Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 365) to make a technical amendment to the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very tough place to put America. Not Members of Congress; we are paid to come here and do our job. But it is a very tough place to put America.

So I have a simple state of facts to present today and listen to my other colleagues, which I will, because it is a tough decision to in actuality support legislation that seems to be driven by thoughts that the only way to get something done is to hold a whole country hostage and to hold Congress hostage.

That is simply what we have.

On the brink of August 2, we are now throwing something on the floor that is arguably supposed to be helpful. I am concerned that there are nuances in this legislation that will hurt people we all care about, but it's a tough decision not to say ``yes'' to having America pay her bills. I hope, for once, that once we get past today that we will not in any way yield again to the voices of 87 Members who care nothing about America but who simply care about their way or the highway.

I am upset, and we should not do this anymore.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my views on ``The Budget Control Act of 2011,'' which, is a final hour compromise on raising our debt- ceiling. This plan differs from the previous debt-ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Those measures attempted to resolve our budget ceiling crisis on the backs of seniors, children, and the working poor. Those measures demanded sharp cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life- altering sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share. Today's compromise has arrived just in time to prevent our country from risking the financial collapse of our great nation. Yet, this bill is not perfect

In less than 24 hours our nation's clock would have run out to raise our debt limit. This final hour compromise will allow our nation to continue to operate and prevent our country from failing to meet our financial obligations. I have steadfastly stood before this body demanding a raise to our debt limit. I have spoken on the behalf of the average American by making it clear that we should not wait until the last minute.

As a country, we have been held hostage by a small fringe group of people, who were narrowly elected. In many ways this plan feels like we have been given a ransom note and now at the last minute we have limited choices, none of which are appetizing. I believe this election was not a mandate to overthrow the American government. It was a mandate to find real solutions and not temporary fixes. Waiting to the final hour, waiting to the last minute, has placed our country in a terrible dilemma. We have not been given the adequate amount of time to review this plan. I will do what is right for my constituents. So that we may live to fight another day and let there be no mistake, we will fight another day.

I believe that it is time that we all have come together to find a compromise; however, this bill does not have a perfect solution and there are areas in which I have strong reservation. This is a two phased plan. The first part of the plan includes approximately $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction through the establishment of ten-year discretionary caps. In the first two years, there would be a firewall separating security and non-security spending. Total discretionary spending in Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 will be limited to $1.o43 trillion and $1.047 trillion, respectively, about $7 billion and $3 billion below Fiscal Year 2011. The security savings would represent roughly $5 billion of the total $10 billion in reductions over this two year period.

The plan provides for debt ceiling increases in two stages. The President may request a $900 billion increase now, of which $400 billion is immediately available. This $900 billion is subject to a resolution of disapproval in both the House and Senate. The disapproval measure would be subject to Presidential Veto. Once the debt comes within $100 billion of the debt ceiling, the President may ask for at least an additional $1.2 trillion, which could rise to $1.5 trillion if a Balanced Budget Amendment is sent to the states or the Joint Committee process described below enacts more than $1.5 trillion in savings. This increase is also subject to a resolution of disapproval.

I must emphasize that I particularly have strong concerns about the formation of a Joint Committee. As I believe we should not hand over the power of these decisions of this magnitude to a handful of Members of Congress. A Joint Committee that will be given the duty of finding ways to achieve $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. I hope there will be structure and reason when these decisions are made, but again this is just a hope.

We should have been able as a body to come to this decision, and because we are at the last minute, this measure is a stop gap way to find further consensus. This Committee will be a joint, bipartisan committee, made up of 12 members, with 6 from each Chamber of Congress, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.

This Committee has been charged with finding major cuts in a short time frame with little oversight. There is the challenge where will they find $1.5 trillion in future deficit before we cut our turkeys on Thanksgiving.

I will continue to sound the alarm if programs that impact the lives and welfare of the poorest among us are cut by drastic amounts. If the Committee is successful and achieves cuts of at least $1.5 trillion, then the debt ceiling will be raised by $1.5 trillion. If the committee's bill is enacted and produces between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion, the debt ceiling limit will be raised dollar for dollar. This plan at the very least attempting to do something that I have been calling for from the very beginning, for now, protects Social Security and Medicaid, but leaves Medicare and other programs that serve the most in need amongst us.

Another portion of the agreement will provide additional time for Congress to conduct its due diligence prior to considering an amendment to the Constitution. As unlike other bills that have come before this body this plan is not contingent upon the passage of the balanced budget amendment. The amendment can now be properly considered and a vote on the measure will occur by the end of the year, which will allot about four months of additional review.

In the end, it appears that cooler heads have appeared and instead of political rhetoric we have come together to protect our nation. We must continue to work together to save the American people and do what's right for our nation. Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts 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.

Before us is an example of acting in unison to resolve our conflicts. This is the reason the American people placed us in these positions

to ensure that we act in their best interest. They have been calling for a resolution and what is before us today represents a long and at times lively debate on how best to serve the citizens of this fine country. Today, we are working under one flag and one nation; we are working in unison to ensure that every American can benefit from this debt-limit increase.

