To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 67 Castle Street in Geneva, New York, as the "Corporal Steven Blaine Riccione Post Office".

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 382 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 382 waives the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported by the Rules Committee. This would allow for the same-day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of August 2, 2011. This rule will ensure that Congress has the necessary tools to pass a bill that ensures we cut spending without defaulting on our national debt.

Madam Speaker, today you will hear my friends the Democrats argue about a closed process, but you will not hear them discuss the unprecedented spending spree that my friends the Democrats on the other side of the aisle went through for the last two Congresses. We will discuss how Republicans continue to come up with thoughtful solutions-- and I add, balanced, thoughtful solutions--to our Nation's economic troubles, what we think will, and what has up to now, only failed in the Senate. We will talk about the magnitude of this vote and the importance of reaching an agreement before Tuesday. Madam Speaker, it is time to stop pontificating and start acting like Members of Congress. The Nation calls for a solution, and Republicans are the only ones to offer solutions in legislation, in debate on the floor, and with actual votes.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will go on and on today about how Republicans are closing the process and shutting out Members of Congress, when we're really here providing for the flexibility for the Speaker of the House to simply work with the Senate to ensure a solution to the looming debt crisis deadline is met so that we will not default on our obligations. If my Democrat colleagues were serious about finding solutions to this problem, they would vote in favor of this rule today.

The facts of the case are clear: The chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, David Dreier, has issued more open rules in the last month than Congress has seen over the last two Congresses-- or for a total of 4 years combined. Additionally, in the 111th Congress, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and the chairman of the Rules Committee at the time, Louise Slaughter, 26 same-day rules were reported out of the Rules Committee. And in the previous Congress, the 110th Congress, under the same leadership, 17 same-day rules were reported out by the Rules Committee. In comparison, the process regarding these rules in this Congress is a far cry from the previous Democrat leadership's unorthodox and unprecedented closed processes.

I rise today in support of this rule. This rule is essential to allow the House of Representatives the flexibility it needs to ensure the safety and soundness of our country's economic future. Over the past 4 years we've seen record debt and deficits, which have brought us to the crossroad that we face with the looming August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling. Americans continue to speak out loudly and clear. And just as they did last November, they are saying it is time to stop the out-of-control spending, wasteful Washington spending, and excessive government. Republicans have cut spending at every opportunity in this Congress, and we are hoping to do that again today.

Discretionary and mandatory spending at Federal levels are on unsustainable paths. In the last 2 years of Democrat control, Congress has approved and the President has signed into law an 84 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending, and the President's budget proposes to freeze discretionary spending at these inflated levels. America can no longer support or afford this kind of leadership.

The President's proposed FY 2012 budget also doubles, then triples the Federal deficit over the next 10 years. And while increasing taxes on the Nation's job creators by $1.6 trillion sounds like a good deal to the President, in fact, free enterprise system employers and American workers know otherwise. Additionally, the President's budget makes no substantial effort to address the unsustainable rate of entitlement spending, one of the major aims of the President's own fiscal commission, which he has ignored. Obviously, the President has no intention of cutting spending or reining in Big Government programs. Big Government, more taxes, more regulations are directly in the President's strike zone. And that is the process he intends to challenge Congress to come right along with him on and keep marching toward the cliff.

Madam Speaker, we're at the end of the road. Once again today, Republicans are saying, We are going to have to make tough choices. That's why we came to Congress. And the majority party will continue to do that today. Over the past 7 months, Republican leadership has been steadfast in their support for cutting spending and getting control of our record deficit and debt. The House passed H.R. 1, a continuing resolution that brought back spending levels to 2008 levels, cutting $100 billion in 1 year. In April, this House passed a budget that would cut $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade compared to the President's budget. Just last week, this body passed Cut, Cap, and Balance, which would limit discretionary spending, cap spending to a lower percentage of GDP, and lead to a Balanced Budget Act, so Congress could no longer write checks that they can't cash without passing the debt on by asking foreign governments and others to make up the difference for us.

Republicans are willing to pay the balance if the President is willing to cut up the credit card. And that is why we are here also today. Republicans have again and again in the House offered commonsense solutions to rein in spending and cut down our debt. My friends on the other side of the aisle continue to reject every single proposal. So, one might ask, What is their solution? What have they have offered this Nation to spur economic growth and to put Americans back to work, we would ask. So, let me tell you. By raising taxes. By raising taxes on individuals, on small businesses, and corporations alike. This is no wonder why we see stagnant job growth, GDP that lags behind, and high employment rates--and that means we cannot meet the needs of this country.

Even when the increase in taxes hurts our economic recovery, slows job growth and places more uncertainty in the marketplace, our friends the Democrats continue to argue for more spending and more taxation.

President Obama has asked Congress for an increase in the debt ceiling, and my Republican colleagues and I refuse to grant that request without a commitment to long-term spending cuts. We reject President Obama's insistence for a blank check to pay the credit card bills that he has run up over the past 2\1/2\ years. President Obama's unwillingness to address the true drivers of our debt assured me and my party that we cannot achieve a true solution to the debt crisis we are facing today unless we're able to make tough decisions.

The Budget Control Act we discussed yesterday and what we will discuss today is a step in the right direction. It accomplishes what Republicans and the American people have been asking for since the beginning of this process. It will reduce spending more than we increase the debt limit, it imposes no new taxes on anyone, and it guarantees to Americans that the House and the Senate will vote in the next 6 months on the only permanent solution to our debt crisis.

