Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 627) to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays, and for other purposes.

Yes, I do.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Robert Greenstein, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says that if enacted, the Boehner bill could well produce the greatest poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern history.

Center on Budget

and Policy Priorities

July 25, 2011.

Statement: Robert Greenstein, President, on House Speaker Boehner's New

Budget Proposal

The plan is, thus, tantamount to a form of ``class

warfare.'' If enacted, it could well produce the greatest

increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in

modern U.S. history.

This may sound hyperbolic, but it is not. The mathematics

are inexorable.

The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary

programs of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, and it

then requires additional cuts that are large enough to

produce another $1.8 trillion in savings to be enacted by the

end of the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling

again at that time.

The Boehner plan contains no tax increases. The entire $1.8

trillion would come from budget cuts. Because the first round

of cuts will hit discretionary programs hard--through austere

discretionary caps that Congress will struggle to meet--

discretionary cuts will largely or entirely be off the table

when it comes to achieving the further $1.8 trillion in

budget reductions.

As a result, virtually all of that $1.8 trillion would come

from entitlement programs. They would have to be cut more

than $1.5 trillion in order to produce sufficient interest

savings to achieve $1.8 trillion in total savings. To secure

$1.5 trillion in entitlement savings over the next ten years

would require draconian policy changes.

Policymakers would essentially have three choices: 1) cut

Social Security and Medicare benefits heavily for current

retirees, something that all budget plans from both parties

(including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's plan)

have ruled out; 2) repeal the Affordable Care Act's coverage

expansions while retaining its measures that cut Medicare

payments and raise tax revenues, even though Republicans seek

to repeal many of those measures as well; or 3) eviscerate

the safety net for low-income children, parents, senior

citizens, and people with disabilities. There is no other

plausible way to get $1.5 trillion in entitlement cuts in the

next ten years.

The evidence for this conclusion is abundant.

The ``Gang of Six'' plan, with its very tough and

controversial entitlement cuts, contains total entitlement

reductions of $640 to $760 billion over the next ten years

not counting Social Security, and $755 billion to $875

billion including Social Security. (That's before netting out

$300 billion in entitlement costs that the plan includes for

a permanent fix to the scheduled cuts in Medicare physician

payments that Congress regularly cancels; with these costs

netted out, the Gang of Six entitlement savings come to $455

to $575 billion.)

The budget deal between President Obama and Speaker Boehner

that fell apart last Friday, which included cuts in Social

Security cost-of-living adjustments and Medicare benefits as

well as an increase in the Medicare eligibility age,

contained total entitlement cuts of $650 billion (under the

last Obama offer) to $700 billion (under the last Boehner

offer). The Ryan budget that the House passed in April

contained no savings in Social Security over the next ten

years and $279 billion in Medicare cuts.

To be sure, the House-passed Ryan budget included much

larger overall entitlement cuts over the next 10 years. But

that was largely because it eviscerated the safety net and

repealed health reform's coverage expansions. The Ryan plan

included cuts in Medicaid and health reform of a remarkable

$2.2 trillion, from severely slashing Medicaid and killing

health reform's coverage expansions. The Ryan plan also

included stunning cuts of $127 billion in the SNAP program

(formerly known as food stamps) and $126 billion in Pell

Grants and other student financial assistance.

That House Republicans would likely seek to reach the

Boehner budget's $1.8 trillion target in substantial part by

cutting programs for the poorest and most vulnerable

Americans is given strong credence by the ``Cut, Cap, and

Balance'' bill that the House recently approval. That bill

would establish global spending caps and enforce them with

across-the-board budget cuts--exempting Medicare and Social

Security from the across-the-board cuts while subjecting

programs for the poor to the across-the-board axe. This would

turn a quarter century of bipartisan budget legislation on

its head; starting with the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law,

all federal laws of the last 26 years that have set budget

targets enforced by across-the-board cuts have exempted the

core assistance programs for the poor from those cuts while

including Medicare among programs subject to the cuts. This

component of the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance'' bill strongly

suggests that, especially in the face of an approaching

election, House Republicans looking for entitlement cuts

would heavily target means-tested programs for people of

lesser means (and less political power).

In short, the Boehner plan would force policymakers to

choose among cutting the incomes and health benefits of

ordinary retirees, repealing the guts of health reform and

leaving an estimated 34 million more Americans uninsured, and

savaging the safety net for the poor. It would do so even as

it shielded all tax breaks, including the many lucrative tax

breaks for the wealthiest and most powerful individuals and

corporations.

President Obama has said that, while we must reduce looming

deficits, we must take a balanced approach. The Boehner

proposal badly fails this test of basic decency. The

President should veto the bill if it reaches his desk.

Congress should find a fairer, more decent way to avoid a

default.

At this point I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a recent New York Times editorial entitled ``The Republican Wreckage.''

[From The New York Times, July 25, 2011]

The Republican Wreckage

House Republicans have lost sight of the country's welfare.

It's hard to conclude anything else from their latest

actions, including the House speaker's dismissal of President

Obama's plea for compromise Monday night. They have largely

succeeded in their campaign to ransom America's economy for

the biggest spending cuts in a generation. They have warped

an exercise in paying off current debt into an argument about

future spending. Yet, when they win another concession, they

walk away.

This increasingly reckless game has pushed the nation to

the brink of ruinous default. The Republicans have dimmed the

futures of millions of jobless Americans, whose hopes for

work grow more out of reach as government job programs are

cut and interest rates begin to rise. They have made the

federal government a laughingstock around the globe.

