING changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, 
proceedings will now resume on the bill (S. 627) to establish the 
Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on Thursday, 
July 28, 2011, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) had 1 minute of 
debate remaining on the bill.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 383, the further amendment printed in 
House Report 112-187 is adopted.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 301, in the matter proposed to be inserted as 
     section 3101A(a)(2)(A) of title 31, United States Code, 
     strike ``is greater than $1,600,000,000,000'' and insert ``is 
     greater than $1,600,000,000,000 and the Archivist of the 
     United States has submitted to the States for their 
     ratification a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States pursuant to a joint resolution entitled `Joint 
     resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States'''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. My colleagues, I would like to cut through all the fog 
here rather quickly.
  Today's GDP figures remind us that our economy is still not creating 
enough jobs. Americans are worried about finding work. They are worried 
about our economy, and they are worried about the mountain of debt that 
is facing them and their children.
  Today, we have a chance to end this debt limit crisis. With this 
bill, I think we are keeping our promise to the American people that we 
will cut spending by more than the amount of the increase in the debt 
limit. The Congressional Budget Office has certified this commonsense 
standard, and it has been backed by more than 150 distinguished 
economists from across the country.
  We are also imposing caps to restrain future spending to stop the 
expansion of government while giving our economy a chance to grow and 
create jobs, and we are advancing the great cause of a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution.
  What this bill now says is that before the President can request an 
additional increase in the debt limit, two things have to happen: A 
joint committee of the Congress must produce spending cuts larger than 
the increase in the debt limit, and both Houses of the Congress must 
send to the States a balanced budget amendment.
  Listen, the balanced budget amendment, it's time for this to happen. 
It enjoys support in both Houses of this Congress, and it enjoys 
bipartisan and widespread support across our country.
  The bill also ends this crisis without raising taxes, which would 
cripple our economy, and there are no gimmicks. There are no 
smokescreens here that represent the old and comfortable way of doing 
things.
  Now, the bill before us still isn't perfect. No Member would argue 
that it is. It's imperfect because it reflects an honest and sincere 
effort to end this crisis by sending a bill over to the Senate that at 
one time was agreed to by the bipartisan leadership of the United 
States Senate.
  And to my colleagues in the Senate, if they were here, I would say 
this, if this bill passes, this House has sent you not one, but two 
different bills to cut spending by trillions of dollars over the next 
decade while providing an immediate increase in the debt limit. And to 
the American people, I would say, we have tried our level best. We have 
done everything we can to find a commonsense solution that could pass 
both Houses of Congress and end this crisis.

                              {time}  1740

  We have tried to do the right thing by our country, but some people 
continue to say ``no.''
  My colleagues, I have worked since the first week of this session 
when we were sworn in in January to avoid being where we are right this 
moment, but 2 days after we were sworn in, the Treasury Secretary sent 
us a letter asking us to increase the debt ceiling. I immediately 
responded by saying we would not increase the debt ceiling without 
serious cuts in spending and serious reforms to the way we spend the 
people's money.
  We passed a budget. The other body spent over 800 days and still no 
budget, no plan. This will be the second bill we send over to the 
Senate, and yet not one piece of legislation out of the Senate has 
passed that deals with this crisis.
  And my colleagues, I can tell you that I have worked with the 
President and the administration since the beginning of this year to 
avoid being in this spot. I have offered ideas. I have negotiated. Not 
one time, not one time did the administration ever put any plan on the 
table. All they would do was criticize what I put out there. I stuck my 
neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the President of the 
United States. I put revenues on the table in order to try to come to 
an agreement to avert us being where we are, but a lot of people in 
this town can never say ``yes.'' A lot of people can never say ``yes.''
  This House has acted, and it is time for the administration and time 
for our colleagues across the aisle to put something on the table. Tell 
us where you are.
  Yes, people can be critical of what we've done, but where are the 
other ideas? At this point in time, the House is going to act and we're 
going to act again, but it is time for our colleagues across the aisle 
to tell us what they're for, tell us how we can end this crisis.
  Ronald Reagan has been quoted throughout this debate over the last 
few weeks, and Ronald Reagan would probably be flattered, I'm sure, if 
he were here. But Ronald Reagan, on his desk, had a little placard, and 
that placard was real simple. It said: ``It can be done.'' I have a 
replica of that placard on my desk, and let me tell you, Members of 
this House, it can be done, it must be done, and it will be done if we 
have the courage to do the right thing.
  So for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our future, I'm going 
to ask each of you, as representatives of the people of the United 
States, to support