Yes, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here on the floor again working on behalf not only of employers and employees but the middle class of this country, those of us who are concerned about where we are headed. There is nothing in this resolution that should cause anyone to worry about losing Social Security or Medicare. That is not even intended in this process. What is is to solve the spending and the debt crisis that we have in this country.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Rosalyn, congratulations. I am going to miss you. It is a good day for you; it's a bad day for us. It is with regular occurrence that I look over at you. You have a bright, smiling face. You have the enthusiasm not only of a bright, young professional staffer on the Rules Committee, but I think you will be a true asset to Senator Stabenow, as you take the experiences from a body that does a lot of work to a body that needs to do more work, and I wish you the very best.

If I could, I would also like to tell the gentleman that Jenny Gorski, who is behind me, a professional staff member of the Rules Committee, will also be leaving, I have found out, after this process. She will be going to Congressman Doc Hastings' office to be his adult supervision. So we're taking two Rules Committee professional staff members who will aid and help other Members in their betterment.

I again thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to a brand new member of the Rules Committee, one of our 87 new Republican freshmen, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia, Congressman Woodall.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the gentlewoman comes down and talks about this game that's going on about jobs.

I am going to read from an article that I will insert into the Record regarding information on tax hikes and what that does to American jobs:

``This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law a 67 percent increase in the State personal income tax rate and a 45 percent increase in the State corporate tax rate. Between its passage then and June, Illinois lost 56,223 jobs.

``To combat the job loss caused by the higher taxes on businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce `has already shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep more than two dozen companies from fleeing the State.' ''

Well, this is exactly what President Obama is suggesting for America, the same thing that they do in his home State in Illinois, raise taxes substantially on all of those rich people and corporations. Madam Speaker, a 56,000 job loss. They're now having to spend an incredible amount of money to convince people, really to pay them off, just to stay.

This is the game that the Democratic Party plays. This is exactly what the gentlewoman was talking about about the serious elements of jobs and the consequences of killing jobs in this country.

Madam Speaker, I will tell you the Republican Party will not fall victim to raising taxes like the Democratic Party and like President Obama want us to do.

We will not raise the debt limit without making tough choices. And, Madam Speaker, we're going to add jobs and do the things that are right that the American people expect us to do. And that's why we're here today.

The Real-World Impact of Tax Hikes on American Jobs

(By Rep. Pete Sessions & Rep. John Shimkus)

[From the Daily Caller, July 28, 2011]

Over the last few weeks, President Barack Obama has

adamantly supported raising taxes on corporations and small

businesses that employ millions of American workers as a

precondition for cutting our bloated federal spending.

To see the real-world effect of this proposal on jobs and

the economy, President Obama's home state provides a useful

and cautionary example.

This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into

law a 67 percent increase in the state personal income tax

rate and a 45 percent increase in the state corporate tax

rate. Between its passage and June, Illinois lost 56,223

jobs, according to statistics released last week.

To combat the job loss caused by the higher taxes on

businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already

shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep

more than two dozen companies from fleeing the state.''

So not only is Illinois bleeding productive jobs, but it's

now allowing the government to pick winners and losers.

Extracting an ever-increasing toll from job creators is

simply the wrong answer for American jobs. Just ask the

56,000 Illinoisans who have lost their jobs since January.

Spreading this failure nationwide is simply not an option.

We are in a debt crisis not because we tax too little, but

because Democrat-led Washington spends beyond its means.

House Republicans have been focused on encouraging and

providing certainty (not new burdens) to our nation's job

creators--and trying to get our debt and deficit-spending

under control.

The rest of America simply cannot afford more of the failed

policies of the president's home state, and House Republicans

will fight against tax hikes so that we may ensure a brighter

future for generations to come.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to another one of our 87 new freshmen, Mr. Womack, the former mayor of Rogers, Arkansas, one of the most beautiful cities in America.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire about the time remaining on both sides, please.

Madam Speaker, day after day the American people receive more bad news, economic bad news, about the shape our country is in. That is what Republicans respond to.

Today, news came out that the first quarter GDP that was provided by the Federal Government, first quarter, was actually wrong, dead wrong. They said the GDP growth was 1.9 percent. Today we find out it was .4.

Madam Speaker, the disastrous results of the Obama-Pelosi years are evident. Republicans want jobs. We need a middle class, and we are willing to fight for it. That's why we are here today with commonsense legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the reason why we're here today is because we're spending too much money.

Another reason why we're here today is because the Democratic Party and the Members--many of them who have spoken today--took $500 billion out of Medicare, and that's why that system is in real trouble. Republicans will save Medicare, not bankrupt it like our friends the Democrats have done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conjecture the gentleman has made and extrapolated this out of what this bill would do. In fact, that's not what the bill does at all.

The bill says that we will approach in a reasonable way and with respect to the American taxpayer--and to the marketplaces--a plan, a plan that will put America on sound financial footing, which would be the envy of the world, which is part of what the Republican Party would choose to do.

Madam Speaker, once again, this rule provides the necessary flexibility the Republican leadership needs to ensure that we do not default on our obligations in the next 4 days. Republicans will continue to provide sound, balanced, and real leadership and pass solutions while the President continues on the pathway--along with the Democratic Party, as we've heard here today--of tax increases and job- killing ideas.

With over 14 million Americans unemployed, a $1.4 trillion projected deficit this year, and over $14 trillion in debt, our current financial policies are simply not working. I don't know why we would continue doing what we've been doing when it doesn't work, but perhaps that's what our friends, the Democrats, want to do. We, as Republicans, disagree.

So I'm asking the Democratic colleagues, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to join their Republican colleagues and me for real fiscal change. Cutting spending and reducing government programs, each of these help us encourage economic growth, not just as we heard in Rogers, Arkansas, but all over this country. It does work, putting Americans back to work.

Madam Speaker, I will insert into the Record an article titled, ``Texas Bucks National Unemployment Trends,'' because they do things that balance out the marketplace.