In a scathing prime-time television address Monday night,

President Obama stepped off the sidelines to tell Americans

the House Republicans were threatening a ``deep economic

crisis'' that could send interest rates skyrocketing and hold

up Social Security and veterans' checks. By insisting on a

single-minded approach and refusing to negotiate, he said,

Republicans were violating the country's founding principle

of compromise.

``How can we ask a student to pay more for college before

we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower

rate than their secretaries?'' he said, invoking Ronald

Reagan's effort to make everyone pay a fair share and

pointing out that his immediate predecessors had to ask for

debt-ceiling increases under rules invented by Congress. He

urged viewers to demand compromise. ``The entire world is

watching,'' he said.

Mr. Obama denounced House Speaker John Boehner's proposal

to make cuts only, now, and raise the debt ceiling briefly,

but he embraced the proposal made over the weekend by the

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, which gave Republicans

virtually everything they said they wanted when they ignited

this artificial crisis: $2.7 trillion from government

spending over the next decade, with no revenue increases. It

is, in fact, an awful plan, which cuts spending far too

deeply at a time when the government should be summoning all

its resources to solve the real economic problem of

unemployment. It asks for absolutely no sacrifice from those

who have prospered immensely as economic inequality has

grown.

Mr. Reid's proposal does at least protect Medicare,

Medicaid and Social Security. And about half of its savings

comes from the winding down of two wars, which naturally has

drawn Republican opposition. (Though Republicans counted the

same savings in their budgets.)

Mr. Boehner will not accept this as the last-ditch

surrender that it is. The speaker, who followed Mr. Obama on

TV with about five minutes of hoary talking points clearly

written before the president spoke, is insisting on a plan

that raises the debt ceiling until early next year and

demands another vote on a balanced-budget amendment, rejected

by the Senate last week. The result would be to stage this

same debate over again in an election year. Never mind that

this would almost certainly result in an immediate downgrade

of the government's credit.

We agreed strongly when Mr. Obama said Americans should be

``offended'' by this display and that they ``may have voted

for divided government but they didn't vote for a

dysfunctional government.'' It's hard not to conclude now

that dysfunction is the Republicans' goal--even if the cost

is unthinkable.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Tonko.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague, Mr. Lynch.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico didn't yield.

At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado, a former member of the Rules Committee, and we miss him, Mr. Perlmutter.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia who serves on the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I yield the gentleman 10 more seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished assistant leader.

I am the final speaker.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to solve our long- term fiscal challenges because everybody here knows that this isn't going anywhere. Instead, it's a political stunt. Instead, it hurdles us closer and

closer to a devastating default. For years, Presidents and Congresses of both parties have raised the debt ceiling, recognizing that endangering the full faith and credit of the United States would be a grave mistake.

It's amazing to me how many Republicans I've heard who dismiss the potential of default as no big deal. No big deal? Tell that to the family who would have to pay higher interest rates on their mortgage, their car loan, their student loan. It would be a very big deal to them.

Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't just stand by as we created these massive deficits. They were active participants. They voted for two huge tax cuts--mostly for wealthy people--that weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for, a massive prescription drug program that wasn't paid for, and now their solution is to punish the very Americans who can least afford it, all in the name of keeping their rich friends and their special interests happy.

The Boehner plan is unbalanced and unfair. It slashes programs like Social Security and Medicare that benefit the middle class and the poor. But the Republicans insist on protecting tax breaks for oil and gas companies. Just today, ExxonMobil announced profits of $10.7 billion for the second quarter. Do they really need special tax breaks? The American people sure don't think so.

Poll after poll shows that a vast majority of American citizens prefer a balanced approach. Yes, we need to cut spending. Yes, we need to reform our government. But everybody needs to chip in to do their part, including the very wealthy who have benefited the most.

Now, there are certainly places to save. How about ending wars that aren't paid for? Right now, we borrow $10 billion every month for military operations in Afghanistan alone, to prop up a corrupt and incompetent Karzai government.

How about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies?

How about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rates as their secretaries?

The truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal situation is to grow our economy. That means creating jobs and putting people back to work. The last election, I thought, was about jobs. We haven't talked about jobs at all since the new Republican majority came to power. That means investing in things like education and infrastructure and green technology and medical research. That's the kind of economic future the American people deserve.

The Boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong direction, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it.

[From Bloomberg, July 26, 2011]

Republican Leaders Voted for Debt Drivers They Blame on Obama

(By Lisa Lerer)

House Speaker John Boehner often attacks the spendthrift

ways of Washington.

``In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as

usual,'' the Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised

address yesterday amid debate over the U.S. debt. ``I've got

news for Washington--those days are over.''

Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House

Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch

McConnell all voted for major drivers of the nation's debt

during the past decade: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the

2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug

benefits. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief

Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the

auto industry.

Together, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News,

these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation's

accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of

$1.5 trillion.

As Congress nears votes to raise the $14.3-trillion debt

ceiling to avert a default on U.S. obligations when borrowing

authority expires on Aug. 2, both parties are attempting to

claim a mantle of fiscal responsibility. They both bear some

of the blame: Many Democrats contributed to the expenses that

are forcing lawmakers to boost the nation's debt limit, as

have Republican leaders at odds over how much borrowing

authority to hand President Barack Obama and when.

``There's plenty of blame to go around,'' for the debt,

said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord

Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that advocates

for balanced budgets. ``If there had been no Barack Obama, we

would still be bumping up against the debt limit.''

Debt Has Doubled

Since 2001, the debt has grown from $5.8 trillion.

Republicans say the long-term growth of entitlement

programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,

along with depressed tax revenues due to the worst recession

since the Great Depression, drive the current debt level.

``Blaming Bush for the structural deficits we've known

would come since the early 1990s is beyond irresponsible.''

said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Cantor.

