To implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1954) to implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last December, the President's own Fiscal Commission offered a plan to rein in our budget deficits and debt. While I did not support the final package--especially the tax increases it proposed--it did contain several meaningful suggestions for ways to get our Federal spending under control. Yet last February, when the President submitted his budget for 2012, he ignored their advice and provided no plan to rein in deficits and debt. Last month, Standard and Poor's downgraded the outlook for the U.S. credit rating because Washington appeared to have no plan to rein in our budget deficits and debt.

In recent weeks, many congressional Democrats were proving them right when over 100 of them called for an unconditional increase in the U.S. debt limit. They signed a letter calling on their colleagues to establish ``the Democratic position in favor of a clean extension of the debt ceiling,'' something Secretary Geithner has also repeatedly called for.

It's time to come clean with the American people about our deficits and debt. At over $14 trillion, our debt is as large as the entire U.S. economy and is putting the American Dream at risk for future generations. It has become an anchor on economic growth, costing us 1 million jobs at a time when the unemployment rate has not been this high for this long since the Great Depression.

Erskine Bowles, who chaired President Obama's Fiscal Commission and served as Chief of Staff to President Clinton, has said that the era of debt denial is over. While it doesn't appear that all of his Democrat colleagues have gotten the message, with today's vote this House will declare to the American people and to the credit rating agencies that business as usual in Washington is over. Not only is the era of debt denial over, but so is Washington's out-of-control spending.

Today, we are making clear that Republicans will not accept an increase in our Nation's debt limit without substantial spending cuts and real budgetary reforms. This vote, a vote based on legislation I have introduced, will and must fail. Now, most Members aren't happy when they bring a bill to the floor and it fails, but I consider defeating an unconditional increase to be a success because it sends a clear and critical message that the Congress has finally recognized we must immediately begin to rein in America's affection for deficit spending.

Research by international experts clearly demonstrates that spending reforms, not tax increases, are the most effective path to fiscal consolidation. That means that together we must look for responsible ways to tackle our runaway spending. And though it's difficult and not always popular, it requires us to deal with entitlement reforms that are the largest driver of America's deficits, including health care spending programs like Medicare.

We all know that failing to act and address our debt head-on would be very similar to defaulting on our debt. In both cases, we would experience a significant downgrade in our credit rating, which increases interest rates, making payments for things like a car and home loans more expensive. It would also increase the cost of imports, meaning higher gas prices. And it would make an already shaky economy even worse, leading to less job creation.

The greatest threat to the U.S. economy and to international financial markets would be simply increasing the debt limit without cutting a penny of spending. This vote makes clear that deficit reduction will be part of any bill to increase the debt limit and is a necessary part of this process.

A ``no'' vote today is a vote to put us on the path toward exactly what the markets and the American people are demanding, an America that is a strong, reliable, and secure financial investment for the future. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unconditional increase.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say during the 8 years of the Bush administration, the debt limit was raised seven times for a total of $5.365 trillion. According to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan CBO, the scorer of President's Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget, the debt limit will have to be raised a total of $5.385 trillion during the 4 years he's President. So 8 years versus 4 years. That means that President Obama will have raised the debt limit at twice the pace that President Bush did.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady from Texas.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say that the Medicare trustees have said that Medicare goes broke in 2024.

So if you support an unconditional debt limit increase, as 100 Democrats wrote to their leaders and asked to be made a position of the Democrat Caucus, that does nothing about preserving and protecting Medicare for the future.

No, I will not yield.

So I would say that by supporting an unconditional increase in the debt limit, as more than 100 wrote in a letter to their leaders, again, it would do nothing about preserving that program for the future.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am certainly concerned about the last 8 years, but I am more concerned about the last 2. I think we have got the third year in a row of trillion dollar deficits, a Presidential budget that doubled the debt in 5, tripled it in 10.

I quote from the Standard and Poor's report on the United States debt:

``Because very large deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable.''

The path to addressing these is not clear. We think it absolutely essential that we not have an unconditional increase in the debt limit, that we have the spending reductions, that we have the structural reforms that we so desperately need in this country.

We have 110 Members of the other party who wrote a letter saying we want an unconditional increase in the debt; just keep spending. Don't bring in any spending reductions, don't bring any long-term reforms; just keep going the way we have been going.

Well, Standard and Poor's says that if we don't address this issue-- and what does that mean that ``we have revised our outlook on the long- term rating to negative from stable''? It means buying a house is more expensive; buying a car is more expensive. Certainly our ability to sell our bonds around the world will be very difficult to do and make it that much more expensive.