I applaud our Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio, John Boehner, for his hard work and commitment to the American people, and those people here in the House of Representatives who will do their duty and provide for real and conservative solutions, market-based answers to get our economy back on track.

Madam Speaker, this Republican House will not raise taxes. We will not raise spending. We will not yield to the old ways of taxing and spending and not listening and then thinking we know better than others.

We're for the free enterprise system.

We're for families back home. We're for job growth and real meaningful opportunities for the future of our children. That is what we stand for.

So we are here today. Yes, we'll stay in town until we get our job done. We're the people who believe in the free enterprise system. We're the people who believe in the people back home. And we're the people who are going to say ``no'' to Washington, D.C., taxing, spending, big wasteful government. We are the people, the Republican Party. The elephants are in town, and we have a great memory. We know what works. So, Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Texas Bucks National Unemployment Trend

(By Tony Gutierrez)

Finding work may not be quite that simple, but it sure

seems that way. While the nation's job growth has limped

along since the economic recovery began two years ago, the

Lone Star State is enlarging payrolls in Texas-size fashion.

From June 2009 to June 2011 the state added 262,000 jobs,

or half the USA's 524,000 payroll gains, according to the

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Bureau of Labor

Statistics. Even by a more conservative estimate that omits

states with net job losses, Texas' advances make up 30% of

the 1 million additions in the 34 states with net growth.

The stunning showing could play a role in the presidential

race. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is signaling he may run for the

Republican nomination. If he does, he's likely to ground his

campaign in his state's outsized job growth.

Texas' big gains are partly a reflection of its population

growth. But the recent job gains are outpacing the rate of

population growth in Texas, the nation's second-largest

state, with 25 million residents--about 8% of the U.S.

population.

INTERACTIVE: Sortable chart: State-by-state look at employment changes

The state's payrolls have risen 2.9% since the end of the

recession, third behind North Dakota and Alaska and far

outpacing the USA's 0.4% growth, according to the BLS. Also,

Texas' 8.2% unemployment rate is well below the nation's

9.2%.

``For one large state to grow (jobs) so much faster than

the rest of the nation is very unusual,'' says Moody's

economist Ed Friedman.

Economists point to an array of factors, including high

energy prices that set off an oil-drilling frenzy, rising

exports and a conservative banking industry that helped the

state sidestep the housing crash.

Yet while energy has been a spark--employment in natural

gas, oil and other mining sectors rose by 45,000, or 23%,

since the recession ended--growth has been broad-based.

During the past two years, professional and business services

added 74,000 jobs; education and health care gained 91,000;

and leisure and hospitality grew by 29,000, according to BLS.

State officials cite a pro-business climate that Perry

helped foster that's drawing scores of businesses from high-

cost states--a trend that took on urgency for firms that got

lean in the economic downturn.

The 10-year Texas governor is ``really focused on creating

an environment where people can risk their capital and get a

return on investment, and that, in turn, creates jobs for

Texans,'' says Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for the state's

economic development office.

Nashed notes Texas has no state or corporate income tax and

keeps regulations at a minimum to allow businesses to grow

quickly. She says Perry also has worked to develop a skilled

workforce by requiring additional public school classes and

pushing through tort reform to limit frivolous lawsuits. The

state, meantime, has doled out more than $600 million in

grants and investments since 2003 to recruit out-of-state

companies and help Texas firms expand.

Does Perry really deserve credit?

Yet some question Perry's role in the so-called Texas

Miracle.

James Galbraith, a professor of government at the

University of Texas-Austin, largely attributes the state's

job growth to the energy and export booms. Texas, he notes,

has never had an income tax. From 1990 to 2000, before Perry

took office, Texas payrolls swelled 36%, compared with 21%

for the nation.

``Rick Perry did not come and find a high-tax, high-service

state and dismantle it,'' Galbraith says. ``For something to

contribute, there (has to be) a change. There's been a change

in oil prices.''

Others say the state's low tax burdens exact a high cost:

fewer state services. Perry, for example, refused to raise

taxes to close a $27 billion budget gap last spring. Instead,

the Legislature slashed more than $4 billion in funding for

public schools the next two years, a move that's likely to

lead to tens of thousands of teacher layoffs.

``We're not preparing our children to compete in tomorrow's

economy,'' says Scott McCown, head of Texas' Center for

Public Policy Priorities.

Texas ranks 44th in the USA in per-student expenditures and

43rd in high school graduation rates, McCown says. Seventeen

percent of Texans lived below the poverty level in 2009,

compared with 14% for the nation. The state leads in the

percentage of the population with no health insurance and was

ninth in income inequality in the mid-2000s, the latest data

available, according to McCown and the Economic Policy

Institute.

McCown says Texas should not serve as a job-growth paradigm

for the rest of the nation.

``If you're saying you want to look like Texas, you're

saying you want to be poor and have less health care,'' he

says.

The state's relatively low wages, particularly for low-

skilled jobs, stems in part from its status as a right-to-

work state with little unionization. That dampens consumer

spending and limits economic growth, McCown says. In June,

average hourly earnings for private-sector employees in Texas

were about 5% lower than the U.S. average.

But Mark Dotzour, chief economist at Texas A&M's Real

Estate Center, says the state's lower pay helps it compete in

a global economy. ``Either you choose to have low-wage jobs

or you choose to have no jobs at all,'' he says.

The state's reasonable cost of living, he adds, makes it

possible for many residents to live comfortably on lower

salaries. The Dallas area ranks 10th in housing affordability

among 82 metro areas with more than 1 million residents,

while Houston is 15th, according to the Demographia

International Housing Affordability Survey. That's partly

because Texas has an abundance of cheap land--another draw

for firms looking to relocate.

