something great for our country, which is exactly what we're doing now. it's hard for me to believe, seriously that what we have before success a $1 trillion down payment. it is also hard for me to believe candidly that we're going to set up a select committee that's going to report back in four or five months when all of us know what the issues are. we understand the math. i know we get ridiculed a lot for the way we act in this body, but i think most of us, candidly, pretty well understand what the solutions are. and we all know that nobody really gets to work on anything around here until there's an eminent deadline. so even with this committee that's being potentially set up by mutual discussion down the road -- i know there's a lot of negotiations -- to me, they should report back. i agree with the senator from california. let's report back at the end of this fiscal year, september 30. there's no reason to wait.

and let's see if that type of bill were to pass, where you have a two-stage process, let's go ahead and get the work out of the way. but toipght back to the bigger -- but i want to go back to the bigger picture for just a moment and will conclude momentarily. we have an opportunity right now -- we've never been focused in the way that we are right now in the four and a half years that i've been here on something that is important as this, as it relates to us getting our house in order. we have never been this focused. and what i'm afraid of, in the name of political efficacy, people saying, hey, look, let's take what we can get and get on out of here so would don't mess up our potential, on both sides of the aisle, for the 2012 elections. take what you've got on both sides. i mean, basically let's think about it.

for the other side of the aisle to weigh all the proposals that are before us -- the way all the proposals are laid out, there's no way to make the entitlements sustainable. so they can run in 2012 on the entitlement issue. and with all the proposals that are laid out right now, we really don't deal with spending appropriately. and so, you know, our country probably is going to have its debt downgraded. so republicans can run on fact that we haven't reduced spending enough. and so if you really look at it, this really works well for everybody except the citizens of our country. again, we're finally on the right topic, which is a rarity here. we're finally focused on the problem. we have two bills that don't go far enough, and again i applaud both the democratic leader and the republican leader for putting forth proposals. we all know it doesn't do what

it needs to do. either proposal. we know the aspirational goals of each proposal don't take us far enough. so what i would say to all -- i agree -- let's don't default. let's don't bump up against august the 3rd. let's pass a short-term time extension, let's take us through the end of august or the first two weeks in september, or least take a week. but let's finish our work in this body. let's don't miss this seminal opportunity where everybody in this country and everybody in this world is looking at how undisciplined we've been and the opportunity that we have before us to actually be disciplined and send a signal to the world that our future is not the future that greece is seeing today. our future is the continuation of american exceptionalism, all around this world, and we are squandering that opportunity

right now in this body at a time when we're finally focused on the right top iefnlgt mrmrmrmrmrmr >> we will get the latest from capitol hill on tomorrow's washington journal. congressman joe walsh and congressman mike ross join us for the discussion. washington journal is alive every morning at 7:00 eastern year on c-span. >> the house rules committee yesterday began work on the rolls to debate speaker john boehner's deficit reduction plan. this is a little less than two hours.

>> we will begin with consideration of the measure from the education committee. we welcome the chair and the ranking member of the full committee. mr. andrews is scheduled to be here as the ranking member of the subcommittee. we will include him. that is why we had the empty chair. we are looking forward to his arrival. he is not here, george. i would have spotted him. thus began. gentlemen, as i look at both of you, you have what appears to be beautifully prepared statements. without objection, all of your

statement will appear in the record in their entirety. chairman klein. >> thank you. we appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of hr2587. i would also like to take a moment to thank tim scott for his leadership on behalf of workers and for his leadership in congress. last week, the house a vacation work force committee approved protecting jobs. the labor relations board should not be empowered to tell a business where it can and cannot locate employment. mr. chairman, taking advantage of your offer to have this included in its entirety, let me summarize. the labor relations act involves relations between labour and employees. the board is supposedly prostituted of five members.

