Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code, on January 12, 2012.

Mr. President, I wish to express my disapproval of the President's request of a debt limit increase of $1.2 trillion, which would place the total limit just below $16.4 trillion.

The requested increase amounts to nearly $4,000 of additional debt for every American man, woman, and child; and the total debt limit being requested works out to over $50,000 per person. This would be a terrible burden to impose on our children.

For many in Washington, including this President, this debt limit increase is just a matter-of-fact necessity. Watching the mainstream media, many Americans might be surprised to even know that it was set to happen. But this is no small matter. This is not an inconsequential increase in the limit on Federal spending.

Federal spending is already out of control, and we all know it. Our total debt is already greater than the size of our entire economy. I will repeat that: Our total debt is greater than the size of our entire economy. The debt ceiling increase being requested amounts to nearly 8 percent of our entire gross domestic product, or GDP, and the total debt limit being requested amounts to over 108 percent of GDP. That would place us in worse shape than many of the eurozone countries currently confronting their devastating fiscal crisis.

Given the recent experience in Europe, it is disconcerting to hear repeated calls by the grow-government-at-all-costs crowd to double down on failed government initiatives to stimulate the economy by borrowing even more. Rates are cheap, they say, so let's continue riding this debt bubble as far as we can.

We should have learned from the housing bubble and the European sovereign debt bubble that bubbles pop rapidly and with great devastation. It was not long ago that the grow-government crowd was mocking concerns about indebtedness in the eurozone, taunting what they called ``bond vigilantes'' and saying that there was nothing there to see. Interest rates will not go up. Don't worry. Rates are low, so borrow and spend.

We know how this story ends. It was not long ago that we saw the housing market participants, lured in by the promise of an ever-bigger ``McMansion,'' being told: Don't worry. Rates are low and housing prices never fall. The government backs your mortgage, so there is no risk.

As outsized and highly speculative activity took place in the housing and financial sectors, Federal regulators ignored all warnings, failed to use their existing authority to promote safety and soundness and, frankly, failed to do their jobs. To date, it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a single name of a regulator who lost a job. In fact, many in the top slots got promotions. Meanwhile, everything bad that exists in the housing market and in mortgage finance is blamed on the evils of private business. That is a great way to deflect regulatory failure, but a terrible way to get private activity back into the housing arena.

The fact is, the housing bubble was caused by too much borrowing and the folks who egged it on. The results were not pretty. Global investors struck against mortgage-backed securities issued in the United States, leading ultimately to a precipitous global strike on financial intermediation and massive government bailouts of financial institutions.

The experience with the housing bubble caused by mortgage debt is being replicated with the explosion of sovereign debt. The bond vigilantes did strike against profligate eurozone countries, and they precipitously demanded higher and higher interest rates to protect lenders from risks of default. This effectively shut entire countries out of the debt market. Entire countries face an inability to borrow at rates they can sustain. Absent an ability to roll over debt, those countries have been forced quickly and violently into fiscal restructuring, immediate austerity, and sometimes even partial default.

The President's most recent request to take on more debt follows the same bubble pattern that we know will lead to devastation and losses. I, for one, don't wish for us to continue flirting with catastrophe by encouraging bubbles with the fools' gold that because rates are cheap we should borrow more.

We are on the edge of the cliff, and it is time to carefully but deliberately take a few steps back. Rates may be low today, but they can turn on a dime. When they do, the outsized Federal Government we currently have will suddenly be exposed as unaffordable. When that day comes, our creditors can go on strike as quickly as they have in Europe.

Last summer we got a taste of what is to come when we received the first downgrade of U.S. sovereign debt in history from a major credit rating agency. Americans can never be allowed to forget that this downgrade occurred under, and because of, this administration's fiscal stewardship. We cannot risk what are likely to be further downgrades in the near future by raising the debt limit.

It is time to resist the siren song of cheap credit and put our focus back on the job at hand, which is to allow the private sector to create jobs and to get rid of the $1 trillion-plus deficits of the Obama Presidency, to get rid of our mountain of debt that surpasses the size of our entire economy, and to bring the size of our Federal Government back to its historical norms.

Federal outlays as a share of our entire economy averaged 18.6 percent over the past 40 years. Under the current administration, Federal outlays represent 25 percent of GDP in 2009, 23.8

percent in 2010, and were estimated to have been 25.3 percent in 2011. The current administration has engineered a Federal Government where outlays represent 25 percent--one-quarter--of our entire economy. The last time Federal spending represented such a large share of our economy was back in 1946 as the world began rebuilding after the ravages of World War II.

I guess this is what one of my colleagues meant when he said the other day that America is in good shape. Economic and job growth remain weak, but Washington and the government jobs it funds is doing just fine.

The administration likes to talk about economic fairness--about the haves and have-nots. But ultimately the people in the best shape in this economy are those who owe their livelihoods to the Federal Government and Federal taxpayers. When the 99 percent are being taxed to fund and fuel an ever-growing Washington bureaucracy, we have what the President might call economic justice.

There is no end in sight. After Federal spending spiked in World War II as the entire Nation mobilized to defeat the axis powers, it quickly ratcheted down, with Federal spending averaging 16.5 percent of GDP in the 10 years that followed. Yet with President Obama, the ratchet only moved in one direction, up.

Equally of interest is the behavior of Federal spending relative to the size of the economy in those Clinton years, which many look back on as the golden age of fiscal correctness. While Democrats focus solely on the existence of budgetary bliss despite higher tax rates under Clinton, they typically fail to mention how the budgetary bliss was generated. It is difficult to deny the facts, which include a reduction in Federal outlays relative to GDP from 21.4 percent in 1993 to 18.2 percent by 2001, a 3.2-percentage point reduction.

During those years government receipts relative to GDP did rise from 17.5 percent to 19.5 percent, a 2.0-percentage point increase. But it is impossible to deny that the budget bliss was largely generated by reducing the share of the economy accounted for by Federal spending. Of course, my friends on other side of the aisle pledge allegiance to tax- and-spend economics. They wish to maintain a Federal Government where spending amounts to one-quarter of the size of the entire economy. To them, Federal spending and big government are not problems; they are virtues from which good things trickle down from government to preferred classes of people.

They decry that a deep recession has caused government receipts as a share of GDP to fall below 15 percent and argue in panic that the decline is proof that taxes must be raised, while refusing to acknowledge that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that revenues as a share of GDP will rise with economic recovery. Federal revenues have averaged 18 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. They are projected by our Congressional Budget Office to reach nearly 19 percent of GDP in 2013, 21 percent in 2021, and 23 percent by 2035 under current law. That is what they say.

Even under the CBO's so-called alternative fiscal scenario, CBO puts revenues as a share of GDP at around 18.4 percent, higher than the long-run average. Congress and the President should focus on the things they are capable of controlling.