A downgrade in our debt limit would have the same impact as not increasing the debt limit at all. Financial markets would be disrupted, borrowing costs would skyrocket, the dollar would plunge, driving up the cost of imports like gasoline and causing higher inflation. It would wreak havoc on our economy.

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

Outlook Revised To Negative

Overview

We have affirmed our ``AAA/A-1+'' sovereign credit rating

on the United States of America.

The economy of the U.S. is flexible and highly diversified,

the country's effective monetary policies have supported

output growth while containing inflationary pressures, and a

consistent global preference for the U.S. dollar over all

other currencies gives the country unique external liquidity.

Because the U.S. has, relative to its ``AAA'' peers, what

we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising

government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is

not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term

rating to negative from stable.

We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policymakers

might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and

long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is

not reached and meaningful implementation does not begin by

then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile

meaningfully weaker than that of peer ``AAA'' sovereigns.

Rating Action

On April 18, 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services

affirmed its ``AAA'' long-term and ``A-1+'' short-term

sovereign credit ratings on the United States of America and

revised its outlook on the long-term rating to negative from

stable.

Rationale

Our ratings on the U.S. rest on its high-income, highly

diversified, and flexible economy, backed by a strong track

record of prudent and credible monetary policy. The ratings

also reflect our view of the unique advantages stemming from

the dollar's preeminent place among world currencies.

Although we believe these strengths currently outweigh what

we consider to be the U.S.'s meaningful economic and fiscal

risks and large external debtor position, we now believe that

they might not fully offset the credit risks over the next

two years at the ``AAA'' level.

The U.S. is among the most flexible high-income nations,

with both adaptable labor markets and a long track record of

openness to capital flows. In addition, its public sector

uses a smaller share of national income than those of most

``AAA'' rated countries--including its closest peers, the

U.K., France, Germany, and Canada (all AAA/Stable/A-1+)--

which implies greater revenue flexibility.

Furthermore, the U.S. dollar is the world's most used

currency, which provides the U.S. with unique external

flexibility; the vast majority of U.S. trade flows and

external liabilities are denominated in its own dollars.

Recent depreciation of the currency has not materially

affected this position, and we do not expect this to change

in the medium term (see ``Apres Le Deluge, The U.S. Dollar

Remains The Key International Currency,'' March 10, 2010,

RatingsDirect).

Despite these exceptional strengths, we note the U.S.'s

fiscal profile has deteriorated steadily during the past

decade and, in our view, has worsened further as a result of

the recent financial crisis and ensuing recession. Moreover,

more than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis,

U.S. policymakers have still not agreed on a strategy to

reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term

fiscal pressures.

In 2003-2008, the U.S.'s general (total) government deficit

fluctuated between 2% and 5% of GDP. Already noticeably

larger than that of most ``AAA'' rated sovereigns, it

ballooned to more than 11% in 2009 and has yet to recover.

On April 13, President Barack Obama laid out his

Administration's medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, aimed

at reducing the cumulative unified federal deficit by US$4

trillion in 12 years or less. A key component of the

Administration's strategy is to work with Congressional

leaders over the next two months to develop a commonly agreed

upon program to reach this target. The President's proposals

envision reducing the deficit via both spending cuts and

revenue increases, and the adoption of a ``debt failsafe''

legislative mechanism that would trigger an across-the-board

spending reduction if, by 2014, budget projections show that

federal debt to GDP has not yet stabilized and is not

expected to decline in the second half of the current decade.

The Obama Administration's proposed spending cuts include

reducing non-security discretionary spending to levels

similar to those proposed by the Fiscal Commission in

December 2010, holding growth in base security (excluding war

expenditure) spending below inflation, and further cost-

control measures related to health care programs. Revenue

would be increased via both tax reform and allowing the 2001

and 2003 income and estate tax cuts to expire in 2012 as

currently scheduled--though only for high-income households.

We note that the President advocated the latter proposal last

year before agreeing with Republicans to extend the cuts

beyond their previously scheduled 2011 expiration. The

compromise agreed upon in December likely provides short-term

support for the economic recovery, but we believe it also

weakens the U.S.'s fiscal outlook and, in our view, reduces

the likelihood that Congress will allow these tax cuts to

expire in the near future. We also note that previously

enacted legislative mechanisms meant to enforce budgetary

discipline on future Congresses have not always succeeded.

Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also

advocated fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4

trillion, during the coming 10 years, but via different

methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's plan

seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by

cutting non-defense spending. The plan also includes

significantly reducing the scope of Medicare and Medicaid,

while bringing top individual and corporate tax rates lower

than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

We view President Obama's and Congressman Ryan's proposals

as the starting point of a process aimed at broader

engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting

U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the

path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the

parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk

that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement

on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012

Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first

budget proposal that could include related measures would be

Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and

we believe a delay beyond that time is possible.

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending

and revenue measures the Congress and the Administration

might conclude are appropriate. But for any plan to be

credible, we believe that it would need to secure support

from a cross-section of leaders in both political parties.

If U.S. policymakers do agree on a fiscal consolidation

strategy, we believe the experience of other countries

highlights that implementation could take time. It could also

generate significant political controversy, not just within

Congress or between Congress and the Administration, but

throughout the country. We therefore think that, assuming an

agreement between Congress and the President, there is a

reasonable chance that it would still take a number of years

before the government reaches a fiscal position that

stabilizes its debt burden. In addition, even if such

measures are eventually put in place, the initiating

policymakers or subsequently elected ones could decide to at

least partially reverse fiscal consolidation.

In our baseline macroeconomic scenario of near 3% annual

real growth, we expect the general government deficit to

decline gradually but remain slightly higher than 6% of GDP

in 2013. As a result, net general government debt would reach

84% of GDP by 2013. In our macroeconomic forecast's

optimistic scenario (assuming near 4% annual real growth),

the fiscal deficit would fall to 4.6% of GDP by 2013, but the

U.S.'s net general government debt would still rise to almost

80% of GDP by 2013. In our pessimistic scenario (a mild, one-

year double-dip recession in 2012), the deficit would be

9.1%, while net debt would surpass 90% by 2013. Even in our

optimistic scenario, we believe the U.S.'s fiscal profile

would be less robust than those of

other ``AAA'' rated sovereigns by 2013. (For all of the

assumptions underpinning our three forecast scenarios, see

``U.S. Risks To The Forecast: Oil We Have to Fear Is . . .,''

March 15, 2011, RatingsDirect.

Additional fiscal risks we see for the U.S. include the

potential for further extraordinary official assistance to

large players in the U.S. financial or other sectors, along

with outlays related to various federal credit programs. We

estimate that it could cost the U.S. government as much as

3.5% of GDP to, appropriately capitalize and relaunch Fannie

Mae and Freddie Mac, two financial institutions now under

federal control, in addition to the 1% of GDP already

invested (see ``U.S. Government Cost To Resolve And Relaunch

Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Could Approach $700 Billion,''

Nov. 4, 2010, RatingsDirect). The potential for losses on

federal direct and guaranteed loans (such as student loans)

is another material fiscal risk, in our view. Most

importantly, we believe the risks from the U.S. financial

sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008,

as our downward revisions of our Banking Industry Country

Risk Assessment (BICRA) on the U.S. to Group 3 from Group 2

in December 2009 and to Group 2 from Group 1 in December

2008 reflect (see ``Banking Industry Country Risk

Assessments,'' March 8, 2011, and ``Banking Industry

Country Risk Assessment: United States of America,'' Feb.

1, 2010, both on RatingsDirect). In line with these views,

we now estimate the maximum aggregate, up-front fiscal

cost to the U.S. government of resolving potential

financial sector asset impairment in a stress scenario at

34% of GDP compared with our estimate of 26% in 2007.

Beyond the short- and medium-term fiscal challenges, we

view the U.S.'s unfunded entitlement programs (such as Social

Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) to be the main source of

long-term fiscal pressure. These, entitlements already

account for almost half of federal spending (an estimated 42%

in fiscal-year 2011), and we project that percentage to

continue increasing as long as these entitlement programs

remain as they currently exist (see ``Global Aging 2010: In

The U.S., Going Gray Will Cost A Lot More Green,'' Oct. 25,

2010, RatingsDirect). In addition, the U.S.'s net external

debt level (as we narrowly define it), approaching 300% of

current account receipts in 2011, demonstrates a high

reliance on foreign financing. The U.S.'s external

indebtedness by this measure is one of the highest of all the

sovereigns we rate.

While thus far U.S. policymakers have been unable to agree

on a fiscal consolidation strategy, the U.S.'s closest

``AAA'' rated peers have already begun implementing theirs.