it has a decade after decade shifted back and forth with the majority of republican and democrat members. each site complains about the board year after year. in this case, the acting general counsel, this case being a decision concerning boeing, rolled up -- i understand this is an ongoing process -- ruled that boeing could not establish a plant in south carolina. they had already hired over 1000 employees. that ruling has set a chilling affect back -- in effect across the country as potential employers make decisions on where they want to put their plant. we believe that is a job-killing decision. it has already affected, i am quite certain, employment not only in south carolina, but around the country. employers will think about whether they want to build in

this country or another country where they are out of the reach of such a board. we believe that we need to remove this one remedy that the board has. it is a draconian remedy. it is the economic death penalty. i take one of our colleagues said that the other day. our bill simply says the national labor relations board cannot use this draconian remedy and tell companies where they can and cannot operate. i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. miller. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will submit my statement. this bill is very fundamental. it is very important. this bill does two things. it would certainly be troubling for working people in this country who want to exercise their right to work. first and foremost, this legislation is designed to assist special entrance. in this case, it is the boeing

co., a fortune 500 company, that has been charged with unlawfully transferring work from washington to south carolina in retaliation against workers in washington exercising their rights in roles under the law to strike. the law does not let you do that. that is an illegal act under the law. whether or not billing is guilty of that or not will be determined by the ala law judge. there will be appeals at people think they want to appeal the decision. this legislation comes in the middle of this process and says it will take this remedy away. you have a pretty public discussion of boeing executives are talking about why they were not going to have this work in washington. they were tired of the strike. the national labor relations act says you do not get to retaliate. that is against the law. an employer, a company owner, or

shareholder, whatever makes up the company can locate wherever they want, they just do not get to do a retaliation against a lot will exercise of the rights of workers. what this legislation would do which take away the only effective remedy on an employer simply deciding when someone comes to you under the law and says of the like to have the union, you can fire that person, you can take away their work, you can say you are going to move your plant and do the work elsewhere. all that is in violation of the law. today the people have a remedy. what it will be in the boeing case, nobody knows. there were months and months of discussion before the filing. the question here is whether or not working people in this

country whether or not they will have any rights at work. the idea is that there are other remedies. you can get back pay. you can get back pay in many of these cases. all and that right is jealous. a person who has illegally lost their job, they can be hung out to dry. they can get an attorney and someone will take their case. for months and months or years and years, when you are a working person who has seen your income drop over the last decade, you can lose your house. you can lose your car. you could use -- lose your kid's education before your entitled to recover. this bill fundamentally strips workers of the protections they have at work to do what they have been doing since 1937. deciding whether or not at any given time they would like to

organize the work place, signed a letter for a safer workplace -- all of these actions under the law employers are not. -- entitled to retaliate by taking away your work. the end result is one of the major challenges made to the efforts to organize the work place is "we will move the jobs somewhere else. we will move overseas. we will go down south. we will go up north." if you can do that, but not as a matter of retaliation. when people are trying to organize the work place, and have a safer workplace, where change their hours the employer can do that. where do people get the courage to speak up? where do they get the ability to talk about these issues at work? one thing they can do now is they can decide to outsource the

work. beckett outsourced part of the plant. if people want to organize in the machine shop, we are going to do that work overseas. it is a license to outsource work while retaliating against workers who did nothing more than exercise their right under the law. it is a very draconian measure. we have to put our thumb on the scale of justice. this comes at the end of the action statement by this committee and the committee on oversight to try and deliver a document of the judicial

officers and the national labor relations board in this action. it is really wrong. >> yousuf less enthusiastic about the bill itself. >> do not make light of my remarks. >> mr. andrews. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for my tardiness. i share mr. miller's strong opposition to this bill for two reasons. first is that i a lot of people live in towns that are littered by bordered and shuttered businesses and factories. not only do these boarded up factories more their committees, they mark their lives. these people went to work safely, did what was expected of them, sacrificed for their company, thought it would have a job until the date they were tired because they earned it working so hard. then they found that one day the plant moved to malaysia where

the cost center move to indonesia. i think this bill is the outsourced bill of rights the way it is written. what it says is that even in a situation where a company is undergoing an organizing drive or some of those employees have said, "we want to have a union. we will start to collect cards and have an election." if the employer were to say, " because you are organizing this union, i am shutting the plant down in the the to indonesia," under present law that is at retaliation. there are remedies to stop that. under the bill before us, although it would still be illegal to do what i just said, there would be no effective remedy. this pace a road map for how to outsource. lord knows i did we have enough outsourcing. the second objection i have is that this bill is decide to

interfere with a kid with the -- with an existing case. the acting general counsel has filed a complaint against boeing alleging that boeing has discriminated against its workers in washington state because they were exercising their collective bargaining rights and move toward to south carolina. it is an allegation. it is presently the subject of a trial. the judge will decide that the we committed this offense or did not commit this offense. what this bill does is to say that if the judge, based on the evidence in front of them, decides that boeing has committed this offense, one of the remedies big board and the court may not order is the restoration of the workers in washington. the whole principle here interfering with an ongoing case is inappropriate for those two reasons. i respectfully oppose the bill.

