[Pages H54-H69]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DISAPPROVAL RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEBT LIMIT INCREASE

Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 515 and as the
designee of the majority leader, I have a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The Clerk will
report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Reed moves that the House proceed to consider the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 98) relating to the disapproval of the
President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit,
as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States
Code, on January 12, 2012.

{time} 1410

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3101A(c)(3) of title 31,
United States Code, the motion is not debatable.
The question is on the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the title of the joint
resolution.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

H.J. Res. 98

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves of the President's exercise of authority to
increase the debt limit, as exercised pursuant to the
certification under section 3101A(a) of title 31, United
States Code.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3101A(c)(4) of title 31,
United States Code, the joint resolution is considered as read, and the
previous question is considered as ordered on the joint resolution to
its passage without intervening motion except 2 hours of debate,
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reed) as the proponent and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) as
the opponent.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

General Leave

Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in
which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous
material on the subject of the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I rise today as the proud primary sponsor of
the subject resolution that is before the desk.
Madam Speaker, I'd like to start my conversation with a few numbers:
$15.2 trillion. That is the size of our national debt. We as a Nation
are borrowing at the rate of $58,000 per second. That is approximately
$45,000 for each man, woman, and child in America. This type of debt is
not sustainable.
Madam Speaker, this resolution is offered today to send a message to
the Nation and to the world that this Chamber is going to lead and not
hide. We are going to deal with the issue of the national debt once and
for all because it is time. The path that we are on is not sustainable.
It is a path of bankruptcy, it is a path that will destroy the American
Dream if we do not stand up to the plate and lead us out of this fiscal
nightmare that we now find ourselves in.

[[Page H55]]

Now, many people in this town and in this Chamber and in the Chamber
on the other side of the Capitol probably would like this issue to go
away until after the election. The problem is, is that the issue will
not go away. And even though if we don't want to deal with it
politically, we need to deal with it substantively. And my resolution
that is before this Chamber will send a message that the constant
borrowing on the backs of our children and our grandchildren must come
to an end.
I quote the words of our own President when he was Senator in the
U.S. Senate. The path that we are on is similar to the words he echoed
and stated in the U.S. Senate Chamber when he said this constant
borrowing, this national debt is a complete failure of leadership in
the White House. We need to lead, and that is what we are going to do.
So I ask for support on this resolution from all of my colleagues, to
stand with us, make the hard decisions, deal with this issue to stop
this insanity that is truly a threat to our very Nation. And also, it
is a threat to any economic recovery that our Nation hopes to enjoy in
the short term, because if we do not get the debt under control, small
business America, our entrepreneurs, the people that are going to put
Americans back to work will not have the confidence or the certainty to
invest in the American market that is going to lead to real jobs and to
deal with the problem of our unemployment once and for all.
So with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You know, there's a very basic fact--I've listened to the rhetoric--
if House Republicans prevailed on this bill, what would be the result?
Chaos. Chaos.
The House Republicans have become the ``party of chaos.'' Six months
ago, they took us to the brink of default. No one in this country liked
what they saw--or maybe a very few--not the American public at large,
surely not the markets, surely not the markets. But apparently House
Republicans did, and you're at it again.
Here we are in the first full day in the House when we're in session
this year debating a measure that would take us immediately back to the
brink of default. House Republicans are once again relying on the votes
of others to save them from themselves and to save this country from
them.
This is posturing, not legislating. This is rhetoric, not reelection.
And we've seen this movie before. 174 House Republicans voted for the
Budget Control Act that set out the structure to keep the government
functioning and address our long-term debt, but many decided to turn
tail. And on September 14, 228 House Republicans voted in favor of the
disapproval resolution to end the President's authority to pay our
bills. That is what's fiscally responsible, paying bills.
Basically, they were for it before they were against it. It's a rerun
of a bad movie when the American people clearly want us to move
forward. And unfortunately, House Republicans have turned to Washington
with the same confrontational tone they left when they nearly allowed
the payroll tax and the unemployment insurance to expire. And I want to
emphasize that, the same confrontation; instead of a spirit of seeking
common ground, essentially confrontation. And I think the American
people have said to you, enough is more than enough.
House Republicans act as if they don't already have a deadline
looming, one with vast implications for millions of American families.
That's what we should be talking about. In 6 weeks, the payroll tax cut
expires for 160 million Americans, Federal unemployment insurance
begins to end for more than 3 million people searching for work, and
access to health care becomes endangered for 46 million seniors and the
disabled.

{time} 1420

Well, last month's jobs numbers were encouraging. The private sector
created more than 200,000 jobs in December and nearly 3 million since
the recovery began. But with 13 million Americans still looking for
work, we need to do more. We should be doing everything possible,
everything possible to ensure that our recovery doesn't falter. And you
are here supporting something, if it prevailed, that would deeply
impact our economy and economic growth.
So here we are in the third week of January. And now we have a
conference committee on these issues, charged with the payroll tax cut
and unemployment insurance. But that hasn't yet happened, not for a
lack of wanting on our part. We've been ready and eager to begin.
Businesses and families that are trying to plan and budget for the year
should not have to wait until the 11th hour, once again, for certainty.
For Republicans, brinkmanship has, I'm afraid, as demonstrated today,
become the rule.
So I urge we should reject this cynical, this rigidly ideological
attempt to take us back to the brink of default. If you prevail, it
wouldn't take us back to the brink; it would throw us over.
The resolution, fortunately, is going nowhere. Its only impact will
serve to divide and distract from addressing the real needs of the
American people. So I assume--it's happened once before--a majority,
and maybe a vast majority, of the House Republicans will come down here
and essentially contradict what they helped to pass. That contradiction
isn't even good politics, and it's terrible policy.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, what I would like to say is that time has
passed since we passed the Balanced Budget Control Act. There has been
no action on the debt. We have seen nothing out of the White House as
to a plan to deal with this national crisis. And my colleague on the
other side, I will remind, that I am a conferee on that conference
committee to deal with the payroll tax rates, to deal with
unemployment, and to deal with the doc fix.
We were here at the end of December. I was here over the New Year's
break, Thursday, Friday, working on it. We are ready to do the work.
And I'm glad to hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle say
that now the House Democrats are here to do the work. We do need the
Senate to join into that conversation, and my hope is that they will
join into that conversation very soon.
But we are capable men and women in this Chamber, Madam Speaker. I am
confident that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We will deal
with the issue of the payroll tax rate. We will deal with the issue of
the unemployment. We will deal with the issue of the doc fix. But we
will not take our eye off of what is becoming one of the fundamental
issues of our generation, and that is our national debt. And that's
what this resolution speaks to and will constantly remind all of us
that we need to be diligent on this issue to get it taken care of once
and for all.
And with that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
the time and for his work on this vital issue.
I am opposed to raising the debt ceiling limit. How in the world can
we raise the debt limit when the Senate refuses to work with the House
to even pass a budget? The Senate hasn't passed one in 3 years. No one
would walk into a bank and ask for a loan without a plan on how they
would spend that money and pay it back. So why is it okay for the
Federal Government to operate that way?
It's not.
The latest increase to the debt ceiling limit allows President Obama
to borrow an additional $1.2 trillion, which brings our national debt
to $16.4 trillion, and he will likely be back at the end of the year
asking for another increase. To put that into perspective, after the
Revolutionary War, when we became a country in 1776, and after that,
many wondered if the young democracy could withstand what many at the
time considered a crushing debt. The Nation had borrowed heavily to pay
for the Revolutionary War. The debt, when the war was over, was about
$34 per American which, in today's inflation-adjusted dollars, would be
about $653. Today's debt, by contrast, is nearly 68 times that size, or
$45,000 per American. It's bad enough to borrow money like there is no
tomorrow, but to do so without even a budget in place is simply wrong.

[[Page H56]]

Today I have introduced a bill to stop this madness. The Budget
Before Borrowing Act, H.R. 3778, is a straightforward, no-gimmicks
approach to spending money. It very simply says that the Nation cannot
raise the debt ceiling limit unless the House and the Senate have
agreed on a budget resolution. This can only be waived with a vote of
two-thirds of the Members of both houses.
To conclude, I am opposed to raising the debt ceiling limit, and I
urge my colleagues to support this disapproval resolution. With our
current debt load and lack of a budget, the President has no business
asking to raise our Nation's debt at this time.
Mr. LEVIN. It's now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in firm opposition
to this resolution, a political stunt that prevents the increase in the
debt limit that this Congress has already approved.
This is a dangerous distraction from our efforts to move the country
forward, support continued economic growth, and promote job creation,
and it flies in the face of the Budget Control Act, which 174 House
Republicans voted for last summer.
In 2011, my colleagues across the aisle caused multiple self-
inflicted economic crises with the specter of defaulting on our
Nation's debt each time they played with fire regarding the debt limit.
The Republican majority simply has not learned that these kinds of
empty, partisan measures can cause immediate harm to our economy and
hurt working families everywhere.
This resolution is nothing but a deeply harmful and dangerous
charade: dangerous for Americans still struggling to find work,
dangerous for our economy that is depending on a robust and focused
recovery, and dangerous for our responsibility as a legislature, tasked
not with these grand charades of brinkmanship but of safeguarding the
well-being of our Nation.
We have already seen America's credit downgraded and have watched as
other nations have faced the worst of default. It is time to stop
holding our economy hostage to an ideological agenda. I urge my
colleagues to reject this resolution and protect the full faith and
credit of the United States of America.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, we are here today to try to prevent the national debt
from going up another $1.2 trillion, but in a way, it's a formality
because most everybody knows the national debt is going up $1.2
trillion. This is sad because this process is a very mixed effort to
try to curtail spending. And this power of the President to ask for a
debt increase, and then we have to get two-thirds of the Congress to
prevent this from going up, this is a creature of Congress. It's also a
creature of a mental status here in the Congress of overspending on
just everything.
It would be nice if we could blame everything on the current
administration or even the previous administration. But the crisis that
we're in has been building over a long period of time, and it's very
bipartisan. There's been way too much cooperation in this Congress
because those who like spending cooperate, and they keep spending. And
for a long time, we were able to get away with this because we were a
very wealthy country. Now we're nonproductive. The good jobs are
overseas, and yet the spending is escalating exponentially.
We're really not facing up to the reality that the problem is
spending. Yes, we have to deal with the debt. But the debt is a
consequence of too much spending. Where do we spend too much money? In
two places: overseas and domestically. And we need to stop the
spending.
Really, in my mind, it started about 40 years ago when there was a
guarantee that you don't have to worry about debt because we always had
somebody there to buy the debt. If we would have had a market rate of
interest where you didn't have the Federal Reserve buying the debt,
interest rates would go up and would force us to live within our means.
As long as you have a Federal Reserve there with no linkage to anything
of soundness--since 1971, the Congress has been reckless, and the
deficits have continued to grow, and the crisis that we're facing today
is an inevitable consequence.