[[Page 12488]]

this bill, to support this process and end this crisis now.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the ``Budget Control Act of 2011,'' which, like the previous debt-
ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp 
cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-
changing sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals 
and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share.
  In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom 
the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I 
support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve 
our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot 
support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic 
security and ability to provide for their families while constraining 
the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, 
fiscal, and job creation troubles.
  The Budget Control Act of 2011 cuts $22 billion from the Federal 
Budget for FY2012. Robert McIntyre, of Citizens for Tax Justice 
testified before the Senate Budget Committee that tax loopholes for 
corporations, big business owners and business investors cost the 
Treasury Department $365 billion in FY2011.
  We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman 
Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated in a recently before the House 
Committee on Financial Services. ``We really don't want to just cut, 
cut, cut,'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little 
bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the 
potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in 
fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program 
that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.''
  The Boehner plan does just that it will cut, cut, cut without taking 
into full consideration the serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, 
and Medicaid. This bill is essentially a rehashed version of the same 
bill that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed to 
reject. It asks for $917 billion in cuts from domestic spending for a 
$900 billion increase in the debt ceiling, while demanding nothing in 
revenue from the nation's wealthiest. This is nothing more than a 
ransom note, irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few 
months so that in just a short period of time, the American public will 
be hit again for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, and veterans benefits. Anyone who believes that this plan 
will not result in a serious cut to Social Security should consider 
this . . . Social Security represents 20 percent of all federal 
spending, making it unrealistic to think such large cuts in mandatory 
spending will not affect Social Security benefits.
  I state here today that the Boehner proposal is ill-conceived and 
fails to offer a balanced approach to decreasing the deficit. Instead 
of requiring shared sacrifice, the Boehner plan places the entire 
burden on the backs of seniors, the middle class and our nation's most 
vulnerable citizens, while doing nothing to close corporate tax 
giveaways and increase taxes on those most able to afford them.
  The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary programs of 
$1.2 trillion over the next 10 years through strict new spending caps. 
Most experts predict that the first round of cuts would target 
discretionary programs, including education, infrastructure, job 
training and law enforcement. The Boehner plan would then require an 
additional $1.8 trillion in savings to be identified by the end of the 
year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling again at that time. 
Given the magnitude of these additional required savings, it would 
result in deep draconian cuts in federal entitlement programs such as 
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A repeal of health reform's 
coverage expansions. And a dramatic reduction in safety net programs 
for vulnerable Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and 
disability insurance. This is unacceptable, and each is avoidable if 
corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder a fair share of 
this burden.
  The Speaker's plan requires a vote on an ill-advised constitutional 
balanced budget amendment in both chambers of Congress by the end of 
this year. The details surrounding exactly which proposed 
constitutional balanced budget amendment will be voted on are unclear. 
However, earlier proposals that have appeared in the House of 
Representatives, including H.J. Res. 1, would have a devastating impact 
on discretionary spending and on our modest economic recovery.
  Passing an amendment to the Constitution is one of the most serious 
processes the United States Congress can undertake, requiring a two 
thirds supermajority of support in both the House and Senate and 
ratification by three fourths (\3/4\) of the States. The Founders 
purposely made the amendment process a long and arduous one. Do my 
Republican colleagues really expect Congress to capriciously pass an 
amendment altering our nation's founding document on such short notice; 
an amendment that will fundamentally change our country without 
reasonable time for debate; without the opportunity for a hearing or 
questioning of witnesses; without any reports as to what impact it may 
have?
  By tying the fate of whether the United States pays its debt 
obligations to the historically prolonged Constitutional amendment 
process, the Republicans who support this bill have demonstrated, at 
this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly 
irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly 
bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it.
  The Speaker's plan will result in for $2.7 trillion in deficit 
reduction and a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt limit in two stages, 
with the two debt ceiling increases being conditioned upon enactment of 
an initial set of spending, cuts and a later, second deficit reduction 
measure.
  I do not believe that Congress should yield its authority to what 
amounts to a Commission. Boehner's plan creates a 12-member joint 
congressional committee to develop a plan for an additional $1.8 
trillion in deficit reduction that Congress would vote on in December. 
In addition the Speaker's plan authorizes the president ito submit a 
$900 billion increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling immediately 
after enactment of this bill, and a $1.6 trillion increase if the $1.8 
trillion deficit reduction measure is enacted. Both debt limit 
increases would take effect automatically unless Congress enacted 
resolutions of disapproval. The Speaker's plan also requires the House 
and Senate to vote by the end of the year on a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. As I have stated before this will tie 
the hands of Congress.
  Finally, as noted above, the Boehner proposal provides only a short-
term extension of the federal debt ceiling. This means that the 
gridlock that now prevails in our government will continue for the 
remainder of the 112th Congress. According to the Center on Budget and 
Policy, recent reports have suggested that rating agencies will 
downgrade the U.S. credit rating if the Boehner proposal is enacted. 
This would result not only in higher interest costs to the federal 
government but also would raise the interest rate paid by individuals 
and families on car loans, credit cards and mortgages throughout the 
United States. Taken together, all of these factors would undermine the 
nation's fragile recovery.
  There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs 
that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring 
the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill is 
wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying 
our nation's bills and resolving our differences!
  In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below 
the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census 
Bureau places the number of American living in poverty at the highest 
rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of 
the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many 
rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition 
Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 
2011 or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program that provides 
nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home 
state.
  In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty 
nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined 
by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they 
are living on less than $22,314 per year.
  Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States' 
poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished 
children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family 
Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living 
in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households 
in the state struggle with food insecurity.
  There is no doubt that we must reduce the national debt, but my 
Republican colleague's desire for instant gratification through deep 
spending cuts to benefits, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is 
reckless and threatens the financial security of millions of Americans.
  Instead of closing corporate tax loopholes to reduce the deficit, the 
Budget Control Act cuts discretionary spending, and requires Congress 
to draft proposals to cut at least $1.8 trillion from Medicare and 
Social Security. This is an outrage, and an insult to the American 
dream.