Other reasons for the state's robust job growth:

The energy boom. Oil prices have nearly tripled since early

2009. High prices spark more exploration and production.

Meanwhile, technological breakthroughs have let companies

extract natural gas embedded in shale deposits. Barnett Shale

in Fort Worth is one of the USA's largest gas fields, and

drilling began at the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas in

2008. The number of oil and gas rigs in the state has jumped

to 850 from 330 in July 2009, says Ana Orozco, economist for

IHS Global Insight. Each rig employs a few dozen workers and

leads to hiring by engineering firms, pipeline builders and

other services.

Exports. Overseas shipments by Texas' strong computer,

electronics, petrochemical and other industries rose 21% last

year, compared with 15% for the nation, according to the

Dallas Federal Reserve Bank. The state also benefits from its

proximity to Latin American countries that are big importers

of U.S. goods, Friedman says. The surge creates jobs for

Texas manufacturers and ports.

No housing crash. Texas never had a housing boom but also

avoided the bust that decimated consumer credit and home

construction in much of the rest of the nation. While prices

of single-family homes more than doubled from January 2000 to

their mid-2000s peak in cities such as Los Angeles, Miami and

Las Vegas, they rose less than 27% in the Dallas/Fort Worth

market, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price index.

Meanwhile, Texas banks burned by the savings-and-loan

crisis in the 1980s were less eager than those in other

states to approve risky mortgages. And Texas law limits

mortgage debt, including home-equity loans, to 80% of a

home's value.

``People didn't use their houses like ATMs,'' says Dallas

Fed Vice President Mine Yucel.

Texas still was hit by the recession. Annual permits for

single-family homes declined 59% from their 2005 peak to

2010, but that's less than the nation's 73% plunge, according

to Texas A&M. Similarly, employment fell 4% in the downturn;

the USA's overall drop was 6.3%. Texas has recovered 380,000

jobs since its December 2009 low and is now just 54,000 shy

of its 10.6 million peak.

Population growth. Texas' population grew by 4.3 million,

or 21%, during the past decade, more than twice the national

pace. About half the total was because of births, but Texas

also gained 849,000 residents via state-to-state migration,

second only to Florida.

Texas thus benefits from a virtuous cycle: More people are

moving there for work, generating consumer demand that

creates still more jobs. That's expanded the workforce,

keeping the unemployment rate at 8.2%--ranked just 26th in

the nation--despite the strong payroll advances.

One recent arrival is Ife Oyedokun, 26, who this month

moved to the Austin area from Philadelphia, where he worked

as a high school counselor, to be closer to his family.

Within two weeks he had a job as a rehabilitation specialist

for a growing outpatient facility for the mentally ill.

``I was very surprised,'' he says. ``With just how the

economy is now, I figured three, four, five months'' to find

a job.

`Hunting' for possible relocations

Companies also are feeling the pull.

Corporate giants including Fluor, Toyota and Medtronic

recently moved headquarters or operations to Texas, and eBay,

AT&T, Samsung and Cirrus Logic have expanded there. Samsung

added about 700 jobs in Austin since last year, enlarging a

plant that makes chips for smartphones.

Area business leaders, meanwhile, have aggressively courted

out-of-state companies.

The Dallas Regional Chamber this month sent a letter to 50

Illinois corporations, urging them to consider a move to

Texas. The mailing includes a side-by-side comparison of the

two states that notes Illinois recently raised corporate and

personal income taxes and highlights Texas' lower housing,

labor and other expenses.

``States with heavy-duty business taxes, personal taxes or

regulatory mind-sets define themselves as our targets,'' says

Chamber CEO Jim Oberwetter. ``That's just where we go

hunting.''

Texas has particularly tried to lure high-tech California

companies to lower-cost technology corridors in Austin,

Dallas and San Antonio. Medtronic, the Minneapolis-based

medical device giant, has moved customer support for its

diabetes unit from the Los Angeles area to San Antonio in the

past 22 months, creating 750 jobs in Texas.

Jeff Ruiz, head of Medtronic's Texas operations, says the

company was drawn by labor costs that are ``significantly

lower'' than those in Los Angeles and a large, high-quality

workforce. Ruiz also points to more affordable real estate

and the lack of a state corporate tax, though he says the

latter was a minor factor. The company, which also received

$14 million in incentives from the state--a figure Ruiz says

was comparable with other offers--chose San Antonio from

among more than 900 U.S. cities it evaluated.

For some, the benefits are more basic.

Marketing firm Red Ventures this year opened a San Antonio

office that's expected to grow to 250 employees from 60 by

year's end, says spokeswoman Kylie Craig. Besides the

region's ample talent pool, other draws were the city's non-

stop flights to Red Ventures' other offices in Miami and

Charlotte and its 7.3% unemployment rate.

In cities with high jobless rates, ``We're having to sift

through (many) unqualified applicants.''

Then there's Texas' laid-back lifestyle and lower costs,

assets that prompted Vermillion, a start-up developer of

blood tests with 29 employees, to move from Fremont, Calif.,

to Austin about a year ago. ``We found it very difficult to

recruit people into California because of the cost of living,

traffic, congestion,'' says CEO Gail Page.

The corporate relocations and expansions are having a

ripple effect on restaurants, hospitals and other service

businesses. Winstead, a Dallas law firm with about 270

lawyers statewide, has added 50 since last year to handle the

extra workload from firms, such as Comerica Bank, that have

moved to Texas the past few years, says Mike Baggett,

Winstead's chairman emeritus.

And after cutting staff in 2009 and 2010, DeMontrond

Automotive in Houston has hired about 20 employees the past

few months in response to a 20% jump in revenue, says owner

George DeMontrond. Houston lost 120,000 jobs in the recession

but has gained about 50,000 the last seven months.