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 continue to work under one flag and one Nation to protect our economy and to our people.

We should not have waited until the final hour to come to this conclusion. I along with many colleagues demanded that we protect the interest of our Nation. Namely, reading the President to utilize his rights under the Constitution to raise the debt limit through executive order if Congress remained grid locked.

We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated 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 plan before the House today offers the compromise that the American people want, demand and need.

I will continue to fight to for 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. Finally, we arrive at a conclusion that will not result in the poorest among us bearing the majority of the costs.

I support this bill and future efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues. I will only support bills that increase jobs for average Americans. We must work together to ensure 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.

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. I have fought wholeheartedly to safeguard Pell grants and I will continue this fight. Some groups have estimated there will be a shortfall of more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2012, but again with the last minute nature of this bill, this remains unclear. There is yet another attack on students by eliminating Direct Loan Repayment incentives on all loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2012. The elimination of both of these provisions will increase the cost of loan repayment and thus the cost of college attendance. The in- school interest exemption for neither graduate nor professional students and the prohibition of financial incentives to students who repay their loans on a timely basis. We should not increase the cost of education for students.

The founders of our Nation understood the importance of advancing our Nation. For decades, we have provided free education to all minor residence of the United States from kindergarten through high school. After, having provided free education to all students until the 12th grade I recognize that financial disparities prevent many aspiring students from attaining a higher education.

I believe that the plan is a temporary solution to a long term problem. It removes, for the moment, the entire burden of resolving our debt crisis off the backs of seniors, the middle class and our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. The bill will not immediately result in dramatic reductions in safety net programs for vulnerable Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. Any major cuts to these programs would be and should be unacceptable, and each is avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder their fair share of this burden.

There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting both programs that benefit the public good and programs that provide assistance to those who are most in need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill places us between a rock and a hard place as we fight to get back on the right track. We should be focused on paying our Nation's bills and resolving our differences.

I represent the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas. In my District, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We cannot make draconian cuts to vital social services at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years.

Finally, we must come to a place where as a body we recognize that cuts to social programs do not reflect that we are still in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. There continues to be persistent unemployment. When any measure comes before this body, the first questions that must be asked is who will it help and who will it hurt.

A raise in the debt-ceiling must include assistance to small businesses which are the true job creators in our country. It must include Pell Grants that will aid students who will join the workforce of the future, by receiving an advanced education today. Just 6 months ago there were members of the Republican Party who would not sit down with us to discuss these matters and now here we are in the final hour. I have worked diligently to ensure that something was done to protect our Nation.

I ask my colleagues to look at the facts and consider what will happen to the hard-working Americans who rely on these benefits. Think of programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program, SNAP, that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011, or the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state.

These programs are needed across our nation. 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. In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. 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. Further, 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.

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.

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.

Programs like Women, Infants and Children, WIC, are targeted to help low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children to eat well and stay healthy. These programs ensure that poverty will not be a reason that a baby does not receive adequate nutrition. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Currently, one in four residents within the state of Texas is uninsured and would be in financial stress in case of a major medical emergency. The percentage of uninsured is extremely high and has become one of the greatest challenges faced by the Texas Department of Insurance and Department of Health.

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 tirelessly 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.

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 ever 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 long term 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.

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.

If we allow the United States to default 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 in the 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.

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 the minds of citizens.

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 chose to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda.

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 United States Constitution, Section Four, which states ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.'' The argument must be made that if Congress will not resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the interests of our nation must act. We should act, however, so the vulnerable are protected.

The President would have to consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling, through executive order if Congress fails to act by the August 2, 2011 deadline. If the President has to use his presidential authority, he should to avoid a collapse--but Republicans should cease the hostage- taking--and adults have to stand up for America and vote to pay America's bills.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who need the protection of an America that pays the bills. I urge my Republican 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''.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 384 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, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), the 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, after months and months of debate, we have arrived at the ultimate goal to which we are all committed: a bipartisan agreement to avert the debt ceiling crisis looming right before us. Even more importantly, we have crafted a plan that addresses the real underlying challenge of our ballooning national debt.

The bipartisan agreement before us today is an historic achievement. Mr. Speaker, this is the 76th time that we have raised the debt ceiling since 1962. Seventy-five times it has been raised. This is the 76th time. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is the very first time that we have done so while making corresponding cuts in spending that exceed the ceiling increase. To most of us, this is just good common sense. It's the only responsible thing to do. Yet 75 times before, no connection was made between the debt ceiling and efforts to tackle our debt.

With today's underlying legislation, we are fundamentally changing the way business is done here in Washington. We are setting a new precedent for fiscal discipline and accountability. This is a tremendous achievement that will have a profound and lasting impact on our budget and our economy in both the short, medium and long term. This is an especially critical point to focus on.