{time} 1430

I believe we're in denial here in the Congress. If we had the vaguest
idea of how serious this crisis is financially, not only for us, but
for the world, we'd cut spending because you can't solve the problem of
debt by accumulating more debt. It's just impossible to do this.
And one other thing that I think we fail to do on both sides of the
aisle is really cut spending overseas. It is considered that if you
spend more money overseas you have more defense, and there's no truth
to that. Just spending over $1 trillion a year overseas doesn't
necessarily give you more defense. And yet nobody's willing to cut.
Some of these automatic cuts that are just supposed to be in line that
come out of the supercommittee, everybody's squirming already. How are
we going to prevent these cuts?
And this pretense that we might cut $1 trillion over the next 10
years is total pretense. We're in total denial that it's cutting
something. There's a proposed increased baseline budgeting of $10
trillion. We're going to cut $1 trillion over 10 years? That's $100
billion a year.
Our national debt is going up $100 billion a month. So it's really a
charade. But the American people know it's a charade. They're tired of
it, and they've heard about this for so long, and we need to make up
our minds. Are we going to live within the confines of the
Constitution? Cut the spending and balance the budget and get out of
this mess.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. REED. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
Mr. PAUL. But the crisis that we face, as I said, is not just
domestic because it is a worldwide crisis. And if we don't do
something, we will be forced, under very dire circumstances, because we
cannot bail out the world. We are prepared now through our Federal
Reserve to bail out all of Europe. We've been downgraded, France is
downgraded, Greece is downgraded, and we believe that all we have to do
is spend more money and inflate the currency. Believe me, we ought to
face up to reality and live within our limits.
Mr. LEVIN. It's now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished senior member of our committee, Mr. Charles Rangel of New
York.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. I was awed in listening to my friend, Congressman Paul.
He usually comes up with some farfetched ideas that I have no idea what
he's talking about. But the truth of the matter is that he is right.
America is walking down a very serious economic path that could not
only jeopardize what's left of our fiscal system, but, good or bad, the
whole world depends on our system.
And I cannot believe that a group of Americans, especially Members of
the Congress, would say that the President of the United States is not
authorized to pay off the debts that we already had. We certainly can
find a lot of agreement as to how we got there, whether it's President
Obama or Bush's tax cuts, or going to wars that the Congress never
declared, hey, all you need is a mathematician to add it up. But we got
it there and we owe the money.
Who is so less patriotic, who cares so little about our country that
you would have, in addition to the falsehoods they tell about us,
saying and we don't pay our debts either?
It's a question that you want to talk about what we do in the future
as relates to spending, but I know the debate has to deal with people
who don't pay taxes. I know the debate has to say that people are
taking unfair advantage of a Tax Code with so many loopholes in it that
the most conservative Republican has to agree it's time for a reform.
There's a broad area that we can talk about in what we're going to do
about

[[Page H57]]

wild, reckless spending. But you just don't to it by saying that I am
so angry with the President, I'm so politically involved in opposing
him that I would deny him the opportunity to do what every President
has always done, and that is to be able to tell the world that can you
count on us to pay the money that we have borrowed.
Now, being a politician myself, I know there's extreme things that we
go through, but love of our country has to be something that we believe
in. And I don't know what Republicans feel such a strong commitment to
the Tea Party, or whatever other people having parties on the other
side, that they would say that they will stop America from paying its
debts.
I don't believe it. You don't believe it. You know this is not going
to pass. But my God, I don't think we should be dictated in connection
with what foreigners think about us. There should be some dignity and
pride in saying if we make mistakes, they are our mistakes. Not
European mistakes, not foreign mistakes. And if we borrow money and we
don't like how much we borrow, that is our domestic problem.
For God's sake, don't let us fall in such partisan positions that we
are going to say that the United States of America, the leader of the
free world, we know how to borrow but we won't allow us to pay it back.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).
Mr. ROONEY. Our national debt now stands at more than $15.2 trillion.
That amount exceeds the entire U.S. economy. Washington's reckless
spending now burdens every child born in the U.S. with a $50,000 share
of the national debt. If we don't do something about it now, we will be
the first generation in American history to leave our children a nation
worse than we inherited.
Our skyrocketing debt doesn't just affect our children and their
future. It damages our economy and our unemployment rate today. It is a
drag on the economy that fuels uncertainty. It hurts our credit rating.
It slows economic growth and it prevents job creation.
When President Obama took office, he pledged to cut the deficit in
half by 2012. After 3 years in office, has he yet to introduce a
credible plan to get our deficits under control? No. Instead, under his
watch the country has hit three of the highest deficits on record. That
is unacceptable. The national debt has grown by more than 4.6 trillion
in his 3 years in office.
We can't solve our debt problems until we address the root cause of
this issue, and that is overspending here in Washington, D.C.
In the House, we passed a budget that would put our country on the
path to a balanced budget. The Senate didn't pass a budget, they didn't
take up our budget. They did nothing.
We passed nearly 1 trillion in spending cuts and we are planning to
do more this year. The Senate, as I said, has not written a budget in
nearly 1,000 days.
If your family was trying to get out of the red, you would sit down
at the table, figure out how much you're making, how much you're
spending and where you should cut back. The Senate refuses to do that.
Think about that for a second. How on earth are we supposed to get our
fiscal house in order if the Senate won't even write a budget?
Why won't the Senate do their job? One word: Politics. It is no
wonder we have a 12 percent approval rating.
It is time to cut up the credit cards here in Washington and stop
spending money we don't have. The longer we wait, the harder it will be
to fix the mess that we are in. Putting our country on a responsible
fiscal path is the only way to restart the economy and ensure our
children a prosperous future.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to
another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from the
State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Listening to this debate, you're not hearing the same thing you heard
7 months ago I'm told. But when you look away, then you say: Gee,
didn't I hear this before. Maybe that is true on both sides.
Bruce Bartlett, who was a former adviser to President Reagan and a
Treasury official in George Bush's administration, wrote about the five
myths of not paying the debt or not increasing the debt. One of them I
think bears witness today of what I have heard, the myth that it is
worth risking default on the debt to prevent a tax increase given the
weak economy. This is a Republican saying this. I'm just repeating the
words.
He says while Republicans' concerns about higher taxes are not
unreasonable--and they are not--most economists believe that any fiscal
contraction at this time would be dangerous. In fact, they note that a
large cut in spending in 1937 brought in another sharp recession.

{time} 1440

It's very easy to say that the President is the reason why we had the
plague and the tremendous deficit, but if the private sector wasn't
spending money, then we would have had 5 million more people out of
work.
The government has a responsibility when folks can't do for
themselves what we expect. That undermines the recovery of the country,
and that's what happened in the Great Depression. Republicans respond
that tax increases are especially harmful to growth; however, they made
the same argument in 1982 when President Reagan requested the largest
peacetime tax increase in American history, and again in 1993 when
President Bill Clinton asked for a large tax boost for deficit
reduction. In both cases, conservative economists' predictions of
economic disaster were completely wrong and strong economic growth
followed.
I wasn't here in '93. Many of you were here in '93. You remember what
the dire consequences of the Clinton plan were and what happened. We
had the greatest boom in 50 years. Just like the economists who told us
we were heading toward nirvana since 2001; and I don't want any part of
nirvana if that's it, and none of us do.
We're not talking here about helping the middle class; that's for
sure. We've got bailouts for them, for the other side. We know what the
results are. All of us know that. It's not a partisan issue, really.
So you're trying to say that you want to protect people's taxes, and
we want to say we've got to pay our debts. Well, we're really not 180
degrees apart. I think we need to do both. And if we don't sit down
together, we're not going to do both.
Mr. REED. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, any vote to raise the debt ceiling
should be tied to restraints on spending.
This is the voting card, America's most expensive credit card. During
my time in Congress, I voted nine times against raising the debt limit
because it was not tied to spending controls. This is another time to
say ``no.''
Last August we were hopeful that we could have gone beyond the $4
trillion mandate in the Budget Control Act, but it did not happen.
Unfortunately, the supercommittee could not come to a consensus, and
we've been drifting ever since. We are now projected to add $2.1
trillion to the national debt since August, with the President's most
recent request.
I've voted over 700 times against 2.6 trillion in spending over the
past 5 years. That's a good place to start to find the savings that we
need to get serious on debt reduction.
We need to vote ``yes'' to disapprove raising the debt limit yet
again so we can get to work to cut the spending.
Mr. LEVIN. You know, I was looking over the vote from the 1st of
August, and it's interesting to see and hear people coming forth who
voted ``aye'' on August 1 and now essentially want to repudiate that.
I now yield 3 minutes to another very distinguished active member of
our committee, James McDermott, Dr. McDermott, from the snowy State of
Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, it's been more than a year since the
Tea Party took over the House, 375 days, and in all of that time, the
Republicans have not brought one bill to the floor to help the
economy--not a single bill.
Today, after a long vacation and on the only day of legislative
business in

[[Page H58]]

the month of January, the Republicans are yet again wasting the
American people's time putting out press releases. We aren't voting to
help Americans get jobs or make education better or investing in roads
or bridges, no. Instead, the Republicans have us voting on their top
priority: to default on our country's debts. Ain't that some priority?
Today's vote is exactly why the public is disgusted with the
Congress. The hypocrisy of this vote boggles your mind. Republicans
wage unnecessary wars on our credit cards, they cut taxes on the very
rich and blow up the deficit, and now they don't want to pay for the
spending binge.
Yesterday, I got the Republican Study Committee's email outlining
their agenda for next year. I admit I subscribe. I always want to know
what folks on the other side of the aisle have come up with.
We have 14 million people unemployed. We have huge competitive
challenges with other countries. There's lots of investing that we need
to do at home. But what's the Republican program as they put it out
over the email? Nothing. They didn't have one new idea in that agenda.
All the Republicans want is more war, more deregulation on Wall Street,
and more dirty air--and no help of any kind whatsoever for the middle
class.
Madam Speaker, the Republicans are wasting the Americans' time. We
need investment, not a Republican default. They're spending their time
in South Carolina now selecting their next leader to lead into this
same Congress of ``no.'' This is the Congress of ``no'' we're watching.
They don't pay their debts. They don't have any ideas. They don't
provide any jobs. It is simply the ``no'' Congress.
Mr. REED. I'd just like to remind my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle that last time we took a vote on this issue back on the
Budget Control Act in August was a much different time than today.
Since August, we've been waiting for a plan from the other side to deal
with our national debt. We've been waiting for a plan from the White
House to deal with our national debt. Nothing has occurred.
So, Madam Speaker, there is no repudiation of our vote from August.
This is consistent with what the American people are telling us, that
we have to get our act together in Washington.
I join my colleagues on the other side. My hand is open to work hand
in hand to deal with these problems once and for all. I'm willing to
sacrifice my political life to do what needs to be done for the
American people. I just hope my friends and colleagues on the other
side of the aisle will join in that same sentiment.
Let's put politics aside. Let's deal with the substance of the day.
Let's deal with this underlying national crisis that is represented in
our national debt. You have many friends over here that are looking to
reach out hand to hand, join arm in arm to deal with this problem and
deal with the economy of our Nation once and for all. I just ask you to
jump and join us rather than fight us.
With that, I'm happy to yield to my colleague from Arizona (Mr.
Flake) for 2 minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. This vote has been called a charade. That is true; it is.
Let's face it. The President will veto this. The Senate will sustain
the veto.
Having said that, for years and years we raised the debt limit
without a discussion, let alone a vote sometimes. It would just happen
procedurally. That's wrong. At least this time we've had a discussion
back in August. I didn't favor the budget agreement that we had there.
I did not vote for it because I think, if we're going to raise the debt
ceiling, then boy, we ought to have a plan to pay down the debt or
actually deal with the deficit.
But I think we have to admit that even if the Senate had passed the
House-passed budget, the so-called Ryan budget, we would still have to
raise the debt ceiling. I don't think anybody really disputes that.
We're going to have to raise the debt ceiling again and again. But at
least let's put together a plan to deal with our deficit, and we
haven't done that.
Now, in our candid moments over here on the Republican side of the
aisle, we have to admit that we were headed toward this fiscal cliff
long before the current President took the wheel. He stepped on the
accelerator a bit, and we're going to get there a lot faster.
Having said that, this Congress seems to only take action when we're
right at that cliff, right staring off into the abyss. We can't do that
anymore. We don't know where that next cliff is. It could happen when
we have a treasury auction and have no buyers for our debt. That could
happen sooner than we might want to realize. So it behooves us now to
actually put together a plan to deal with our debt and deficit. That
plan does not exist today.