In his address yesterday, Boehner accused Obama of going on

the ``largest spending binge in American history.''

Obama's 2011 annual budget, Republicans note, drove federal

spending to a record $3.8 trillion. Non-defense discretionary

spending also grew by 24 percent during the first two years

of the Obama administration, they say, adding $734 billion in

spending over the next 10 years.

Recession Worsened Deficit

The recession, Obama said in a televised address from the

White House yesterday, lowered revenue and required his

administration to ``spend even more'' on tax cuts,

unemployment insurance and state and local aide. ``These

emergency steps also added to the deficit,'' he said.

Some Democrats also supported the Bush administration

programs. In the Senate, Obama voted to finance the wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq and TARP. He signed legislation

extending the Bush-era tax cuts for two years in December.

``Both sides are claiming they're fiscally responsible,''

said Rudolph Penner, director of the Congressional Budget

Office under President Ronald Reagan. ``But I don't see much

difference in that regard.''

Bush Tax Cuts

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which lowered tax rates on

income, dividends and capital gains, increased the federal

budget deficit by $1.7 trillion over a decade, according to

the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan

left-of-center group in Washington that studies fiscal

policy.

The two-year extension of those tax cuts that Obama signed

will cost $857.8 billion, according to the Congressional

Joint Committee on Taxation.

Boehner has defended the tax cuts, arguing that they didn't

lead to the deficit.

``The revenue problem we have today is a result of what

happened in the economic collapse some 18 months ago,'' he

told reporters on June 10, according to The Hill newspaper.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost almost $1.3

trillion since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,

according to a March 29 analysis by the Congressional

Research Service. Operations in Iraq have cost $806 billion,

and in Afghanistan $444 billion. The analysis shows the

government has spent an additional $29 billion for enhanced

security on militia bases and $6 billion remains unallocated.

Medicare Drug Benefit

The 2003 Medicare prescription program approved by

President George W. Bush and a Republican-dominated Congress

has cost $369 billion over a 10-year time frame, less than

initially projected by Medicare actuaries.

Nine Senate Republicans, including Nebraska's Chuck Hagel,

along with 25 Republicans in the House, voted against the

bill. Hagel argued that it failed to control costs and would

add trillions in debt for future generations.

``Republicans used to believe in fiscal responsibility,''

Hagel wrote in a 2003 editorial in the Omaha World Herald.

``We have lost our way.''

TARP, the $700-billion bailout of banks, insurance and auto

companies, has cost less than expected. McConnell, Boehner,

Cantor and Ryan all voted in October 2008 for the program,

which stoked the rise of the Tea Party movement.

Many institutions have repaid the government. The latest

estimated lifetime cost of the program is $49.33 billion,

according to a June 2011 report by the Treasury Department.

That figure includes the $45.61 billion cost of a housing

program which the administration never expected to recoup.

Rank-and-file Republicans are eager to pin the blame on

Democrats, frequently pointing to the economic stimulus

signed by Obama in 2009. The total cost of the stimulus will

be $830 billion by 2019, according to a May 2011

Congressional Budget Office report.

That's half the cost of the Bush tax cuts and less than

two-thirds of what has been spent on the wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 375 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the consideration of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the Budget Control Act of 2011. It provides for 2 hours of debate, as the Reading Clerk just said. One hour is equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules. That'll be yours truly and Ms. Slaughter, and 30 minutes will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 30 minutes will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, since 1962, there have been 74 increases in the debt ceiling. At this moment, we begin what is clearly the single most historic debate on any measure that addresses increasing the debt ceiling. Why? Because for the first time we are working to get at the root cause of why it is that the debt ceiling needs to be increased.

As the debate negotiations over the looming debt ceiling limit have proceeded over the last weeks and months, people across this country are asking: How did we get to this point? How was the crisis created and how do we resolve it? As is often the case, we can't hope to reach a solution without understanding the fundamental problem.

At the very start of this process several months ago, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle advocated strongly and worked very, very hard for an increase in the debt ceiling that had no strings attached to it at all; had nothing attached to it at all. They argued that the debt ceiling had been increased 10 times over the last decade, and it was just a perfunctory legislative act that should be done without any broader debate or accompanying policy changes.

Mr. Speaker, that approach is precisely the fundamental problem. And that approach is one that has, throughout the past several decades, led to what for all intents and purposes was little more than a blind increase in the debt ceiling itself. For years and years and years, the Federal Government has spent money that it does not have, expanding the size and scope of government and its reach without regard to the long- term fiscal consequences.

When the tax dollars ran out, Mr. Speaker, it turned to borrowing voraciously. Each and every time the borrowed money ran out, the Federal Government just borrowed more. It was always clear that catastrophic consequences would ensue if the U.S. Government defaulted on its obligations. So Congress took the path of least resistance and simply raised the debt ceiling. But sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the path of least resistance is, in fact, the road to ruin.

Raising the debt ceiling, without taking measures to address the underlying issues merely put off the crisis for a short time, making it larger and more entrenched in the process. That's how we got to the point where we are today.

And that's why from the very outset Republicans have insisted that this time would be different. We refused to contemplate yet another debt ceiling increase without addressing the underlying cycle of reckless, unaccountable spending and borrowing.

Yes, we absolutely must avert the looming crisis that could force the United States Government to default and put our ailing economy into a tailspin. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot and will not do so in a way that creates an even bigger crisis down the road.

Republicans put Washington on notice that the era of unchecked spending was coming to an end at the start of this Congress with the passage of H.R. 1, which dramatically cut spending for the current fiscal year. We continued the process of imposing new levels of fiscal discipline with the passage of our budget resolution for the coming fiscal year. This measure outlined not just spending cuts but long-term reforms that would help to prevent entitlement programs from collapsing into insolvency and dragging the rest of the economy along with them.