Today's legislation has dramatic implications for both the budget and our economy. Mr. Speaker, as you know very well, the two are inextricably linked. This is why our fiscal situation is so important. We don't need a balanced budget for the sake of a balanced budget, we need to balance our budget because job creation and economic growth depend on it.

There is a reason why the major credit agencies have said that our AAA credit rating is in jeopardy if we don't dramatically cut spending. Multitrillion-dollar deficits and a national debt that approaches 100 percent of GDP are not sustainable. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that. If we want to inspire confidence in the U.S. economy, create jobs, and restore our position as the world's most vital and dynamic economy, we absolutely must chart a new fiscal course.

The bipartisan agreement that we will consider today does just that. It makes meaningful, immediate spending cuts. It sets up a process that guarantees votes in both Chambers by Thanksgiving on an even bigger package. This will give us the time necessary to go beyond cuts to significant new reforms. That includes reforming entitlement programs to keep them solvent and ensure that they don't force us back onto a path of spiraling deficits and debt.

Mr. Speaker, by setting up this process, we can responsibly make the hard but essential choices that will restore our economy and unleash its power to create new opportunities for Americans. The underlying legislation will also impose additional automatic cuts, should Congress fail to continue on a path to real reform.

Mr. Speaker, we are all in this together, Democrat and Republican alike. We all stand to suffer tremendously if we fail to either raise the debt ceiling or take this opportunity to fundamentally change course. We will all suffer if we fail to continue the process of meaningful reform. But by coming together and enacting real reform, by remaining committed to this joint effort into the future, we can all share in the benefits of a surging economy and job market. We can't approach a challenge of this magnitude as Republicans and Democrats first, but as fellow Americans who share a commitment to our prosperity as a Nation now and into the future.

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that this is a very unique moment for us. We have the ability to come together at a time when we are faced with a deadline. That deadline, as we all know, is midnight tomorrow.

The commitment that has been made to Social Security, Medicare, our veterans, and other programs is one which we, as Republicans, clearly stand by. And I've got to say that we know that since those programs have been put into place, when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, every working American has been forced to pay into the Medicare and Social Security funds through their FICA tax. By virtue of that contract that we have, we stand here strongly committed--contrary to what many people may say--to ensuring the solvency and the strength of Social Security for today's retirees and future generations as well. And I believe that this package that we have here today, that will enjoy bipartisan support, reaffirms that exact commitment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, and I ask him to yield to me.

Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend, and I would like to have a discussion with him, if I might. I would yield an additional 30 seconds and ask him to yield to me, especially if he wants to continue.

I yielded time to my friend and then asked him to yield to me.

I will yield an additional 30 seconds, and I would hope that he would continue what he was saying in the first half of his presentation about me rather than the last half.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that it is very clear that what we have before us is in fact a bipartisan agreement to do exactly what my friend at the end of his statement was saying. We want very much to ensure that people are able to keep their homes. We want to ensure that people are able to see their businesses thrive. We want job opportunities to be created for every American.

I know my friend agrees that getting our fiscal house in order, it is going to be critically important to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would say to my friend that frankly we're in a position where 75 times since 1962 we've increased the debt ceiling without focusing on the challenge of the debt itself.

I am happy to yield to my friend from New York.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I totally associate myself

with the remarks of my very good friend from New York and say that jobs, jobs, jobs continue to be our top priority. And I believe that this legislation before us is going to go a long way towards doing just that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend for his very thoughtful statement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, that if we look back on the juxtaposition of that projected $500 billion in deficit reduction and the $1.6 trillion that we attained, we know why it is that that came about. It was gross domestic product growth. And my friend and I have been working together for many years focused on how it is that we can get our economy growing.

In so doing, I believe as we continue to focus on that, that we will be able to see benefits beyond those anticipated today when it comes to deficit reduction if we're able to generate--unfortunately, we have had 1.3 percent GDP growth reported from the last quarter. If we can get to 3, 4, 5 percent GDP growth, my friend knows very well that we're going to be in a position where we will be able to see an even greater reduction of the deficits in years to come.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank my friend for his very thoughtful remarks.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it is very interesting that as we have come together in a bipartisan way to address the crisis of increasing our debt ceiling, tackling the challenge of reducing the $14.3 trillion national debt that we have, we had this disruption in the gallery.

Now I turned around, Mr. Speaker, and looked up there, and I will tell you--I don't know if you saw the placard that they were carrying-- it had in great big letters across it, Create Jobs. Create Jobs is the message that they had. And, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we are doing, again working very diligently in a bipartisan way to ensure that we do just that.

With that, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, my good friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my fellow Angeleno that, while I've associated myself with the remarks of most of my other colleagues, I'm hard-pressed to associate myself with her remarks.

With that, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Collinsville, Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that there is a great big difference between the commissions that have been established in the past and the fact that this is a congressional committee, for the first time made up of our colleagues from the House and the Senate.

The gentlewoman is absolutely right. These outside commissions that have been there have made recommendations and they have gone virtually nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, I first yield myself 30 seconds.