``I think people who have held off and not purchased large-

ticket items because of uncertainty are a little bit more

ready to do it,'' DeMontrond says.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I have a point of personal privilege. I thank the gentleman from Texas for the time.

We on the Rules Committee and as Members of Congress rely on the hard work of our staff people, particularly on Rules Committee, working into the wee hours of the night, last night being an example, until 11:30. After 3 years of tremendous service, my Rules associate, Rosalyn Kumar, has accepted another position in the Senate, and I just want to express my appreciation for her hard work.

She hails from the city of Dallas, Texas, and her hometown Representative is my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions.

I'd like to yield for a moment to my colleague from Texas.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear about what we're talking about here today. From the moment Speaker Boehner walked away from the negotiating table last Friday to the opening bell of the stock markets this morning, shareholders in U.S. stocks, American retirees, investors, our middle class have lost $405 billion based on Third Way's analysis of data from the Standard and Poor's 500 Index, and Americans stand to lose more if we fail to resolve this crisis.

Third Way has put together a comparison between the interest rate paid on sovereign debt between AAA and AA nations. This is why credit is important. People understand that. Depending on your credit rating, you pay a different rate on your home mortgage. You might have different financing opportunities on your credit card. If America misses a debt payment, the rating agencies have let us know that it likely will result in a downgrade from AAA status to AA status.

I would also point out that this current bill before us would likely lead to that as well because it only contains a short-term, a 6-month renewal of our debt ceiling. Having watched the dysfunction of Congress over the last few weeks, the global investment community, those who loan us money, will say the last thing we need to do is put ourselves through this again in 6 months to ensure stability.

Countries that have AAA ratings have an average 10-year bond rate of 2.98 percent. Countries that have AA have an average bond rating of 3.75 percent. So, three-quarters of a percent difference. What does that mean? It means three-quarters of a percent on your variable rate home mortgage; it means three-quarters of a percent on your automobile; and, yes, it means more government expenditures, bigger government expenditures, just to cover the debt that we already have. In fact, that difference, that 0.75 percent difference over the next 10 years, will cost taxpayers, in additional interest payments, over $1 trillion.

So here we are with a bill that cuts spending, cuts $915 billion of spending, but, because it will likely lead to a downgrade, will cost over a trillion. The bill before us today will increase the deficit by over $100 billion. At a time of record deficits when we all know we need to enforce fiscal discipline, the last thing we need is an irresponsible bill to increase the deficit by $100 billion, which is what we have before us today.

Now, if we had this bill before us 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago, I would still oppose it--increasing the deficit is the last thing we need to do now--but it would have been an interesting discussion. It would have been maneuvering and politics and all this stuff that this body does too much of in posturing, in my opinion. But here we are 3\1/2\ days from the debt ceiling expiring, and the gentleman from Texas and the chairman of our Rules Committee and many others have said, We want to. We know we need to do this. We know we need to do this.

If we know we need to do this, why are we doing this 3\1/2\ days before the expiration of the debt ceiling? Why are we potentially passing a bill that will increase the Federal deficit? that will almost certainly lead to a downgrade? that the Senate has said they will kill? that the President has said he will veto?

I understand that the plan was to pass this bill last night. I understand that the majority party was short of a few votes. That would have been yet another window of opportunity for this Speaker, who has had many, to negotiate a real solution, to be the statesman, to work with the President and the Senate to come up with a bipartisan package to increase the debt ceiling, cut spending, decrease the deficit.

The President has talked about decreasing the deficit by $4 trillion. Instead, we have a force of bill that's likely to increase the deficit by $100 billion--the last thing we need from Congress at this juncture in time. Three-and-a-half days is how long we have to get this right.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, is this the step we need to take towards that

outcome, passing yet another ideological bill that will cost taxpayers $100 billion and cost middle class families another percentage point on all the debt that they have?

Madam Speaker, there is a route out of this, and the route out of this does not involve the majority party trying to pull back the four or five or six people that they need over there. The path out of this is the Speaker engaging us, engaging all Members of this Chamber, engaging the President of the United States, who has to sign this at the end of the day, engaging the Senate majority leader and the Senate minority leader, to go back to that table that Speaker Boehner walked out on last Friday, to negotiate a real solution to the deficit crisis and the spending crisis that has gripped this country, that could very well lead to a downgrade and increased deficit spending unless we get our arms around it.

Look, I think many on my side of the aisle are open to a compromise. President Obama, himself, has called for a compromise, and I know my office and the offices of many other Members of Congress have received hundreds of calls from constituents who echo that desire to reach a solution on this. I fear that the step before us today is yet another example of the dysfunction of this institution under this leadership, but it's not too late.

I call upon the Speaker to move away from this direction and get back to the negotiating table to establish a real solution: to reduce the deficit, retain our Nation's good credit and faith in our system and show that this institution--the institution of the House of Representatives and the institution of Congress--can work and do what's right for our country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The majority leader in the Senate has never at any time expressed support for this bill and actually opposes this bill.

I would ask the gentleman to clarify that.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Again, my colleague from Georgia mentioned that there are no Democrats behind this initiative. Again, Democrats were not consulted or talked to to ask for their support or input into this initiative. And you won't find much support for a proposal that would increase the deficit by $100 billion over 10 years.

The Democrats and our Democratic plan are seeking to decrease the deficit by trillions of dollars over that same period rather than increase it by $100 billion as the Republican plan does.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I have an article entitled, ``Debt Ceiling Impasse Rattles Short-Term Credit Markets,'' again from The New York Times, discussing how this uncertainty that is not being caused by external factors but is being caused by us, by politicians, by people here in this body, is rattling those who lend our country money. And that's why this plan before us today will increase the deficit by over $100 billion over 10 years. In addition to those spending cuts, it will cost taxpayers more in interest payments if it jeopardizes our credit rating.

