Budget Control Act of 2011

As an American, I stand here united with America voting ``yes'' on this bill to save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Budget Control Act of 2011,'' the Reid Bill, which is a legitimate attempt to resolve our debt-ceiling crisis unlike the previous debt-ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which has attempted to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-changing sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share.

We must work together to save the American people and do what's right. We are working under one flag and one nation; there are times in which we are 50 states, and times when we exist as a single, united, nation. One single state did not defend the nation after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end segregation and establish Civil Rights. There are times when the stakes are too high, when we simply must unite as states and act as one. We must today work under one flag and one nation to protect our economy and our people.

We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated recently before the House Committee on Financial Services, ``We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut.'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.'' The Reid plan offers the compromise that the American people want, demand and need. I stand here with so many of my colleagues calling for the protection of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs that protect the interests of the American people.

In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. I support this bill and efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues. I will not support any bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles.

This plan will result in a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit, $416 billion of which would automatically occur when the President submits a written certification to Congress that the debt ceiling needs to be increased. The remaining $784 billion in borrowing authority would be subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval, and Congress would have 55 days to act to reject the increase. Under this bill, after that initial increase, the President would be authorized to seek another $1.2 trillion increase once the debt limit is within $150 billion of the debt ceiling, with the entire $1.2 trillion subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval within 15 calendar days.

The plan I support today establishes statutory caps on discretionary spending that would apply for ten years. These caps would operate similarly to caps established with bipartisan support in the 1990s. If Congress exceeds the caps, across-the-board cuts would enforce the limits. Further additional savings in FY 2012 by security spending would be capped at $606 billion, or $3 billion below this year's level. Security spending would be $19 billion below the Republican budget. This plan finds even more savings by limiting funding for ongoing wars (the so-called ``Overseas Contingent Operations'') that could be provided outside the discretionary spending caps.

Some of my Republican colleagues have been critical of the Reid bill's proposed savings on war funding. However, winding down the wars, which this year will cost about $160 billion, will produce very real savings, as both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office acknowledge. In fact, the Republicans endorsed this approach when they voted for the House GOP budget earlier this year.

My home state of Texas ranks 43rd in education, and last (50th) in the nation in people over 25 who only have a high school education. This bill will protect the hopes and dreams of people who are striving to improve those numbers. It safeguards Pell Grants and maintains the current maximum grant at $5,550. Our country has such a firm belief in education, so much so that we as a people have provided free education to all students until the 12th grade, but after that moment with high school diploma in hand a higher education should not become a battle between the haves and the have nots in our society.

This plan would end graduate and professional students' eligibility for subsidized Stafford loans, as proposed in the President's FY 2012 budget.

Graduate and professional students would be able to receive unsubsidized federal student loans, and would continue to be eligible to apply for deferment, forbearance, or other loan repayment assistance. The $18 billion in savings are used to address projected shortfalls in the Pell Grant through FY 2013.

Madam Speaker, the bill will reduce waste, fraud and abuse by promoting efforts to improve enforcement in several areas. The anti- fraud efforts promoted by the Reid bill include: continuing Disability Reviews and SSI redeterminations; Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement; health care fraud and abuse control; and Unemployment Insurance improper payment reviews. According to CBO, these steps would save $11 billion over 10 years.

The Boehner proposal plan and all the plans proposed by my Republican colleagues they have all just cut, cut, cut without taking into full consideration the serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Their bills have essentially been a rehashed version of the same bills that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed to reject. It asks cuts from domestic spending while demanding nothing in revenue from the nation's wealthiest. The proposals offered by my Republican colleagues has been nothing more than a ransom note, irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few months so that in just a short period of time, the American public will be hit again for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits. Anyone who believes that those plans will not result in a serious cut to Social Security should consider this . . . Social Security represents 20 percent of all federal spending, making it unrealistic to think such large cuts in mandatory spending will not affect Social Security benefits. The Reid plan, before us today protects Social Security.

I believe that the plan before us is an example of shared sacrifice. It removes the entire burden off the backs of seniors, the middle class and our nation's most vulnerable citizens. The Reid plan will not result in dramatic reductions in safety net programs for vulnerable Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. This would be and should be unacceptable, and each is avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder a fair share of this burden.