I was engaging in a colloquy with my good friend from Rochester, the distinguished ranking minority member, and I would be happy to yield to her in just a moment, Mr. Speaker. But back to this issue of this joint select committee that is going to be charged with coming up with $1.5 trillion in proposed cuts, and their recommendations will be sent to both Houses of Congress for an up or down vote.

Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented, because unlike the commissions that have been put together, the Bowles-Simpson Commission, unlike this little caucus of Senators that my friend just mentioned, this Gang of Six, there is no legislative authority or power.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

There is no legislative authority or power. This time this demonstrates that Members of the House and Senate will, in fact, come together and work in a bipartisan way to ensure that we bring about meaningful spending cuts to the tune of $1.5 trillion. That's the difference that exists with this proposal that is before us.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of our diligent new members of the freshman class, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would say to my very good friend that I agree with some of the remarks that he made on doing things like eliminating agricultural subsidies. I would say to my friend from Oregon, who is still in the Chamber here and now walking off the floor, I would say to my friend that I agree with his remarks about the need for us to focus on agriculture subsidies and bringing about a reduction there.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

I would say that we are trying to work this out with a spirit of bipartisanship. My friend began his statement by saying that this was a crisis developed by Republican policies.

Since we are working in a bipartisan way, I think the notion that recognizing that an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending over the past 4 years clearly played a role in getting us exactly where we are.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another one of our hardworking new Members of Congress, the gentleman from Little Rock, Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

At this point I'm very happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my good friend from St. Joseph, Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another one of our thoughtful new Members, the gentleman from Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Speaker, let me say that your superb presiding over this House is only exceeded by the gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), and I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Clinton Township, New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

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

Mr. Speaker, 224 years ago this summer, the framers of our Constitution were in Philadelphia at Constitution Hall, and they were working very hard to put together what ended up being this inspired document authored by James Madison.

On July 16, 1787, they actually completed a compromise. It was known as the Connecticut Compromise. The Connecticut Compromise is what established a bicameral legislature--two Houses of Congress. That Connecticut Compromise was also called the Great Compromise.

I know that the word ``compromise'' is seen as a pejorative in the eyes of many, but what we have before us is a compromise. It hasn't been easy getting here. When James Madison was asked often about the first branch of government, putting together the process of lawmaking, he said that the process of lawmaking is an ugly, messy, difficult process. Over the last several months, we've seen, as we have been pursuing this day, we've seen an ugly, messy, difficult process.

I am reminded that a couple of summers ago, I was talking with this amazing woman, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. She is the first woman to ever be President of any country on the continent of Africa. She is the President of Liberia. And we were talking about the development of the parliament in Liberia through this great commission called the House Democracy Partnership that

Mr. Price and I are privileged to lead. When we talked about the ugly, messy, difficult process of lawmaking, the President looked to me and she said: Ah, David, you've forgotten one thing. Yes, it is an ugly, messy, difficult process, but it works.

So while we have so much time and energy and effort expended on partisan bickering, at the end of the day, this for me is a much, much more enjoyable time, when we are able to come together, tackling the serious problems that we as a Nation face and for the first time ever taking this issue of increasing the debt ceiling and actually dealing with the root cause of it.

I like to say that we don't have a debt ceiling problem; we have a debt problem. We have a $14.3 trillion national debt. We all know that, fingers pointed from both sides of the aisle at the other on a regular basis.

Yet today, today is a time for us to recognize that we have come together to deal with it. And, for the first time in that 75 times since 1962 that the debt ceiling has increased, we're actually going to, with the establishment of this joint select committee, see our colleagues, in a bipartisan way, from the House and Senate come together and recommend $1.5 trillion in proposed cuts. And there are mechanisms put into place, sequestration, which will actually force across-the-board cuts if they don't come up with recommendations.

So we are looking at a very, very good proposal that will help us do that. We are increasing the debt ceiling to pay our past obligations. I don't like the fact that we went through an 82 percent increase in non- defense discretionary spending over the past 4 years. Even though I voted against almost all of it, I have to say, those bills have to be paid. And that's why it is we're increasing our debt ceiling.

I want to join in extending congratulations to all those who have been involved in this process in a bipartisan way.

So I will say again, it has, over the past several months, been an ugly, messy, difficult process. But with the vote that we are about to have on this rule--and I look forward to working on the underlying legislation itself, and I'm convinced we will have a strong bipartisan vote for it--we will prove, as President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf reminded me, even though it is an ugly, messy, difficult process, it works.

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding and also for his very bold and effective leadership.

I rise in strong opposition to this unbalanced debt ceiling bill. This is an unbalanced approach. We all know that. We've heard that. Furthermore, this debt ceiling bill should have never been an option in terms of having to come to this floor to debate this and to do this. Like we have done for Democratic and Republican Presidents in the past, we should have lifted the debt ceiling.