[[Page 12489]]

  Forcing Congress to draft plans to cut 1.8 trillion from Medicare and 
Social Security forces Members to disregard the best interests of their 
constituents. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for 
Americans who have paid into it for their entire working lives. 
Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect 
for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare 
in 2010.
  Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one 
of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to 
Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th 
District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid 
recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to 
healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending.
  Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national 
debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is 
unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican 
colleagues would pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social 
programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets 
provide these individuals with vital assistance.
  Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to 
conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to 
everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as 
they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not 
fitting for America.
  As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing our debt 
ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the 
American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care 
with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these 
issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous 
amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal 
responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving 
our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, 
including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people 
understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any 
new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that 
we have already agreed to and promised to pay.
  Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve 
borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in 
order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more 
flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow 
money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements 
of funding a major war in the modern era.
  To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, 
allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations 
without prior Congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the 
amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit.
  Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased 
it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past 
decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in 
February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 
trillion dollars. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but 
due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt 
limit can be artificially avoided until August 2nd.
  Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the 
history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt 
obligations.
  We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America 
has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United 
States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest 
investments another country or investor could make. For investors 
around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held 
something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and 
credit of the United States government.
  In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of 
the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the 
United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis 
that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic 
experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. 
economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well.
  The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of 
political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to 
raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament 
to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, 
this lime around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse 
based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I 
understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with 
respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in 
order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over 
pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will 
begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not 
raised.
  This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between 
a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the 
radical agenda of the Tea Party, which in the irresponsibly pulls the 
chair out from under the average American while polishing the throne of 
the wealthiest.
  This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is 
perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the 
undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, 
raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing 
legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to 
by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.
  Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it 
not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy 
Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to 
finance the Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund, as well as 
the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that 
fund.
  If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the 
stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time 
in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in 
American history has the country's full faith and credit been called 
into question.
  Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance 
our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. 
Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince 
banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its 
debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend 
money to a government that did not pay.
  Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes 
the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the 
assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The proponents of 
this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status 
as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our 
ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will 
be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage 
that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations 
when it comes to decision-making. This bill will reduce America's 
ability to compete with a surging China.
  Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury 
bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the 
increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance 
of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require 
the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the 
loan worth the risk for investors to take on.
  Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As 
we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market 
hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but 
small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments 
tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, 
will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American 
people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement 
accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to 
default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of 
citizens.
  The Speaker's plan is a short term fix for a long term issue. It is a 
patch rather than a proper repair. Boehner's plan requires that 
Congress address debt ceiling once again in a short span of time, which 
will once again lead to market uncertainty in a time when we are trying 
to rebuild our nation. This plan is not good for Wall Street and it is 
not good for the American people. The Speaker's bill is a short-term 
debt limit increase that will only ensure that Congress will go through 
this exact same standoff again in the next few months. Short-term 
proposals risk further uncertainty and the potentially damaging 
downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. The markets have made it clear 
that a short-term extension is not sufficient and could result in very 
serious consequences. While Democrats support deficit reduction, we 
support doing it in a balanced way that provides certainty to the 
economy.
  As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market 
would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a 
housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause 
a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity 
families might have left in