[From the New York Times, July 28, 2011]

Debt Ceiling Impasse Rattles Short-Term Credit Markets

(By Nelson D. Schwartz and Azam Ahmed)

The reverberations of Washington's impasse over a debt deal

are already being felt in the short-term credit markets, a

key artery of the economy that daily supplies trillions of

dollars of credit.

Over the last week, big banks and companies have withdrawn

$37.5 billion from money market funds that invest in Treasury

debt and other ultra-safe securities, the biggest weekly drop

this year. Meanwhile, in the vast market for repurchase

agreements, in which many financial firms make short-term

loans to one another, borrowers are beginning to demand

higher yields.

These moves underscore how companies and big financial

institutions are beginning to rethink their traditional view

that notes issued by the United States Treasury are

indistinguishable from cash, even though many experts say

they think it is unlikely that the government would miss

payments on its obligations.

The $37.5 billion drop, reported Thursday in a weekly

survey by the Investment Company Institute, echoed what other

analysts were seeing.

In the first three days of this week, investors pulled $17

billion from funds that invested only in government

securities, a reversal of the daily inflows of $280 million

for much of July, said Peter Crane, the president of Crane

Data, which tracks money market mutual funds.

``It's big, no doubt about it,'' he said. ``Seventeen

billion isn't a run, but it's definitely indicative that

investors are shifting their assets. If this were to continue

for another week or two, it would be very disturbing.''

Though lawmakers have been clashing all week on proposals

to cut the deficit and raise the debt limit ahead of an Aug.

2 deadline set by the Treasury Department, bond markets have

largely shrugged off the risk of a default or a downgrade of

the Washington's AAA credit rating.

Interest rates on longer-term Treasuries have held steady,

but the yield on notes coming due next week, after the

deadline, has moved sharply higher in recent days. The yield

on Treasury bills coming due Aug. 4 jumped five basis points

to 15 basis points, a significant move for a security that

carried a yield close to zero earlier this month, said Jim

Caron, head of interest rate strategy at Morgan Stanley.

``It's a tell-tale sign of something that could reverberate

if it spreads to other markets, and all the uncertainty with

the debt ceiling is the functional equivalent of a

tightening,'' Mr. Caron said. ``I don't think there is a

default risk at all but the market is saying it's not going

to take any chances.''

While money market fund managers say they are not seeing a

sizable wave of redemptions yet, they are setting aside more

cash, leaving it at custodial bank accounts in case investors

demand their money back. At Fidelity, the Boston-based firm

that has $442 billion in money market assets, managers are

avoiding Treasury bills that come due on Aug. 4 and Aug. 11,

however unlikely a technical default may be.

``We are positioning our portfolio to respond to a

downgrade or a default and we are positioning the fund to

respond to redemptions,'' said Robert Brown, president of

money markets at Fidelity. Mr. Brown would not say how much

cash was being kept at hand, but said ``it's a higher balance

than one would expect to see.''

In the commercial paper market, where companies raise funds

for their short-term borrowing needs, buyers are also seeking

shorter-term paper.

In the last week, investors have shown signs of wanting

quick access to their money, with financial borrowers raising

on Wednesday only $1 million in notes that come due in 81

days or more, according to the Federal Reserve. That is down

from $479 million on July 22.

At the same time, the amount of commercial paper issued

with a duration of just one to four days rose to $920

million, from $771 million.

``Investors are scrambling to bolster their liquidity

profile,'' said Chris Conetta, head of global commercial

paper trading at Barclays Capital. ``They understand that a

default or downgrade could be a big, systemic event.''

In the repurchase market, known as the repo market,

borrowers take loans and in exchange hand over a little more

than the equivalent loan amount in securities. Because of

their risk-free status, Treasuries are highly favored as

collateral, estimated to account for about $4 trillion in the

repo markets.

The fear is that if the United States credit rating drops,

the value of those treasuries

could respond in kind. Borrowers would then have to post more

collateral to obtain their loans, effectively raising the

cost of borrowing. That could ripple into the broader market,

raising interest rates on all types of loans, analysts warn.

``The repo market is a pressure point because it can have

an impact on overall credit availability, which bleeds

through to mortgage rates,'' said Robert Toomey, managing

director at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets

Association. ``Treasuries become a little less attractive if

they are more expensive to finance.''

The overnight repo rate, which started the week at about

three basis points, was about 17 basis points Thursday

evening, according to Credit Suisse. That means that to

finance $100 million overnight in the repo market it would

now cost about $472 per day, up from about $83 on Monday.

``It's a bigger deal than a lot of people recognize,'' said

Howard Simons, a strategist at Bianco Research, a bond market

specialist. ``If you downgrade the securities you have to put

more up for collateral and that affects pretty much everybody

out there who has held these in reserve. I don't care if

you're a bank, insurance company, exchange or

clearinghouse.''

To be sure, most observers say the ripples in the repo

market will not be anything like those felt in the fall of

2008, when creditors lost faith in the ability of banks to

pay back their short-term loans. That caused a problem for

companies like General Electric, which struggled to finance

its daily operations as a result. Back then, the sharp drop-

off in repo lending helped bring the financial system to its

knees.

``I think people are looking at the U.S. as the cleanest

shirt in the dirty laundry pile,'' said Jason New, a senior

managing director at GSO Capital Partners.

``To me, the downgrade is not dropping a boulder in a still

lake. This is dropping a pebble, but nevertheless there are

still ripples.''