There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill places us back on the right track. We should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences.

In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011, or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state.

In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year.

Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.

Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in 2010.

Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending.

Childhood hunger continues to be a real and persistent problem in the Houston/Harris County area. The number of people participating in the Food Stamp Program in Texas has increased by 82 percent since 2000. However, only 60 percent of those eligible for food stamps in Texas participate in the program.

In Harris County, only 75 percent of children approved to receive free lunch participated, and only 39 percent of children approved to receive free breakfast took advantage of the benefit. Participation numbers are similarly low for those students approved to receive reduced-price lunch and breakfast. During summer months, participation in these federal nutrition programs drops significantly. In Texas the summer participation rate was only 8.1 percent of low income children.

In 2008, when the recession first hit, 22.9 percent of Texas children were living in poverty, the fifth worst rate in the nation. As a result of the economic downturn that began in late 2008 in Texas, and parents losing their jobs, the child poverty rate increased to 24.4 percent in 2009. That is 163,000 more children falling into poverty, or 1.6 million Texas children overall.

Many people assume that Texas was not hit as hard by the recession as other states because our unemployment rate is still below the national average. While our unemployment rate is low compared to the U.S. (8.2 versus 9.8 percent, respectively, in November 2010), it is still nearly double where it stood in November 2007 (4.4 percent). In fact, Texas' unemployment rate has been around 8 percent for the last 16 months, which is extremely high given Texas' recent history.

Nearly one in three Texas children has no parent with a full-time, year-round job, making them particularly vulnerable.

When a household falls into poverty, children are exposed to increased parental distress, inadequate childcare arrangements, and poor nutrition. In past recessions, it took many years for employment and incomes to rebound, and low-income families rebound more slowly than others.

72 percent of Texas' working families in poverty have at least one parent without health insurance.

Public benefits such as health care or nutrition assistance help families bridge the gaps in difficult economic times and are critical in reducing the effects of a recession. Cutting these supports will hurt child and family well-being and damage the Texas economy by taking money out of the private economy for critical local businesses such as grocery stores and medical providers.

The supplemental nutrition program, WIC, helps low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children eat well and stay healthy. WIC provides nutrition education, nutritious foods, referrals to health and human services, breastfeeding support, and immunizations (at some clinics).

More than 802,000 Texas children ages 0-4 (40 percent) received support through WIC. When you look at infants alone, 67 percent received WIC supplements, compared to only 35 percent of children aged 1-4.

The program has grown by more than 176,000 kids between 2000 and 2009, with an increase of 66,000 children from 2007 to 2009 alone.

During the recession, more families needed greater assistance with basic expenses. SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) provided benefits to over 3 million Texans, more than half of which are children (ages 0-17).

In January 2011, more than 2 million Texas children received assistance from SNAP, an increase of nearly 700,000 kids since January 2008. Furthermore, because of added funds from the ARRA, monthly benefits rose 13.6 percent, giving added assistance to families at a time when they needed it most.

The dramatic rise in applications for SNAP initially overwhelmed the already beleaguered state workers who enroll families in these federal benefits. In November of 2009, 43 percent of SNAP applications were not being processed within the federally mandated 30-day time period, leaving hundreds of thousands of families each month waiting for food assistance.

More than 2.8 million Texas children participate in the school lunch program, and close to half of them also receive breakfast. More than $1.3 billion of federal funding is used to support these programs during the school year. Many counties in Texas also run summer nutrition programs so that kids who depend on school lunches have access to good nutrition when school is closed for the summer.

Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not fitting for America.

Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican colleagues even consider fighting to pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance

As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing our debt ceiling, I have heard the

concerns of many of my constituents and the American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that we have already agreed to and promised to pay.

Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements of funding a major war in the modern era.

To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations without prior congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit.

Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased it over l00 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be artificially avoided until August 2.

Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt obligations.

We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or investor could make. For investors around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well.

The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised.

This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the radical agenda of the Tea Party, which irresponsibly pulls the chair out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the wealthiest.