mr. miller and i or recommended -- recommending that an amendment is not filed because the bill is fundamentally flawed. >> that you very much for that, mr. andrews. we had the benefit of the office of legislation, mr. scott. you are welcome to say anything. >> thank you very much. thank you for taking up this bill and giving it board. i look for to see the debate on the house floor tomorrow. i keep hearing these words used danite really need help defining as a common man without a law degree. perhaps you can help me with the definition. the word "restoration." >> if you would, one of the remedies if the violation is proven in court would be to

enjoin -- stop the transfer of work from one place to another. whether the facts of this case support that or not -- boeing would say they have already moved the work so it cannot be restored. there is a legal process. >> i just want to know the definition of the word "transfer." not the overall complications of the case itself. >> the word "transfer" would mean the work in building and assembling these airplanes was originally done in washington and is now done in south carolina. what'>> the definition's we comy used in the common world do not apply. the definition he just uncovered is consistent with the definition i used for the word "transfer." there have been no loss of jobs.

you cannot transfer that -- that that which has never been lost. the fact of the matter is when you look washington state, the fact that there has been no loss of jobs -- they have actually added jobs -- the more people working in puget sound then they did today. mr. miller talked about the transfer of assets. the notion of transferring work that never existed in the primary location -- it is very difficult to transfer rate them back. it is difficult to restore jobs that were never lost. the planes made in puget sound are still being made. the new line that boeing decided to add, which is very important

, the new line being worked in south carolina is an additional three planes being made at a new location which new employees. the real question is if someone came to south carolina and said the case was about transfer of assets, he came up with a very similar definition. those assets that existed in one place need to go back where they came from. i asked him what assets were transferred. he said, hypothetically, those assets could have come to washington state. the affect of this has a long and pat outside the definition of the worst -- impact outside the definition of the words. >> you can also make the determination that the 2100 jobs

that are temporary in seattle could have been permanent because those jobs were created because the south carolina facility is not prepared to meet that demand. you could also argue that when you're talking about assets, future work was not going to go to washington. >> i would say the fact is when you look at the 2100 temporary jobs in washington state, there is no question that if you were to add a new line of business, they would hire more employees. i would say that is right. the question is can a company used their competitive position in the world. the answer is, of course they can. if they decided the best place for them to do business and make a profit is in south carolina, the question then remains are they going to take jobs from one location and transfer them to

another location. that is transferring jobs. >> if you read the cio's remarks, it would suggest to you that these jobs would have been at the facility in seattle for that portion of work. now they are not going to be. >> if you take into consideration the affects of a 53-day strike costing them $1.30 billion, you take into consideration or you are going to do your new line of work. i make the decision based on the best actors to my stockholders and employees.

we are talking about the actual attacks, not the hypothetical is. i have reclaim my time. i will not allow you to talk over me, but i will continue. the facts of the case are very clear. the hypothetical is or not clear. the facts of the case or if you want to transfer assets that were never transferred, you cannot chance for them because they were never there. i would say the entire case itself is preposterous. however, this is the federal government. >> i actually think this exchange is compelling evidence of why this is the wrong place to have this discussion. there is a judge sitting today who is hearing all the facts, testimony, reading all the documents, and he will make the decision. this is the equivalent of having a complex antitrust case in

traffic court. we should let the judge decide. >> how many times has the nrb used relocation? >> how many -- the luminesce times. i could give you numbers to supplement the record. in california there was a jewelry company that was being organized by some workers who wanted to join a union. the owner of the company announced he would with the jury work to mexico. there was litigation in that case. the united states district court said he could not do that. they entered an injunction to stop him from do that. there are numerous cases. >> what are the facts of the case? were they going to transfer the jobs to mexico? >> the evidence as determined by the court said it is motivating factor was to punish the people forming the union.