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that the President hasn't introduced a bill. I would just like to point out that the President of the United States cannot introduce a bill in the House or Senate. The President can sign a bill. In fact, in this particular case, he said he would veto this bill because it increases the deficit, it risks increasing it by over $100 billion.

I would like to submit for the Record a study that shows the difference in interest rates between AAA and AA ratings, which demonstrably shows, in fact, that if this bill is passed here today with only a 6-month extension, it would likely cost taxpayers over $100 billion.

AAA or AA? In Which Club Do We Want To Belong?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

10-Year

AAA Ratings bond yield

(%) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Australia.................................................. 4.92 Austria.................................................... 3.39 Canada..................................................... 2.93 Denmark.................................................... 2.99 Finland.................................................... 3.13 France..................................................... 3.25 Germany.................................................... 2.76 Hong Kong.................................................. 2.26 Luxembourg................................................. 3.29 Netherlands................................................ 3.14 Norway..................................................... 3.24 Singapore.................................................. 2.10 Sweden..................................................... 2.75 Switzerland................................................ 1.45 United Kingdom............................................. 3.04

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

First, in response to the claim of the gentleman from Texas in regards to saving Medicare, well, if ending Medicare is one way of saving it, I guess that would be consistent. In fact, the Republican package that was passed in this House phased out Medicare. Nobody under 55 would receive Medicare.

By definition, Medicare is a medical insurance program for seniors. It would be replaced with a voucher that would pay for part of private insurance that seniors need to get, but it would no longer be Medicare. It would no longer exist. So, certainly, getting rid of Medicare, if you consider that a way of saving it, the Republican budget will do that. But if you want to save Medicare, it requires cutting costs and investing in the system and making it work for more American families.

Again, what we have before us today, Madam Speaker, is not a solution; it's further political machinations of the

House. Rather than talking to the President, rather than talking to the Senate, unfortunately, the Speaker of this body has chosen to talk to five or six people, move the bill further away from the middle, further away from what the President will sign, further away from what the Senate will pass with only 3\1/2\ days left.

Three-and-a-half days left before what? Three-and-a-half days left before this country jeopardizes our credit rating and our good standing as a Nation that pays interest on our debt. And just as American families, when your credit score gets messed up, you pay more, taxpayers will pay more if this bill passes.

Madam Speaker, it has been estimated that the approximately 1 percent interest rate increase that a downgrade from AAA to AA would provide will cost taxpayers over $1 trillion over 10 years. And this bill will increase the deficit by $100 billion.

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

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

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

I very much thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

It's true. I'm one of the new guys there on the Rules Committee, one of the new guys here in this Congress; and because I haven't been watching this process go on quite this closely before, I'm prepared to answer the questions today of ``Why are we here?'' and ``Why are we here doing this?''

Now, for folks who don't watch the process, who haven't watched it like I have, this rule that we're working on today is to say that you can bring up a bill in the Rules Committee and then bring that bill to the floor on the very same day. That's unusual because regular order in this body says, if you bring something up, let's let it sit overnight so that everybody has a chance to look at it, and we'll bring it up the next day. I'm a big proponent of regular order. I believe we get the best work product out of this body when we work through regular order, and we've done that time and time and time again in this Congress, and we'll do it time and time again in the future.

But today we're faced with a predicament where August 2 is looming on the horizon.

Now, it's Friday. For folks who don't know, we're not going home tonight after work. Don't worry, Madam Speaker. As you know, this House is going to be in full swing tonight, tomorrow morning, tomorrow night, on Sunday, on Monday to get America through this challenge; but my White House, my President, tells me that August 2 is the day by which we must pass a bill, and here we are at the last hour to make that happen.

Now, why are we at the last hour? That was a question my friend from Colorado asked, and I have the answer: because we didn't actually start this process today. We didn't start it last night in the Rules Committee. We started this process back in February with H.R. 1, a bill to fund the government all the way through October 1 of this year.

It was an open rule. For the first time in the history of this House of Representatives, it was an open rule on a continuing resolution. It took us 5 days, going day and night--24 hours a day at the end--to get that bill discussed fully, because we all had input on that process; we all had things that we wanted to add. This House passed that bill. It went across to our friends in the Senate, and they did nothing.

We had another shot at this in April when we worked through the budget process. That budget process, as you know, Madam Speaker, is supposed to take us through 10 years--10 years. We asked every Member of this House of Representatives to bring their ideas to the floor. The Rules Committee, in its wisdom, made every single budget that any Member of this House offered available as a bill on the floor to consider, and we debated them all. There were some that raised taxes by $10 trillion. There were others that cut spending by $10 trillion and all in between. We debated them all, and the House decided on one: the House budget in April of this year. We sent it to the Senate, and they did nothing. In fairness, they did defeat that bill we sent to them. They defeated ours. We only got 40 votes on ours, which was better than when they worked on the President's budget over there--he got zero votes on his. So they're good at defeating things, but they didn't pass anything at all.

That's the partnership we have to have. I say to my friend from Colorado that I'm so proud of our partnership in the Rules Committee and, really, of our partnership beyond the Rules Committee, too, on some of the issues that we work on here. If we could develop the kind of partnership with our friends in the Senate that we've been able to develop between ourselves here on the House side, it would be a completely different situation here in Washington, D.C.

But even as part of that raucous freshman class that folks read about in the newspaper, I don't have the ability to control what goes on in the United States Senate. All I have the ability to do is to come down here and participate in our process, which in February produced H.R. 1, which could have averted this crisis today; in April produced the House budget, which could have averted this crisis today; and last week produced Cut, Cap, and Balance--which was sent to the Senate and they did nothing--which could have averted this crisis yet again.