{time} 1450

So I think, for that reason, we ought to vote for this resolution and
then actually put a plan in place to deal with it rather than just
letting future generations inherit this debt.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Flake, the problem is, if you prevailed, you'd create an abyss.
Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Georgia, another active member of our committee, Mr.
Lewis.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Here we go again, Madam Speaker. Instead of working on legislation to
help create jobs, House Republicans have gathered us here for political
games. This bill is not constructive. Madam Speaker, it is destructive.
It is disruptive to the most important task we face--helping struggling
Americans get back to work and getting our economy moving again.
We've been down this road before. We fought this so-called ``battle''
last year. The debt limit is America's credit card bill, and just
because we don't like the balance doesn't mean we don't have to pay it.
It's just that simple. When you get a balance on your credit card, you
pay it. We all do it. This exercise is a waste of time and taxpayer
dollars.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's come
together and work for the good of this Nation and not partisan dissent.
The time is always right to do right.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleague on
the other side of the aisle that when you get a credit card bill that
you can no longer afford, you do pay it, but you cut it up, and you
stop the spending so you don't exacerbate the problem.
With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I stand in strong support of this resolution of
disapproval of increasing the debt ceiling another $1.2 trillion.
You've heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle, members of the
Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished former chairman, Mr.
Rangel, and others speak about why we have to raise the debt ceiling
and that it's something that has been done over the years. Certainly,
that's true. In the 9 years that I've been a Member--this being my 10th
year--I've seen it happen many times. A lot of times it has passed, as
Mr. Flake said, procedurally, and the public doesn't even know it.
Now, I rarely disagree with my friend from Arizona, but I take a
little bit of exception to what he said. He said the President has just
stepped on the accelerator a bit. I would say $4.5 trillion in 3\1/2\
years is not stepping on the accelerator just a bit, Madam Speaker;
that's putting the pedal to the metal. This has gotten so totally out
of hand that it has got to stop.
So, on our side, this is not a waste of time as the gentleman from
Washington said. We're not just pandering to the Tea Party. Listen,
we're paying attention to the conservatives in this country, who first
got my attention in 1964, and to the conscience of a conservative: to
just quit all this spending and get our fiscal house in order. We need
to do that with the cooperation on both sides of the aisle.
This resolution of disapproval, yes, it's going to fail--we
understand that--but the American people need to know that there are
Members of this Congress who are going to stand with them. Whether you
call them Tea Party or whatever and try to denigrate them, we're going
to stand with them and do the right thing. That's why I'm proud to take
the time today. Yes, it is important. It may be the most important
thing we do to finally say that

[[Page H59]]

we're not going to overspend; and then we say we're going to cut over
the next 10 years but we'll borrow over the next year $1.2 trillion. It
has got to end.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. REED. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. My colleague has yielded to me a little bit
of additional time, but I'm pretty much ready to wrap up, Madam
Speaker.
Honestly, this is what we need to do. This is what the American
public wants us to do. It's time for us to get together in a bipartisan
way to solve this, to solve Medicare, to solve Social Security.
As former Speaker Newt Gingrich said on the campaign trail just
yesterday: It's time to take Social Security off budget and have it
stand alone, not let the Congress raid the trust fund. We now owe it
$2.5 trillion. Then for the Secretary of the Treasury to say if we
don't increase the debt ceiling that seniors are not going to get their
Social Security checks, that's baloney.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to another
distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me call attention to some of the statements that have been
offered here.
Mr. Reed, the reason you were invited to the floor to manage this
time as a freshman Member of Congress is very simple. You weren't here
for the reckless ride that the Republican Party took during the 8 years
of the Bush administration. That's why you're here and the other
freshmen who have come to the floor. You weren't here for this tirade
of spending.
You said you'd cut up the credit card. So we're going to cut up the
credit card for the VA hospitals after 35,000 men and women have been
wounded serving us honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Now, look. I voted against the war in Iraq, and I voted against the
Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now a fact, not opinion: Bill Clinton
says goodbye, and there is a $5.7 trillion surplus. He balanced budgets
four times in 5 years. It has only happened five times since the end of
World War II.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is one of the few Republicans
who will come to the House with a straight face and say, Let me tell
you how we got here. He knows how we got here. Mr. Gingrey is a friend,
and he knows how we got here. You can't cut taxes by $2.3 trillion and
fight two wars and honor the commitment we have to those men and women
who have served us honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I was
against the tax cuts and while I was against the war in Iraq, I'm going
to vote for those appropriations to take care of those veterans'
hospitals. You don't cut up the credit card when they come back. You
use good judgment before you send them off.
What happened here during those 8 years with the prescription drug
benefit? What happened during those 8 years with weapons of mass
destruction? What happened with tax cuts? By the way, the corresponding
argument on those tax cuts is: Tax cuts pay for themselves? Well, guess
what. We're staring at a $15 trillion deficit and debt because of those
reckless fiscal practices that took place.
For the Republican Party to make these arguments today about this
issue--which, by the way, Mr. Flake is correct about again--is but a
charade. You meet your obligations. You pay your bills. That's what the
credit card is about and not to pontificate in front of this Chamber
today about reckless spending when, for 8 years, nobody had the courage
on that side to stand up and say enough is enough.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for the time.
Every time I go back home to Tennessee and as I hold town hall
meetings, I do hear from my constituents: Enough is enough. Stop the
madness. Let's get the Nation's fiscal house in order.
That is what the American people are demanding that we do. Just so we
all realize what the debt is, you're talking $15.2 trillion. Nearly $5
trillion, or one-third, of that debt has come onto the books in the
past 3\1/2\ years. That is the rate of acceleration by which this
administration is pushing this Nation to the brink, and that is why our
constituents are saying, ``Stop it.'' It's the reason for this vote
today: to pass a resolution of disapproval and to send our message to
the President that, look, time has long passed for you to bring forward
a plan to deal with this debt. It is your responsibility to do so for
this country, and it is your responsibility to do so for future
generations in order to make certain that our children and our
grandchildren, like my two grandchildren, don't have an increasing
share of this.

{time} 1500

This past year, a family's share of our national debt grew by
$30,000. It is time for us to realize that we have to stop the out-of-
control spending, we have to freeze this spending, and then we have to
begin to cut and remove and eliminate items that are unnecessary to the
budget. Let's reiterate our commitment to getting back on the right
track, getting our fiscal house in order, and let's reiterate this
commitment to the American people that we have hit the high-water mark
in spending, and we are going to join together in a bipartisan fashion
to make certain that we get the Federal Government's fiscal house in
order.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our
committee, the gentleman from the great State of Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on this measure. What we are dealing with today is a
smokescreen to obscure the self-inflicted crisis of confidence that has
been unfolding with our friends on the other side of the aisle over the
course of this last year.
Everybody knew that we would honor our debts that had already been
incurred, but they fogged the issue, created doubt, pushed to the
brink. And this charade today is a result of what was required to help
them get off the ledge onto which they had climbed, that risk, damaging
the credibility and creditworthiness of the United States.
The issue should be how we spend money. We need to change how we do
business, and I think, with all due respect, there are things that we
could be working on now to make some progress.
There is an opportunity to reform our tax system that is complex and
unfair. We're just finding out that Mr. Romney, worth hundreds of
millions of dollars, pays less in tax than probably the undocumented
workers who worked in his yard.
There are opportunities to deal with carried interest, with
unnecessary tax breaks that are permanent for oil and gas while
important emerging technologies like wind are in a state of limbo. And
the public agrees that the most fortunate among us should be paying a
little more. It's only fair, they can do it, it makes a difference.
We could be working together on agricultural reform to spend less
money, but target on farmers and ranchers, rather than large
agribusiness.
We should accelerate the health care reforms that started out
bipartisan and relatively noncontroversial that actually would help us
no longer spend twice as much as other developed countries for results
that aren't as good.
Instead of getting down to brass tacks, my Republican friends are
playing games like this measure. Luckily the game that they are playing
today won't crash the global economy, but it will further erode
confidence in Congress, and it delays the day that we work together on
the elements that I just described where we could get bipartisan
support, change how we do business, reduce the deficit, and give the
taxpayers more value for their dollars.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
Let's look at President Obama's record after his first 3 years.
President Obama has left us a record of debt, despair, and downgrades,
and here we are today debating whether or not President Obama is able
to go grab another $1.2 trillion that he adds to the debt of our Nation
that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay.