Rightfully so, many of us are concerned about these discretionary cuts. What are these cuts going to do as it relates to our senior citizens, low income individuals and the poor? This debt ceiling bill does nothing to address the real crises in our country, the lack of jobs and economic growth. At a time when investments are needed to jump-start our economy and put people back to work, this deal and its cuts-only approach, which it is, it's the wrong approach. It's an outrage that as we stand here today that we could not raise the debt ceiling by voting for that.

I intend to vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the House passed unprecedented legislation tonight.

We passed a bill that put unprecedented limits on our President to act to protect our nation, to invest in our futures and to safeguard our poor and our vulnerable.

I opposed this bill because it fails to take a balanced approach to how we set our nation's priorities.

This bill totally fails to address the urgent and most pressing crisis in the country: the lack of jobs and economic growth. At a time when investments are needed to jump start our economy and put people back to work, I believe this deal and its cuts-only approach is the wrong approach.

Should we, as Members of Congress, closely guard our nation's tax dollars and work hard to cut waste and to make sure that every program that we fund is necessary and helps the most Americans possible?

Of course we should and I believe that we all work hard to do so.

But, let me be clear, what we have is a revenue problem.

We would not have needed to raise the debt ceiling if Republican's did not ram the Bush tax cuts down the throats of the American People.

Let me be very clear.

Tax cuts do not pay for themselves and they do not create jobs.

The Bush tax cuts created the deficits that my Republican colleagues decry and there were no new private industry jobs created during the entire Bush Administration.

Let me be crystal clear.

The Democratic Clinton Administration had higher tax rates and created millions more jobs than the Bush Republicans and we had a robust and growing economy. The Democratic Clinton Administration left George Bush a revenue surplus, which he promptly squandered and drove the economy into a ditch, twice.

We have a revenue problem.

When we do not ask the super rich and the corporations who make billions of dollars in profits off of the engine of the American economy, we will not have the funds to keep that engine running.

We must have the revenue to invest in our schools and high tech industries; we must have the funds to rebuild our nation's manufacturing base that Republicans shipped overseas, we must have the revenues to take care of our seniors and provide world class healthcare for every American, we must have the critical revenue to keep the United States the strongest, smartest and most democratic nation on earth.

We have a money problem, but it is not about how this body budgets for our nation.

The money problem is the one that plagues our politics. There is too much influence of the rich on our politics.

Despite the catastrophic failures of Republican financial policies, we are still the strongest and wealthiest nation in the world and our Treasury's debt is still the world's safest investment and continues to sell at historically low rates.

But this bill that tied our budget to the passing of debt ceiling is a huge step in the wrong direction for our nation.

Is it critical for us to prevent an unprecedented default? Of course it is.

Is it just as critical to make sure that we can meet our nation's obligations to our seniors, our children and our poor? Of course it is.

But this back room deal-making on preventing a national default is not a way forward for our nation.

We must not be making critical decisions about who and what we are as a nation while

we are held hostage to the debt ceiling and the extortionist threats of the extreme Tea Party wing of the Republican party.

This should not be the process by which we decide how we budget and set our nation's priorities into the future.

The debt ceiling plan is deeply flawed. The only thing it succeeds in doing is enacting a short-term reprieve from a catastrophic default on our debts.

It fails in almost every other way.

It fails because it is not a balanced approach that insures that we have the resources necessary to protect our most vulnerable seniors, children, the disabled and the poor.

It fails because it opens the door to deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

If fails because it does not make sure that we actually reduce the deficit.

Making cuts in federal spending during the middle of the worst economic downturn in a generation will only make the economy worse and will reduce future revenue and end up increasing long-term deficits.

This is not a sound way to reduce our deficits or our debt. The only way to reduce our deficits long-term is to invest in a strong and growing economy that creates millions of new jobs just like we did during the Clinton Administration.

The only sound long-term deficit plan is a strong jobs plan that puts Americans back to work in jobs that pay a livable wages and provide American benefits.

Finally, it fails because it undermines that proper functioning of the American democracy and restricts our ability to react to future crises and economic downturns.

Tying the hands of future Congresses is not the way to strengthen the United States. This bill will severely limit what we can do as a nation.

The Tea Party Republican's vision of America is one with a powerless government that cannot stand up to the big banks, big oil and multinational corporations that want to keep shipping U.S. jobs overseas. The Republican's vision of America is one where you are completely on your own, without access to health care, Social Security, or unemployment protections. The Republican's vision of America is one without any safeguards for clean air, clean water or access to safe and clean food and drugs.

I don't believe that this is a vision that the American people believe in.

I believe in a strong America with a functioning democracy that is able invest in the future of our nation and create jobs to grow our economy.

That is why I join my colleagues here today--because the Congressional Black Caucus is focused on helping the American people get jobs by hitting the streets during August. Across the country, from Cleveland, Miami, Atlanta, Detroit and L.A., the Congressional Black Caucus is doing both town halls and job fairs.

The Congressional Black Caucus knows that people need jobs and so the CBC is bringing employers that have jobs together with people that need jobs.

Also, the CBC is bringing in experts to run job training sessions including how to write a resume, how to interview, and how to network to improve your chances on getting a job.