This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.

Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund.

If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question.

Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay.

Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The opponents of this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to decision-making. This bill will allow America to compete with a surging China.

Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on.

Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of citizens.

The markets have made it clear that a short-term extension and Reid's plan is a long term solution which averts serious consequences.

As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in the housing market.

Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda.

Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre,'' and I am inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's own bill.

Texas has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation as the highest percentage of residents uninsured. More than 5.8 million Texans--including 1.5 million children--lack health insurance. Texas' uninsured rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to all Texans. One in every four Texans lacks health insurance coverage, and that number is one in every three in large cities like Houston and Dallas. According to the Gallup poll, an average of 26.8 percent of Texas residents was uninsured.

With only 75% of the residents being insured, this means that one in four residents within the state is unprotected and could be in financial stress in case of a medical emergency. This extremely high percentage of residents lacking health insurance coverage is one of the biggest challenges the Texas Department of Insurance and Department of Health face.

Here's an idea that wouldn't cost Texas a dime but would save millions of dollars every year: Remove all barriers restraining nurses from practicing to the full extent of their education and training. No state needs primary care providers more than Texas, which has a severe shortage. Texas ranks last in access to health care and in the percentage of residents without health insurance. Of Texas' 254 counties, 188 are designated by the federal government as having acute shortages of primary care physicians. Of that number, 16 counties have one and 23 have zero. If every nurse practitioner and family doctor were deployed, we still couldn't meet the need. Texans are desperate for health care.

I have worked effortlessly with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to gain bipartisan support for successful passage of an

amendment to the landmark healthcare reform bill that made sure no hospital is forced to shut its doors or turn away Medicare or Medicaid patients. Existing physician-owned hospitals employ approximately 51,700 individuals, have over 27,000 physicians on staff, pay approximately $2,421,579,312 in payroll taxes and $512,889,516 in other federal taxes, and have approximately $1.9 billion in trade payables. With approximately 50 physician-owned hospitals, Texas leads the nation in the number of physician-owned hospitals. The Texas economy could lose more than $2.3 billion and more than 22,000 jobs without these important hospitals.

American families spend almost twice as much on health care--through premiums, paycheck deductions and out-of-pocket expenses--as families in any other country. In exchange, we receive quality specialty care in many areas. Yet on the whole, Americans do not get much better care than countries that spend far less. Americans do not live as long as people in Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe. This should clearly indicate that health care reform was needed. The landmark bill signed by President Obama will provide coverage to millions of people who currently lack it.

They live in a world that is not the world that the American people live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits to survive.

These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet due to the nature our political process, they have held up the entire government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent second recession.

If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section four, which states ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.'' The argument can be made that if Congress will not resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the interest of our nation must act. The President would then have to consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling, on his own, through executive order and if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by the August 2, 2011 deadline. As a body we should not place the President or our country in this position.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who would be helped by this bill. I urge my colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of Americans live in; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the financial system into chaos,'' and ``destroy the trust and confidence that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest liquid assets in the world.''

Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts into the traditionally non-political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a this bill that makes good on our debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit.

There is in these difficult times no tea party, no Democratic Party, no Republican Party. There is only one party--there is only one party-- the party that is the embodiment of one nation--America and we should stand for Americans and one America--I vote ``yes'' to save America from default and to honor the full, faith and credit.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is it true that a bill considered under suspension of the rules denies the minority party the right to offer any amendments or even a motion to recommit?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it true that a bill considered under suspension of the rules requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in order for a bill to pass?

Is it also true, Mr. Speaker, that a bill considered under suspension of the rules does not pass if it receives a simple majority vote but not two-thirds of the vote?

Does this mean that Speaker Boehner's bill to raise the debt limit and destroy Medicare would have failed if it were considered under suspension of the rules yesterday?

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this process has become a joke. It is a disgrace. It's an insult to the American people.

I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, now is the time to act like grown-ups. This is the time to put our country before your political party. This is time to put our country before the Tea Party. This is the time to do what's right.