[[Page 12490]]

their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects 
would reduce spending and investment in the housing market.
  Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress 
has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling 
makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use 
this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their 
extreme agenda.
  Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine 
Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who 
insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt 
their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has 
called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted 
themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre,'' and I am 
inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical 
for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's 
own bill.
  They live in a world that is not the world that the American people 
live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, 
even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; 
that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes 
from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our 
job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic 
future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an 
economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the 
nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits to survive.
  These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet 
due to the nature of our political process, they have held up the 
entire government and placed our economy on the precipice of a 
turbulent second recession.
  If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the 
possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution, Section four, which states ``the 
validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be 
questioned.'' The argument can be made that if Congress will not 
resolve our nation's pending default then the President, to protect the 
interest of our nation, must act. The President would then have to 
consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him 
the authority to raise the debt ceiling, on his own, through executive 
order if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by the August 2, 2011 
deadline. As a body we should not place the President or our country in 
this position.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents 
in their home districts who would be hurt by this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of 
Americans live; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by 
reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve 
Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the 
financial system into chaos,'' and ``destroy the trust and confidence 
that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest 
liquid assets in the world.''
  Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts and Constitutional 
amendments into the traditionally non-political business of raising the 
debt ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a bill that makes good on 
our debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, we have reached a critical point in our 
months-long debate over the best approach to addressing our country's 
deficit and debt and raising the statutory debt limit. It is important 
to be clear, that the decision to raise the debt limit is about paying 
the bills we have already accumulated. The debt limit has been raised 
over 70 times since 1960 by Republicans and Democrats, in fact, more 
times under a Republican president. In 11 years, we have gone from a 
$5.6 trillion surplus to a $1.4 trillion deficit. We can argue about 
how we got here--and I would argue the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 
and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all of which I voted against, are 
the primary reasons--but there is enough blame to go around, and the 
critical point now is to avoid the first default in the history of the 
United States of America.
  The good news tonight is that we can see the outlines of a final 
agreement. Both the Boehner plan and the Reid plan seek to enact at 
least $2.4 trillion in budget cuts with a similar increase in our debt 
limit. Both would set up a lawmaker committee to decide which programs 
to cut with a vote on the package without amendment by both the House 
and Senate. The key differences are the time-frame for raising the debt 
limit and the requirement that a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the 
Constitution is passed in Congress and sent to the states. The Boehner 
plan calls for an immediate debt limit increase of $900 billion which 
lasts only through the end of this year. The Reid plan would raise the 