Mr. President, Federal revenues come from the economy, and as the economy recovers, CBO expects revenues to recover and rise above historical norms relative to the size of the economy. The President and his allies are putting the cart before the horse. They want to increase revenues by raising taxes. But the real way to increase revenues is to promote economic growth.

Federal spending is something that Congress and the President have full control over, however. Every Federal dollar spent counts because Congress and the President decide to spend it. Our deficits and debt are on an unsustainable path because of unsustainable spending. Yet with this debt limit increase, the President and his allies are confirming they are comfortable with our government consuming an ever- increasing share of the economy.

The President has made clear before that in the name of class warfare he is comfortable raising taxes regardless of whether those tax hikes generate revenues or decrease deficits and debt. With his latest proposal to tax the so-called rich, he has shown again he is willing to ignore the fact--the clear fact--we have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

To tackle our spending problem, unsustainable government promises embedded in entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security must be reformed. There is no budget analyst on this planet who does not identify entitlement reform as key to getting the Federal budget back on track. Yet over the 3 years of the Obama Presidency, there has been no plan--no plan from the administration--to deal with entitlements.

The entitlement can is simply being kicked down the road, and to deflect attention from our real fiscal challenges my friends on the other side of the aisle resort to the politics of division. Tax the evil banks and all will be equal, just, and fair, they suggest. Tax millionaires and billionaires no matter whether they are fat cats on yachts or small business owners and all will be equal, just, and fair, they suggest.

The politics of division bears no fruit. It is an economic dead end. Yet it is elevated to the top of the President's agenda to divert attention from our bloated Federal Government. The taxes on the so- called rich or on evil financial institutions or evil energy producers or evil insurance providers have been promoted in the interest of fairness and equality.

Reducing income and wealth inequality is a laudable goal. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle have not--and I repeat, have not--proposed new tax measures to generate greater income equality through the Tax Code. The numerous permanent surtaxes on the so-called rich or on energy producers or on financial institutions have not been offered with corresponding permanent reductions in taxes for others with lesser means. Rather, they have been offered to promote more government spending and a permanently larger government. They are permanent tax hikes used to pay for temporary stimulus or taxes on business to fuel more spending or bailouts or government jobs.

Of course, no mention is made of what effect those taxes have on businesses or private sector job creation. No mention is made about the effect those taxes have on the returns on retirement portfolios of seniors, which contain stocks and bonds of the vilified banks and energy producers and insurance companies. The message to retired seniors in Sandy, UT, is clear: You have been suffering for years through near-zero returns on bonds because of Federal Reserve policy. But now you will just have to take it on the chin when the value of your pensions fall because the Federal Government needs to tax business to get more revenue for union construction jobs or stimulus or for bailouts of mortgages of speculative housing investors.

Mr. President, my friends on the other side of the aisle say they want more equality and more jobs but do not offer tax proposals that would generate more equality through the Tax Code or a better environment for job creation. Instead, they want to tax the so-called rich to get money for things such as high-paid infrastructure contractors while fighting tooth and nail on behalf of their union constituencies to retain and even expand Davis-Bacon and Contract Service Act coverage, which we know costs taxpayers money and stifles job creation. These kinds of schemes have nothing to do with equality. They have nothing to do with promoting as much job creation as possible. They have everything to do with the politics of division and with cronyism.

In the recent flurry of tax-the-rich surcharges offered by the other side, each corresponding spending idea has been clearly directed to appease Democratic constituencies--mostly unions, again--and to build up campaign season talking points that say the only thing standing in the way of Democrats' do-goodery is Republican refusal to tax some easily demonized group. This might make for good politics, but it is no way to formulate fiscal policy, and it is no way to run a country.

At first, to pay for a massive new stimulus plan of the President, the Democrats wanted to limit deductions for people earning $200,000 or more, which in September of last year was

evidently how Democrats defined who was rich. Next came a proposed surtax of 5.6 percent on people earning $1 million or more to pay for the President's stimulus scheme. I am guessing the earlier definition of ``rich'' at $200,000 did not sit too well--or poll too well--with Democrats in high-income jurisdictions, in places such as New York and California.

Next came a surtax of 0.5 percent on those earners to give funds to States to help pay mostly union workers.

Next came a surtax of 0.7 percent on those earners to help pay for a new Fannie-and-Freddie-like, government-sponsored enterprise called the infrastructure bank.

Next came a permanent surtax of 3.25 percent on those earners for what was billed as a temporary payroll tax preference which, ironically, gives more to richer earners than it does to poorer earners and gives nothing at all to the unemployed.

Next came a long-term surtax of 1.9 percent on richer earners, again for the allegedly temporary payroll tax preference.

Mr. President, the pattern is clear. Democrats settle on their stimulus spending plan of the week, find out how much it will cost, and then find out what surtax to slap on high earners, including business income recipients. That is how we get tax proposals with rates of 5.6 percent, then 0.5 percent, then 0.7 percent, then 3.25 percent, then 1.9 percent, and who knows what is going to come next. Never mind that businesses across this country have been clear that massive uncertainty from the current administration's policies and proposals is holding back hiring, job creation, and the economy.

Given the past few months of tax rate roulette being played by the Democrats, is it any wonder families and businesses lack the confidence to take risks, make significant purchases and grow the economy?

And never mind that the Joint Committee on Taxation has told us approximately 34 percent of flow-through business income, which tends to be small business income, would be subject to Democratic surtax proposals. My friends on the other side of the aisle ask us not to mind the effect on job creators, even as the economy faces massive joblessness.

If we abide by the recommendations of the editors of the New York Times, who are in lockstep with the Democratic Party, we should not care about more taxes on businesses. Indeed, in a December 9 editorial last year, those tax policy experts told us:

For any savvy business owner, a surtax would have no

bearing on hiring decisions. If new workers are profitable

before tax, they will be profitable after tax, even if the

employer has to pay slightly more of the profit in taxes.

This view perfectly encapsulates the understanding of the economy held by those who have never created a private sector job or worked to turn a profit. By this view, these rich business owners would not even flinch if we increases taxes. After-tax profitability of hiring does not matter evidently, especially when we view business earners as those evil rich.

Mr. President, I know in certain circles it is fashionable to vilify business and hold the profit motive as the root cause of mega-wealth. But the notion that business decisions, including hiring, will not be affected in the least by higher taxes is truly bizarre.

The ongoing vilification of private businesses in America is shameful. Hard-working Americans who are by no definition rich, but who work in mortgage markets and real estate markets and securitization markets and energy production markets and in financial markets, have been hit with a blanket indictment from this administration that they are wrongdoers.