Today, you are bringing up the latest version of the Reid plan under not only a closed rule, but under the most restrictive process we have in the House, usually reserved for noncontroversial bills. There is a $2.5 trillion bill being brought up under the same process that you bring up bills naming post offices--20 minutes of debate, no amendments allowed. We are not even allowed to offer a motion to recommit. To win, you need a two-thirds supermajority. Under this process, your own bill would have failed. That's right, if your bill were brought up under this procedure, your bill would have lost last night.

Mr. Speaker, the only bill we should consider on the House floor is one that has been agreed to by the House and Senate leaders and the President of the United States.

So why are we doing this today? Let's be honest. You are doing it to score some cheap political points.

I would like to remind the Speaker of the House that he is the Speaker of not just the Republican Party, but that he is the Speaker of the whole House. Now is the time to bring us together, not tear us apart.

Maybe the Reid bill is the one that can unite us because it achieves tremendous savings without decimating Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. But Mr. Speaker, to bring it up under this process is cynical, and it demeans the House of Representatives.

I would say to the Republican leadership: Enough political stunts. Our country is facing a terrible economic crisis, a crisis that you created and one that you can avoid, but we've run out of time. Now is the time for leadership, not bad political theater. Now is the time to behave like legislators. Please rise to the occasion.

The Reid bill is not the bill I would have written. It's not the truly balanced approach that I would have hope for. There are no revenues in this bill. But I think it's the best approach that is on the table right now, and I'm willing to compromise. So I will vote ``yes'' on this bill. I'm willing to put my country first.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind the gentlelady that no one on the Democratic side ever walked out of a meeting.

At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, make no mistake about it. From day one, this Republican majority has put Medicare on the chopping block. And the Boehner proposal would decimate Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security as we know it.

At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield myself 10 seconds, Madam Speaker, just to remind the gentlelady that she has voted time and time and time again to decimate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and we're not going to stand by and let them do that.

At this point I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen.

I yield myself 5 seconds.

My colleague from California keeps on saying that the Boehner bill was bipartisan. I'll remind him that not one single Democrat voted for that bill because Democrats do not want to decimate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

At this time, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Will the gentleman yield?

In the balanced budget amendment that you have and in the Ryan proposal, you have all of it going after Medicare and Social Security.

May I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?

Maybe the gentleman from California might want to yield to Mr. Van Hollen; but at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

This is about protecting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, our assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire about the time on both sides, please.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal today entitled ``The Debt-Limit Hobbits.''

[From the Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2011]

The Debt-Limit Hobbits

Political logic and perhaps even common sense seem to be

prevailing within the House GOP after Thursday's debt-ceiling

vote was postponed--at least among most of the caucus. The

shame is that the debt-limit absolutists have weakened

Speaker John Boehner's hand in negotiating a final bill with

Senate Democrats.

At the most practical level, Mr. Boehner's plan is better

than the one Harry Reid supports in the Senate. This remains

true of the revisions Mr. Boehner released yesterday, though

the irony is that it is less credible and weaker politically

than the previous version. The concession the holdouts

demanded, and got--a balanced budget amendment--ensures that

it cannot pass the Senate. The best but unlikely scenario is

that the bill otherwise remains intact.

In the years for which claims of spending restraint are

most credible--fiscal 2012 and 2013--the Boehner bill would

cut $25 billion and $47 billion from the outlays that the

Congressional Budget Office projected in March. Off the same

baseline, the plan would cut $756 billion through 2021 in

return for an initial $900 billion in new borrowing. The

topline figure of $1.2 trillion in cuts that everyone cites

comes by comparing the Boehner plan to CBO's ``budgetary

authority'' estimate from January, which is far less

realistic but is also the platform used in the negotiations

led by Joe Biden.

Some will deride $72 billion in cuts over the next two

years as nickels and dimes, and it's true it is nowhere near

commensurate to the scale of the spending problem. But it's

also incremental progress, which is how the American

political system usually changes, and a larger real reduction

in government than any time since 1995.

For comparison's sake, Paul Ryan's budget blueprint that

the House passed in April would cut $74 billion in outlays

over 2012-2013 and $746 billion in total over the next 10

years. Accomplishing roughly the same thing via the Boehner

plan, with no new tax increases, while controlling only one-

half of one branch of government, would be a major GOP

achievement.