[[Page H60]]

The reason we were downgraded is because President Obama himself has
still refused to put a plan forward to balance the Federal budget, his
budget that he purported and pushed forth doubles the national debt in
his first 5 years. And then, of course, he becomes the first President
in the history of our Nation to have our debt rating, the debt rating
of the United States, downgraded.
You know, you look at the despair as Americans are trying to get
jobs. We're getting reports today that President Obama is going to
reject the Keystone pipeline, turning his back on 20,000 American
families who were looking for those good jobs here in America, making
us more dependent on Middle Eastern countries who don't like us.
You know, the Canadians, who are a good friend of ours, wanted to
send oil down to America. That's oil we don't have to be buying from
Middle Eastern countries. Instead, the President is going to, as we're
hearing reports of today, is going to turn his back on those 20,000
jobs. And he's going to send that oil and those jobs to China.
Now how preposterous is that? As the President is trying to rack up
more debt on the Nation's credit card, which we're debating here today,
at the same time he's turning his back and running 20,000 more jobs out
of this country. That's the record of this administration. That's what
President Obama has given us, and you wonder why we've had over 8
percent unemployment for almost every single month he's been President.
We can't afford the Obama economy. It's time for a change. We need to
reject this increase in the debt ceiling. Stop spending money that we
don't have.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to a former active member of our
committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my good friend.
Madam Speaker, I understand the Republican majority will vote today
against the President's request to raise the debt limit. To borrow a
phrase from the former Speaker of the House, can we please drop the
pious baloney?
Less than 6 months ago, 174 Republicans voted for precisely what they
are voting against today. This Republican leadership created a national
crisis and walked us to the brink of default. Then they voted for a
bill to end the crisis, but slipped in a provision allowing them to
attack the President for the decision that they now don't have the guts
to stand by.
This is not leadership, and it certainly is not governing. It's an
ideological game that has ventured well beyond the absurd.
Now, Mr. Flake, I think in a very important moment of candor, talked
about the fact that the very budget that the Republicans passed this
last year would, in fact, raise the national debt by more than $6
trillion over the next 10 years. You cannot square logically an
opposition to raising the debt ceiling when you have then voted for a
budget that does exactly that. It raises the national debt.
And with all due respect to the gentleman from New York, when he says
nothing's changed in the last 7 months--nothing has changed in the last
7 months. We agreed on something, we knew what the debt was going to
be, the deficit. We agreed to accommodate it in this way.
The only thing that has changed in the last 7 months is that the
Republicans are now trying to renege on the agreement that they made 7
months ago. That's the only thing that's changed.
The American people have been loud and clear on what they need from
this Congress: responsible investments and infrastructure; education;
and job creation. And they want everyone to share in the sacrifice for
our economic recovery, including billionaires and big oil companies.
Madam Speaker, it's time to do the work the American people have
asked us to do. They don't have time for more pious baloney.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman that what
we have done on our side of the aisle is at least we have put a plan in
writing by adopting and approving the budget. We're just looking. In
the last 7 months we've been waiting for a plan in black and white from
the White House on how we are going to get out of this national debt
crisis. Not political speeches, but in black and white so that we can
take it back to the American people and have an open and honest debate
with them as to where we're going to prioritize our spending and how
we're going to get out of this hole.
That's what we're looking for, and that's what my colleague from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) is talking about. We are at the point on this side
of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen, of saying we don't care who's at
fault. I'm at the point--Democrat, Republican, we're at $15.2 trillion,
whoever is responsible for it, I could care less.

{time} 1510

What I care about are my kids--and my grandkids, who aren't even
born, who aren't even on the face of this Earth--and getting our act
together in Washington and getting a national plan put together so we
can join arm in arm and stand with each other to deal with this issue.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to raising
the debt limit again and again and again.
Last week, I traveled across the First Congressional District of
Kansas to host seven town hall meetings. Kansans reiterated the same
thing I heard in 70 town halls last year--overspending, over-
regulation, and yes, overtaxing must end now.
Kansans are not concerned about the next election, like most in
Washington seem to be. They are worried about the next generation.
Between the first day this President took office and today, debt has
grown by $4.6 trillion. As a comparison, it took from George Washington
to Bill Clinton to build up that much debt. And now the President wants
another $1.2 trillion. But unfortunately, the real battle to prohibit
this $1.2 trillion mortgage on our children's future was lost 5 months
ago when the House passed the Budget Control Act. Since the Budget
Control Act passed, the Congress has failed to produce any cuts from
the supercommittee. We have failed to pass a balanced budget amendment.
And Senator Reid not only refuses to pass but even to consider a
budget.
However, those recent failures don't paint the picture. The culture
of overspending in Washington for the past half century has led us to
where we are today. Every President has refused to balance the budget.
Every Member of Congress who advocated for their pet projects, every
bureaucrat who practiced a use-it-or-lose-it mentality, every special
interest who came to us, everyone, they are all to blame for where we
stand today.
Our national debt is equal to our GDP. When this debt limit is
reached, every man, woman, and child in America will have their own
debt to pay to Washington of $50,000, and this doesn't take into
account the mountains of debt we face for future runaway entitlement
programs.
I look around this body, this is not about us. This is about our
children and grandchildren who will have to pay this back. Unless and
until Washington can get its grip on reckless spending and borrowing,
the future of our country will remain on the line.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise the gentleman from New
York that he has 34 minutes remaining on his side. The gentleman from
Michigan has 35\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 5 minutes
to our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer from the great State of Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, according to a new poll by The Washington Post and ABC
News, 84 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing
its job. I don't know that the other 16 percent are paying attention,
because we're not doing our job well. And this certainly is not doing
our job well. The reason it is not doing our job well is because it is
a pretense, a sham. This legislation is to pay bills that we've already
incurred. Whether, as the gentleman said, it was incurred with your
votes or whether it was incurred with our votes, we have incurred those
expenses. This is about whether America is going to pay its bills.
Nothing more, nothing less.

[[Page H61]]

Now, the previous gentleman said nobody had done anything about the
debt. In point of fact, we did do something about the debt. We put
revenue at levels commensurate with our spending. As a result, in 1997,
1998, 1999, and 2000 and 2001--in 1997 we brought the deficit down to
$25 billion, and for the next 4 years, we had a surplus. Now a couple
of those years were not real surpluses because we counted on Social
Security revenue. But two of those years were real surpluses.
This is about whether we pay our bills that we have incurred. Not
doing this would be irresponsible, and would lead, I think, to further
disrespect by the public, and properly so. One of the reasons for this
feeling by the public is that Americans are tired of political games.
This is a political game. This is a game that will say, see, I voted
against debt.
Now, let me tell you how you can vote against debt. When you cut
taxes in 2001 and 2003--and I agree with my friend, it's not about
blame. It is about learning, however. When we cut taxes in 2001 and
2003 under George Bush, we didn't pay for them. We pretended they would
pay for themselves. They didn't. Alan Greenspan says they won't. We
ought to learn from that.
Learning from that, we ought to say yes, we'll pay our debts. The
President doesn't want this money. It's not for the President; it's for
bills that we incurred in fighting two wars, in giving tax cuts
primarily to the wealthiest in America, to passing a prescription drug
program that frankly all of us now support, but we didn't pay for it.
And as a result, we got deeply into debt. And we have to get out of
that debt, and we have to show courage, wisdom, and hopefully
intellectual honesty in getting to that.
The American public is tired of seeing Republicans spending time on
votes simply because of electoral positioning. And, frankly, they'd be
tired of us doing the same thing. But that's all this is. It's so we
can say: Look what we voted for. This is not our debt, we voted against
it. But that's not responsible, and it's not honest. And I think most
of you know that.
The resolution before us today is simply another waste of time. More
than that, it undermines confidence here and around the world. Some of
that debt, of course, we owe to people around the world. It is the
essence of political gamesmanship, and does nothing to reduce the debt
or create jobs. And we spend a whole day on it. As a matter of fact,
this is the only full day we are going to spend in January debating any
issue.
Americans know that we ought to pay our bills. They know we reached a
deal in August that said both parties will work together to address our
deficits in a way that will provide certainty to our businesses,
markets, and families around the dinner table.
Agreeing to this resolution would only provide more uncertainty at a
time when our people need to see us working together on a big, balanced
deal to meet our fiscal challenges. My friend and I are both for that
effort. I am very much for that effort. But I don't pretend that not
paying the bills that we have incurred is going to solve that problem.
The only thing that's going to solve that problem is we're going to ask
everybody to contribute their fair share. Yes, we're going to have to
make some cuts. And we're going to have to make some cuts that neither
side will like, and we're going to have to raise revenues that neither
side will like.
But I will tell my friend who is waiting for his grandchildren, I
have three grandchildren now, and I have two great grandchildren, and
he's right; they are the ones who are going to have to pay this bill.
And I saw my young friend, a new Member from South Carolina, and I
can't recall his name right this second.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I saw my young friend passionate about not passing these bills along
to his children. I thought to myself, I could give that speech. But,
very frankly, I voted against cutting taxes without paying for them. I
voted against the AMT without paying for it. We paid for it when we set
the AMT. I think it needs to be fixed, and we paid for it.
I will vote ``no'' on this resolution, which comes as no surprise
after you've heard me talk, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to
do the same. Why? America is disheartened because they do not believe
we are honest in dealing with them. They believe we play political
games. They believe that we are not addressing the issues they know are
of importance and they know do not have easy, simplistic answers.
I hope Democrats who vote ``no'' are joined by a large number of
Republicans, not because you like debt, not because any of us like
debt. And, very frankly, I voted for the Clinton revenue increases in
1993, and the prediction on your side of the aisle was that it would
destroy the economy, unemployment would spike, and the deficit would
explode. None of that happened. You were wrong. All of us are wrong
from time to time. Dead wrong.

{time} 1520

As a matter of fact, we enjoyed the best economy I have seen in my
adult life in the 1990s. And we have seen the worst recession in my
life after pursuing the Bush policies for 8 years. Yes, we were in
charge for the last 2, but we couldn't change policies because the
President had the veto and a majority of the votes to sustain that veto
on this floor.
So ladies and gentlemen, let's be honest with the American people.
We've all incurred a debt. We all spent the money. We drove on the
roads, we were defended abroad, we invested in health care, research.
We all incurred these debts. We know we need to solve it. We know that
medicine will be tough. But honesty will make it easier, honesty
between ourselves, honesty with the American people, and honesty,
integrity and courage.
I hear around this country talk about Greece has a real problem. They
are 128 percent, I think, in debt; we're only at about 100 percent. If
you count our internal debt, it's less than that. But the problem that
Greece has is they don't have the resources to solve their problem.
America, the good news for us is we have the resources to solve our
problems if we have the courage and political will to do so. This vote
is a small token of showing that we have the courage, the wisdom and
the political will to do so.
We need to pay our bills. Vote ``no'' on this resolution. Show the
American people that we have courage, that we have wisdom, and we can
have the political will to make America the continuing strongest
country on the face of the Earth.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I would like to say to Mr. Hoyer that I have
a tremendous amount of respect for him as a Member of this body. And I
have joined him to support the ``Go Big'' effort.
And what I would say is, by this resolution, look at what we have
done on our side of the aisle. We have brought this conversation out of
the back rooms. We have brought the ideas and proposals that we've
heard from Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon, I believe, who talked about
comprehensive tax reform, agriculture reform on the floor of this
House, in front of the American people, in an open and honest manner.
And what we have done on our side of the aisle is to stress that these
conversations will no longer happen behind closed doors, but they will
happen on the floor of this Chamber. And I'm confident, I am confident
that when we come together like we are, like the foundation that we are
setting in our conversations, that we are going to solve this problem.
But until that solution is enacted, I will get up every day as a Member
of this House to champion the cause of getting the fiscal house of
Washington, DC in order, to get our reckless spending under control,
and get this economy going.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. And I want to
thank him for his participation in addressing this issue. And frankly,
in my opinion, he was one of the 100 signatories that we had saying
let's get a big deal, we have to get a handle on this debt. I want to
thank him. But I want to assure him as well, I've been here just a
little longer than he has, this debate