In May of this year, at the Economic Club of New York, Speaker Boehner once again outlined the Republican agenda for creating growth and opportunity, creating jobs and opportunity for our fellow Americans through greater fiscal discipline and more rigorous accountability for the size and scope of government.

From the very start of this new majority, Mr. Speaker, and at every step of the way since, Republicans have been fighting for real solutions to the fiscal mess that the country finds itself in. We promised that we would start a new course, and it is with a great deal of pride, Mr. Speaker, that I stand here and say we have done just that.

Today's underlying legislation, this underlying measure is a dramatic stride forward in our ongoing quest. While we have steadily laid the groundwork over the last 6 months, this plan represents the single most significant, most fundamental reform to our fiscal situation in the modern era.

It makes immediate, enormous cuts in Federal spending. These cuts are greater than the corresponding increase in the debt ceiling, ensuring that action taken to avert an immediate crisis is coupled with a massive down payment on dealing with the long-term crisis.

It sets caps on spending in order to impose discipline and accountability on the process going forward. It establishes a joint select committee that will be directed to identify at least $1.8 trillion in additional cuts and guarantee an expedited vote on those cuts later this year.

This is a critical component to the long-term solution.

Mr. Speaker, you know very well that we've had countless commissions over the years that have proposed ideas for cutting deficits. Some ideas have had more merit than others, but their

merit has been immaterial because no serious proposal has been afforded congressional consideration. This measure before us ensures that Congress will address the proposals that we receive.

Now, for the last 6 months, the House of Representatives has taken a number of key steps to rein in spending and ensure greater accountability and discipline in the use of taxpayer dollars. Yet they have been held up indefinitely by our friends in the other body. Today's underlying measure would eliminate the challenge by guaranteeing a clean up-or-down vote in both Chambers of the work product that emerges from this Joint Select Committee. The entire Congress, Mr. Speaker, will have no choice but to consider real solutions. Each and every Member of the House and the Senate will have to go on record. No deficit commission, Mr. Speaker, no deficit commission, no plan, no proposal that has come before has had that kind of guarantee, the kind of guarantee that is included in this measure that's before us.

Today's underlying measure also moves the process forward on a balanced budget amendment. Taken together, these proposals represent a radical departure from the status quo. Mr. Speaker, they fundamentally alter our Federal spending process in order not just to avert an immediate crisis but to diffuse the ticking timebomb of our $14.3 trillion national debt.

Mr. Speaker, global markets, U.S. job creators, and, most importantly, the American people are watching what we do here today. They want to see bold and credible action that restores confidence in our economy now and in the future.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, delivers that very action that the American people, that U.S. markets and the global markets are seeking. It's a plan for the short, medium, and long term. It fundamentally alters the current landscape and helps to ensure that we never get back to where we are right now, and that is, as we all know, on the brink of a fiscal and economic catastrophe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues--and I hope very much that we will be able to enjoy bipartisan support. I urge them to support both the rule that allows for consideration of this measure and the underlying legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), now in his seventh month as a Member of Congress, the Budget Committee's representative from the Committee on Rules.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

I just wanted to say it's 74 times.

Will the gentleman yield again?

I've just been informed by the staff that both the gentleman and I are wrong, Mr. Speaker. It's 75 times that this has taken place. I've just been told by the Congressional Research Service. So we're just being very modest in our assessment of it so far. But we're up to 75, as of right now.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise to simply congratulate my colleague for the success that he had last night in the Rules Committee in encouraging the Rules Committee to adopt a measure that will ensure that we would have the 3- day layover requirement in place for consideration of any balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The gentleman offered the amendment, and I'm very pleased that the Rules Committee saw fit to make it in order. I want to congratulate the gentleman.

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

Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that in both 1962 and 1983 constitutional amendments were brought up in this House under suspension of the rules. This is not at all unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the fact that we said there would in fact be, based on the gentleman's amendment, a 3-day layover requirement addressed to ensure that Members would have an opportunity to see the proposed constitutional amendment before it is voted on.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished former Rules Committee member, my very good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Tom Cole.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to another hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, my good friend from Spring Hill, Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield my friend from Spring Hill an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my very good friend from Massachusetts that, as I listen to those remarks, I am really struck by the fact that our view is that we're in this together, and I will say for the record that we care about absolutely everything that my friend said we don't care about.

We as a Nation have a challenge that needs to be addressed in a bipartisan way. The measure that is before us today is one that was-- and I underscore the word ``was''--agreed to by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, and by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. Now, I know that Senator Reid is not at this juncture supportive of this measure; but it's important to note that we need to bring about greater spending cuts.

I know that I speak for most all of my Republican colleagues when I say that this is really the beginning of a process towards reducing the size and scope and reach of government. We feel passionately about the need to expand individual initiative and opportunity in this country, and to characterize us as doing nothing but wanting to close down the government and being controlled by some outside group, Mr. Speaker, we as Republicans want to work in a bipartisan way because we recognize that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and that the Democrats have control in the United States Senate. That's why Speaker Boehner has worked diligently in pursuing the goals and the priorities that we have, but at the same time, he has recognized that we can't get it all.

No one is happy with this measure that is before us. Speaker Boehner is not happy with this measure that is before us, but he understands that we have to ensure that we don't see the Nation go over the brink and that we do, in fact, increase the debt ceiling, but his goal has been to get to the root cause.

As we've now found out, 75 times the debt ceiling has been increased since 1962. In fact, I'm told that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as

he's on his book tour, is now talking about the fact that we've seen the increase that he had to vote on in 1962. It was a $250 billion increase in the debt ceiling at that time, and it was the first of 75 increases that we've had. Never before in our history have we, Mr. Speaker, focused on getting at the root cause of why it is we have to increase the debt ceiling.