Of course, if they do wrong they need to go to jail. But my experience with the American people is, by and large, they play by the rules, seek to offer useful products to their buyers, and look only for fair rewards for their efforts. They do not deserve to be vilified by the President and painted as purveyors of tricks and traps to abuse their neighbors in order to buy yachts.

Again, anyone who breaks a law should go to jail. Any Federal regulator who fails to do their job should be fired. But the vast majority of Americans who operate and work hard and honestly in business should not be shamed for their work. It would be far more appropriate to shame lawmakers who set tricks and traps in the Tax Code in order to get more money for the Federal Government to spend while falsely selling their schemes as paths toward equality.

While President Obama seeks to take attention away from his historically record-high deficits and Federal spending that accounts for 25 percent of the economy and his jobs deficit and his congressional relations deficit by identifying some sort of ``trust deficit'' he has with financial institutions, it is imperative that he and Democrats in Congress do not spend the rest of this year playing election-year politics. People need jobs, and the Nation cannot afford to wait for the President and Democrats to get past November.

We need to stop the tsunami of job-crushing regulations and the runaway regulatory agencies which continually stretch their authority in order to intervene into the economy and crush job creation. We need to reduce the time needed for private sector projects to clear the forest of regulatory and permitting redtape. We need to proceed immediately with known shovel-ready, job-creating, and environmentally safe projects such as the Keystone Pipeline. Despite having cleared years of reviews and oversight and despite support from virtually all interests--including unions but excluding radical environmentalists--it is inconsistent for the President to say he cares about American jobs while he prevents them from being created by approving the pipeline.

While the President needs to approve the Keystone Pipeline, I wish to again express my disapproval of the administration's Federal spending pipeline.

For 3 years, the administration has lacked any serious and coherent budget plan. The administration has refused to deal seriously, if at all, with tackling unsustainable entitlement spending. It wishes to continue to practice the politics of division in order to permanently enshrine a European-sized Federal Government that absorbs over one- fourth of the entire size of our economy.

Americans do not want this oversized government. Americans do not want or need job-stifling tax hikes. Americans do not need the Federal Government running their lives and making their choices. Allowing the debt limit to rise would only serve to promote things that Americans do not want and that Americans do not need.

Therefore, I disapprove of the President's request for a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit which would place the total limit at nearly $16.4 trillion, and I urge my colleagues to similarly disapprove.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are here today to debate the President's desire to take on more debt. We are here to debate whether it is a good thing to put current and future generations on the hook for the spending policies of this administration.

I believe that it is not a good thing. We should not enable this administration to spend more taxpayer dollars by increasing the debt ceiling.

We should be forcing the administration to lead, and to make the reductions in government programs and spending that everyone knows must happen if we are to remain a free and prosperous Nation.

Here is the bottom line, and it is not pretty.

Our debt today is $4.6 trillion higher than when President Obama took office.

In his 3 years in office, President Obama has run up the three largest deficits in American history.

Three trillion-dollar deficits.

This is an enormous burden that the President is placing on American taxpayers.

He talks about fairness. Well, this debt is unfair to current taxpayers and future generations.

Yet by this debt ceiling increase, he wants Congress to give him a green light to spend more, running our debt up to nearly $16.4 trillion.

The debt per person has increased by $13,963 since President Obama took office.

This is unacceptable.

I will be voting for this resolution of disapproval. The debt ceiling should not be increased. The fiscal path that this Nation is on is a path to ruin. The President knows that. But instead of hitting the brakes and getting spending under control, he is slamming on the accelerator.

This is no longer acceptable.

Voting for this resolution, as the House did overwhelmingly, would make it clear that the way to address our spending problem is by reducing spending.

This resolution is worthy of our support, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I rise today in opposition to the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, what exactly are we doing here? We could be talking about creating jobs for the middle class. We could be talking about a payroll tax cut extension. We could be talking about corporate tax reform, individual tax reform, and most importantly, we could be talking about solving the national deficit, about reducing government spending, about solving the deficit issue.

But, instead, we're here playing this game of Kabuki theater. Rather than pursuing an agenda that isn't a Democratic or Republican agenda, but an American agenda that both sides all can agree on, we're here playing a counterproductive and absurd game. In fact, not only playing a game, we're replaying a game.

We all remember the debt debacle last August that almost shut down Federal Government and led to a downgrade, potentially increasing interest rates and costing the government billions or hundreds of billions of dollars more in interest payments. For the first time in history, Standard & Poor's downgraded our country's credit rating, citing brinksmanship and political gridlock as motivating factors for their decision.

Look, this is all Monday night quarterbacking. It's after the fact. The money has been spent. The money has been spent, and 147 Republicans voted in December to spend $915 billion in the appropriations bill, the omnibus appropriations bill, 147 Republicans, $915 billion, all of which was deficit spending. One hundred forty-seven Republicans spent $915 billion in deficit spending December 17th. That's a Christmas shopping spree, and now the credit card bill has come in January, and here they are saying we don't want to pay that credit card bill.

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is not to spend the money if you're not going to make good on your bill. Every American family knows that. Once the money's spent it's after-the-fact political finger pointing, not looking to a solution for a deficit problem.

And the Republicans have not put a solution on the table. Even the House Republican budget, the Paul Ryan budget that ends Medicare, creates $5.1 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years, $5.1 trillion in deficit spending. How many times will the Republicans have to raise the debt limit to have a deficit of $5.1 trillion?

This Congress and the majority of this Congress on the Republican side are addicted to spending, Mr. Speaker, and until they are willing to entertain a real discussion--and the President of the United States, President Obama, has led the way by convening a commission, the Bowles- Simpson Commission, to try to take a bipartisan approach to actually solving the deficit situation. But rather than bringing any of those bills before the House, the Republicans passed the budget that not only ends Medicare but leads to $5.1 trillion in deficit spending and as recently as December 17th, spent $915 billion of deficit spending, the entire deficit for this year, essentially, around December 17th, because we had already spent the money that actually came in. And here they are in January, Mr. Speaker, saying they don't want to pay the bills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina complained about the President's budget, he complained about a lack of budget in the Senate. What he failed to acknowledge is that the budget the Republicans adopted in this body without a single Democratic vote not only ends Medicare, but leads to $5.1 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years, several times the deficit over the last 10 years; $5.1 trillion, a larger deficit spending than this country has ever had in a 10-year period, was supported and voted on and enacted by the Republicans in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Before further yielding, I yield myself a minute.

Mr. Speaker, to hear the other side, they doth protest too much. Why does a party for whom 147 Members voted to spend $915 billion, causing the deficit, which is roughly a trillion dollars in size, essentially that $915 billion that they spent on their Christmas spending spree was the deficit, now they're complaining about it?