[[Page H62]]

has been going on for some period of time. This is not a new debate.
With all due respect, it's been on this floor--I've been raising this
issue for some 20 years, very frankly, others have as well on both
sides of the aisle. The debate has been going on, but as I said, we
need to summon the courage and political will to not just debate it,
but to address it and address it effectively. And I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
Mr. PALAZZO. I thank the gentleman for my time.
It's a new year, and we have a new chance to tackle some real
problems in this session of the 112th Congress, but real problems need
real solutions. We saw what was possible when the House came together
last year to pass conservative, job-creating bills and a plan to cut
$6.2 trillion in government spending and reduce deficits by $4.2
trillion over the next decade. We also saw how little got done when
Democrats in the Senate and the Obama administration consistently
ignored the wishes of the American people.
This administration has said it will continue to wage its 2012
campaign against this Congress. So instead of working with us and
encouraging the Senate to consider the numerous jobs bills we have
passed in the House, the President has chosen once again to try to
divide us and the American people.
Make no mistake, the issue of spending will be as important in this
second session of Congress as it was in the first. It remains so
because our economy has not stabilized. Government is still too large
and too many people are still looking for work. Yes, the President
inherited a bad economy, but his destructive policies have made it much
worse.
I support this resolution of disapproval of the President's debt
limit increase because shouldering future generations with trillions of
dollars in debt is not leading, it is following. So I say to the
President and leaders in the Senate, if you're ready to work together
on some very real solutions to real problems in 2012, so are we. We've
been ready.
America deserves and demands better than the short-term, drive-the-
car-off-the-cliff mentality and policies our President has given us
over this past year. And we in the House will continue to bring forth
real leadership and real solutions to the real problems facing us for
this generation and for those to come.
Before I yield, one of our colleagues mentioned something about the
Path to Prosperity, the Republican budget. He said, yes, it does
include running deficits and increasing the debt. But what he failed to
mention was it would also repeal job-killing regulations, simplify the
Tax Code, repeal the government takeover of health care, and address
the number one driver of our deficit, and that's Medicare. We call that
plan the Path to Prosperity. The President and Democrats' only
alternative has been a path to despair.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Reed, Mr. Hoyer mentioned this. You know, on Ways and Means for
years, once the Republicans gained the majority, we protested they
weren't paying for anything. So this isn't a new issue. It isn't a new
issue.
I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee
and a distinguished former member of the Ways and Means Committee, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Levin.
You know, day after day, month after month, we hear Members of
Congress--Republicans and Democrats alike--come to the floor of this
House and say we've got to do more on jobs, we've got to make sure that
we get this fragile economy moving again. Unfortunately, while we say
those things in this body, we haven't yet taken up the President's jobs
initiative that he presented to this Congress last September. We've
taken little bits and pieces here and there. We've had 2 months now in
the payroll tax cut--that's good news, I hope we can get the rest of
it--but the rest of it has been absolutely ignored. But at least people
said they wanted to focus on job creation and getting the economy
moving again.
And what's incredible about today is we have our Republican
colleagues advocating a course of action which, if we took them
seriously, would wreak absolute havoc on the economy. It would destroy
jobs throughout the economy. That's not just me saying it, that's
Republican economists, independent economists, Democratic economists.
If the United States, for the first time in its history, refused to pay
its debts, if the United States, for the first time in its history,
refused to make good on the full faith and credit of the United States,
the economy would fall to pieces, millions of people would lose their
jobs.
You know, if we want to be taken seriously we have to be serious
about the consequences of our actions. And if we take the course of
action being presented, we'd have a fiasco on our hands.
Look, the American people I think understand full well what's going
on here, but I do think it's important to make clear what the debt
ceiling does. You raise the debt ceiling in order to cover obligations
already made. If we don't lift the debt ceiling, it's as if we woke up
one morning and said, you know, we're not going to pay our mortgage, or
if you went out and purchased goods and services with a credit card and
said, hey, you know what, we're not going to pay our credit card today.
Well, you know what happens? You lose your house if you do that. The
credit card company comes after you for that. If the United States of
America was to renege on the full faith and credit of its obligations,
it would be a disaster in the international economy, and yet that is
apparently the course of action being advocated by our Republican
colleagues today.

{time} 1530

Now, what makes this really political theater is everybody knows that
more responsible Members of Congress and certainly the President of the
United States are not going to let that happen. They are not going to
allow that reckless outcome to happen. And that's why, in so many ways,
this is unfortunately just political theater; and it's one of the
things, frankly, that contributes to the American people's low view of
the Congress, this kind of political game playing.
Another thing that contributes to that is Members of Congress'
refusal to take responsibility for their own actions. Last year, we had
the Republican budget on the floor of the House. There are major
differences in the priorities between the Republican budgets and the
Democratic budgets. But the reality is the Republican budget that was
overwhelmingly voted for by our Republican colleagues would require us
to lift the debt ceiling of the United States, the very debt ceiling
that our Republican colleagues are now telling us they don't want to
increase. It would require us. It would have added $7 trillion to the
debt over the next 10 years.
How is it that people can come down and vote for a budget that says
we're going to ask the United States to take on these additional
obligations and then vote for a motion, a resolution, that refuses to
take responsibility for those very actions? And I think that's why the
American people are understandably losing much of the confidence
certainly in this House of Representatives.
Obviously, we have big challenges with respect to the deficit. Let's
get together and solve them. But as my colleague from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) said, in order to do that, we have to come to the table in the
spirit of compromise.
And we have before the country a number of approaches. We've had a
number of bipartisan commissions. We have Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-
Domenici. They have established a framework for resolving the deficit
issue. All of their frameworks say, yes, we have to make some tough
decisions on making cuts, but we also have to deal with the revenue
side of the equation. And the major obstacle--let's just be clear--to
dealing with the revenue side of the equation is we have a lot of folks
who have taken the position that you can't close one corporate tax
loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 2
minutes.

[[Page H63]]

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague from Michigan.
We have our colleagues on the Republican side taking the position of
the so-called Grover Norquist pledge, a pledge to Grover Norquist's
organization as opposed to the pledge we all take to do our best to
uphold the Constitution of the United States. And under that pledge, if
you close a corporate tax loophole for the purpose of deficit
reduction, you have violated your pledge. If you say, ``You know what?
Gas prices are doing really well. Oil companies are doing just great.
We don't think they need a taxpayer subsidy. We are going to get rid of
it,'' you can't get rid of that if you are going to use some of that
money for deficit reduction. It's a violation of the pledge.
So, yes, let's get serious about deficit reduction. Let's take a
balanced approach. We have a bipartisan model--at least a framework--in
Simpson-Bowles. Let's be serious about that. But the reason this
process on the floor of the House today is not serious is because
everybody recognizes the United States can't afford to default on its
full faith and credit--everybody, that is, except for the folks who are
apparently going to vote to say we can't raise the debt ceiling, that
we are not going to take responsibility for paying for obligations
already due and owing, budgets already passed. What kind of message is
that to our children?
You've got to pay for your debts. But you know what? You don't really
have to; wink, wink, nod, nod. Go ahead and buy those things on your
credit card and then decide the next day you are not going to pay for
them. What a terrible message that is.
So let's take responsibility, I will say to our colleagues, for our
actions. Let's not play political games. And most of all, let's not
follow the advice that our Republican colleagues today are recommending
which would undoubtedly, if taken seriously, result in economic chaos
and a huge loss of jobs.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).
Ms. BUERKLE. I thank my colleague from New York.
You know, we prepare our remarks to come down here and speak, but as
I listen to my colleagues across the aisle, I just have to comment on a
couple of things here today. First and foremost, this is not a
Democratic or a Republican issue. The debt that this Nation faces is
not partisan. It's an American issue. We need to join together and
figure out a path forward. And to hear my colleagues across the aisle
demagogue our Republican budget--well, I challenge the Senate to put
forth a budget, and let's put a spending plan in place.
This debate about the debt ceiling is critical to this country
because we can't get the Senate to the table to debate a budget, so
we've got to somehow get their comments out and get to the American
people how very important it is to stop the spending.
The United States of America doesn't have a taxing problem; we have a
spending problem. And until and unless we get our spending under
control, we cannot move forward as a Nation. It isn't about taxing the
American people anymore. They are taxed enough. We need a fairer and a
flatter income tax. We need to revise our Tax Code. But, most
importantly, we need to stop the spending.
This past week, our President came out, Madam Speaker, and he talked
to us about consolidating Departments within the Federal Government,
about decreasing government, making it more efficient, and yet he comes
to us and he asks us to increase the debt ceiling. That's talking out
of both sides of your mouth, Madam Speaker. This President, I believe,
thinks that government has the answers, and he wants to give the
bureaucrats a blank check to move forward and to spend this country
into oblivion.
I came here as the mother of six children and a grandmother of 12
because I believe the best thing we can do for this country is to get
our spending under control, stop spending money that we don't have so
that the country that we give to our kids and our grandchildren is a
better place with more opportunity to achieve the American Dream.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 3 minutes to the very active gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, the course of action that is being proposed by the
Republican majority is two things: One, it's reckless and
irresponsible; and, two, it's cynical and very political.
First of all, why is it reckless and irresponsible? It is because
this country has never seriously considered defaulting on its
obligations, saying ``no'' to paying its bills. What great country
would ever seriously suggest to its citizens that it will stiff its
creditors, with all of the economic chaos that would ensue?
Also, the reason that we have to raise the debt ceiling is not so we
have permission to spend more money. It's to meet obligations that have
been incurred. Many of those obligations, incidentally, are for
expenditures that I opposed but you supported: the war in Iraq; the
extension of the Bush tax cuts; the Medicare prescription drug part D
that was never paid for; the extension of the Bush tax cuts a year ago
December when it was going to add $800 billion to the 10-year deficit,
but even then, in order to accommodate that, you wouldn't raise the
debt ceiling. So that's the irresponsible part of this proposal.
Obligations incurred are obligations that must be paid. I was against
the Iraq war. I didn't want to spend that money. Had I been here, I
would have voted against the Bush tax cuts because I thought it was bad
policy. But, as a Member of Congress, those were congressional
obligations, I believe, that we and I have an obligation to stand
behind.
But secondly, the reason I believe this is cynical and political is
two things: First, these budget requirements are ones that were
incurred, in many cases, at the advocacy of our Republican majority.
Secondly, this process that we're now doing is one that was designed to
allow people who wanted to stand up and vote ``no'' against extending
the debt ceiling the opportunity to do so so that they could claim they
were against it, even though it was designed as well to guarantee that
the debt ceiling would be raised, just putting the full burden of
making that happen on the President of the United States.