So it was a very interesting presentation that my friend just gave, but I will tell you that I want to work with him and that I want to work with other Democrats to make sure that we address this and do it for the American people.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to say to my good friend from Maine and former Rules Committee colleague that obviously we want to do everything we can to ensure that people do receive their Social Security checks.

On July 12, the President of the United States said that if we don't see an increase in the debt ceiling take place by August 2, that he can't guarantee that Social Security checks will in fact go out.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's pretty apparent that we have a proposal before us. It's a proposal that Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid worked on in good faith last weekend. Senator Reid is no longer supportive of this. But this is what was a bipartisan work product that came forward to ensure that we could increase the debt ceiling and to ensure that we would not see our Nation go into default.

So I would say to my friends who are advocating a vote against this, any Member who does vote against this is voting for us to go into default. Why? We are faced with a very, very certain time limit. It happens to be August 2.

Now, we've just gotten word that our colleagues in the other body are, upon passage of this measure here in the House of Representatives, potentially moving to table the measure in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, that will only slow down and undermine the opportunity for those people who have been on their knees in the great Rotunda of this Capitol praying to ensure that no one is denied their Social Security check, that enhances the prospect of those Social Security checks not being delivered.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I pray that we don't go into default. I pray that our Nation does not go over the edge, and I hope and pray that we are able, in a bipartisan way, to successfully address this issue.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations and one of our cardinals.

I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, not one Member of this House likes the fact that we are here today and that we're facing the issue that is before us. As we've found throughout this debate, 75 times since 1962 the United States Congress has been in a position where it's had to increase the debt ceiling. And here we are again today, dealing with a very unpopular increase in the debt ceiling because it has to be done.

Democrat and Republican alike recognize that we can't let our Nation go into default. We are the greatest Nation the world has ever known, and we can't follow the trend that we have seen in Europe of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and other countries.

But, Mr. Speaker, we're getting close. We're getting close. The President of the United States has requested that we have an increase in the debt ceiling so that our Nation doesn't default. When that request was made of Speaker Boehner, he chose to work together in a bipartisan way, recognizing that the President of the United States is a Democrat, the United States Senate is controlled by Democrats, the United States House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans.

The most recent message that was sent by the American people came last November. Last November we saw a net gain of 63 seats for the Republican Party. It had been decades and decades and decades, in fact, three-quarters of a century since we'd seen that kind of gain for the Republican Party here in the House of Representatives.

So, Mr. Speaker, the message was overwhelming. The message was, create jobs, get our economy growing, and get our fiscal house in order. And that's exactly what we're trying to do.

So as we are faced with this 76th increase in the national debt since 1962, Speaker Boehner has said we're not going to do it as it's been done the last 75 times. We are going to insist that we bring about dramatic spending cuts. In fact, we want to see spending cuts that actually exceed the level of the debt ceiling increase.

Now, it was on July 12, as we've said, that President Obama said if we don't have this increase in the debt ceiling, he couldn't, on August 3, guarantee that Social Security checks would go out. And so we have this measure before us, Mr. Speaker.

We've heard that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of the rotunda are planning to simply table this measure if it passes the House of Representatives. Now, we all learned in school how a bill becomes a law, and we know very well that one House passes a measure and the other House is to address it.

Now, we saw Cut, Cap and Balance pass the House of Representatives, and our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol chose to table it. And now the word comes that if we pass this today that they're going to choose to table it.

Well, this is the plan that is before us. It is a plan that was worked on in good faith by Speaker Boehner and the Democratic leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid. Now, I know that Senator Reid no longer supports this plan, but last weekend he did. And I believe that we have a responsibility to step up to the plate, take action, increase the debt ceiling, but do so by addressing the long-term challenges and get at the root cause of why it is we have to increase the debt ceiling.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and then the underlying legislation which will allow us to have the debt ceiling increased and ensure that our Nation does not go into default.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Thank you, Ms. Slaughter, for your generosity. And I want to thank the gentlelady from Maine for recounting the prayers of Americans. And I would ask them to continue to pray, because compromise is part of the democratic way.

But my friends on the other side did not tell you correctly why we are now involved in frivolous activity on the floor. We're not raising the debt ceiling. And the reason is there are 53 Senators in the other body that have signed a letter that said they're absolutely not going to vote for this draconian presentation. And the reason--and let me call the roll.

The reason they're not going to vote for it is because it is a short- term solution to a long-term problem. It has no revenues along with cuts. Sixty-four percent of the American people say balance it, cuts with revenues, to invest in our Nation.

Let me read the roll why Senators are not voting, the other body is not voting. Democrats recognize this is not the way to go.

You will lose your Medicare. Pell Grants will not be available for our young people. Medicaid will see in its loss seniors being put out of nursing homes. And then we'll have Social Security, our safety net, being trampled on. The loss of America's savings. The Dow went down 200 points yesterday. Just wait until under this bill we do it again and again and again, Americans will lose their shirt. The American Dream of buying a home will be lost. And all of our mobility systems, America's railroads and airports and airlines, will be jeopardized.

Pay our bills. And if we cannot pay our bills, Mr. President, use the Constitution and use the 14th Amendment if we cannot pay our bills.

To my friends on the other side of the aisle, many of us have already voted for a clean debt ceiling. We're willing to do it again. But we will not suffer the idea of a one-sided government that takes away entitlement, that caps spending that is for those who are in need and balances an amendment on the backs of those who are suffering from devastating disasters in States like Missouri, States like Alabama, with all of the flooding.