And since the gentleman from South Carolina wasn't kind enough to yield to me, I'd like to ask him on my own time, the gentleman referred to whether or not ending Medicare was true, and obviously there's been a vital discussion about that, but the other assertion that I made is a very factual one, and I just want to confirm with the gentleman that the Paul Ryan Republican budget that the Republicans passed did indeed contain $5.1 trillion of deficit spending. Is that your understanding as well? Is that true?

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina for an answer.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

The 10-year figure for that deficit from the CBO itself, $5.1 trillion in deficit spending. And again, the same Republicans who spend $915 billion here in December are again saying now that the credit card bill has come due, they somehow don't want to pay it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds before further yielding.

Every Republican that has spoken on this issue voted for a budget that included $5.1 trillion in deficit spending over a decade, more deficit spending than any 10-year period in the history of our country. They also, as part of that budget, voted for raising the debt ceiling by $8.8 trillion. They voted to do it, Mr. Speaker. They voted to raise the debt ceiling from $14.3 trillion to $23.1 trillion by 2021. Yes, Mr. Speaker, every Republican in this body, except for four, and zero Democrats, voted to double the national debt over the next 10 years.

I'm proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Again, the Republicans doth protest too much. If there is concern about the budget deficit, why did every Republican who has spoken here today--every Republican except for four--vote to double our national debt over the next 10 years? Why has every Republican here voted for a budget that included $5.1 trillion in deficit spending, more deficit spending than this country has ever had in a 10-year period?

I certainly hear complaints about President Obama and others. The President can't spend a penny--a penny--without congressional approval. So if the Republicans are concerned about the budget, why did they go on a Christmas spending spree where 147 Republicans voted to spend over $900 billion, every penny of it deficit spending? This makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.

Let's address this budget deficit, as President Obama has charged us to do with the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Let's undertake a bipartisan approach to solve the deficit. This Nation shouldn't have a $5.1 trillion deficit, as the Republicans have voted on and passed. This body should not spend enough money to double the national debt by the year 2021, which every Republican except for four has voted for.

Let's get to work, Mr. Speaker. This is all fun and games, but the country is burning while we continue to work to solve this issue and avoid the hard ones.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend from South Carolina if he has any remaining speakers.

You know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it seems like we're arguing about a different bill in this Chamber. Many of those who have spoken on the other side have risen to attack government spending; and yet they voted for a budget with a $5.1 trillion deficit over a 10-year period, a bigger deficit than this Nation has ever had. Many of them also voted to spend $915 billion December 17th on their Christmas shopping spree, all deficit spending. And now they're complaining about a deficit that their votes caused.

Let me assure you of something, Mr. Speaker. This Nation pays its bills. Families across America pay their bills. When families spend too much on Christmas gifts, the answer is not to not pay your credit card bill in January. The answer is to cut back on spending. That's what families across America know. That's what this Congress needs to know. That's common sense.

Every Republican in this body, except for four, voted for a budget that called for specifically raising the debt ceiling from $14.3 trillion to $23.1 trillion. The House Republican budget voted to double the national debt over the next 10 years.

We can and we must do better, Mr. Speaker. Let's get past these games and begin a real discussion about reining in the national deficit and starting to pay down our national debt.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from an article in The Hill. My friend and colleague Mr. Mulvaney from South Carolina said that this entire procedure ``is just a fig leaf for some Republicans to say they are against more debt, even though they essentially approved it.''

That's what we know this to be. This money has been spent. It's out the door. My colleague, Mr. Mulvaney from South Carolina, agrees and has put it into the Record. Even the budget from the Republican Study Committee, which the gentleman cited, calls for specifically raising the debt ceiling by $5.6 trillion, increasing the national debt by a third. That's not the answer.

The President has led the way through the creation of the Simpson- Bowles Commission and their hard, bipartisan work to come up with a way to reduce the national deficit. The Republican Study Committee budget, the Paul Ryan budget, all of the budgets that the Republicans brought before the House increase the deficit substantially, more so than any Congress has in the history of this entire country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, the gentleman from South Carolina didn't give me a chance to answer the question that he posed to me. He said, what's rich and what's fair?

What I and many others have proposed is that people making over $1 million a year in income is who we're talking about, not people with a net worth of 2 or 3 million or less, but people who have an income, make $1 million or more a year in income, and the tax rate would go from 35 to 39.6 percent, a 4\1/2\ percent increase. That's what we're talking about as part of a comprehensive package. That's in the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson package, that's in the bipartisan Gang of Six package. That's some of the revenue that, along with cuts and entitlement reform, are part of the solution to this issue.

Rather than bellyaching and complaining about having to do what Republicans themselves have said they

were going to do in the Ryan budget and the Republican Study Group budget that's doubled the deficit--Republicans committed to doubling the deficit. I didn't support that. I voted against those bills. But Republicans promised to double the deficit. I opposed that. But here they are, now that they're doing the spending that they did, their massive spending spree in December, their budget that doubles the size of the national deficit, and here they are bellyaching, after spending all that money, that they don't want to pay the bill.

Well, that's immature, Mr. Speaker. Let's rein in the spending, rather than not make good on the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, finally, Mr. Speaker, we have some bipartisan agreement. My colleague from Louisiana called this vote a sham. My colleague from South Carolina called this a fig leaf to disguise excess Republican spending. I think we have agreement on those basic concepts. Whether you call this a sham or a fig leaf, this bill, this process that the Republicans have put before us doesn't do a thing to solve the deficit, doesn't do a thing to rein in the national debt. It only perpetuates this Congress' addiction to spending, Mr. Speaker.

By somehow pretending to say that we're doing something by making a fuss over whether we're going to make good on the full faith and credit of what we've already spent, rather than just not spend it in the first place, Mr. Speaker, we're misleading the American public into thinking that this Congress is tackling the national debt and the deficit, when all we're doing, as my friend from Louisiana said, is simply a sham.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close as well. I ask the Speaker how much time remains.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are urging both parties, Republicans and Democrats, to work together to solve the basic challenges that this country faces, joblessness, a tax code that rewards those with well- connected lobbyists rather than hardworking Americans, and yes, to solve the budget deficit and budget crisis and ensure that we don't leave a legacy of debt for our children.

And yet, we will deal with none of these issues today, none of these issues in the 2 days the Republican majority has scheduled us to work this week, amidst the biggest national recession since the Great Depression. And each time that President Obama and Democrats have sought consensus on these issues, the majority have bowed to radical elements within their party that insist on an agenda that is far outside the American mainstream and will lead to doubling the national debt over the next 10 years.

Time and time again, we've seen the Republicans choose gridlock over problem solving. We saw this most recently when the House Republicans refused to allow a vote on the bipartisan compromise to extend the payroll tax break.

You know, the American people are tired of political games. They want action rather than rhetoric; they want progress rather than partisanship. And with today's move, the Republicans are again playing the dangerous game of signaling to the world that America might not pay its debt, might not make good on the very money that the Republicans voted to spend in December.