debt limit through the end of 2012. Moreover, while I have voted for a 
BBA in the past, it is very unlikely it will receive the two-thirds 
vote necessary in both Houses to be sent to the states, guaranteeing a 
future default. I believe the Reid plan is the better approach and will 
vote against the Boehner plan for this reason.
  We have heard a great deal in recent weeks about the potential, dire 
consequences of a default, notably a lowering of our country's credit 
rating that would cause a rise in interest rates--raising costs for 
people at every income level--and a likely drop in the stock market, 
affecting pensions and crippling our economic recovery. One thing that 
should be clear is that we don't want to go through this again just a 
few months from now. Financial markets want certainty so businesses can 
invest and create jobs, and I believe we will be better served to raise 
the debt limit through the end of next year.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a very tough process. While I will not 
vote for the Boehner proposal today, I believe we are closer to 
reaching a final product that represents a workable compromise. And at 
the end of the day, that is what the American people expect us to do.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, it has been one week since bipartisan 
discussions over the $4 trillion ``grand deal'' broke down yet we have 
seen little progress toward a smaller package of spending cuts that 
would allow us to raise the debt limit and begin getting our fiscal 
house in order.
  It's easy to point fingers and cast blame--and there's certainly 
plenty to go around--but fundamentally I believe the reason we have 
seen so little progress is that the American people aren't looking for 
a short-term solution or a small gesture. They want a ``grand deal'' 
that will put us on a fiscally responsible path today and for the 
future.
  We all have our own ideas about our nation's fiscal priorities, but 
what is missing in today's discussion is a bipartisan, centrist 
approach to addressing our nation's fiscal health, such as the 
recommendations by the Simpson-Bowles National Commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility and Reform.
  No one party has all the answers, and no one party can do this alone. 
It's time to put our economy back on the path to fiscal sustainability, 
and this House should consider the Simpson-Bowles recommendations that 
aim to accomplish that goal by reducing spending by $4 trillion over 10 
years, lowering tax rates, ensuring the solvency of entitlements such 
as Medicare and Social Security and stabilizing the debt.
  To compliment the $4 trillion Simpson-Bowles plan the House should 
also consider a clean balanced budget amendment. H.J. Res. 2, is 
identical to legislation that passed the House in 1995 with 300 votes 
and I plan to support it if the House take it up. It is a commonsense 
approach to ensuring long-term fiscal responsibility by operating the 
federal government's finances in the same way every American family and 
even all 50 states must do.
  This clean balanced budget amendment, coupled with the Simpson-Bowles 
recommendations and a debt limit increase to get us through the next 18 
months, is a package I believe would find broad bipartisan support in 
both Chambers of Congress.
  Yesterday the House debated Speaker Boehner's debt limit proposal, 
which was yet another example of the partisanship that has paralyzed 
Washington and disgusted the American people. Leading credit rating 
agency Standard & Poor's has said the Speaker's two-step approach to 
the debt limit could still result in a downgrade of our nation's credit 
rating because of the uncertainty it would create. I simply cannot 
bring myself to vote for legislation that would yet again call into 
question the full faith and credit of the United States.
  With the possibility of a credit downgrade by national and 
international bond rating agencies looming over our head, kicking this 
can further down the road could mean a greater burden on the American 
people and American businesses in the form of higher interest rates, 
higher mortgage payments, negative impacts on retirements savings and 
higher student loans. This is unacceptable and--more importantly--
completely avoidable.
  It's time for cooler heads to prevail in order to resolve this 
economic crisis. A balanced approach that includes the Simpson-Bowles 
deficit reduction recommendations, a clean balanced budget amendment 
and a one-step, 18-month increase of our nation's debt limit could be 
the bipartisan solution that has been elusive through all of the 
partisan rhetoric. With the clock ticking down to our nation's first 
ever default we cannot afford to wait a minute longer.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, as the clock ticks down toward default, 
we are debating a

[[Page 12491]]