The plan also includes domestic spending caps, enforced

with an automatic sequester for 10 years. Such caps could be

overridden by a future Congress, but they make it harder and

help to create a culture of fiscal discipline.

Another benefit is that the Boehner bill would require a

second debt-limit increase of $1.6 trillion next year, with

conditions. Curbing the size and growth of government is a

constant struggle, and the Boehner plan creates another

opening for further progress.

By contrast, the Reid plan raises the debt ceiling by $2.7

trillion now, which effectively closes off debate until after

the 2012 election. All told, it cuts spending by $2.2

trillion compared to the March CBO budgetary authority

baseline--though with multiple gimmicks that include $1.044

trillion in ``savings'' from winding down the wars in Iraq

and Afghanistan that will happen anyway.

Amid this ``baseline'' confusion, we wish House Republicans

had used this debate to reform Washington's fiscal hall of

mirrors. Baseline budgeting is a rigged game, with spending

increasing automatically each year above the rate of

inflation. Anything below that inflated baseline is then

called a ``cut.'' Even Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo took

on these automatic spending formulas when he set out to tame

the New York budget.

Instead of such a useful reform, a GOP faction is fixated

on a balanced budget amendment. After Thursday's stall, the

new Boehner plan will only authorize the second tranche of

debt if two-thirds of both chambers pass such an amendment

and send it to the states for ratification. This will not

happen.

These columns drew much notice after John McCain quoted our

July 27 ``tea party hobbits'' line on the Senate floor.

Senator (sic) Sharron Angle responded that ``it is the

hobbits who are the heroes and save the land.'' Well, okay,

but our point was that there's no such thing as a hobbit.

Passing a balanced budget amendment this year is a similar

fantasy. Yet outfits like the Club for Growth used the

amendment as an excuse to flip from opposing the Boehner plan

to supporting it. Maybe it should be the Club for Futile

Fiscal Gestures.

The main result of this pointless crusade has been to

damage Mr. Boehner's leverage and push the final debt-limit

increase in Mr. Reid's direction. The Speaker may now have to

seek the tender mercies of Nancy Pelosi to get a final bill

through the House, and who knows what her price will be.

The debt-limit hobbits should also realize that at this

point the Washington fracas they are prolonging isn't helping

their cause. Republicans are not looking like adults to whom

voters can entrust the government.

I would advise the gentleman from California that our leader is prepared to close for us. I will take 15 seconds and then introduce our leader.

Madam Speaker, I implore rational Republicans to join Democrats in passing the Reid bill. I appeal to your sense of responsibility, to your sense of duty, to your country. Have the courage of your convictions to do what's right. Don't be paralyzed by the threats and intimidating tactics of the Tea Party or other extreme groups. Stand up to protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, and a defender of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, Nancy Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2693) to cut spending, maintain existing commitments, and for other purposes, as amended.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

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

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

I think this is the first time that I have offered a Reid proposal in the House of Representatives.

One might ask why it is we are here doing this. It's very apparent to me why it is that we are here doing this, and that is we want to ensure that next Tuesday we see an increase in the debt ceiling so the Social Security checks go out, we bring about spending reductions, and we maintain the credit rating of the United States of America and do all the other things that I believe both Democrats and Republicans, alike, want to have take place.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have passed from this House two measures

within the last 2 weeks, the Cut, Cap, and Balance measure, and just last night, the Boehner proposal, which, as we all know, stemmed from a bipartisan meeting that he had exactly 1 week ago this afternoon in his meeting with Senator Reid right down along the hall. Unfortunately, Mr. Reid no longer supports the proposal that we passed last night, and Senator Reid has said on several occasions that his plan is the only plan that can pass both Houses of Congress.

Now, 5 minutes ago, Senator McConnell once again asked Senator Reid to bring up this plan that Senator Reid said was the only one that could pass both Houses of Congress, and Senator Reid said no.

Thursday night, I introduced this measure of Senator Reid's and was asked, in the Rules Committee yesterday, by Mr. McGovern, whether or not we would bring it up and I said we didn't plan to. But the fact is Senator McConnell, having made the request now at least twice in the other body to have it brought up, asked us to raise this measure here, and that's exactly what we are doing.