At a time when Standard & Poor's has moved to downgrade nine European countries' ratings, the last thing our Nation can afford is a risk of default. If we are further downgraded, Mr. Speaker, it would likely lead to an increase in the rate that we have to pay to finance our national debt. This would, in fact, increase the national debt even more than the Republicans want to increase the national debt--by $5.1 trillion.

Yes, that very same Paul Ryan budget that ends Medicare as we know it and has $5.1 trillion of deficit spending could have $10 trillion or $20 trillion of deficit spending if the Republicans succeed in jeopardizing our credit rating by playing games with the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Like millions of responsible Americans, our Nation knows that we must make good on our obligations. Every minute that we waste debating this--I'll use what the other side has called it--debating this sham, the gentleman from Louisiana, this fig leaf, the gentleman from South Carolina, every minute we waste debating this underlying rule and bill is a minute that could have been spent enacting practical, substantial legislation to end the budget deficit, to right the fiscal course of this Nation, and put our country back on the road to economic recovery.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 515 and as the designee of the majority leader, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the proud primary sponsor of the subject resolution that is before the desk.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to start my conversation with a few numbers: $15.2 trillion. That is the size of our national debt. We as a Nation are borrowing at the rate of $58,000 per second. That is approximately $45,000 for each man, woman, and child in America. This type of debt is not sustainable.

Madam Speaker, this resolution is offered today to send a message to the Nation and to the world that this Chamber is going to lead and not hide. We are going to deal with the issue of the national debt once and for all because it is time. The path that we are on is not sustainable. It is a path of bankruptcy, it is a path that will destroy the American Dream if we do not stand up to the plate and lead us out of this fiscal nightmare that we now find ourselves in.

Now, many people in this town and in this Chamber and in the Chamber on the other side of the Capitol probably would like this issue to go away until after the election. The problem is, is that the issue will not go away. And even though if we don't want to deal with it politically, we need to deal with it substantively. And my resolution that is before this Chamber will send a message that the constant borrowing on the backs of our children and our grandchildren must come to an end.

I quote the words of our own President when he was Senator in the U.S. Senate. The path that we are on is similar to the words he echoed and stated in the U.S. Senate Chamber when he said this constant borrowing, this national debt is a complete failure of leadership in the White House. We need to lead, and that is what we are going to do.

So I ask for support on this resolution from all of my colleagues, to stand with us, make the hard decisions, deal with this issue to stop this insanity that is truly a threat to our very Nation. And also, it is a threat to any economic recovery that our Nation hopes to enjoy in the short term, because if we do not get the debt under control, small business America, our entrepreneurs, the people that are going to put Americans back to work will not have the confidence or the certainty to invest in the American market that is going to lead to real jobs and to deal with the problem of our unemployment once and for all.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, what I would like to say is that time has passed since we passed the Balanced Budget Control Act. There has been no action on the debt. We have seen nothing out of the White House as to a plan to deal with this national crisis. And my colleague on the other side, I will remind, that I am a conferee on that conference committee to deal with the payroll tax rates, to deal with unemployment, and to deal with the doc fix.

We were here at the end of December. I was here over the New Year's break, Thursday, Friday, working on it. We are ready to do the work. And I'm glad to hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle say that now the House Democrats are here to do the work. We do need the Senate to join into that conversation, and my hope is that they will join into that conversation very soon.

But we are capable men and women in this Chamber, Madam Speaker. I am confident that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We will deal with the issue of the payroll tax rate. We will deal with the issue of the unemployment. We will deal with the issue of the doc fix. But we will not take our eye off of what is becoming one of the fundamental issues of our generation, and that is our national debt. And that's what this resolution speaks to and will constantly remind all of us that we need to be diligent on this issue to get it taken care of once and for all.

And with that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

I'd just like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that last time we took a vote on this issue back on the Budget Control Act in August was a much different time than today. Since August, we've been waiting for a plan from the other side to deal with our national debt. We've been waiting for a plan from the White House to deal with our national debt. Nothing has occurred.

So, Madam Speaker, there is no repudiation of our vote from August. This is consistent with what the American people are telling us, that we have to get our act together in Washington.

I join my colleagues on the other side. My hand is open to work hand in hand to deal with these problems once and for all. I'm willing to sacrifice my political life to do what needs to be done for the American people. I just hope my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join in that same sentiment.

Let's put politics aside. Let's deal with the substance of the day. Let's deal with this underlying national crisis that is represented in our national debt. You have many friends over here that are looking to reach out hand to hand, join arm in arm to deal with this problem and deal with the economy of our Nation once and for all. I just ask you to jump and join us rather than fight us.

With that, I'm happy to yield to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle that when you get a credit card bill that you can no longer afford, you do pay it, but you cut it up, and you stop the spending so you don't exacerbate the problem.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Madam Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman that what we have done on our side of the aisle is at least we have put a plan in writing by adopting and approving the budget. We're just looking. In the last 7 months we've been waiting for a plan in black and white from the White House on how we are going to get out of this national debt crisis. Not political speeches, but in black and white so that we can take it back to the American people and have an open and honest debate with them as to where we're going to prioritize our spending and how we're going to get out of this hole.

That's what we're looking for, and that's what my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is talking about. We are at the point on this side of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen, of saying we don't care who's at fault. I'm at the point--Democrat, Republican, we're at $15.2 trillion, whoever is responsible for it, I could care less.

What I care about are my kids--and my grandkids, who aren't even born, who aren't even on the face of this Earth--and getting our act together in Washington and getting a national plan put together so we can join arm in arm and stand with each other to deal with this issue.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to Mr. Hoyer that I have a tremendous amount of respect for him as a Member of this body. And I have joined him to support the ``Go Big'' effort.

And what I would say is, by this resolution, look at what we have done on our side of the aisle. We have brought this conversation out of the back rooms. We have brought the ideas and proposals that we've heard from Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon, I believe, who talked about comprehensive tax reform, agriculture reform on the floor of this House, in front of the American people, in an open and honest manner. And what we have done on our side of the aisle is to stress that these conversations will no longer happen behind closed doors, but they will happen on the floor of this Chamber. And I'm confident, I am confident that when we come together like we are, like the foundation that we are setting in our conversations, that we are going to solve this problem. But until that solution is enacted, I will get up every day as a Member of this House to champion the cause of getting the fiscal house of Washington, DC in order, to get our reckless spending under control, and get this economy going.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida.

We believe we have about three or four.

Madam Speaker, could I inquire as to the amount of time we have left?

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Levin, for engaging in this debate today that is so important, in my opinion, to the future of this Nation, to the future of the world, in the sense that we need to get this issue under control once and for all.