We will be working hard in Washington to create jobs for the people, but we must do more which is why we have put together these events.

The town hall will give Members of the CBC a chance to interact directly with those people struggling to get a job, so that we can bring their words, their frustrations, and their worries to Washington to share with our colleagues and be the voice of our nation's most vulnerable population here in the halls of Congress.

Our nation's average unemployment rate is 9.2 percent, but for African Americans it is 16.2 percent and for Latinos it is 11.6 percent.

Worse than this drastic gap between the national average and the unemployment rate between people of color, a recent Pew Research Center study shows the drastic impact that the economic downturn has had on minority communities, pushing the wealth gap to record high numbers.

Unfortunately, the daunting statistics speak for themselves--the median wealth of white households is 20 times that of Black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households.

When I was a Member of the Financial Services Committee, my colleagues and I warned about the dangers that deregulating financial services would pose on minority communities.

I am sad to say that our fears were well founded. Unscrupulous banks and completely unregulated mortgage brokers targeted vulnerable minority communities with predatory loans and often engaged in outright fraud.

We must commit to strengthening the safeguards in place that protect consumers from unfair and predatory practices that strip our communities of what little wealth they have.

It is clear that this `recession' has been nothing short of a depression for communities of color with disproportionate loss of wealth, housing, increased unemployment and poverty rates that are on the rise.

It is time we begin to allow our economy to grow and invest in the needs of our nation's most vulnerable communities. We do this by creating jobs for the people.

The House Republicans have been in charge for well over 200 days now and have yet to bring a single jobs bill to the Floor for a vote.

I have urged Speaker Boehner for months to bring H.R. 589 The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act to the Floor for a vote.

This bill is important because those people who have been unemployed for over 99 weeks can no longer receive unemployment benefits--how are they surviving?

H.R. 589 would give 14 more weeks of benefits to those who have reached the end of their rope and are still struggling to find work.

This will stimulate our economy--they will immediately spend this money to buy the necessities of life that you and I take for granted, like food, water, shelter, and maybe some form of medical attention.

But these 99ers are not the only people facing hardship across the country. Americans want to work and Americans need to work, and Congress needs to create jobs, and since Congress is moving slow, the Congressional Black Caucus is hitting the streets in cities across the nation, bringing employers that have jobs together with people who need jobs.

I am pleased to be a part of the Congressional Black Caucus For the People Jobs Initiative, and I applaud the hard work of the CBC Members and staff, including staff across the country, who are making these events happen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 365, the Budget Control Act of 2011. It defers decisions we should make today until tomorrow. It is abjectly inadequate. It eliminates dollars from our economic infrastructure at a time when our economy is again faltering. It provides continued funding for two wars leaving the defense industrial complex untouched. It is unjust to the next generation by not taking action now to ensure the long term continued solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

When President Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that we would pay off our national debt by Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and that by 2011, the Federal Government would have a $2.3 trillion surplus. Today, we have a projected FY 2011 deficit of nearly $1.5 trillion and a massive $14.3 trillion national debt. Something happened and our nation has not faced a national debt of this magnitude since 1950.

Unmistakably, the economic recession played a role in leading us to our current predicament but I want to emphasize that this unprecedented and vast expansion in our debt has largely been the result of a series of decisions made by this body. A study conducted by the Pew Charitable Trusts, an independent, non-profit organization, concluded that new legislation enacted since January 2001 has been responsible for over two-thirds of the growth in our debt. The majority of the contributing legislation was enacted by President Bush, including his tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the war in Iraq, measures which I vehemently opposed.

As many are well aware, our debt has now grown so large that we must raise the current $14.3 trillion debt limit by tomorrow, in order to avoid defaulting on our loans. Failure to do so would be irresponsible, calling into question the full faith and credit of the United States government unduly harming every American. Should the limit not be raised, the government would have to stop, limit, or delay payments on a broad range of legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, and many other commitments. Further, financial firms estimate that default could cause interest rates on Treasury bonds to rise .006-.01% causing the cost of owning a home, filling a gas tank, sending children to college and buying a car to become even more expensive, squeezing already tight family budgets.

The need to address this crisis also brings with it an opportunity to make serious, long-lasting policy changes, providing a comprehensive solution that will put our country on the road to a strong, fiscally- sustainable economic future. However, there is no simple or painless solution to our current predicament. For example, if we eliminated the entire federal government this fiscal year--no federal courts or prisons, no border security, no care for veterans, no White House, no Congress, nothing--and only kept the Department of Defense, entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt, and did not touch taxes, our deficit for FY 2011 would still be $817 billion.

We must make substantive and balanced decisions taking our cue from recent history.

When our budget was balanced in 1969 and for four years from 1998 to 2001, tax revenues and federal spending represented around 20 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP), the overall size of the economy. Today, revenues are around 14.8 percent and spending is nearly 24.7 of GDP. These two extremes cannot continue if we are to balance the budget and provide for a sound economy for future generations.