bill that will not solve the debt problem. It will make life worse for 
98 percent of Americans--to protect the wealthiest 2 percent of our 
society. Meanwhile nearly $1.6 trillion would be cut from programs like 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Yet, despite these cuts, under this bill, we would face the exact 
same crisis just six months from now. We often hear about the need for 
``certainty'' in the business community. With financial markets ready 
to tumble and our credit on the brink of a downgrade, how does kicking 
the can down the road for six months provide certainty?
  Failing to resolve this crisis will be disastrous for our economic 
recovery. Capital that is already hard to come by for entrepreneurs 
will be even further out of reach for our nation's small businesses. 
That's some jobs plan.
  Working families will pay $250 more in credit card interest. Mortgage 
payments will rise by $1,000. Older workers could lose thousands of 
dollars in retirement investment.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people expect us to act swiftly and 
responsibly. The bill before us fails on both counts. Let's reject this 
measure and develop a real solution.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  The Republican majority has pushed our economy to the brink of 
default through its refusal to work with Democrats on a balanced plan 
to end the default crisis. Despite the fact that this legislation 
cannot pass the Senate and would be vetoed by President Obama, the 
Republican majority chose to continue their political gamesmanship 
rather than bring to the floor a legitimate plan to prevent default.
  By presenting a short-term fix rather than a long-term solution, the 
majority's plan puts our economy at greater risk of a credit downgrade 
and higher interest rates. American families and businesses cannot 
afford a higher cost of borrowing, which will raise the price of 
mortgages, loans, and credit card debt.
  Defaulting on the federal debt is not an option. Congress should 
deliver a balanced plan that ends the default crisis; reduces spending 
responsibly; and prioritizes the health and security of hard-working 
middle-class families, senior citizens, and vulnerable Americans.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
speak in opposition to the bill being considered S. 627, The Budget 
Control Act. This bill should be called the Boehner Default Act because 
it is just another attempt for Congressional Republicans to hold the 
American economy and jobs hostage while they relentlessly pursue an 
extreme partisan agenda that seeks to balance the budget on the backs 
of seniors and the middle class. This approach has been met with 
widespread rejection by the public and it should be rejected by the 
House now.
  This bill is not a serious attempt to deal with the national debt 
limit and it is not responsible legislation. House Republicans need to 
go back to the drawing board and show real leadership by crafting a 
plan that does not threaten the United States with a credit downgrade 
and higher interest rates while providing only a short-term debt limit 
increase.
  It is inexcusable for Congress to have set up yet another partisan 
standoff on this issue just a few months down the road. It is 
unacceptable to slash Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security from our 
nation's seniors while asking nothing in return from the nation's most 
wealthy corporations and individuals.
  It is time for Republicans to stop trying to score points with their 
political base and start legislating on behalf of the American people. 
As the majority party in the House of Representatives, the American 
people are owed better.
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following:
  On July 27, Carol Augias from Mahopac, New York wrote to me:
  ``Representative Hayworth, I have never written to a Congressperson 
before, however, I am deeply troubled by the debt ceiling stalemate. 
While I firmly believe that the massive debt we carry in this country 
needs to be reduced (I personally curtail my spending when my debt 
exceeds my comfort level), I am very concerned about what may happen if 
we default on our loans. Please find a way to get this issue resolved 
prior to the August deadline. Some compromises must take place. Once we 
have taken care of the immediate issue we, as a Nation, must evaluate 
our financial position so that our country will continue to flourish 
and children will also be able to purchase a home, afford a college 
education.''
  Mr. Speaker, Carol is right. We need to resolve the debt limit crisis 
for the sake of future generations. Just as the American people--like 
Carol--pay their bills, the federal government must do the same, so we 
are obligated to raise the Treasury's debt ceiling. But we must do so 