The U.K., for example, suffered a recession almost twice as

severe as that in the U.S. (U.K. GDP declined 4.9% in real

terms in 2009, while the U.S.'s dropped 2.6%). In addition,

the U.K.'s net general government indebtedness has risen in

tandem with that of the U.S. since 2007. In June 2010, the

U.K. began to implement a fiscal consolidation plan that we

believe credibly sets the country's general government

deficit on a medium-term downward path, retreating below 5%

of GDP by 2013.

We also expect that by 2013, France's austerity program,

which it is already implementing, will reduce that country's

deficit, which never rose to the levels of the U.S. or U.K.

during the recent recession, to slightly below the U.K.

deficit. Germany, which suffered a recession of similar

magnitude to that in the U.K. (but has enjoyed a much

stronger recovery), enacted a constitutional limit on fiscal

deficits in 2009 and we believe its general government

deficit was already at 3% of GDP last year and will likely

decrease further. Meanwhile, Canada, the only sovereign of

the peer group to suffer no major financial institution

failures requiring direct government assistance during the

crisis, enjoys by far the lowest net general government debt

of the five peers (we estimate it at 34% of GDP this year),

largely because of an unbroken string of balanced-or-better

general government budgetary outturns from 1997 through 2008.

Canada's general government deficit never exceeded 4% of GDP

during the recent recession, and we believe it will likely

return to less than 0.5% of GDP by 2013.

Outlook

The negative outlook on our rating on the U.S. sovereign

signals that we believe there is at least a one-in-three

likelihood that we could lower our long-term rating on the

U.S. within two years. The outlook reflects our view of the

increased risk that the political negotiations over when and

how to address both the medium- and long-term fiscal

challenges will persist until at least after national

elections in 2012.

Some compromise that achieves agreement on a comprehensive

budgetary consolidation program--containing deficit reduction

measures in amounts near those recently proposed, and

combined with meaningful steps toward implementation by

2013--is our baseline assumption and could lead us to revise

the outlook back to stable. Alternatively, the lack of such

an agreement or a significant further fiscal deterioration

for any reason could lead us to lower the rating.

Standard & Poor's will hold a global teleconference call

and Web cast today--April 18, 2011--at 11:30 a.m. New York

time (4:30 p.m. London time). For dial-in and streaming audio

details, please go to www.standardandpoors.com/cmlive.

Related Criteria And Research

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

Ratings List

Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Action

United States of America (Unsolicited Ratings) (To--From)

Sovereign Credit Rating (AAA/Negative/A-1+) (AAA/Stable/A-

1+)

Ratings Affirmed

United States of America (Unsolicited Ratings) Senior

Unsecured (AAA)

United States of America (Unsolicited Ratings) Transfer &

Convertibility Assessment (AAA)

This unsolicited rating(s) was initiated by Standard &

Poor's. It may be based solely on publicly available

information and may or may not involve the participation of

the issuer. Standard & Poor's has used information from

sources believed to be reliable based on standards

established in our Credit Ratings Information and Data Policy

but does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or

completeness of any information used.

Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of

RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal at

www.globalcreditportal.com. All ratings affected by this

rating action can be found on Standard & Poor's public Web

site at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box

located in the left column.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One hundred fourteen members of the other party signed a letter to the leader who just spoke and asked for an unconditional increase in the debt limit. I know that's not maybe a fact they want to acknowledge now, but it is so important that we have a clear path forward on this given what the rating agencies are saying about our debt. They're saying it's not clear how we are going to deal with our indebtedness.

It is so important that we set forward that when we address this issue, there are going to be the kind of spending reductions and structural reforms we need. That is going to have to be part of this discussion. We can't continue to have it clouded with this idea that we might have a debt limit increase without any of those. That's why it is so important to send this very strong signal today.

I hope all of the members of your party join me in voting ``no'' on this bill.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Not at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1954.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last February, when the President submitted his budget for 2012, he did not provide any plan for reining in deficits and debt. The administration called for a clean increase in the debt limit, or an increase in the debt limit that was unconditional, one that had no spending reductions or structural reforms to try to address the problem that we face, and it assumed $2.4 trillion in borrowing authority, or an increase in the debt limit of about $2.4 trillion. One hundred fourteen Democrats have asked the leadership of their party for an unconditional vote on the debt limit.

My colleagues on the other side have been very reminiscent about the Bush years, and I would just say that, in 4 years, the debt under the Obama administration will exceed that of the Bush administration's in 8 years; or another way of putting that is the debt under this President is going up at twice the rate it did under President Bush.