that was a violation of the labor act. what's the great challenge of this case is simply that boeing continues to work effectively with their union employees in washington state with no loss of jobs. at the same time, they had decided to do additional lines of work, new lines of work which new employees in south carolina. we are talking about what the greatest job-killing opportunities our nation faces today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> that was interesting testimony, mr. scott. huge as the time to engage in discussion so rather than recognizing mr. sessions, i will recognize mr. slaughter. >> mr. chairman, with your permission -- to >> just one moment.

we have a member of the assembly of albania and his colleagues with us today. i wanted to make sure that our colleagues know that in that assembly an extraordinary number of people who are supportive of american interests are here. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. we appreciate you being here. [applause] you have witnessed rigorous debate and i hope you will not take everything we do back to albania with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. since mr. miller was not allowed to ask questions, i want to give

you a chance to do that. >> the comment was the question of whether jobs had been moved or work not given to this facility in retaliation for the strike that they had at boeing. the nrb should be allowed to make that decision. we are in the middle of the process to putting our thumbs on the scales of justice when, in fact, we do not have all the facts in front of us. that is the point i was going to make. the company, the workers in washington -- this is the future of aviation. the 787 is there. the jobs are temporary. that is all going to be phased out because the jobs are going to go to south carolina.

again, they are playing off one set of workers against another. >> madam chair, let me also say that what is wrong with this interference -- if you put the litigation issue on the other foot. there was a case against wal- mart involving gender discrimination. wal-mart systematically discriminated against women for hiring and promotion. very recently, the u.s. supreme court decided that the class that was certified in that case was in validly cert, therefore, winding litigation down. i do not know enough about the case to know whether i agree or disagree with the decision. i do know this -- if we were to pass a statute that said we would change the class certification rules to make it easier for women to sustain a class-action against wal-mart while the action was underway, i think our friends on the other

side would protest long and loud and they would have been right. there is a set of rules that you litigate under. you either win or you lose. that is exactly what we are doing here. it is unwelcome and, i think, even dangerous. >> i would like to put the administration budget statement in. the administration opposes the bill. it undermines the enforcement of the national labor relations act. the nlra does not restrict the location of operations assuming companies apply with the law. i would like to ask it be entered into the record. >> if you do not have to ask. it is already entered into the record.

>> the house -- i agree with both mr. miller and mr. anderson -- mr. andrews. how do we interfere in an ongoing trial? we have not done that before. is this the first? >> we did it in the terry schiavo case. >> sometimes i do not recognize this place. we talk about process. this was introduced in the committee for less than 48 hours, correct? >> correct.

there will be a previous hearing not on the legislation, but on the issue. >> on the concept? >> correct. >> no objection by the gao? no evaluation and that on wages and job security of workers? is that correct? >> yes. >> as you said before, mr. andrews, the democrats protested this. i'd think we should follow that through. it is one of the saddest things we have seen. it is an absolute assault on workers in america. it helps to create more outsourcing. just yesterday it made no sense to me when we were giving

uranium to russia. it is sort of like "alice in wonderland." thank you very much. >> bank you very much, mr. chairman. a friend of mine from california, brad smith, was here. i wanted to acknowledge him at this time. mr. chairman, there has been a lot of discussion about ideas about outsourcing and foreign components. a number of foreign countries have been mentioned. is there anything that would be a transfer of a job to a foreign country? >> it merely removes a remedy. i would argue, the most draconian remedy. absent removing that remedy, we are going to be an apparent job creation in this country. companies across the country are looking at this decision and

making decisions. do they want to expose themselves to a decision of one- man and administrative law judge and then a bipartisan board, or do they want to place the work someplace else? we are trying to get americans back to work and give companies the confidence to open plants and put americans back to work. we need to pass this. >> mr. andrews, the word outsourcing -- did you discuss the issue? it is one company within the company within the united states -- that is outsourcing? >> i think it is a road map for outsourcing. it says that if you have workers that replace the people that are organizing and you choose to do with organizing drive by moving your place of business somewhere