This is not the way to go. Vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Pray for America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the House Amendment to S. 627, the ``Budget Control Act of 2011,'' which, like the previous debt- ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life- changing sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share.

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

The Budget Control Act of 2011 cuts $22 billion from the Federal Budget for FY2012. Robert McIntyre, of Citizens for Tax Justice testified before the Senate Budget Committee that tax loopholes for corporations, big business owners and business investors cost the Treasury Department $365 billion dollars in FY2011.

This bill is essentially a rehashed version of the same bill that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed to reject. It asks for $917 billion in cuts from domestic spending for a $900 billion dollar increase in the debt ceiling, while demanding nothing in revenue from the nation's wealthiest. It's 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 can be hit up again for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits.

There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences!

In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of 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 percent 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 percent of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.

There is no doubt that we must reduce the national debt, but my Republican colleagues' desire for instant gratification through deep spending cuts to benefits, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is reckless and threatens the financial security of millions of Americans.

Instead of closing corporate tax loopholes to reduce the deficit, the Budget Control Act cuts discretionary spending, and requires Congress to draft proposals to cut at least $1.8 trillion from Medicare and Social Security. This is an outrage, and an insult to the American dream.

Forcing Congress to draft plans to cut 1.8 trillion from Medicare and Social Security forces Members to disregard the best interests of their constituents. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who have paid into it for their entire working lives. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February 2010.

Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion dollars. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be artificially avoided until August 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 proponents of this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to decision-making. This bill will reduce America's ability to compete with a surging China.

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

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

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. spending and investment in the housing market.

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

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

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

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

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who would be hurt by this bill. I urge my colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of Americans live 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 and Constitutional amendments, into the traditionally non- political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a bill that makes good on our debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 375, I call up the bill (S. 627) to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the measure before us.

Mr. Speaker, it's about 1\1/2\ minutes after 3 p.m. on July 28, 2011. At this moment, we begin the debate on one of the most crucial items that we have had or will have before us.

Since 1962, on 75 different occasions, the United States Congress has chosen to increase the debt ceiling to ensure that we paid our past obligations. It has been done 75 times without ever having any strings attached whatsoever.

Last November, we all know that there was an overwhelming message

that was sent by the American people to Washington, DC; and that message was, number one, create jobs, get our economy back on track, and in so doing, rein in the dramatic increase in the size and scope and reach of government that we witnessed in the past several years. We all know that in the last 4 years we've had an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending. And so the message that was sent was: That has to come to an end.

So Speaker Boehner, when asked by the President of the United States to move an increase in the debt ceiling, said that he was willing to do that. He recognized, as I believe an overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans in this institution recognize, it is absolutely essential that we increase the debt ceiling. We have to do everything that we can to ensure that Social Security checks get to those retirees. We have to make sure that the many other obligations that we have are in fact met.

And on that one issue of Social Security, we know that on July 12 the President of the United States in a speech said that if we don't see an increase in the debt ceiling by August 2, he could not guarantee that on August 3 those Social Security checks would go to our retirees. And so, Mr. Speaker, what happened was Speaker Boehner said we want to make sure that those Social Security checks get out. We want to make sure that we increase the debt ceiling so our Nation doesn't default and follow the pattern of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and other countries in the world that have gone through tremendous economic devastation.

But what the Speaker said is that, while we are going to, in increasing the debt ceiling, meet those obligations of the past, we are not going to do it the way it has been done the last 75 times. We are going to get to the root cause of why it is that we have to increase the debt ceiling, and that is the runaway spending that Democrat and Republican, alike, decries regularly. And so the Speaker said that he would increase the debt ceiling, but he wanted to ensure that we cut spending in an amount that was greater than the level of the debt ceiling increase.

And so he began discussions, recognizing that Republicans--those who won this majority last November--only controlled the United States House of Representatives. Speaker Boehner does not look at the world through rose-colored glasses. He knows that the Republicans don't control the United States Senate and he knows that he has to work with President Obama. But he does know that the last statement that was made by the American people in November of last year was we've got to have a dramatic change in the course that we have been on. And so he began negotiating. He began discussions. He began working over the past several weeks and months to try to put together a bipartisan effort so that Democrats and Republicans, alike, could come together and ensure that those Social Security checks get out and that the other obligations that we have are in fact met and that we do increase our debt ceiling.

We've all followed, and the American people are following very closely, the global markets are following closely, this debate and the discussions that are taking place. It came to a head last weekend when we know that the President of the United States had requested a 50 percent increase in the level of taxes to be increased from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion, and the Speaker of the House said that that was a nonstarter. So the Speaker said that he wanted to work with the bipartisan leadership of the United States Congress, both Houses of Congress. And so last weekend we know that Speaker Boehner and the Democratic Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid, came together and fashioned, by and large, the measure that is before us today.

Now, I'm the first to say that Harry Reid no longer supports this measure. Harry Reid has indicated that he does not support it. We have this letter from the 53 Senators. We have word that they're going to table this measure when it passes the House of Representatives. But it's important, Mr. Speaker, for everyone to recognize that what is before us today is, by and large, a measure that is not what Speaker Boehner would write if he were doing it on his own. It's a measure that is the byproduct of bipartisan discussion and, as the Speaker likes to say, the ability to find common ground.

We are, today, in a position where we face, in just a few days, the prospect of those Social Security checks not going out. And, Mr. Speaker, that's why I don't like this measure, but I'm voting for it. I'm voting for it because I want to get those Social Security checks out, I want to make sure that the United States of America does not default, and I believe that that's the responsible thing for us to do.