{time} 1540

I'm glad that he's willing to bear that responsibility. But I
question whether the American people are fooled by a congressional
maneuver whereby the majority is saying that we want to say no, that
we're against raising the debt ceiling, even though we've guaranteed a
process by which it will happen.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais).
Mr. DesJARLAIS. Madam Speaker, our Nation is over $15 trillion in
debt. But what does 15 trillion in debt really mean?
Well, it means that every American's share of the debt is roughly
$48,000. It means that our debt is more than our Nation's yearly Gross
Domestic Product. It means we must borrow 40 cents on every dollar we
spend. And it means that China can purchase a new F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter every 2 days with the interest we pay them.
While these facts alone should cause concern, the truly frightening
part is that there is no plan in place to prevent our debt from
continuing to grow. Increasing the debt limit by another $1.2 trillion
will mean by the end of 2012 our national debt will be in excess of $16
trillion. But worse than that, raising the debt limit sends the message
to job creators that we are still not serious about making the
necessary spending cuts and reforms to pay down this unsustainable
debt.
My constituents have given me a clear message: Make the Federal
Government live within its means. That will require us to prioritize
our spending and make tough spending decisions. But there's no other
choice. It is simply impossible to continue to run yearly trillion
dollar deficits, yet that is exactly what some in Washington want to
continue to do.
There is absolutely no doubt that if we don't change this course,
this reckless spending binge will ruin our economy and bankrupt our
Nation. That is not fair to our future generations.
We have an opportunity here today to say, enough is enough. We can be
the Congress that acts to put this great Nation back on the right
track.

[[Page H64]]

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this
disapproval resolution.
Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS of Florida. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, today I rise against the debt ceiling, and I rise in
favor of reality.
Madam Speaker, my freshman colleagues and I arrived in Washington,
D.C. from various backgrounds. Many, like me, owned their own
businesses. Others include auto dealers, funeral home directors, a
dentist, doctors, soldiers, a pilot, law enforcement officers, a
football player, a roofing contractor and others. The point is, Madam
Speaker, people who lived and worked in the real world came in as
freshman as my colleagues.
Many of that same group have been told, ``We just don't understand
how Washington works.'' The fact is, Washington doesn't work. Only in
Washington is slowing the rate of growth in spending called a cut. Only
in Washington are job creators called a myth, but bailouts are called a
stimulus.
Madam Speaker, the sad reality is that Washington doesn't work. But
what is more saddening is that it can. Our founders, in their enduring
wisdom, crafted a system of government with checks and balances.
Just because we have a President that is willing to spend our way
into further debt does not mean that this branch of government has to
go along with it. We have the ability, right here, right now, to stop
repeating the fiscal insanity that has led us to trillions in debts and
deficits.
The fact that we're even talking about raising the debt limit without
any realistic credible plan to pay off our debts shows just how
ingrained in our thinking this irresponsible spending has become. The
fact that this President wants to spend 23 to 25 percent of GDP, when
over the last 80 years this government has never come close to matching
that in revenues, regardless of tax rates, is a travesty to the
American people, our children and our grandchildren.
The fact that our friends across the Capitol can't pass a budget for
more than 1,000 days is unacceptable. The fact that we are printing
money to buy our own debt makes sense only if you got your economics
degree by passing go and collecting $200.
Madam Speaker, the entire government has a choice. We can make a
government work for the betterment of the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. REED. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. We can make Washington work for the betterment
of the American people. Will we live in the real world, prioritize
spending and yes, go without, or will we continue to play in
Congressional Candyland, the place where some say the sky is blue while
others say the sky is red, and at the last minute, a deal is declared
saying it's purple, and it's called progress.
Madam Speaker, the sky is blue, and at this time, I ask Congress and
the President to join the rest of America in the real world.
Mr. LEVIN. How many more speakers do you have, Mr. Reed?
Mr. REED. We believe we have about three or four.
Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, could I inquire as to the amount of time we
have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 23\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 17\1/4\.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to state the obvious, that the Federal
Government still spends too much and it borrows too much.
President Obama has asked the Congress to raise the debt limit by
$1.2 trillion. Let's put this number into perspective. There are 83
million families in the United States. So what the President is really
asking is for every hardworking American family to mortgage an
additional $14,450. While middle-class Americans are struggling, the
President has requested to pile more and more debt on top of
hardworking taxpayers.
Americans are tired of hoping that their lawmakers will come together
and find commonsense solutions to a very serious problem facing our
Nation. Our national debt stands at over $15 trillion. Our outstanding
debt totals 100 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. Our credit
rating has been downgraded. Medicare will be bankrupt in 9 years, and
Social Security faces insolvency.
The time for hope is past. We must act. America simply cannot wait.
We got into this mess because of a decade of budget tricks, accounting
gimmicks and empty promises. We did not get into this situation
overnight, and we certainly cannot get out of it overnight.
But the fact is, we need a commonsense budget and a Federal
Government that is efficient and effective, not one that wastes money
of hardworking taxpayers.
If we do nothing, American prosperity will drown in debt, as we are
currently on an unsustainable path of trillion per year deficits. But
if we make the hard decisions today, we can avoid the unacceptable
consequences that we will surely face.
We're all in this together, and we must find a solution together.
America never backs down from a challenge. We can and we will make the
right decisions today so that we can restore the American dream and
give our children and our grandchildren a future full of opportunity.
Therefore, I support the resolution, and call on the President to
work with the House and the Senate to put in place a budget that
guarantees a more stable and secure future for America.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me reserve so I don't have to do this each time until,
Mr. Reed, you finish, and then I'll close and then you'll close.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, you know, I'm a military pilot, and
I've been overseas and executed this Nation's wars. And I'll tell you,
one of the things I've seen firsthand is that the biggest threat to our
national security is our national debt.
This debt ceiling increase is a symptom of overspending that has
consumed Washington for far too long. President Obama's request for a
$1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit points to the serious fiscal
challenges we have found ourselves in due to decades of irresponsible
and reckless spending.
For decades, Members of Congress who continue to serve, voted to
simply raise the debt ceiling without ever offering a plan to stop the
bleeding. It wasn't until the new House majority arrived with my
freshman class when we turned the focus of conversation from how much
more to spend to how much we can cut, and we turned the conversation to
how to cut spending in Washington, D.C. We demanded that Washington
stop doing business as usual and include spending cuts greater than the
amounts raised.

{time} 1550

In June, I told President Obama head on in the weekly address that
under no circumstances will Republicans support irresponsible
legislation which increases the Federal Government's credit limit
without any spending cuts or budgetary reforms.
It's high time that we cut up the government's credit cards and draw
a hard line to stop the government from overspending, which is
hampering our economy's ability to grow and thrive.
Currently, every man, woman, and child has a share of the public debt
that exceeds $46,000 a piece. Unemployment rates are through the roof,
and the irresponsible spending habits of prior Congresses and
administrations have racked up trillions in national debt.
The culture of Washington must be reformed from the ground up. The
future of our Nation depends on it.
Mr. LEVIN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REED. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Amodei).
Mr. AMODEI. I want to thank my colleague from the Empire State.

[[Page H65]]

Recently a leader in the other House said, ``I hope this Congress has
had a very good learning experience, especially those newer to this
body.'' Essentially saying that you new people need to learn how we do
things here in Washington.
Well, as the newest Member of ``how we do things here in Washington''
for about 122 days, I can assure you that the people who gave me this
job know how we do things here, and they're tired of it.
They understand that Washington has a fatal spending problem. They
understand that the answer to every question is not more Federal
spending. That is the problem--more Federal spending. I find it
interesting to hear my colleagues from both sides of the aisle talk
about, we need to pay our bills. We need to talk about what we incur as
bills before we take more money from others.
This is not a problem that we got here by ourselves in a partisan
manner. It was in fact a bipartisan problem. But to treat the solution
as one that requires only a one-sided solution or another gets us to
this point that I find it incredible that people would talk about
wreaking havoc on the economy and also about sending the wrong message
for confidence.
For the first time in the history of this Nation, we've had our
credit rating downgraded because of what we're doing here. This is not
about whether we will pay our bills in the near future or not. This is
about having the courage to start talking about how the problem is
spending. Yes, there are loopholes, and yes there are others who may be
able to pay more. But why on Earth would you ask them to pay more into
this system of spending that we have created which is in no way
accountable to any of those folks who are paying?
So I can tell you this for those folks that are new and perhaps need
to understand how things are done here in Washington: the people who
gave me this job understand very well how things are done here in
Washington, and they're tired of it. And you know what? They're right.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
It will take me just I think 30 seconds, maybe a minute.
You know, in a few words what the Republicans in the House are doing,
they're playing with fire. And that's reckless. They know that others
will put out the fire. And we'll vote, many of us, to do that today.
And if we don't succeed, the Senate will do so.
This, I think, is worse than a charade because it really assumes that
the agenda of this Congress should essentially be a kind of a
plaything.
A number of the people who came to speak for this resolution voted in
August for the resolution that brings us here today, including, I
think, Mr. Reed.
So I think what's changed is not our responsibility, but the ability
of some to kind of have it both ways, to vote ``yes'' on the resolution
knowing that as it goes to the Senate, this potential damage to the
economy will be saved.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Levin, for
engaging in this debate today that is so important, in my opinion, to
the future of this Nation, to the future of the world, in the sense
that we need to get this issue under control once and for all.
The national debt is a serious threat to our very existence as a
nation. You don't have to take my word for it. You can take the word of
the former joint chief of staff, Admiral Mullen, who, when he was asked
by the President what is the biggest threat to our national security,
responded: Not a military threat, but the national debt. A fiscal
threat is what jeopardizes us most in regards to our national security.
When I hear that type of opinion and advice coming out of our
military leaders, I am very concerned. It should send a message across
the nation that this debt needs to be addressed. It doesn't necessarily
just need to be addressed for the purposes of the threat it represents
to our national security, but also the threat that it represents to the
economic recovery that we are trying to kindle in this city across
America.
The national debt represents a threat to that American recovery when
it comes to putting our men and women back to work because it is the
cancer that is causing concern across all of small-business America and
all across the private sector when they express that they don't have
the confidence or certainty that Washington will take care of the
problems that threaten us most. So it is time that we come up with a
hard plan.
My colleagues during this debate referenced the House budget as the
plan that was adopted here, that somehow by voting for this resolution
we contradict ourselves because we voted for that House budget because
it called for an increase in the debt ceiling. I would remind my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that budget only passed this
House. The Senate has yet to enact a budget.
It will soon be 1,000 days that the Senate of the United States of
America has not passed a budget. If we don't have a U.S. House and a
U.S. Senate committed budget that we can rely upon to solve this issue,
how can we only rely on the House budget to see us through?
This resolution today sends a message to the Senate and to the Nation
that the House of Representatives will remain committed to finding a
solution on this issue.
The second threat that it represents to our American recovery and
putting men and women back to work is if our interest rates in the
private sector, which are keyed upon the national debt and the interest
rates that are charged for our borrowing costs as a governmental
entity, if those interest rates in the private sector increase, you're
not going to have the capital to invest in small-business America or in
the private sector that is going to lead us out of this economic
turmoil that we find ourselves in, because they won't be able to afford
that capital that will build the next plant, that will build the next
assembly line or build the next retail operation that will put people
back to work.
The bottom line is this debt touches everything across America. What
we are doing with this resolution is saying we are going to deal with
it, and we are going to continue to deal with it until we get a plan in
place from the White House, from the U.S. Senate, and from the U.S.
House that deals with it once and for all and brings certainty and
competence back to the American market.
Madam Speaker, it is time to lead this Nation, not hide. It is time
to put our ideas in writing, debate them with the American people in an
open and honest fashion, and once and for all even be willing to
sacrifice our political lives to do what is right for the American
people. I am committed to doing that if it means that we will save my
children's generation and the generations yet to come. That's what
needs to be done.