else either in or out of the united states, you are now protected. then they give you an example of one of the remedies. if the board would find that you had retaliated against these workers who were tried to organize, you can get them back pay. here is what you'd do it -- you set up a subsidiary entity to run the business in another state or country. you lead the shell entity back where you were working with net assets. the workers would have a meaningless back pay order against the employer with zero assets. if you take away the affected remedy, which is enjoining, then this is a map for outsourcing. >> is there a shell entity being created or even contemplated for the movement of these employees? >> in the case of the wing,

certainly not. >> mr. andrews, why would you bring up the issue of shell entity if it does not apply to the issue before us, or does it? >> it does not apply to the singular case, but the majority tried to adjudicate to the legislative branch, but it does apply to others that would happen. >> said they are not a shell entity. >> i hope they never are. >> the argument you're tried to apply this to does not -- >> a call center, a retail store, a software company can very easily create a shell entity. very easily. >> how are you aware of in the past circumstances -- i am aware of at least one living in dallas, texas -- we have a general motors plant in arlington. within the gm system some eight

or 10 years ago, there was a competition between cities, between plants about how and who would handle and get this a business. i believe it is called a "tahoe." there was a competitive issue that took place where literally the work groups as a team took this on and there was a determination about where they would move the work based upon flexibility, based upon a number of factors, including a desire for the workplace to adapt itself to the needs of the accommodation of the building of the vehicle. what do you think about that? >> i think it is perfectly legal under the law. i assume under the facts you have outlined, mr. sessions, there were snowed discrimination against or retaliation against people try to organize a union.

at that is the case, the general motors was entirely in their right to do that. >> said they were pitching, in essence, they offer against three of the different components. you think that is a fair tank within the company to offer a bidding process? >> on the surface i do. more relevant to this discussion is that it does not violate the national labor relations act. >> mr. klein, the you believe that participation by management where they are trying to determine the growth the needs of the business that the management of a business would be allowed to do exactly what we talked about, to begin within the elements of these three groups? the believe that management should be able to determine whether they are going to grow, where they should go, what might be best for that, and lay out a

plan to grow their business and do these things? >> in my judgment, that is exactly what management is supposed to do. they are supposed to decide where they pseudo to be the most competitive and most productive, keep hiring more people. does the management decisions. >> does the chairman of the committee, do you have a concern about the outcome of this case? >> i have a concern already about what is going on. there is no doubt in my mind that there are businesses right now, some of them in south carolina, that are putting in a new store, a new sandwich shop, something that would support thousands of employees that boeing was in the process of hiring. even though this is a decision by it when acting general

counsel, and as mr. andrews correctly said, it will go to a process, it would be inaccurate to say that nothing has happened. decisions are already being made. decisions based on the decision of when acting general counsel. >> do you believe as the chairman of the committee and a person who has looked at this that this could mean that if there is some sort of decision that might be adversarial to this process that people would do their jobs overseas as opposed to a in america? >> they may move their entire company overseas. they may choose to start up overseas. some companies which used to establish their business outside the reach of what is always a partisan, political move -- the national labor relations board -- but themselves outside the reach of that. clearly you could have a

draconian outcome. but he lived in south carolina -- and i drove back -- by that plant -- this decision forces them to close that down, fire all of those workers, and all of the people who were planning to create jobs in that area or at a disadvantage. this is truly an economic death penalty. >> mr. kline, i do not expect you look at the contract for all the things boeing made, but do you believe boeing has an obligation to prepare themselves at the best cost as an obligation to their customers to select where they do the work and keep costs low? >> of course, i believe they do. they have an obligation to their

customers. they have an obligation to the owners, the stockholders. not only is the question of decisions being made by businesses in and around the area of charleston, south carolina, but major companies are looking at boeing are making decisions on whether or not to buy their airplanes. if they are worried about a work stoppage, there is much discussion about that. they may buy from another company, perhaps an overseas company, rather than do all their business with boeing because they have business concerns. my position is that for the national labor relations board, a very small group, always politically appointed -- to come in and at this level of impact is completely over the top end is a job-killing decision. >> mr. kline, i have seen the boeing facilities that are