What we have before us in the House of Representatives is the closest thing to a bipartisan agreement. First of all, we know that, by and large, there have been no other plans put forward, but the plan that does exist--there are very few plans put forward. The plan that has been put forward by Senator Reid is one that does not enjoy bipartisan support and it was not put together in a bipartisan way. This one was, by and large, even though it does not have the support of Senator Reid any longer, was put together based on the discussions they had. I believe that this measure is deserving of strong bipartisan support here in the House of Representatives and from our colleagues in the United States Senate as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, in the name of sanity and in the name of ensuring that we maintain the solvency and the strength of the greatest nation the world has ever known, that we pass this measure and that we send it to our colleagues in the United States Senate so that they can do the same, and so that when it's placed on the desk of the President of the United States, he will have his opportunity to ensure that what he predicted as a possibility for August 3, that being that Social Security checks do not go out, will not happen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my very good friend from Maryland, the distinguished whip, that bipartisanship has been sought, and I am seeking it right now. So I hope very much that we will be in a position where we will be able to enjoy bipartisan support for this.

I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend that I believe that the majority is serious, and I believe that the Democrats are serious in their quest to ensure that we don't default. This is their opportunity to step up to the plate and make sure that it doesn't happen.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Gold River, Mr. Lungren, the hardworking chairman of the Administration Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend that he is absolutely right: if we go into default, if we don't extend the debt ceiling, we are, in fact, going to see an increase in interest rates. The fact of matter is the ratings agencies like Standard & Poor's say that we not only have to increase interest rates but we have to put into place a deficit reduction plan that will pay down our debt, and that's exactly what's happening.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to our hardworking colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlewoman from Brentwood, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I yield 2 minutes to our thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Allentown, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a good friend and Presidential candidate, the gentleman from Livonia, Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining?

In light of the disparity here, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that last November sent 87 new Republicans to the House of Representatives. To one of them, I yield 2 minutes, the very thoughtful gentleman from Newburgh, Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

At this juncture, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again as to how much time is remaining?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield for just one second, Mr. Speaker?

I would just like to ask the gentleman if he might cite where that is from, the quote of that.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the gentleman had yielded.

Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to the next Governor of Indiana, the gentleman from Columbus, Mr. Pence.

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

I would like to yield my friend an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

And will the gentleman yield to me?

I will yield the gentleman additional time if he needs it.

I just am asking my friend where in this bill he can point to where cuts in Medicare are going to take place. I've gone through it and I've not seen it.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds simply to say that there are in fact exemptions that are in this bill to ensure that Social Security and Medicare are not touched, and we need to remember that. When it comes to this sequestration process, it is not touched.

And for those who are saying that this measure will in fact bring about those cuts, they have not read the bill and are mischaracterizing it.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me say it's the sequestrations in this bill. Obviously, a bipartisan commission that comes forward----

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me say this is not a commission. Members should not refer to this as a commission, because the idea of a commission, some sort of outside entity, we're talking about our colleagues in the House and Senate who will be members of the Joint Select Committee who have a responsibility, as colleagues, to report this back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my friend this is not a committee that is empowered to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is a committee, a joint select committee, that is empowered, for the first time, to submit to both Houses of Congress recommendations that we will have an up-or-down vote on.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my very good friend from Maryland, she has just adequately, very accurately described the measure that has been proposed by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid.

With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a hardworking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining.

I would encourage my friend to proceed, and then I will offer some closing remarks.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my friend from the other side of the aisle, Mr. McGovern, talk about what has caused the problem that we're in right now, he failed to mention the failed stimulus bill. He failed to mention the failed health care bill, both horribly expensive.

But I think it's important for us to look at the facts on one of the items that he mentioned. They continue, Mr. Speaker, to engage in this class warfare, us versus them, the multibillionaires, all this sort of stuff over and over and over again.

We happen to recognize that we're all in this together, and there should, in fact, be shared sacrifice. That's why I think it's important for us to look at the facts. Let's look at the facts here.

As we continue to hear people decry the so-called Bush tax cuts, which, as we all know, are no longer Bush tax cuts, they are the Bush- Obama tax cuts. They became that last December when President Obama supported the extension of them.

Let's look at what happened with the 2003 growth-oriented tax cuts. In 2003, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government had $1.782 trillion in revenues. That was in 2003 before the growth-oriented 2003 tax cuts went into effect.

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Federal Government had a 44-percent increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, by virtue of those 2003 tax cuts. They went from $1.782 trillion to $2.567 trillion. That's a $785 billion increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury after the now Bush-Obama tax cuts were put into place. So this malarkey about the notion of those who are successful are not paying their fair share of taxes is absolutely preposterous.

Now, I want to take the time that I have remaining to shatter a few myths that are out there. First of all, we know right now that we're facing a crisis. Both Democrat and Republican alike in these remarks have made it clear that we're facing a crisis. I have yet to hear anyone--I think maybe the minority whip mentioned the Reid plan. All anyone's done on the other side of the aisle is malign the Boehner plan and mischaracterize it quite frankly, Mr. Speaker. But I think it's important to look at what it is that we face.

We know that the President of the United States said that if we don't increase the debt ceiling by August 2, on August 3, he does not know whether or not the Social Security checks will actually go out.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we all want to make sure that the Social Security checks go out. This is going to be our one opportunity to vote for a measure that will ensure that we increase the debt ceiling so that those checks will go out and, for the first time in the 75 times that the debt ceiling has been increased since 1962, we're going to get to the root cause of the problem.

In the past 4 years we've had an 82-percent increase, an 82-percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending. And guess what?

The American people last November said that has to come to an end. And you know what? It's going to come to an end when we pass this measure.

I also want to say that we know that the threat of default is out there, and if we don't take action, we know that our credit rating will be downgraded. We know that that will happen. All of the rating agencies have predicted that.