In light of all of those failures of action in the Senate, we are forced to come here today. We don't have overnight to lay a bill over. We don't have 72 hours to lay a bill over. We only have 72 hours until my President tells me D-day arrives for our financial markets. So we're here supporting this rule for same-day consideration so that we can do whatever it takes to get the job done.

I very much thank the gentleman from Texas.

We're going to do whatever it takes to get the job done, but there is a teaching moment in this process, Madam Speaker. Maybe it's obvious to some of the senior Members. Again, I'm one of the new guys--only 7 months on the job here in Congress--but what I've noticed this week is this:

Last night, we tried to bring up a bill. Now, it was a bill that our Speaker and the majority leader of the Senate negotiated over last weekend. We thought bringing that bill to the floor would be that compromise, and I promise you it was a compromise because it was not what I wanted to bring to the floor of this House. We thought that compromise would be the solution to get America out of this situation.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

I thank my friend.

There is a lot of conversation in this town, but I maintain that this was the topic of discussion and agreement between the Speaker and the majority leader last week. Absolutely, the majority leader has walked away from that agreement since then, and I don't dispute that; but here's the thing:

We had this agreement on the floor of the House last night, and we couldn't find one Democrat vote in favor of it. Fair enough. Folks ought to vote their

consciences; they ought to do what they need to do. We couldn't find one Democrat vote in favor of it, and we've come back with a new bill today that moves us to the right. Now, as someone who comes from one of the most conservative districts in the country, I think that's fantastic. More moving to the right. Let's keep on moving. There's a lot more space over there. Let's move some more over to the right.

But I say to my friends on the left as we try to get through a crisis, a national crisis, that we only needed a few votes from you last night, and then this would have been a bipartisan bill. Instead, we're back down here today.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed martial law rule.

Today is a sad, sad day. In just a few days, the process in this House has completely devolved. It's shameful. We've gone from open rules to closed rules to same-day martial law rule all because a few extreme Members of the House refuse to do the right thing.

The rule today paves the way for a bill today that is even a worse bill than the one the Republicans were forced to pull from the floor yesterday. That's not coming together, Madam Speaker. It's pushing us further and further apart.

These last few days have not been about trying to find a united solution. These last few days and last few weeks have been about trying to unite the House Republicans. It has been wasted opportunities.

For weeks and weeks and weeks my Republican friends have walked away from a balanced, fair, and bipartisan approach allowing the United States to pay its bills. They've walked away from a balanced, fair, and bipartisan approach to addressing the Nation's long-term fiscal challenges. Democrats have been willing over and over and over again to move forward on such an approach.

To be honest, I'm not thrilled with some of the things that President Obama has put on the table. But I'm willing to consider them in order to get past this crisis. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of this House is unwilling to meet us halfway. They're not even willing to meet us a tenth of the way.

All we're asking for, and I think all the American people are asking for, is a balanced approach. All we're asking for is for everyone to chip in to solve this problem.

I'll say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if you're going to ask seniors to pay more for their Medicare, if you're going to cut vital investments in education, transportation, medical research, and other programs, then the least you can do is ask the various wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.

How in the world can my friends on the other side of the aisle justify slashing Medicare while they refuse to ask Big Oil and gas companies or corporate jet owners or hedge fund managers to give up their unnecessary and unjustified taxpayer subsidies. But that's their position, Madam Speaker, not asking billionaires to pay a little bit more but asking middle class families to pay a lot more. It's reckless, it's wrong, it's unfair. And I for one will not go along with it.

My friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) says we have to make tough choices. I agree, we have to make tough choices. But why do you always have to be tough on working families or on poor people or on senior citizens? They didn't create this economic crisis.

We're in this mess because of unpaid-for tax cuts, mostly for wealthy people; we're in this mess because of two wars that are not paid for that are on our credit card; we're in this mess because of a prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for.

I would say to my colleagues, enough of the press releases, enough of the theatrics, enough of the political stunts.

I urge you to reject this martial law rule and get back to the negotiating table and avert an economic crisis.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman not only for yielding some time but also for his glowing remarks about a great community and one of the 10 most livable cities in all of America that I had the privilege of presiding over for about 12 years as mayor, a city that continues to enjoy tremendous economic development and influence in the State of Arkansas.

And let me just say this, using that as a context for my remarks, that I think the model that the community that I had the privilege of presiding over for 12 years is the model that Washington needs. It's a model that balances its budget.

When I inherited that city in 1999 as its mayor, it did not have a balanced budget. The government was in the way. The discriminate developer did not want to develop in that community because there were too many regulations, too many reasons why they could go elsewhere and have better margins. Well, we changed all that, and now the city is flourishing in a remarkable sort of way.

And I want to steal something from a colleague of mine from Mississippi that was said yesterday out on the Triangle in a media event. He said: All across America we're sitting down with legal pads, and we're drawing that line down the middle and we're discussing the amount of income that we have. This is what's happening to families around the country, what kind of income we have and what kind of expenses we have.

Where the expenses exceed the income, we are having to make some very difficult choices as to what do we do without. Well, quite frankly, I think that that's exactly what's happening in this Congress right now. We have to take the legal pad out. We have to decide those things that we can do that we need and those things that we can do without based on the amount of income that we have coming in.

The sad thing is in order to be able to create that kind of fiscal discipline, it's going to take something like a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in order to guarantee an enforcement mechanism that this Congress or future Congresses cannot undo. So it's that context that I bring to the table today.

It is that basis on which I think this Congress should rally behind the plan that we have offered today that is going to cap spending, that is going to cut spending, and is going to require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so that future Congresses can't put us in a similar situation that we are in today.

So I would urge a ``yes'' vote. I support it wholeheartedly, and I would ask the American people to join us by promoting fiscal sanity by approving this piece of legislation.