The national debt is a serious threat to our very existence as a nation. You don't have to take my word for it. You can take the word of the former joint chief of staff, Admiral Mullen, who, when he was asked by the President what is the biggest threat to our national security, responded: Not a military threat, but the national debt. A fiscal threat is what jeopardizes us most in regards to our national security.

When I hear that type of opinion and advice coming out of our military leaders, I am very concerned. It should send a message across the nation that this debt needs to be addressed. It doesn't necessarily just need to be addressed for the purposes of the threat it represents to our national security, but also the threat that it represents to the economic recovery that we are trying to kindle in this city across America.

The national debt represents a threat to that American recovery when it comes to putting our men and women back to work because it is the cancer that is causing concern across all of small-business America and all across the private sector when they express that they don't have the confidence or certainty that Washington will take care of the problems that threaten us most. So it is time that we come up with a hard plan.

My colleagues during this debate referenced the House budget as the plan that was adopted here, that somehow by voting for this resolution we contradict ourselves because we voted for that House budget because it called for an increase in the debt ceiling. I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that budget only passed this House. The Senate has yet to enact a budget.

It will soon be 1,000 days that the Senate of the United States of America has not passed a budget. If we don't have a U.S. House and a U.S. Senate committed budget that we can rely upon to solve this issue, how can we only rely on the House budget to see us through?

This resolution today sends a message to the Senate and to the Nation that the House of Representatives will remain committed to finding a solution on this issue.

The second threat that it represents to our American recovery and putting men and women back to work is if our interest rates in the private sector, which are keyed upon the national debt and the interest rates that are charged for our borrowing costs as a governmental entity, if those interest rates in the private sector increase, you're not going to have the capital to invest in small-business America or in the private sector that is going to lead us out of this economic turmoil that we find ourselves in, because they won't be able to afford that capital that will build the next plant, that will build the next assembly line or build the next retail operation that will put people back to work.

The bottom line is this debt touches everything across America. What we are doing with this resolution is saying we are going to deal with it, and we are going to continue to deal with it until we get a plan in place from the White House, from the U.S. Senate, and from the U.S. House that deals with it once and for all and brings certainty and competence back to the American market.

Madam Speaker, it is time to lead this Nation, not hide. It is time to put our ideas in writing, debate them with the American people in an open and honest fashion, and once and for all even be willing to sacrifice our political lives to do what is right for the American people. I am committed to doing that if it means that we will save my children's generation and the generations yet to come. That's what needs to be done.

That's what needs to be done, and I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that. We know it on our side of the aisle, and our hand is open to work in a bipartisan fashion. So I am glad that I heard many comments today on the other side of the aisle showing they are committed to that also. I am confident that when we join hands, when we come together, we will solve this issue and that we will solve the economic problems we face as a Nation, because together the history of our Nation has shown that we can overcome any obstacle in America, any threat to our existence once we unite, not divide, and put forth a commonsense solution to our problems.

With that, Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I wish to respond to some of the shrill rhetoric and outright misinformation regarding President Obama's recent recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

When all the political grandstanding is done, at the heart of this dispute is the ability of these two agencies to carry out their congressionally mandated functions. One is charged with

defending the rights of consumers and the other defending the rights of workers.

Republican partisan obstruction and filibusters prevented confirmation of nominees to lead both these agencies, which would have prevented their legal authority to act. With the rights of millions of American workers and consumers on the line, the President did what was his duty to preserve the functioning of two critically important agencies--agencies that are essential cornerstones of our efforts to rebuild and restore our struggling middle class.

At a time when our Nation is engaged in serious soul-searching about the demise of the middle class, the missions of the Consumer Bureau and the Labor Board have become particularly essential. These agencies are tasked with the vital responsibility of standing for consumers and workers against Wall Street and powerful corporations.

Indeed, the true significance of the debate over the President's recess appointments is not about legislative or secure power or the meaning of a pro forma session, but the true significance is about whether we will let the powerful and well connected use the political process to rig the system or if, instead, we will enact and enforce laws that will give workers and consumers a fighting chance at a decent middle-class life.

As a centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank bill to rein in the recklessness on Wall Street, the idea behind the Consumer Bureau is simple. We need a cop on the beat, looking out for the best interests of consumers who use financial products, as we have regulators looking out for the financial health of banks, as we have a Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, looking out for the safety of food and drugs for consumers or the Consumer Product Safety Commission that looks out for and protects our kids from harmful toys.

A strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will ensure that consumers are not lured into debt through hidden fees. It will simplify disclosures and reduce paperwork so consumers are not faced with mountains of paperwork they cannot understand. It would oversee providers of consumer credit such as payday lenders--which for years have acted similar to banks but without facing any kind of bank regulation.

Additionally, as student debt surpasses credit card debt as the largest source of consumer debt in America, the Bureau can play a critical role in helping families better understand the increasing challenges of financing a college education as well as bringing some sanity to the private student loan marketplace.

Despite these laudable goals, Republicans refused to confirm Richard Cordray, the President's nominee to lead the agency, unless the President would agree to water down the law and weaken consumer protections. Forty-four Republican Senators served notice they would not confirm anyone to the position of Director unless structural changes were made to the Bureau that would effectively gut its ability to stand for consumers. When the President refused, they filibustered and prevented an up-or-down vote on this nomination, leaving the consumer bureau unable to fully interpret and enforce the law.

As a consequence, Americans across the country were left in limbo, with limited ability to stand up to big banks and financial scam artists. Leaving the Bureau so powerless was unacceptable, so the President had no choice but to use his constitutional authority to ensure that this critical agency can continue to perform its legislatively mandated mission.

The ramifications of Republican obstruction were even more dire at the National Labor Relations Board, where the impending loss of a quorum of members meant the Board would become totally inoperable if the President did not step in to fill the vacancies. Similar to the consumer bureau, the NLRB, as it is known, is a government agency tasked with standing up for working families. In its very text, the very text of the law that created the Board, it established that the policy of the United States is to encourage the process of collective bargaining. Senator Robert Wagner of New York, the act's author in 1935, explained that collective bargaining would increase the purchasing power of American workers and therefore aid our national recovery from the Great Depression. This law was one of the cornerstones of a new American economic policy that created the largest middle class in history, gave rise to the economic boom that transformed America and the world, and brought economic security and a better life to generations of Americans.

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with this mission. Some very powerful interests think that a few at the very top should have a monopoly power in our economy; that they should be able to set all the rules. These interests have lined up allies in Congress to wage a relentless crusade against the National Labor Relations Board. In all my years in public office, I have never seen anything like it.

Last year, Republicans in the House held at least eight hearings, specifically addressing the NLRB. They passed two bills to amend the National Labor Relations Act to strip workers of their rights. Republican elected officials have tried to defund the agency. They have threatened the professional credentials and livelihoods of nonpartisan career employees and even called on a Republican board member to resign, in order to incapacitate the agency. On the campaign trail, Republican Presidential candidates have raged against the National Labor Relations Board and its employees.