Now, if we look at where it is that we are headed, we all want to have a bipartisan compromise that will ensure that on Tuesday we see that increase in the debt ceiling take place and do these other things. That's what the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader of the United States Senate, along with Leader McConnell and Leader Pelosi, discussed a week ago today.

And as Speaker Boehner said from the well last night, this was an agreement which was supported by Senator Reid, but things have changed. Things have changed; we know that. But there is one thing that has not changed, and that is we have to act as quickly as possible. We need to come up with a compromise.

And you know what? Since Senator Reid happens to believe that his measure is the only one that can pass both Houses of Congress, we are going to let him know, when we defeat it here in the House of Representatives, that it is not the plan that can gain broad support in the House and the Senate. And so for that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are bringing this up.

We, I believe, should have an opportunity for every Member of this House to go on record on this issue, and I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this proposal so that we can come together with an important, bipartisan compromise to achieve the goal that we all say that we share.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend from Redlands, California (Mr. Lewis).

I would like to yield my friend an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I was prepared to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Maryland and explain to him that if Senator Reid believes that this is a great compromise, why will he not respond to Senator McConnell's repeated requests to bring it up in the United States Senate?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our Presidential candidate, our good friend from Stillwater, Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, may I yield time to my friend from Michigan? Am I allowed to yield time to my friend from Michigan?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me say that the action that we are about to take here today is going to help with the process of seeing Senator McConnell and Senator Reid work together.

Madam Speaker, I will not only address you, I won't point my finger at you as I address you.

Let me say, Madam Speaker, that Senator McConnell has just minutes ago asked Senator Reid to bring the Reid proposal to the floor of the United States Senate. And a decision has been made by Senator Reid not to bring the measure up.

On at least two occasions, Senator McConnell has asked, since Senator Reid has said that his proposal is the only one that can pass both Houses of Congress, Senator McConnell has asked us to show what we all know, and that is that there is not going to be a majority of support in the House of Representatives for his proposal.

And then when that happens, we look forward to the discussions that will take place with Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid, Leader McConnell, and Leader Pelosi.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), a hardworking new Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to remind my friend from Texas that the measure that we voted on last night stemmed from the bipartisan agreement that was put together one week ago this afternoon right down the hall.

With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Jefferson, Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), a hardworking new Member of the class of 87 people who came in here to change this place.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I think it's very important to note that yesterday and today we are continuing to hear that under the Boehner proposal cuts in Medicare and Social Security would take place, when in fact both the Boehner and Reid proposals have virtually identical plans to put into place a joint select committee that would in fact report back to this institution.

With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend, a member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our good friend, a hardworking new Member of this institution, the gentlewoman from Camas, Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

I yield myself 5 seconds to again say to my colleagues that the measure we voted on last night stemmed from a bipartisan compromise that was put together in this very Capitol one week ago today.

With that, Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Urbana, Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will tell me where in the Boehner bill it says that we want to cut Medicare, Social Security or any of the other items that they continue to attack. I would be happy to yield to anyone who can point me to where in the Boehner bill it says that. I am happy to yield to anyone.

I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

With that, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to my good friend from Aurora, Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I did ask a few minutes ago and expended time by asking anyone to yield. We have a lot of Members here who want to be heard. Mr. McGovern has time if he would like to yield it.

I yield 15 seconds to my friend from Maryland, and maybe Mr. McGovern will yield him 15 seconds. Then we can hear what Mr. Van Hollen has to say.

In reclaiming my time, my point has been made very eloquently by the gentleman, and I very much appreciate it. I thank my friend for his contribution.

Madam Speaker, at this point, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

I yield myself 5 seconds to say that I thank the gentleman for, once again, pointing out the fact that there is nothing in the Boehner proposal that does anything to cut Social Security or Medicare.