That is why any serious proposal to reduce the deficit must be comprehensive, and address all spending programs, including domestic discretionary spending, defense spending, as well as entitlement spending, such as Social Security and Medicare, and the other half of the equation, taxes and the inequalities in the tax code.

We have already begun to take steps to reduce domestic discretionary spending. For example, as Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, I worked long and hard with my Chairman, Rodney Frelinghuysen, to reduce spending in the FY 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations Act by $2.826 billion below the FY 2010 funding level. Our subcommittee looked at each program and made a myriad of decisions, some to increase spending and some to reduce it, given the purpose and value of each program. Previously, I supported the Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, which reduced spending by $38 billion below the previous year's budget.

Our fiscal crisis, however, cannot be solved by only addressing the discretionary spending. We must also make thoughtful decisions about our entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, not only to rein in their growth but also to preserve their solvency for future generations.

There are many options that would extend the long term solvency of the Social Security program past 2036, its current estimated solvency date. For example, raising the so-called ``tax cap'' on employees would extend the solvency of the program past 2057. For 2011, Social Security taxable earnings are limited to $106,800. I do not believe that the Social Security tax rate should be raised. However, as a wage tax, I believe the Social Security tax should be paid on all wages. This would create a more equitable system without changing any benefits. If the tax is good enough for every dollar earned by someone waiting tables at a local diner or working in the mill then it is good enough for every dollar earned by someone working on Wall Street.

Similar changes can be made to Medicare to ensure its long-term solvency and its existence for future generations. For example, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is prohibited by law from negotiating drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. I believe that this law should be repealed, as it would save the federal government an estimated $156 billion over ten years and lower drug costs for seniors.

Which brings me to the most contentious side of the equation, taxes. Let me first remind my colleagues that currently, tax revenues are around 14.8 percent of GDP, the lowest it has been since 1950. But what makes our current tax code so abhorrent is not the fact that it is unsustainable, but the fact that it is disparately unequal. For example, from 2008 to 2010, 12 corporations, including Wells Fargo and General Electric, made a combined $171 billion in profits, but paid no federal corporate tax as a result of a convoluted tax code, while my constituents were paying their income taxes. Further, last year the top 25 hedge fund managers alone had combined incomes of $22 billion yet they paid a lower tax rate than a fire fighter from Crown Point, Indiana. Where is the outrage that over a tax code that allows Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate than a person risking his or her life for our safety?

At a time when our country faces its biggest financial crisis in decades, it is reprehensible that our tax code allows companies, including some of the most profitable in the nation, are able to exploit loopholes and credits in the tax code to eliminate their tax liabilities. Currently, the U.S. tax code contains over 200 tax loopholes or credits amounting to approximately $1.2 trillion in forgone revenue each year. These loopholes have the same effect on the federal budget as spending programs without being subject to the same public debate and annual evaluation as part of the appropriations process. If we are to address our growing national debt, this spending through the tax code must be reined in. All Americans and American companies should make a contribution to our shared society.

We owe it to the next generation to solve this crisis, and swiftly. As our nation remains consumed by the ongoing deficit discussion, this body continues to avoid taking action on its most basic duties. For example, funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) expired in 2007. Since then, this body has temporarily extended the Administration's authorization 20 times. Earlier this year, both the House and the Senate finally passed separate FAA reauthorization legislation. Over 100 days have passed and we have yet to take action to resolve differences between the two versions and last week, funding for the FAA expired, causing 4,000 employees to be sent home without pay, 219 construction projects to be halted and $200 million to be lost in tax revenue. I fear that this measure, which even if enacted today will mandate votes down the road and prolong our single-minded focus on the debt ceiling. I urge my colleagues to work together to compromise budget options so that we can continue the work we were sent here to do.

The key to confronting our fiscal challenge must be balancing cuts in spending and raising revenue while making the necessary investments in our nation's infrastructure and future. The road to fiscal solvency will be difficult, and tough decisions will need to be made. These decisions are not made in this bill and I am opposed to it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And every chance I get, I want to salute him for his tremendous leadership as the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, for the work he did with Mr. Clyburn in the bipartisan talks, as they strove to have what the American people want: a balanced, bipartisan, fair agreement to lift the debt ceiling and take America forward.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. What did happen, and it brings to mind the existential question, why are we here? And I would divide, as we say in legislation, I would divide that question into why are we here, and why are we here today? We are here because all of us in this body care about our country, have decided that public service is a noble pursuit, and that we have come here to make the future better for future generations. That is what our Founding Fathers visualized for America, that every generation would take responsibility to make the future better for the next.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, our Founders, in addition to writing our founding documents, the Declaration, the great Declaration, which embodies fairness in it and equality, then the Constitution, they declared independence, they fought the greatest naval power in the world, they won, they wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, making us the freest, greatest Nation in the world, founded on a principle of respect that all people are created equal. That had never been done in the history of the world.

And when they did that, as I have told you before, because I love it so much, they also created the Great Seal of the United States. And that Great Seal of the United States has on it ``Novus Ordo Seclorum,'' a new order for the centuries, for the ages, forever.