What are the great crimes these dedicated public servants at the NLRB are supposed to have committed? First, they started a new initiative to make sure workers are aware of their rights under law. In April of this year, employers will have to post a notice about National Labor Relations Act rights on the office bulletin board, next to other longstanding notices about the minimum wage, workplace safety, and other basic worker protections. This hardly seems to be an unreasonable burden.

Second, the NLRB prosecuted a case against a company that allegedly retaliated against its employees for going on strike. I spoke at length about this case last year, on numerous occasions, on the floor of the Senate because there was so much misinformation about it. While the case was brought against a powerful company and became very controversial as a result, prosecuting retaliation cases is unquestionably a necessary and important part of the NLRB's responsibility. After all the fire and brimstone and all the threats from Republicans against this agency and the Governor of a certain State, as has happened in the past, this dispute was resolved by the company and the union. It has happened so many times in the past without us having to do a thing about it.

Third, the National Labor Relations Board enacted a rule to standardize timelines for national elections. Under the act, after workers petition for an election, the NLRB holds a hearing to decide who should be in the bargaining unit and who should not be. In recent years, many employers have started flooding that hearing with frivolous litigation to stall the elections for months or even years, while arguing or appealing over every minor detail their lawyers can imagine. The NLRB decided to fix this problem and make sure workers get a vote in a reasonable period of time. The Board said workers should vote and then, if necessary, the ballots would be sequestered while the litigation drags on over certain peripheral issues. The new rules do not encourage union organization and they do not discourage it; they just give workers the ability to say yes or no in a reasonable period of time. Workers should not have to wait until innumerable lawsuits, one after the other, are disposed of before they even get a chance to vote.

In response to these eminently reasonable and fair proposals, Republicans have attempted to shut the Board down by blocking all nominations. Senator Graham of South Carolina vowed publicly to block all nominees to the labor board, even if it meant the agency would cease to function. In his opinion, Senator Graham said, ``The NLRB as inoperable could be considered progress.'' To the thousands of American workers every year who rely on the NLRB to enforce the law and defend their rights, that must sound pretty cold-blooded, a direct attack on middle-class Americans.

In practice, disabling the NLRB would mean American workers would

have nowhere to turn if their rights are violated. Thousands of American workers are fired every year for trying to organize a union in their workplace--their legal right, by the way. With the labor board out of commission, these workers might never get their jobs back. If an employer or a union refused to adhere to a contract, there would be no NLRB to resolve the dispute.

The labor board also ensures that unions do not step outside the law in their interactions with workers or employers. Those cases would be stuck in limbo too. Perhaps that is why a senior counsel to the National Federation of Independent Business told the Congressional Quarterly that ``to have the Board totally shut down would be a travesty.''

The President averted this travesty by appropriately exercising his recess appointment authority. Indeed, the President showed restraint by only appointing nominees to agencies that would lose their ability to function due to Republican obstruction. Acting to ensure the continued smooth functioning of government under these circumstances is a President's--whether it is President Obama or any other President-- constitutional responsibility. As constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe has explained, the Constitution considered the possibility that congressional squabbles would lead to paralysis and determined:

The Constitution that has guided our Republic for centuries

is not blind to the threat of Congress's extending its

internal squabbles into a general paralysis of the entire

body politic, rendering vital regulatory agencies headless

and therefore impotent. Preserving the authority the

President needs to carry out his basic duties, rather than

deferring to partisan games and gimmicks, is our

Constitution's clear command.

Again, I say, if my colleagues do not like the National Labor Relations Act or Dodd-Frank, they can introduce a bill and try to get support to change the law. Of course, Republicans know such a bill would fail miserably. Instead, they are trying to short-circuit the process laid out by the Constitution to pass legislation. Under their theory, under the Republicans' theory, just 41 Senators could effectively repeal an existing law by simply denying an up-or-down vote on the President's nominees. Think about that. We pass a law by majority vote. It might even get through; of course, overriding a filibuster with 60 votes. The President signed it into law. A couple years later, the minority says we want to change it. We do not have the votes to change it, but we can block a nominee, nominees to the agency, and effectively shut down the agency with only 41 Senators. That is what is going on here. That is what is going on.

President Obama took a bold but necessary step. Stepping in to protect ordinary Americans from the consequences of congressional dysfunction is hardly an intrusion on Congress's authority. It is the essence of leadership.

I might point out I think facts will show that the last President before President Obama, President Bush, exercised his authority to appoint recess appointees 171 times. I think President Obama is right now around 20 or 21, something like that.

Since President Obama was elected, Republicans have openly stated their No. 1 goal is not to govern or legislate; their No. 1 goal is to prevent the reelection of President Obama. Republicans in Congress may have the luxury of playing these political games but any President does not. Americans are counting on this President to do what is right for the middle class and that is unquestionably what he did by making these recess appointments to these two vital consumer protection agencies, the Consumer Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Benjamin Franklin once said, ``Promises may fit the friends, but nonperformance will turn them into enemies.'' We should be clear about what the debt limit means and what it does not. Raising the debt limit does not authorize new spending. Let me make that clear. Raising the debt limit does not authorize new spending. It does not mean an increase in future spending.

What does it mean? It simply means the United States will be able to meet its obligations. Increasing the debt limit only permits the Treasury Department to pay the bills we have already incurred. It does not authorize new spending. It permits the government to pay the bills that have already been incurred. They have been incurred. We owe the obligation. It says: OK, we owe that. It is in the law, passed. It is history. We have to pay the bills. It allows our country to meet our promises to our citizens, and it means there is money to provide the benefits to millions of seniors and veterans whose families depend on them every day to make their ends meet.

We should remember why we are taking today's vote. Last August, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011. We all remember it. This legislation reduced spending by $2.1 trillion. That was a budget action taken by the President and the Congress together that reduced Federal spending by $2.1 trillion. It is a reduction. That is not commonly understood, not widely known, but that is the fact. And it provided a plan to raise the debt limit by the same amount. It did so so that the Federal Government could meet its financial obligations so we could keep our promises.

Today's vote would reverse that agreement in August. Voting to disapprove an increase in the financial limit is unreasonable. It would be very much like your bank increasing your line of credit unless you tell them not to. Nonetheless, that is the issue we are voting on and debating in the Senate.

Passing this resolution would mean there would be no money to keep our promises. The United States would default for the first time in its history. It would send a message to the world that the United States does not keep its promises. With all of the uncertainty in the world, especially in Europe, that could have disastrous consequences. It could be a contagion. There could be a reaction, a debt spiral in the wrong direction, an interaction between the two--the United States defaulting on its debt and Europe--some countries defaulting on theirs, perhaps Greece.