Madam Speaker, with that, I am happy to yield 15 seconds to a new Member from Zeeland, Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tupelo, Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Wantage, New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Newburgh, Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

At this time I'm happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ashland, Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Biloxi, Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, I believe in civil discourse, and I want to say that on several occasions in the past 45 minutes, members of my staff have urged me to have the words taken down that have been offered by Members on the other side of the aisle, and I chose not to. In the name of civility, I chose not to because we have a very serious issue that needs to be addressed, and it's before us, and we need to make sure that in the next several hours, we effectively address it.

Since 1962, on 75 different occasions, we have seen the United States Congress increase the debt ceiling. We keep hearing about the urgency that exists today. Well, I'll tell you what's urgent: If we don't change the course that we've been on the last 4 years, with an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending, we are not going to have resources for any of the things that my colleagues have talked about. What we need to do and the message that has been sent is that for the first time ever, we are going to change business as usual.

Now I'm going to say something that I probably shouldn't at the very end here. There are some good things in Senator Reid's proposal. I believe that the idea of establishing a joint select committee of our colleagues who will come together and make recommendations and force an up-or-down vote in both Houses of Congress is a positive thing. But I will say this: I don't believe that continuing down the road towards increasing the debt ceiling without the kinds of checks that are necessary is the right thing for us to do. Last night's agreement that we voted on here was, in fact. It stemmed from the bipartisan talks that took place right down this hall.

Vote ``no'' on the Reid proposal.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I applaud him for his superb leadership of this bill today. I recognize the great leadership of Mr. Van

Hollen as the ranking member on the Budget Committee and he and Mr. Clyburn representing the values of the American people at the negotiating table for this.

I rise in support of the Reid legislation and urge my colleagues to support it because it protects Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, because it is fair.

But I want to use my time in the following way.

I listened very carefully and very attentively to our Speaker yesterday when he spoke, and he used the term the bill is not perfect, but we did ``our level best.'' ``Our level best.'' One might infer from that that this process is on the level.

How can it be on the level if we're bringing a $2\1/2\ trillion bill to the floor under suspension the same way we might bring the naming of a post office? It's $2\1/2\ trillion, 20 minutes on each side.

Members have said, on both sides of the aisle, this is a very important debate. Well, if it is, why is it brought under suspension, which requires a two-thirds vote, guaranteeing that it will not prevail? Not on the level.

The word ``level,'' of course, enters into is this a level playing field? Is it on the level for America's seniors to pay more for Medicare for fewer benefits while we give tax subsidies to Big Oil? Is it on the level for us to throw people out of nursing homes by reducing Medicaid so we can give tax breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas? Is it on the level for us to make young people and their families pay more for their college education so we can give tax breaks to the high end? Is it on the level to bring a Boehner bill to the floor that makes all of those cuts, undermines Social Security, eliminates Medicare, and that does not charge one red cent to people who have benefited so much from the greatness of our country?

Is it our best? Is it our best to drag this out for all this time to keep in suspense as to whether we would honor our constitutional responsibility to pay our debts? The Constitution says the national debt has to be recognized.

And recognize we did, President after President, 32 times in recent memory--including when President Bush was President; at that time, even though many of us did not agree with the war in Iraq, did not agree to the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, did not agree to the giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. We didn't agree with that policy. That's how we got into debt, turning around from the surplus direction we were going in with President Clinton whose last four budgets were in balance or in surplus. We didn't agree how President Bush took us into debt, but we never, never stood in the way of honoring the full faith and credit of the United States.

Why, then, would we, this one time with this President, decide that we would put up barriers so extreme like changing the Constitution in order to lift the debt limit as a mathematical requirement?

Of course, we must all reduce the deficit. But is it our best to say we're going to use the debate to reduce the deficit to destroy to the public space?

Look at the appropriations bills they're bringing before us. Destroying the public space of clean air, clean water, food safety, the education of our children, the financial security of our seniors through Medicare and Medicaid. That's what they are doing.

If we are just reducing the deficit here, we have come to those conclusions. We have to do it. We know how to do it.

But if they want to take it to the next step of destroying the public sector, we cannot go to that place when it affects the air our children breathe, the water they drink, the food they eat, the education they receive, the safety of the neighborhoods in which they live.