So confident were our Founders in their idea about generational responsibility, one to the next, that they were confident that our country, that what they were putting forth, would exist for the ages. For the ages. That was the challenge they gave us. That is the responsibility that we have. And for a couple of hundred years or more, that has always been the case.

Every generation has always believed that it would make the future better

for the next, for their children and for their grandchildren. We are here today because we believe that, and we believe that the public policy that we put forth, the legislation we put forth, should result in public policy that makes the future better for our children and our grandchildren. That we are committed to their education, the economic security of our families, the dignified retirement of our seniors, including my being a senior, and also safety and security of our neighborhoods and of our country, and that we would do it in a fiscally sound way that did not give our kids any bills, public or personal.

So if we believe all of that, and that's why we are here in Congress, it's hard to believe that we are putting our best foot forward with the legislation that comes before us today. I am not happy with it, but I am proud of some of the accomplishments contained in it. And that's why I am voting for it.

That takes me to the second question: Why are we here today? Why are we here today, within 24 hours of our Nation going into default, after months of conversation about how we would address the debt ceiling? Not to have future spending, but to pay our past obligations. And I won't go into it again, how we got here. But I will say that time is one of the most important commodities any of us have, the most precious, the most finite. And during that period of time, when our country could have been more productive, more optimistic, more confident in the tradition of our Founders, instead, a cloud of doubt was placed on it because of the delay, the delay, the delay in lifting the debt ceiling.

As my distinguished colleague Mr. Van Hollen said, this has never happened before. We have never, never tied the hands of a President of the United States. We never placed any doubt in the public markets as to whether this would happen. We never had people around the boardroom tables all wondering if we even knew the consequences of our inaction. But I am concerned about the boardroom table. I am more concerned also about the kitchen table.

Because this delay and uncertainty has a tremendous impact on America's families as they sit around the table and talk about how they're going to make ends meet, how they're going to pay their bills. Is Social Security going to be intact for them? Will their checks arrive this week or next week, whenever they're due? Is Medicare and Medicaid something that they can count on?

Well, after months and months and months to reach an agreement that could have been reached a long time ago--it is not so great it took so long to achieve; it could have been accomplished months ago, and at least had the merit of instilling confidence earlier, sooner, rather than at the latest possible moment. So we must make sure that we are, as we say why are we here today, that we are not here some other day to go through these motions.

That's another reason why I am supporting this bill, because the President was successful in impressing upon the Congress that we needed the full time, the 18 months so that we can have Americans' kitchen table--people sitting around that table and sitting around the boardroom table would all know that you can rely on the United States of America to meet its obligations. Okay?

Another reason to support this bill, even though there are plenty of reasons not to, is that it stops cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is the most important assignment given to the Democratic leadership going to the table: Make sure there are no cuts in benefits in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That was achieved.

Another issue of importance to us is that as we protect and defend our country, we also measure our strength in the health, education, and well-being of the American people. And so we have a 50-50 split between our expenditures for defense and our expenditures for strength defined in other ways for our country.

So these are some reasons. While those who may have the luxury of not wanting to vote for the bill, I feel a responsibility to do so. We cannot, because of certain objections in the bill--and one of the main ones is that there is not one red cent coming from America's wealthiest families, the most successful people, and God bless them for their success, and I know that they are willing to do more, but not one red cent coming to help reduce the deficit while we are willing to cut Title I education for the poorest children in America. And that's too bad for those children. It's terrible for our country.

So, again, you can make a list of things in the bill that we do not like and things that are not in the bill, like revenue, but I urge my colleagues to think about our seniors and to think about the 18 months and what that means in terms of confidence in our society and what it means also to have the 50-50 in terms of defining the strength of America.

We cannot, despite our reluctance to vote for this bill for some of us, allow America's seniors and veterans, who are depending on receiving their check from the government or their security over time-- we cannot allow our seniors and veterans to be caught in the collateral damage of the assault on the middle class that is being waged in this Congress.

This is one manifestation of making it harder for the future, for the great middle class which is, and those who aspire to it, which is the backbone of our democracy. So if we are going to honor the vows of our Founders and carry on the great legacy and tradition of their optimism, their determination, their hope for the future that we would last for ages, we would last for ages as a democracy, not an ever broadening disparity of income and equity in our country that undermines that democracy.

So, please, my colleagues, if you are on the fence about this--I certainly am and have been, even though I worked very hard to support the President in preserving what I said about no cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, about the 18 months and about the 50/50 split--please think of what could happen if we defaulted. Please, please, please come down in favor of, again, preventing the collateral damage from reaching our seniors and our veterans.

I urge you to consider voting ``yes,'' but I completely respect the hesitation that Members have about this.

Again, I want to commend our distinguished colleagues, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Clyburn, the President of the United States, and, really, those who tried to work in a bipartisan way to try to accomplish something.

Now, I hear that our Republican colleagues have said they got 98 percent of what they want in the bill. I hope that their votes will reflect that.