So it is important that we send a clear signal that there is not going to be an unconditional increase in the debt limit and that we are serious about addressing our debt and deficit problems as a country. We've seen the signals that we've gotten from the financial markets, and we've heard what our constituents have said. It is very important that we bring the kinds of spending reductions and reforms to this debate that we need to, so I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Levin, for your compliment to my great State of California.

Mr. Speaker, when I first heard this legislation was coming to the floor, I anticipated with some positive thoughts of, yes, this is the right thing to do. America must pay its bills. We know how to do that. We want to go forward, assuring the American people that, when we decide not to default on our debt, we are showing our strength, even though it may be difficult for people to support that.

Then I heard that it was going to come up like this. On Sunday, they told us it would be up on Tuesday and that the bill is predicated on a false premise. It says the Congress finds that the President's budget proposal, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, necessitates an increase in the statutory debt of $2.4 trillion.

Well, that is just absolutely not the case. First of all, that bill never passed the House and it never passed the United States Senate. What did pass the House, though, was the Republican budget plan, which abolishes Medicare, gives tax increases to Big Oil, gives tax breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas, weakens the middle class, and does not create jobs. And, in fact, increases the deficit by $1.9 trillion. It increases the deficit by $1.9 trillion.

So what are we doing here today? What are we doing? The Republicans have introduced a bill which they have now resoundingly said that they will oppose. So where is the good-faith effort here? We are, I believe, in a good-faith effort, in a bipartisan way, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, working with Vice President Biden to find ways to make sure we don't find ourselves in this situation again.

As a mother and as a grandmother, I have absolutely no intention of passing any bills, personal or official, on to my children or grandchildren. And let me say, the Democrats know how to clean up the debt. We have had to do it before. The Reagan-Bush debt that President Clinton inherited was a massive debt, and because we took the vote for the economic plan in 1993, we were on a path to fiscal soundness. The last four budgets of the Clinton administration were in balance or in surplus. I believe the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, addressed these numbers earlier, and I associate myself with his remarks and his passion on this subject.

Coming into the Bush years, President Clinton put us on a path of $5.6 trillion, a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. One of the biggest turnarounds in the fiscal situation in our country happened under President Bush. So all of this talk about deficits and their immorality and the rest, I agree. But where was everybody when President Bush was giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country, which did not create jobs, giving away the store to the pharmaceutical industry in the Medicare part D bill, at a tremendous cost to the deficit, and not paying for the wars?

Again, we place our men and women in uniform in harm's way. They make us the home of the brave and the land of the free. We want them to have what they need. They want us to pay for it. We owe them an obligation to build a future worthy of their sacrifice, and that future does not contain unlimited growing debt, unlimited growing debt.

Never before in the history of our country have we lowered taxes for the rich while we were at war. This is an all-time first. So here we are. We inherit this debt of the Bush administration. That's why we are in the situation we are in.

So as our colleagues try to characterize this as we're raising the debt limit so there can be more spending, no, we're not. We're avoiding default of the massive debt accrued during the Bush administration. That's why we are here.

So to predicate this legislation, which I really, coming out of last week, thought maybe it was something I would support, unencumbered legislation so that we would pay our bills and not be a deadbeat nation, instead they predicate it again on a false premise.

The facts are these: The Republican budget did pass this House; the Republican budget. They just want to change the subject from Medicare. That's all. They just want to change the subject from Medicare, so let's just bring this up at the drop of a hat in the first hours back from Memorial Day. They want to change the subject from Medicare.

But the facts are these: In their Republican budget, which is the predicate for this legislation, they abolish Medicare. Not only that, they make prescription drugs more expensive for seniors.

They eliminate prevention services for seniors, services which make them healthier and lower costs to us. They do all of this while also, as far as the children are concerned, cutting education for our children, the reading teachers for our children, making college more expensive for nearly 10 million young adults--all of this a travesty in terms of our hopes and aspirations of middle-income families in our country.

Then to add insult to that injury, they come in here with a bill that they have to bring up immediately so that they can oppose it. Well, even the Chamber of Commerce has said, We're all in on the joke, but it just isn't that funny if you're a struggling family in America, hoping to keep your job, your home, to be able to send your children to college, save for the future, have some confidence about your economic security. If you're a senior or others who depend on Medicare, to have it abolished hurts your economic as well as your health security.