The Speaker also said that the bill was not perfect. Well, no bill is perfect. But I think I disagree in one respect. I think this bill is perfect in its absurdity. His bill was perfectly absurd. It's perfectly absurd, again, to say to our President, after 32 times lifting the debt ceiling: We're going to change the game for you, Mr. President.

It's perfectly absurd for them to say that the bill they brought to the floor, the Boehner bill that they brought to the floor, was in agreement of the four leaders of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans. Either you don't know what you're talking about or it's a perfect absurdity.

I will not yield to you.

It is very, very important that we all take a deep breath. We have important work to do, an important decision to make. Senator Reid has given us a direction to go. No cuts in benefits for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security beneficiaries.

I wish that we had revenues in there so that those who had benefited from the greatness of the last 50 years of bipartisan progress for the American people would be able to make their contribution, but there is not one red cent of revenue while we're saying kids should pay more for their student loans.

So it's time to end this theater of the absurd. It's time for us to get real. It's time for us to get real and listen to the wisdom of the American people. They have said to us that they support, in overwhelming numbers, a bipartisan, balanced approach, in overwhelming numbers that we should all pay our fair share. And they all agree that we should get this over with so we can get back to work putting the American people back to work by creating jobs.

The Speaker chose, when he didn't have the votes, instead of reaching out in a bipartisan way to see how we could work together, he chose to go to the dark side. I repeat, he chose to go to the dark side by putting forth a bill that he, himself, told his members would sink in the Senate, and I add, lead to default.

We cannot default. We're the greatest country that ever existed in the history of the world. We're the United States of America.

So let's go from the dark side to the bright side of the American people. Vote ``yes'' on the Reid bill.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, our neighbors, our friends sent us here to be responsible and to come to the aid of our country at a time of crisis. Our country is at such a time now.

Our people confront uncertainty and fear, and they're looking to us for the courage to compromise and act to prevent default and to prevent gridlock and irresponsibility.

Yesterday, we learned that investors in American stocks lost more than $400 billion when just a few days ago Speaker Boehner said he could not compromise with President Obama. Not withstanding the remarks of my friend from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, who talks about a bipartisan compromise, I tell my friend, you have not moved a single centimeter towards compromise with our side of the aisle, not a single centimeter.

And what do we see in the United States Senate, my friends? We see a majority leader of the United States Senate who has a President with him. So, yes, you control one-third, and you control over 40 percent so you can stop things from happening in the Senate, but the people aren't looking to us for what we can stop; they're looking to us for what we can do, for what we can do to make our country healed at this point in time.

So what has Senator Reid done with this bill that you introduced-- guaranteed to fail. This is the second time you have put a bill on the floor to extend the debt limit guaranteed to fail. It is a pattern, frankly, I say to you, my friends, and it's a pattern that the American public ought not to countenance.

What Senator Reid has done is he has taken the view of Speaker Boehner

and Leader Cantor and said we need a long-term solution. And then he has compromised, not notwithstanding the fact that all of us on this side believe that the wealthiest among us should help take us out of this crisis and not rely on the most vulnerable among us. And so there is no revenue in Senator Reid's bill, notwithstanding that an overwhelming number of us on this side of the aisle believe that's good policy, and I know that some of you on your side of the aisle believe that as well.

Senator Reid has set up a process so that we can continue to look at what we know we need to look at, bringing our deficit and debt down, for which we are all responsible, my friends.

And so we confront this moment of responsibility. I believe my side of the aisle will overwhelmingly say yes, not because they like this bill, but because they believe it is a compromise that can work because it takes so much of the demands that you have made on your side of the aisle. But if you came to Congress expecting perfection, if you came to Congress expecting only that you do it your way and no other way, you will be disappointed, as all of us are disappointed, because it cannot happen that way. Our Founding Fathers brought us from many places with many perspectives to try to heal our country and provide for the general welfare.

Let us avoid default. Let us set ourselves on a path of compromise. My friends on the Republican side of the aisle, we are going to vote, for the most part, for this bill. We do not believe it's perfect, but we believe it's possible. America expects us to do that.

The summer soldiers and the sunshine patriots will retreat at this time of crisis. Do not do that.

I yield back the balance of my time.