This is clearly the wrong time to take an action that would leave the United States to be placed in default. There would be disastrous consequences for our economy alone, irrespective of the repercussions and reverberations around the world, especially Europe. Our gross domestic product would shrink by as much as 1 percent and more than $150 billion. We would be defaulting. That default would compromise our credit rating. What would happen if our credit rating was in jeopardy? It would cause interest rates to skyrocket. Just think what would happen if the United States, as we are struggling to slowly get our economy going, was faced with a big spike in interest rates. That would stop the recovery dead in its tracks. It would do more than that. It would probably plunge us back into recession. That is what would happen. Yearly prices for food, gas, and utilities would increase by hundreds of dollars for American citizens. Americans could lose thousands in retirement savings; that is, if we default and interest rates have to go up so much as a consequence of default.

We have to act so investors would want to invest in the United States. If

we default, U.S. businesses would not be able to meet payroll much less expand. Millions of Americans would not be paid. Millions more would lose their jobs. We are trying to get the unemployment rate down. This would cause it to go up dramatically. Default would cause it to go up. If this passes, that would mean the United States would be in default and jobs would be harder to find and unemployment would rise. Americans would be unable to access credit to buy a home, a car, or take out loans for college. The housing market would plummet again. The economy would fall into another recession or even a depression.

At a time when our economy is starting to show signs of recovery, now is exactly the wrong time to risk a contraction. American workers, families, and small businesses cannot afford that, to say the least. If today's vote succeeds and causes a default, the Federal Government would not have funds to pay troop salaries.

What about SEAL Team 6 who took on Osama bin Laden? We read about them in the last couple of days rescuing an American out of Somalia. There would not be a SEAL Team 6, let alone the other troops that would not be paid. Social Security benefits would not be paid. Just think of that. Medicare bills would not be paid. Think of that.

These programs would all be in danger if we were to default, and a positive vote here would cause default. We are voting on a motion to disapprove. That would hurt the families and seniors who rely on these programs I just mentioned.

We need to do all we can to help these families make ends meet, not put their jobs and paychecks in danger. There is no doubt that we need to work together to reduce the deficit. Everybody agrees on that. We need to work together to get it done. Clearly, we need to make changes to both revenue and the spending sides of the budget. That is clear.

We need to do so in a way that doesn't put jobs and economic growth at risk. We need to do it, obviously, in a fair and balanced way. That is why the people in our States sent us here.

As we do that, we can't refuse to meet our country's obligations. There have been many efforts to reduce the budget deficit, whether it was the Biden deficit commission, the so-called supercommittee, and the many budget proposals we talked about--Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin- Domenici--and we are getting closer and closer and we are going to get the job done.

As we work on that, again, we cannot refuse to meet our country's obligations, and we have to make sure we pay the bills we have already incurred. We need to show the world the United States keeps its promises. We have to show people we live up to our word.

I urge my colleagues to keep our promises and to vote no on the motion to proceed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Illinois.

Mr. President, I will speak on a different matter for about 2 minutes. I wish to compliment the senior Senator from Kentucky for his longtime work on behalf of dissidents in Burma. Very recently, he visited Burma. He met Aung San Suu Kyi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. As the senior Senator from Kentucky reported to us earlier this morning on the floor of the Senate, we as Americans are making real progress in Burma. Our sanctions in Burma are working. The government there is relenting. I have had briefings from the State Department, and while we need to retain sanctions for the time being to encourage further progress, it is undeniable that we have been seeing real progress in Burma. The dissidents, as led by Aung San Suu Kyi, are engaged in this process. Again, I want to compliment the Senator from Kentucky for his 20 years of work in this area, and I

think it is probably in large part due to his efforts that we are making progress in Burma.

Mr. President, turning back to the subject at hand, Alexander Hamilton once said:

To be able to borrow upon good terms, it is essential that

the credit of a nation should be well established.

That is obvious. We have low interest rates today because so far we have been able to borrow on good terms. The good terms are that the American people and investors worldwide know the United States is a safe haven given all the consternation occurring in the world, the problems in Europe, for example, and other countries. The United States is a safe haven. Investors want to borrow on U.S. Treasurys. That is why the rate is low, the lowest in recent history. And that is essentially because our credit is good. Investors trust the United States.

It is important to also remember that this debt limit we are voting on today is not an authorization for new spending. I repeat, it does not authorize new spending. That is not what this is. It has nothing to do with new spending. It just says that we have to honor our past bills, honor our past debts. As Alexander Hamilton said, for a country to be on good terms, it is important that we honor our past debts. The credit of a nation should be well established.

I strongly urge our colleagues to vote no on this motion to proceed to disapprove because the result would be chaos. If that were to pass, it would be chaos. We would plunge ourselves back into recession, probably through that into a depression. Interest rates would skyrocket. Inflation would skyrocket. We are trying to lower unemployment rates, not increase unemployment rates. We want people to have jobs, not people not to have jobs.

If the United States did not honor its bills, if the United States did not honor its debt it has heretofore incurred, it would cause chaos. It would show we are not a creditworthy country. For that reason, I think it is a no-brainer that this bill should be disapproved and, frankly, should be unanimously disapproved.

I think every Member of the Senate wants to honor the credit of the United States of America, wants to pay the bills we incurred in the past. It is an entirely different question as to what we do in the future, entirely different question as to how much we reduce our debt, entirely different question as to how much we cut spending and increase revenues in order to reduce our deficits and our debt. That is an entirely different issue--an extremely important issue but entirely different. That has nothing--nothing--to do with this vote. This vote is only whether we honor our past debts.

Once we say yes, we are going to honor our past debts, then clearly it is imperative that this body move ahead to reduce deficits, reduce our national debt. There has been a lot of discussion about that. We have not made as much headway as we should have. But it is important to remember that in August of last year, this Congress voted to reduce spending by $2 trillion, $2.1 trillion--to reduce spending by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. Close to $1 trillion of that was accomplished on that vote, and the other $1.2 is part of the sequestration which goes in effect in January of next year. It is not unimportant that this body voted to reduce spending by about $2 trillion.

So we should honor our past debts. We should reduce spending--we should reduce our budget debt and deficit. We do that by cutting spending and increasing revenue. That is a different issue. That is what we do in the future. That is what we have to work on this year and next year. But today, it is important for the world to know that we honor our commitments; the United States can be trusted; we have credit that is well established because we honor our past obligations.

I strongly urge Members of the Senate to vote no on the motion to proceed to disapproval because I think there would not be a positive outcome if that vote were to pass. I am not one who is prone to exaggeration or to hyperbole, but I might say in this case that if this motion were to proceed, we would be on the border of catastrophe.

I yield the floor.

I yield back the remainder of our time.