They've also said that simply increasing the debt ceiling is not adequate. We need to make sure that we get ourselves on a path that reduces the debt and reduces our deficits.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what we need to do is we need to recognize also that those agencies have said these proposals are that path. Now, there was a report that S&P had said that in fact if we didn't have $4 trillion in cuts, which I frankly wish we could, but in light of the fact that this is a bipartisan effort, we're not going to get that high, but they said that if we didn't have $4 trillion in reductions, that we would still threaten the credit rating.

Well, yesterday, Deven Sharma, the president of Standard and Poor's, testified before the Financial Services Committee and said while we must get on a path towards reducing the deficit and debt, it was inaccurate to say that it had to be a $4 trillion level. And that's why, as my friends have been quoting these different sources, I was trying to get them on record to say who, in fact, is saying this.

We have to increase the debt ceiling, and we have to get ourselves on a path that will, in fact, reduce our annual deficits and the national debt. The plan that we have before us is far from perfect. Speaker Boehner doesn't like it, I don't like it, I don't know of any Republican who likes it. But Speaker Boehner and the rest of us recognize that we have a Democratic President and we have a Democratic United States Senate. And so if we are going to increase the debt, and we are going to, for the first time ever, change the course on the issue of debt ceiling increases by cutting spending, we have to pass this measure.

It grew from this bipartisan compromise last weekend. Harry Reid no longer supports it. I've not heard anyone on the other side of the aisle say that they support it, but it was a bipartisan compromise that was the basis on which Mr. Boehner is proceeding.

Let's support this measure, Mr. Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman, my friend Mr. Dreier, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that we have two separate but equally urgent issues facing our country: raising the debt ceiling and reducing the Nation's debt. In this Congress we should make a serious effort to do both. However, after 100 years, almost, of protecting the full faith and credit of the United States by raising the debt ceiling without pause, the majority's decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage in order to push drastic cuts and place the burden of future debt reduction squarely upon the middle class. This unprecedented effort to put ideology before country has led us to the brink of default, a prospect that is all too real as we vote today.

The plan we're considering today is not the product of a bipartisan compromise. No matter how many times anybody says that, it does not make it true. We're considering a bill the majority knows will never be approved by the Senate nor signed by the President. Members of the House are being told to vote on legislation despite having no idea, no idea, what cuts are in this bill. Any Democrat who votes for this bill could be cutting Social Security or heating for low-income families and not even know it. To ask the House to vote on undisclosed cuts is a cynical waste of time.

Furthermore, the bill shrugs aside the burden of governing. It asks us to vote like a mock government that will be set up and pass the buck to a commission to make decisions for us, leaving us to simply rubberstamp what they decide. That is not why I ran or was elected to Congress, and it is an abandonment of the responsibilities we are sworn to uphold.

Today's reckless plan would put us right back in the same situation a few months from now when the atmosphere is even more politically charged by the coming election. Our economy and our markets won't have the stability they need. Credit agencies will have no choice but to downgrade the U.S. debt. This would cause interest rates to rise, effectively raising taxes for every American family.

The leaders of the majority know this and said so publicly, but they don't seem to care. In a June 13 interview with Politico, Majority Leader Cantor said, ``We feel very strongly that one of the reasons why we continue to see an ailing economy is that people have very little confidence, have very little certainty in terms of where we are headed.'' In that same interview, he was explicit that he wants a single debt ceiling vote for this Congress and not, as he said, ``a series of short-term extensions, as some have suggested.''

The following week Politico quoted Leader Cantor saying, ``If we can't make the tough decisions now, why would we be making them later? I don't see how multiple votes on a debt ceiling increase can help get us to where we want to go.'' Yet here we are today considering a bill that will require a second debt ceiling vote just 6 months from now.

Not only is this bill awful policy and a waste of our time, but the rule before us clears the way, which will come as a great surprise to Members, for a constitutional amendment that would give a simple majority the ability to cut spending, while only allowing the government to raise revenues--that is, to go after the people who are more able to pay and to get corporations to pay their own way--by having to have approval of three-fifths of the House to do that. In other words, they are sacrosanct; the poor always give.

This cut-first, think-later approach would directly harm the middle class. The amendment stacks the deck in favor of future cuts to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid while making it virtually impossible to close tax loopholes for oil companies and millionaires who own private jets.

As if this was not enough, the process by which we will vote on this amendment is a disgrace to this institution. Under today's rule the majority proposes we consider a constitutional amendment under suspension of the rules, the most closed procedure that we have. As we all should know, suspension of the rules is designed for noncontroversial legislation such as naming a post office or congratulating a winning sports team. To give a constitutional amendment the same consideration as renaming a post office is embarrassing for us and a disgrace to the dignity and tradition of the House.

In closing, today's debate is about fairness. Are we a nation that asks the most of those who have the least? It certainly appears so. Or are we a nation of shared sacrifice and fairness, a nation that asks every American to do his fair share? Today's bill turns upside-down any notion of fairness and proposes radical changes to our Constitution that would protect millionaires and special interests while making it easier than ever to take from the middle class.

For this reason I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, an expert on the Constitution, Mr. Price.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Pingree.

I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that we know very good and well where the majority stands on Social Security and Medicare because we heard the Ryan proposal, and everybody knows it in the country. Those programs are to be changed from what we have, and we're working really hard here to help them out, maybe what you would consider a temporary solution.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Let me now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, since I have extra time and didn't give him enough in the first place, I yield 2 more minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible rule. It trivializes the Constitution, endangers Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and says to the world, The United States Congress is incapable of doing its job.

The majority's risking a calamitous default on our debt, and they're doing so in the name of politics. The Republicans' ``my way or the highway'' approach is dead wrong, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing both this rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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