So this is about priorities. A budget should be a statement of our national values, what is important to us as a country: the education of our children, the respect of the dignified retirement for our seniors, job creation, in that we have a moral obligation to create jobs so we have jobs for our workers and so they can have better futures, as well as to make our country more competitive, reducing the deficit. We've done it once, the Democrats did. We can do it again, hopefully in a bipartisan way under the auspices that have been created for this purpose. We are right in the middle of it. We come in and say, Okay, let's introduce a bill based on a false premise, and then let's all oppose it. Well, I'm glad you're opposing it, because you're opposing the false premise that you have in this bill.

Let's get serious. Let's get serious about this. The American people are crying out for help.

Do you know that the tax cuts on which this deficit has grown, the tax cuts to the wealthy, did not create jobs? They increased the deficit. They did not create jobs. More jobs were created in the second year of the Obama administration in the private sector than in the 8 years of the Bush administration. So this talk that tax cuts to the high end were going to create jobs just didn't happen. We don't want to talk about the past. We want to know what we're going to do in the future, but it's important to learn from the past so we don't do it again, so we're not in this situation again.

As I said, as to the thought of an unencumbered bill that would come to the floor, if that would be the case, I looked favorably upon that until I saw what was in here, which isn't right. I'm glad that, hopefully, it will have a big, strong vote against it.

I want to commend my colleague, Congressman Welch. In his letter, he is not demanding anything. He is saying let's get together and talk about how we can pass a bill that is a clean debt limit bill. That's what he is talking about. Why don't we follow his lead on that and get together and talk about how we can do this in a way that is clean and/ or at the same time has a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit so that we can do just that as we increase jobs and strengthen the middle class.

Thank you, Mr. Welch, for your leadership in that regard. I know that it has been mischaracterized here, but I salute you for your leadership on that score.

So, my colleagues, you'll vote the way you'll vote, but the fact is what is happening on this floor is not serious. It's not serious, but the subject it addresses is serious. It is time for this Congress of the United States to get serious about debt reduction, job creation, and to stop this assault on Medicare, which is the basis for this legislation today.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

May 26, 2011

Rollcall vote 375, on passage--H.R. 1540, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 376, On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment--S. 990, Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011--I would have voted aye.

May 31, 2011

Rollcall vote 377, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--H.R. 1484, Veterans Appeal Improvement Act--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 378, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--S. 1082, Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 379, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--H.R. 1954, To Implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt--I would have voted nay.

June 1, 2011

Rollcall vote 380, On Consideration of the Resolution--H. Res. 287, Providing for consideration of H.R. 2017, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 381, On Ordering the Previous Question--H. Res. 287, Providing for consideration of H.R. 2017, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 382, On Agreeing to the Resolution--H. Res. 287, Providing for consideration of H.R. 2017, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 383, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--H.R. 802, To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a VetStar Award Program--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 384, On Agreeing to the LaTourette of Ohio Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 385, On Agreeing to the Cicilline of Rhode Island Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted nay.

Rollcall vote 386, On Agreeing to the Royce of California Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 387, On Agreeing to the Poe of Texas Amendment No. 8-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 388, On Agreeing to the Cuellar of Texas Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted nay.

June 2, 2011

Rollcall vote 389, On Agreeing to the Clarke of Michigan Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 390, On Agreeing to the Sessions of Texas Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 391, On Agreeing to the Lummis of Wyoming Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 392, On Agreeing to the Carter of Texas Amendment No. 1--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 393, On Agreeing to the Price of North Carolina Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 394, On Agreeing to the Sherman of California Amendment--H.R. 2017,

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 395, On Agreeing to the Gosar of Arizona Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 396, On Agreeing to the Scalise of Louisiana Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 397, On Agreeing to the King of Iowa Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 398, On Agreeing to the Cravaack of Minnesota Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 399, On Agreeing to the Amash of Michigan Amendment No. 1--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 400, On Agreeing to the Amash of Michigan Amendment No. 2--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 401, On Agreeing to the Amash of Michigan Amendment No. 3--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 402, On Agreeing to the Rokita of Indiana Amendment No. 1--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 403, On Agreeing to the Rokita of Indiana Amendment No. 2--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 404, On Agreeing to the Cole of Oklahoma Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 405, On Agreeing to the Gohmert of Texas Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 406, On Agreeing to the Mica of Florida Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 407, On Agreeing to the Polis of Colorado Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted nay.

Rollcall vote 408, On Motion to Recommit with Instructions--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted nay.