responsibly because our nation has another critical and painful problem 
that is related to our enormous debt: 14 million Americans need jobs.
  We can make our economy grow, and create jobs, by assuring that the 
dollars Americans work so hard for are theirs to spend and save and 
invest. To do this, the federal spending juggernaut has to stop.
  And, as Carol pointed out, there is a need for cooperation. We can 
reform our tax code and close loopholes, as the President has urged, 
and we can do so without raising net taxes. We cannot, in good 
conscience, increase the burdens on Americans who need a vigorous 
economy.
  Our nation didn't reach the point of fiscal crisis overnight, and we 
aren't going to get out of it overnight either--but we can make 
progress in the right direction now, and continue doing our utmost 
together to bring this federal government to the right size, and 
empower our citizens to enjoy the freedom and dignity that is their 
birthright as Americans.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, many concerned Americans are fed up with a 
Washington system that doesn't solve the underlying problems facing the 
nation, including the ongoing debt crisis.
  This ongoing debt debate represents not just a crisis, but a 
crossroads.
  In the past few decades, Congress raised the national debt limit more 
than 70 times, usually with little or no debate. Each time very few 
people batted an eye and this history has been used by liberal 
extremists as a reason to continue with the status quo, Now things have 
changed.
  Over the last five years our national debt has increased by more than 
50 percent. In just the past three years the debt increased by more 
than $4 trillion dollars. Even worse, the debt has increased by $9.2 
trillion since a Balanced Budget Amendment failed by one vote in the 
Senate 15 years ago. As a result, the total national debt is now nearly 
equal to our entire economic output.
  The independent Congressional Budget Office warns that the federal 
government's current path of borrowing is unsustainable and could lead 
to slower economic growth as debt payments consume more and more of our 
economic output. Add to this that the private-sector agencies like S&P 
that grade government debt have stated that if Congress doesn't do 
something to halt the rapid growth of debt they will downgrade the U.S. 
debt rating, likely driving up interest rates,
  The bottom line is simple: the government can pile up only so much 
debt before it becomes impossible to make the payments without 
destroying its ability to fund priorities like national defense or 
Social Security, As the national debt accumulates at a record clip we 
are quickly approaching that point.
  If we don't cut spending now, America will face a painful national 
reckoning in the coming years. This reckoning will make today's high 
stakes debate look quaint. That's why this debate is so critical. The 
longer Congress puts off making tough decisions, the more pain the 
nation will experience when the music stops.
  So when people ask me if I favor increasing the debt limit my 
response is, ``it depends.'' Any status quo increase in the debt limit 
is absolutely out of the question.
  However, we have to consider what happens if Congress doesn't 
increase the debt limit. Someone will not get paid.
  We cannot ignore that the government is currently borrowing more than 
40 cents of every dollar that it spends. As a result, if Congress does 
not raise the debt ceiling the federal government would have to slash 
spending immediately by more than 40 percent. That would endanger 
America's ability to keep its promises to those who have paid into 
programs like Social Security for years.
  Consider these facts.
  If Congress completely eliminated foreign aid the budget would be 
reduced by only 2%.
  If Congress funded only Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as 
well as the national defense budget there would be no money left to pay 
for anything else--not even the interest payments on the national debt.
  If Congress prioritized spending that is on auto-pilot, such as 
unemployment benefits, Social Security, interest payments and the like, 
there would be nothing left for the defense budget, or any other 
spending, including education and transportation.
  That's why I'm in favor only of drastic spending cuts accompanied by 
a smaller increase in the debt limit, And for the first time ever, 
Speaker Boehner's bill does just that, by proposing deficit reductions 
of $2.7 trillion--including $22 billion next year. Large reductions 
like this that protect Social Security and Medicare for current 
retirees will stop the reckless accumulation of debt and help us avoid 
the sort of catastrophic debt crisis we will face if Washington 
continues with business as usual.