{time} 1600

That's what needs to be done, and I think my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle know that. We know it on our side of the aisle, and
our hand is open to work in a bipartisan fashion. So I am glad that I
heard many comments today on the other side of the aisle showing they
are committed to that also. I am confident that when we join hands,
when we come together, we will solve this issue and that we will solve
the economic problems we face as a Nation, because together the history
of our Nation has shown that we can overcome any obstacle in America,
any threat to our existence once we unite, not divide, and put forth a
commonsense solution to our problems.
With that, Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this
resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 98, a
resolution disapproving of President Obama's exercise of authority to
increase the debt limit. We have been through this song and dance
several times before, and we have reached the same conclusion every
time. Failing to raise the debt ceiling would do irreparable damage to
our economy, our financial markets and our credit rating. We know we
must raise the debt ceiling to prevent a default on our nation's
obligations, avert an international economic crisis, and prevent
further harm from being visited upon middle class families. Why are
some around here so hopelessly slow--or is it malevolent?
With the coming of the new year, most of us hoped that Congress would
reconvene with a

[[Page H66]]

real dedication to getting our economy on track and putting Americans
back to work. Yet here we are, rehashing the same tired debate for the
third time and continuing to play the same sorry old political blame
games. It is no surprise that the approval ratings of this institution
are at record lows when the American people see us engaged in political
posturing instead of trying to deal with the problems average Americans
face every day. People across this country are hurting and are sick of
the inaction in Washington.
Instead of passing a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut,
reauthorizing our Nation's surface transportation programs or federal
aviation programs, we are faced with another symbolic vote which has no
chance of being signed into law. Why would leadership even schedule
this vote? Is it to pander to their base and score cheap political
points? Congress has plenty of items to consider which could provide a
real benefit to the American people and our country. It is time to stop
playing games and get to work, and we might just do something good for
America.
Mr. MACK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to stop
the President from increasing Washington's borrowing authority once
again. How many times do we have to say ``Enough is enough'' before
President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress get the message?
Do we have to be in a debt crisis like Europe's before we make the
necessary spending cuts? Does our country's credit rating have to be
downgraded further? Do we have to be pushed into a corner with no other
option but to eliminate programs altogether before we do what's right
for America's economic well-being? The answer is clearly ``no.'' We can
act now to avoid more painful decisions down the road. America's
freedom, security, and prosperity depend on our courage and what we do
now to restore fiscal discipline.
America can't afford to let this President continue to borrow and
spend on our nation's credit card to advance his failed liberal
policies. We need to adopt this resolution. And we need to enact the
Penny Plan--legislation I introduced to cut spending by just one penny
out of every federal dollar spent and to balance our nation's budget.
Madam Speaker, if families and businesses throughout the United
States have to make the tough decisions and cut their budgets so their
families and businesses won't be buried in debt, why can't the
government do the same for the American people? After all, tax dollars
don't belong to the government--they belong to the people who work hard
to pay their bills and make their payrolls. We, as elected officials,
must be responsible stewards of the people's money. We have been
entrusted by those who have put us here.
If we allow Washington to continue its reckless spending habits, we
will continue to lose the people's trust--and justifiably so. This is
the ``People's House.'' If we don't stand for the American people, who
do we stand for? Deficit spending must stop. Enough is enough. Let's
restore the America we know and love by getting--and keeping--our
fiscal house in order.
Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by every effort to restrain federal
spending, and I urge my colleagues to support this important
resolution.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, from the beginning of this debt debate last
summer, I rejected the notion that America's creditworthiness should be
used as a bargaining chip. Americans from all walks of life are
wondering why Congress can't do the job that they sent us here to do:
putting Americans back to work and revitalizing our economy. Now, here
we are again, only two days into the new session of Congress, and the
Republican majority is still playing political games and still trying
to have us default on our debts. This resolution may have no chance of
becoming law, but those who vote for it are nonetheless voting for
default.
I urge my colleagues to make the responsible choice: pay our bills,
and pay them on time. Instead of engaging in partisanship and
manufacturing crises, we should be coming together to fashion effective
and bipartisan solutions to the jobs crisis.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition
to H.J. Res. 98, ``Relating to the disapproval of the President's
exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted under
section 3101A of title 31, United States Code.'' This Joint Resolution
is designed to prevent President Obama from raising the debt ceiling by
$1.2 trillion. Under the agreement reached last summer, which
Republicans supported, the President was given the authority to raise
the debt ceiling. Republicans are now putting forth a resolution that
is a direct contradiction to the agreement which we all felt was the
right decision for our country.
Today we are here pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 that
this body passed last summer. In the course of our efforts numerous
concessions were made to placate Republicans just to do the business of
the American people; to pay our bills and ensure that essential
services were taken care of for the infirm, the elderly, our children--
in short: the most vulnerable in our society. This Republican led
resolution is nothing more than an attempt to obstruct the government;
the measure is expected to fail in the Senate. In the end, this measure
will be a tremendous waste of both Congressional resources and time.
The words to the resolution read as follows:
``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves of
the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as
exercised pursuant to the certification.''
These words, less than forty by my count, are an unabashed attempt to
throw cold water on the mere prospect of an economic recovery. It is
notable that some jobs have been created; however, our economy
continues to gradually recover. You would think that Congress would be
acting in a bipartisan manner, and not acting as poseurs in the
legislative picture.
I am disappointed to see that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are more interested in playing political games than improving the
economy. Congressional Republicans are attempting to constrain the
ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic,
fiscal, and job creation troubles instead of working towards a
bipartisan job creation bill.
My Republican colleagues have put forth a measure that will impact
the President's ability to raise the debt limit. This is a dangerous
stunt and amounts to political theatrics that could result in our
nation defaulting on its obligations. We are a nation that pays our
bills. We are a nation that will provide for those among us who are
unable to provide for themselves.
To address our ever-growing and complex needs, 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, under both Democrat and Republican presidents; and last year,
we were able to negotiate another compromise, and keep the country from
default. I urge my colleagues not to undermine the agreement that was
reached by attempting to block the President's ability to raise the
debt ceiling.
This Republican Congress has asked for a balanced budget amendment.
It has codified the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which
is possibly unconstitutional, and has had no impact on jobs and the
unemployment problem. This illustrates what happens when Congress does
not work together in a bipartisan manner, laboring for the American
people. We must work together and compromise.
At a time when our citizens need legislation that will fuel the
economy and drive the engine of job growth, before us is a measure that
will take us on the road to nowhere.
Our country cannot afford to take the issue of raising our nation's
debt limit lightly. It is reckless for Republicans to send confusing
signals to international markets that could jeopardize our own fragile
economic recovery.
This country has made tremendous progress, even in the face of a
cavalier attitude towards job creation and unemployment eradication on
the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Housing
starts are improving; the economy is adding jobs at a gradual,
steadied, yet consistent pace. Retail sales were up during the recent
holiday season. The American people are out there living their lives,
going about their business, and hoping that we get our act together
here in Congress.

REPUBLICAN ACCORD: BUDGET CONTROL ACT

This Joint Resolution is nothing more than a gimmick that has been
implemented by Republican leadership to divert serious discussions
about our debt limit and instead inspire partisan vitriol.

BUDGET CONTROL ACT LANGUAGE

``(a) In General.--
``(1) $900 billion.--
``(A) certification.--If, not later than December 31, 2011, the
President submits a written certification to Congress that the
President has determined that the debt subject to limit is within
$100,000,000,000 of the limit in section 3101(b) and that further
borrowing is required to meet existing commitments, the Secretary of
the Treasury may exercise authority to borrow an additional
$900,000,000,000, subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of
disapproval enacted pursuant to this section. Upon submission of such
certification, the limit on debt provided in section 3101(b) (referred
to in this section as the `debt limit') is increased by
$400,000,000,000.
``(B) Resolution of disapproval.--Congress may consider a joint
resolution of disapproval of the authority under subparagraph

[[Page H67]]

(A) as provided in subsections (b) through (f). The joint resolution of
disapproval considered under this section shall contain only the
language provided in subsection (b)(2). If the time for disapproval has
lapsed without enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval under
this section, the debt limit is increased by an additional
$500,000,000,000.
``(b) Joint Resolution of Disapproval.--
``(1) In general.--Except for the $400,000,000,000 increase in the
debt limit provided by subsection (a)(1)(A), the debt limit may not be
raised under this section if, within 50 calendar days after the date on
which Congress receives a certification described in subsection (a)(1)
or within 15 calendar days after Congress receives the certification
described in subsection (a)(2) (regardless of whether Congress is in
session), there is enacted into law a joint resolution disapproving the
President's exercise of authority with respect to such additional
amount.

AMENDMENT NOT IN ORDER

``(e) Amendment not in Order.--A joint resolution of disapproval
considered pursuant to this section shall not be subject to amendment
in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.

PAYROLL TAX CUT FACTS

For more than 360 days, the GOP House majority has failed to offer a
clear jobs agenda. Congress left Washington for the holidays without
extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, for the entire
year, an act that could have put money into the economy and promote
jobs, by providing certainty to the American people and American
businesses.
The GOP is risking tax relief for 1.60 million Americans while
protecting massive tax cuts for 300,000 people making more than a
million dollars per year.
Extending and expanding payroll tax cuts until the end of the year
would put $1,500 into the pockets of the typical middle class family,
and relieve them of the uncertainty.
At least 400,000 jobs would be lost if Republicans block the payroll
tax cut from being extended until the end of the year.
In November, Senate Democrats proposed reducing it to 3.1 percent for
2012, and cutting employers' taxes on the first $5 million in taxable
payroll to the same level, which helps small businesses. To pay for the
cut, the bill called for a 3.25 percent tax on gross income over $1
million for single filers and married couples filing jointly, the so-
called ``Millionaire's Tax.'' This was a reasonable compromise, then,
and now.
There are other ideas floating around this Chamber that touch on tax,
such as repatriation. Lowering taxes for the American people and
American businesses is always a good idea, but piecemeal, scattershot
approaches to tax reform can lead to undesirable outcomes.