Rollcall vote 409, On Passage--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

June 3, 2011

Rollcall vote 410, On Agreeing to the Resolution--H. Res. 294, Providing for consideration of H. Res. 292 declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya, and for consideration of H. Con. Res. 51 directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Libya--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 411, On Agreeing to the Resolution--H. Res. 292, Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya, and for other purposes--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 412, On Agreeing to the Resolution--H. Con. Res. 51, Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya--I would have voted nay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1954, the Debt Limit Extension. For weeks, Congressional Democrats and Republicans and the Obama Administration have been engaged for weeks in bipartisan deficit reduction talks. Today's vote on the debt limit extension brought to the floor despite House Republicans promotion to vote against the bill is a dangerous stunt of political theatrics that could jeopardize those serious bipartisan negotiations. Our country cannot afford to take the debt limit negotiations lightly. It is reckless for Republicans to send confusing signals to international markets that could jeopardize our own fragile economic recovery. This bill is a gimmick, by Republican leadership and something as serious as our country's debt limit should not be part of political games. I stand with my fellow Congressional Democrats and remain committed to responsible deficit reduction.

We must protect our citizens. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who have paid into it for their entire working lives. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors that all Americans cherish. I am committed to addressing the budget deficit by putting America's working families first. We should not be cutting programs that protect the everyday lives of Americans.

An attack on Medicare and Medicaid are examples of wrong priorities and are wrong choices for seniors and middle class families.

Facts About Medicare and Medicaid:

Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances. While many beneficiaries enjoy good health, a quarter or more have serious health problems and live with multiple chronic conditions, including cognitive and functional impairments. Most people with Medicare live on modest incomes. Today, 43% of all Medicare beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 years old and 12% are 85 or older. Those who are 85 or older are the fastest-growing age group among elderly Medicare beneficiaries. With the aging and growth of the population, the number of Medicare beneficiaries more than doubled between 1966 and 2000 and is projected to grow from 45 million today to 79 million in 2030.

Medicaid is the nation's largest health coverage program measured by enrollees (53 million). Through its 40 year history, the program has transformed from a welfare-based health coverage program to a health insurance and long-term care program serving both low income individuals and families and providing long-term care services for individuals with disabilities and the low-income elderly. Because Medicaid has such a diverse set of obligations and is run jointly by federal and state governments there is much misunderstanding about facts related to the program.

Managed care is an example of an innovation that became a standard option--about 60 percent of beneficiaries are in managed care. A current innovation that several states are experimenting with is moving long-term care services towards a home and community based setting. Additionally, Medicaid's structure has allowed it to expand and readily adapt to emerging issues in the American health system like the HIV/ AIDS crisis.

Sixty percent of nursing home residents are not on Medicaid at the time of their admittance into a facility. With the average annual cost of nursing home care being $60,000, the longer an individual remains in a facility, the more likely they are to deplete their financial resources and qualify for Medicaid coverage. Even after individuals deplete their assets, they are still required to apply their income, including Social Security and pension checks, towards their care costs, except for an average monthly $30 personal needs allowance.

Compared to private health programs, Medicaid has lower administrative costs per claims paid when compared to private sector plans. Medicaid per capita growth has been consistently about half the rate of growth in private insurance premiums. Both of these factors show that despite program growth, Medicaid is an efficient program.

Mr. Speaker, not only will allowing America to default on its debt wreak havoc and chaos on financial markets around the world, but it will also be damaging to the most vulnerable members of our society. In essence it takes a hatchet to the programs Americans truly care about. In my district in Houston, Texas, there are 190,035 people living under the poverty line as well as 82,272 seniors and over 58,500 seniors. If House Republicans' self destructive economic policies are allowed to play out it will threaten the viability of the programs that our Nation's seniors, children, and poor depend on for health and well being.

Despite countless warnings from economists, business leaders, and Wall Street executives about the economic consequences, House Republicans are still holding the economy hostage by threatening to default on our debt and are putting the economy at risk by suggesting America might not pay its bills.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said defaulting on our debt would ``at minimum'' lead to ``an increase in interest rates, which would actually worsen our deficit and would hurt all borrowers in the economy.''

Additionally, a coalition of 62 of the nation's largest business groups urged Congress to raise the debt limit: ``With economic growth slowly picking up we cannot afford to jeopardize that growth with the massive spike in borrowing costs that would result if we defaulted on our obligations.''