[[Page 12492]]

  It's not news that no one wants to raise the debt limit. The real 
news is the old way of raising the debt limit is over. Raising the debt 
limit, as Congress has done in the past, without accompanying spending 
cuts would be a disaster with severe economic consequences. Washington 
is in debt because it has a spending problem. It's past time we 
addressed that and today's bill does just that.
  Due to chronic overspending, Washington is at a crossroads. I'm 
confident that Congress can find a way to tackle this issue 
responsibly. It will not be without difficult or unpopular decisions. 
But refusing to make tough decisions today will result in even tougher 
ones tomorrow. For the sake of future generations of Americans we need 
to make the right call today and put dramatic, permanent spending cuts 
in place and pass a Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the debt 
limit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 375, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third 
time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. HOCHUL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. HOCHUL. Yes, I am opposed to this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Hochul moves to recommit the bill (S. 627) to the 
     Committee on Rules, with instructions to report the bill back 
     to the House forthwith, with the following amendment:
       Amend section 401(b)(3)(B) by adding at the end the 
     following new clause:
       (vi) Prioritize deficit reduction from corporate subsidies 
     before cutting education.--The joint committee shall first 
     consider the elimination of--

       (I) oil and gas subsidies for the major integrated oil 
     companies, and
       (II) subsidies for corporate use of aircraft,

     before cutting essential education programs that are 
     necessary for the creation of jobs, economic recovery, and 
     investment in America's future.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hochul) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. HOCHUL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Well, here we are. The eyes of the world are upon us. The eyes of the 
American people are upon us, but, most importantly, the eyes of the 
people who put their faith in us in sending us to this institution are 
certainly upon us.
  As we engage in this debate, I will say there is one thing that is 
clear to me: that everyone in this room loves this great country. 
America has stood the test of time and risen above disasters as one 
people.
  In the last decade alone, we've been rattled by wars, unprecedented 
natural disasters, and the longest recession since World War II. As we 
approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, we are reminded of what we can 
do when we pull together. We are a resilient people. But, Mr. Speaker, 
never, never in our history has there been an intentional disaster 
perpetrated by the very people who are sent here to be the caretakers 
of this country. That is exactly what will happen if we refuse to take 
action to prevent default and pay our Nation's bills now, not 6 months 
down the road.
  I understand a spirited debate in defense of one's viewpoints 
certainly, but when I look down at the copy of the Constitution that I 
keep on my desk, I thank God that our Founding Fathers found it in 
their hearts to give and take--and, yes, compromise for what is in the 
best interests of this country.
  I can't go back to the Hillview restaurant on Transit Road in 
Lancaster and look into the eyes of my early-bird seniors and tell them 
that we didn't get this job done, that we decided to continue this game 
of political chicken, to dangle default cruelly over the heads of our 
citizens and our businesses and our economy and hold it hostage while 
we, as you've heard so many times, kick this can down the road again.
  Mr. Speaker, am I really supposed to tell the Greatest Generation 
that when they passed us the torch, we dropped it because we couldn't 
compromise? That is why my amendment is a simple statement of America's 
priorities. It says, before we cut our education for our children, we 
first must cut subsidies to Big Oil and corporate jets.
  This amendment is one of our last chances to reaffirm the values that 
bind us as a Nation. I know one of these shared values is our sense of 
obligation to create a better world for our young people to inherit, 
that we give these young people a better chance at achieving their 
dreams than even we had. The next generation will be more prosperous 
and more secure, but only if we invest in it now, in the human capital 
whose creativity, innovation, and work ethic can ensure this country 
remains the world's leader and the beacon of hope to others.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I feel this is all at risk. Speaker Boehner's plan 
results in consequences I can't imagine anyone in this room really 
wants.
  On top of the unconscionable uncertainty and instability we leave our 
economy in with this temporary fix, we're putting at risk the 
investments in education that are so critical for our young people to 
compete with China, India, and Europe on the global stage.
  My amendment is about priorities, the priorities of the people we 
represent. Slashing programs for seniors, young people, and the middle 
class all because we're afraid of the influence of Big Oil, that is 
wrong on so many levels.
  I come from a family of entrepreneurs. My mom started a small 
business. My father helped grow a business of four people to 3,200. I 
get it. I know what it takes, and I have tremendous respect for 
companies that have grown to be that size. And if they have a chance to 
have a corporate jet, I don't begrudge them; that's great. But in this 
time when we all agree that our deficit must be reduced, tell me why we 
can't ask them--Big Oil and people who have corporate jets--to give us 
a hand and help this great country that made them what they are today.

                              {time}  1750

  You know, little Seaman's Hardware Store in Genesee County run by 
generations of the Seaman family, how is it that they pay more in taxes 
than the big companies that are shipping jobs overseas? I can't explain 
this to the Seaman family. I don't know about you, but I cannot do 
that.
  And you know what, my constituents are hurting in upstate New York. 
Some of them, at a time of huge corporate profits, can barely afford to 
fill the gas tank to get to their minimum wage jobs at the dollar 
store.
  There is one value we share, and that's fairness. This bill is 
fundamentally unfair.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this doesn't prioritize Social Security. It 
doesn't prioritize Medicare. It doesn't prioritize veterans. It doesn't 
propose one item that would cut spending. All it does is engage in 
class warfare and increase taxes. Vote against the motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. HOCHUL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 244, not voting 5, as follows:

[[Page 12493]]



                             [Roll No. 676]

                               AYES--183

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

                               NOES--244

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Baca
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Speier
     Waters

                              {time}  1809

  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on motions to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2213 and H.R. 789, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 210, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 677]

                               AYES--218

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

                               NOES--210

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar

[[Page 12494]]


     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Baca
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Speier
     Waters

                              {time}  1825

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, had I been able to attend today's floor 
proceedings, I would have voted ``no'' on S. 627--Speaker Boehner's 
Short Term Default Act.

                          ____________________