Targeted Tax Relief for American Workers

The 2% payroll tax cut in effect for 2011 provided $110 billion of
tax relief to 159 million American workers.
If the payroll tax cut is not extended until the end of the year, a
family struggling through the economic recovery making $50,000 will see
its taxes go up by approximately $800.
Expanding the 2% payroll tax holiday to 3.1% will cut Social Security
taxes in half for 160 million American workers next year.
Republicans targeted the unemployed by slashing 40 weeks of
unemployment insurance. Such an action would have negatively impacted
the lives of millions of families.
These are the very families who are still struggling under the weight
of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The Senate
rejected this assault on families and the elderly. When we come back to
the table in the coming weeks, let's focus on what matters: the
American people.
It was clear that our failure to act to support the Senate amendment
to H.R. 3630 late last year would have resulted in twenty-two
jurisdictions with the highest unemployment rates being the hardest hit
these states are: My home state of Texas, Alabama, California,
Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington.
According to report released by the Department of Labor just weeks
ago, 3.3 million Americans would lose unemployment benefits as a result
of H.R. 3630 compared to a continuation of current law. In my home
state of Texas alone, 227,381 people were in danger of losing their
sole source of income by the end of January.
There is nothing normal about this recession. Republicans seem to
want to blame the unemployed for their unemployment. Until it was clear
that the American people would not stand behind Republican efforts,
House Republicans continued to put in jeopardy tax cuts for the middle
class and aid for the unemployed. In this economy the unemployed are
not to blame; it is the failure of Republican leadership to bring forth
any job creating measures before this house. Currently, there are over
four unemployed workers for every available job, and there are nearly 1
million fewer jobs in the economy today compared to when the recession
started in December 2007. In our nation's history there has never been
so many unemployed Americans without work for such a long period of
time. But the other side wants to send messages to their base by
requiring drug testing of unemployed applicants? Really? Republicans
are clearly out of touch.
I stand with my fellow Congressional Democrats and remain committed
to responsible deficit reduction. We must protect our citizens. By
threatening to prevent an increase in the debt ceiling threatens our
ability to pay for Medicare. Protecting Medicare represents the basic
values of fairness and respect for our seniors that all Americans
cherish, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in
2010. I am committed to addressing the budget deficit by putting
America's working families first. We should not be cutting programs
that protect the everyday lives of Americans.
Repeated attacks against Medicaid by Republicans, this Congress, are
additional examples of wrong priorities that are poor choices for
seniors and middle class families.

FACTS ABOUT MEDICARE

Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances.
Most people with Medicare live on modest incomes.
Today, 43% of all Medicare beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 years
old and 12% are 85 or older. Those who are 85 or older are the fastest-
growing age group among elderly Medicare beneficiaries.
With the aging and growth of the population, the number of Medicare
beneficiaries more than doubled between 1966 and 2000 and is projected
to grow from 45 million today to 79 million in 2030.
60% of nursing home residents are not on Medicaid at the time of
their admittance into a facility. With the average annual cost of
nursing home care being $60,000, the longer an individual remains in a
facility, the more likely they are to deplete their financial resources
and qualify for Medicaid coverage. Even after individuals deplete their
assets, they are still required to apply their income, including Social
Security and pension checks, towards their care costs, except for an
average monthly $30 personal needs allowance.

POVERTY

Madam Speaker not only will allowing America to default on its debt
wreak havoc and chaos on financial markets around the world, but it
will also be damaging to the most vulnerable members of our society. In
essence it takes a hatchet to the programs Americans truly care about.
In my district in Houston, Texas, there are 190,035 people living
under the poverty line as well as 82,272 seniors and over 58,500
seniors. In addition, children represent a disproportionate amount of
the United States poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million
impoverished children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth.
The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6
million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and
that 17.4% of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.
If House Republicans' self destructive economic policies are allowed
to play out it will threaten the viability of the programs that our
Nation's seniors, children, and poor depend on for health and well
being.
Despite countless warnings from economists, business leaders, and
Wall Street executives about the economic consequences, House
Republicans are still holding the economy hostage by threatening to
default on our debt and are putting the economy at risk by suggesting
America might not pay its bills.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said defaulting on our debt
would ``at minimum'' lead to ``an increase in interest rates, which
would actually worsen our deficit and would hurt all borrowers in the
economy.''
Additionally, a coalition of 62 of the nation's largest business
groups urged Congress to raise the debt limit: ``With economic growth
slowly picking up we cannot afford to jeopardize that growth with the
massive spike in borrowing costs that would result if we defaulted on
our obligations.''
According to a well respected moderate think tank, released a report
outlining the consequences of not paying America's bills:
642,500 jobs lost
GDP would decrease by 1%
Every mortgage would increase by $19,175
Stocks would fall, the S&P dropping 6.3%
And every 401(k) holder would lose $8,816
The House Republican majority needs to stop threatening the American
people and get to work to increase the debt ceiling so that our country
can pay its bills.
We must begin to focus on the real plights faced by our nation. We
must find ways to raise revenues while also reducing spending. They
must complement each other. Congressional Republicans must be prepared
to allow everything to be on the table, including ending

[[Page H68]]

the tax cuts to the top 2% of the wealthiest people in our country.
We need a serious measure that will discuss reasonably and
responsible ways to increase the debt ceiling. A measure that will
allow us to have a deliberative discussion on how to cut spending
without cutting Medicare and Medicaid.
If not, the failure to extend our Nation's debt limit would have
harmful effects on job creation and the programs necessary to ensure
the health and safety of our constituents.
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.
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, and last year, we were able to negotiate another compromise,
and keep the country from default. I urge my colleagues not to
undermine the agreement that was reached by attempting to block the
President's ability to raise the debt ceiling.
Once again, the American economy hangs in the balance as the act of
the President raising the debt ceiling becomes an irrelevant spending
debate that 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.
This resolution is a petulant attempt to undermine President Obama.
The bill itself says it is a joint resolution ``relating to the
disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the
debt limit.'' Exercise of authority. It does not say unlawful exercise
of authority, or unconstitutional exercise of authority. The language
of the bill itself makes it clear the President has the authority to
raise the debt ceiling as indicated in the agreement reached on August
2.

PAYROLL TAX AND STOCK OPTION AMENDMENTS

I attempted to offer in the Rules Committee meeting last night an
amendment extending the payroll tax credit until the end of 2012, and
to help reduce the budget deficit by closing a tax loophole that
bridges the gap between book and tax accounting when stock options are
awarded.
The amendment closes a loophole that allows corporations to take a
deduction for the fair market value of an exercised corporate stock
option, over-and-above the value of the deduction that they receive
when the option is issued. It does two significant things: raises money
and shuts down an egregious loophole.
But we were unfortunately subject to a closed rule, which is
undemocratic.

STUDENT LOANS

I would note that in completing this bill, which was, perhaps a
Hobson's choice for some Members, it should be stated that we took aim
at education funding via Pell Grants, Direct, and Stafford Loans, which
are a lifeline to many of our most disadvantaged citizens.
How will we compete for the new factories when we are offshoring
education. I take some consolation in the fact that we did it to save
the country.

ADOPTION TAX CREDIT FACTS

Last night in the Rules Committee, I also attempted to offer an
amendment yesterday evening to encourage and promote adoption, and if
you take a look at the statistics on adoption and foster care, it
really speaks for itself. Yet, we dither in this body while children
out there need us, and we are failing them.
The most recent data on all types of adoption, collected by the
National Center for State Courts (NCSC) based right down the road in
Charlottesville, indicate that an estimated 127,000 children were
adopted in 2001. According to NCSC data, of adoptions in 2001, an
estimated 46% were private (including tribal and kinship, such as
stepparent), 39% were intercountry, and 15% were public agency
adoptions.
Today, in the United States there are an estimated 500,000 children
in the foster care system and of those children, there are 130,000
waiting for families to adopt them. The number of youth who ``age out''
of the foster care system by reaching adulthood without being placed in
a permanent home has increased by more than 58 percent since 1998, as
nearly 28,000 foster youth ``aged out'' of foster care during 2007
which is appalling and unacceptable.
In addition, 3 in 10 people in the United States have considered
adoption; a majority of them have misconceptions about the process of
adopting children from foster care. Approximately 45% believe that
children enter the foster care system because of juvenile delinquency.
And, I offer up forlornly the tale of the little baby who was found
on the stairs of a house blocks away in South East Washington, DC. just
this past weekend. A sad and heart-breaking story that serves to remind
us how critical something like the Adoption Tax Credit can be. It is
also a reminder that time is of the essence.
Passing this resolution will not decrease spending; it will merely
compromise our ability to pay for spending already authorized. This
bill does nothing to reduce the deficit, or address the budget, it only
risks our economic standing and ability to pay our nation's bills,
while simultaneously hurtling the nation toward another debt ceiling
crisis.
Instead of spending time on Resolutions designed to cast the
President in a negative light, it is time for this Congress to come
together, and pass meaningful legislation that will benefit the
American people. In his address to a joint session of Congress last
September, President Obama gave this body a great opportunity to
achieve bipartisan, job creating legislation that will invest in small
business, help families that have been struggling with chronic
unemployment, assist veterans in finding jobs, and invest in our
infrastructure.
It is time for a new sense of bipartisanship. It is time for Congress
to work together to aggressively take on job creation. It is time to
end these divisive tactics and compromise to encourage the rapid job
growth the American people deserve. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and
Republicans alike, to stand up and vote no on this partisan resolution;
we can, and we must take this opportunity to declare our intent to do
what is right, face what is hard, and achieve what is great.
Instead of attempting to embarrass the President, I urge my friends
on both sides of the aisle to come together, and focus on passing
legislation that will help the American people by improving the economy
and creating jobs. Now is not the time for partisan malice, now is not
the time for H.J. Res. 98; now is the time for this Congress to do all
it can to usher in a new age of American ingenuity and prosperity. H.J.
Res. 98 is simply a way to engage in past battles, and I am voting
against it in order to focus on the future.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the statute, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 176, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 4]

YEAS--239

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)

[[Page H69]]

Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--176

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

Landry
Walsh (IL)

NOT VOTING--16

Bartlett
Berkley
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Cardoza
Farr
Filner
Giffords
Heinrich
Hinchey
Inslee
Marino
Noem
Reyes
Simpson
Speier

{time} 1626

Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. McHENRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. NOEM. Madam Speaker, because I was attending the funeral service
of Governor Bill Anklow today, I was unable to be present for the vote
on H.J. Res. 98. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' in favor of the
resolution.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 4, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''

____________________