But in case that isn't convincing enough, Third Way, a well respected moderate think thak, released a report outlining the consequences of not paying America's bills:

642,500 jobs lost

GDP would decrease by 1%

Every mortgage would increase by $19,175

Stocks would fall, the S&P dropping 6.3%

And every 401(k) holder would lose $8,816

The House Republican majority needs to stop threatening the American people and get to work to increase the debt ceiling so that our country can pay its bills. The real issue that we should be focusing on is that we must raise revenues while also reducing spending. They must complement each other. Congressional Republicans must accept the challenge that everything must be on the table, including ending the tax cuts to the top 2% of the wealthiest people in our country.

We need a serious debt ceiling increase bill so that we can have deliberative discussion on how to cut spending without cutting Medicare and Medicaid. We do not need to hold the American economy hostage, and we need to begin these discussions in order to show the world that we are fiscally responsible.

If not, the failure to extend our Nation's debt limit would have harmful effects on job creation and the programs necessary to ensure the health and safety of out constituents. I support a clean bill that is not layered down with Republican Christmas tree ornaments that are made for special interests. This will raise our debt. We must pay our bills otherwise this will be detrimental to our Nation and that I will not support.

Mr. Speaker, when the United States Congress was faced with raising the debt ceiling in 2006 Senator Barack Obama stated ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.''

I will not be party to a failure of leadership when it comes to the debt ceiling. Today, I will do what I stated when I ran for the House of Representatives, I will vote against increasing a debt ceiling absent of spending control measures to right our fiscal ship of state.

This resolution would increase the current statutory debt limit by $2.406 trillion, from $14.294 trillion $16.7 trillion. The 16.8 percent increase would be the fourth time the debt ceiling has been increased since February 2009.

Over the past two years, President Obama and congressional Democrats have overseen the largest budget deficits in the history of the United States. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chastised the Republicans and President George W. Bush in 2006 when he stated ``Why is it right to increase this Nation's dependence on foreign creditors? They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they are right. I doubt it, because most Americans know that increasing the debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the baby boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.''

The American people have sent a Republican majority to the House of Representatives to reduce spending and put our country on a sustainable financial footing. If I were to close my eyes and abandon my principles, and vote yes to raising the debt limit I would allow Congress to continue to spend the taxpayers' money with no clear plan to reduce our long term debt. The problem in Washington is we do not have a revenue problem--the facts are clear we have a spending problem in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this debt increase and I will not vote for a debt limit increase unless all of the following criteria are met, or included in the final bill that would aim to raise the debt limit:

The United States Congress must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

A failsafe trigger mechanism must be put in place that would automatically cut spending if we reached a set percentage limit towards hitting the debt ceiling. In other words, as Federal spending approached the debt ceiling, once a certain level was reached, automatic cuts in spending to Federal programs would be triggered, ensuring that future Congresses and Administrations would not have to consider raising the debt ceiling in the future.

Capping federal spending as part of the GDP at 18-20%.

The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35% at the federal level and 39% when the average state corporate tax is included. The average rate in the other industrial countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is just 25%. Only Japan has as high a rate. Businesses and corporations in the United States cannot succeed in an environment where they are among the highest taxed in the entire world. It is paramount that Congress lowers the corporate tax rate for American businesses by at least 10% before any vote on raising the debt limit is considered.

On May 14, 2011, the Wall Street Journal in article entitled ``What if the U.S. Treasury Defaults?'' interviewed Mr. Stanley Druckenmiller, the onetime fund manager for George Soros, regarding whether Congress should immediately raise the federal debt. Mr. Druckenmiller pointed out the grave danger if politicians give the government authority to borrow beyond the current $14.3 trillion without any conditions to control spending. He further went on to state that he was willing to accept a temporary delay in the interest payments he is owed on his United States Treasury Bonds ``if the results in a Washington deal to restrain runaway entitlement costs.''

I cannot, and will not, be part of President Obama's, and more than 100 of my Democrat colleagues in the House of Representatives, mantra that we need to raise the debt ceiling as a ``clean'' bill without any fiscal reform. For

without making meaningful attempts to reduce on every increasing national debt, this would be a vote not on a debt ceiling but more a debt recommendation.

The Congress would find themselves voting to increase the debt ceiling again, and again, and again. Enough is enough! Washington needs to stop spending money we do not have and not make our children and grandchildren pick up the tab for our reckless financial behavior.

I am even pleased that then Senator Joe Biden agrees with my thoughts, for in 2006, he stated: ``This is a record of utter disregard for our Nation's financial future. It is a record of indifference to the price our children and grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt when it comes due. History will not judge this record kindly. My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.''

Vice President Biden, I stand with you and refuse to be associated with the policies your Administration help precipitate, by spending beyond our means, and will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.