rather dramatic and leading aged in their nature. i agree with you. it would be a big boon not only for that region, but also for the company. >> mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record an article from "usa today." i go all over the country to visit and i cannot say that anybody should move to texas, but what i can say is that we as the country -- as a country, the united states, will continue to lose jobs as long as the government remains engaged in the detriment of employers and employees. >> without exception. >> i yield back my time. >> i thank you all for being

here. this is a bill that is pretty cut and dried. we should not be offering amendments to it because it cannot be made any better. it the case is a slam-dunk, but the process work its way. my guess is that i think the people at the national labor relations board are reasonable people. we are midway through a case. in this congress, there is always the presumptions that workers are bad, that workers are always wrong, that workers should not complain, that workers should not demand their rights. that really is a formula for a race to the bottom. there are some great companies,

wonderful companies in this country. boeing is a great company. but sometimes break companies behave badly. and when they do, there should be some remedies for the workers. the workers are the people who actually work at these factories and build these companies up. this notion that we should have a race to the bottom, that is lowering the standard of living for people we should be trying to find ways to lift people up. there is nothing wrong with workers demanding to work in a safe workplace or demanding their rights. let me say one thing about union organizing -- it's just out to organize a union in the united states of america. for those of us who have organizing efforts in our own district, it takes a lot for workers to want to come forward and risk the potential retaliation.

the job is all they have. usually when unions sprang up in places it is because the workplace is not going well. it is bad. it takes a lot of guts to organize a union is this bill retroactive? -- it takes a lot of guts to organize a union. is this bill retroactive? >> yes. >> what happens in the case, mr. andrews, if this were to become the law. >> that case is over, but i will say that any other case where a final order has not been entered or the appeals process has not been exhausted, this remedy would be revoked from any other pending case where one of the remedies being sought is an injunction. the remedy would no longer be

available >> no matter how to enjoy the case may be in favor of the workers? >> demerits or irrelevant. the best case in the world from the point of view of the complainant, the remedy is no longer distinguish. >> if a company closes part of a u.s. plant and is the work to china because the u.s. employees organize the union, the nlrb would not have the power to have the work return to the united states? >> that is correct. >> that is a real concern. this bill does nothing about that. we are talking about jobs that may or may not have stayed in washington. >> if i may, it reflects a

philosophy that is the precise opposite of what the great american capitalists -- henry ford, the red be very radical idea for his time that he would pay his workers more than the market could bear because he wanted them to make enough money so they could buy the cars they were making. that in light in the long term of entrepreneurial spirit and to build the middle class of the country. this is the opposite. this says race to the bottom, pay as little as you can. what i worry about is when you do that, there are few people left to buy the product that you're making or the service you're selling. you wind up with a diminishing middle-class, a growing number of poor people, and a few people at the upper end. >> i would also state that in the current situation, not knowing how this will be decided, but in the public expression by the ceo about

moving the work to south carolina because of the strike in puget sound that you are also sending a very strong message to the new employees of south carolina -- do not think about a union. do not even think about organizing. do not even think about grievances in here. i remind you this is a proud that -- product. 70% was outsourced as a new form of manufacturing. some 70% was outsourced and nobody was arguing about it. in this particular case, you're sending a strong signal. as they struggle in china with work stoppages, they are sending a signal there -- do not think about this.

one of the strongest to labour relationships in our country -- we can take these kinds of actions. it works both ways. a message to the people who remain in everett and other parts of peace is sound, and it -- parts of peace is sound, and this is a message to where the work is going. -- puget sound, and this is a message to where the work is going. >> biggest to the point you raised about henry ford. we really are engaged in a race to the bottom. that does not even count the issue of outsourcing. we should be about lifting

people up and try to find ways to help people to be able to afford automobiles and afford homes, be able to afford to send their kids to college. this bill seems to be living in the opposite direction. i understand where you're coming from. i get pepperroot real issue, but there is a larger pattern going on in this congress about lessening the quality of life for people. that is a bad way to go. i yield back. >> we are very pleased to be joined by a couple of guests. it is wonderful to see you. thank you very much for being here. [applause] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman kline for his leadership on this bill.

i really take offense at comments being made that both of us on our side of the aisle state workers are bad, always wrong. i have an entirely different attitude about the american people. i have great faith in the american people. it was average people who built this country, who built this economy, and i think it is those of us who want to see less government interference in our lives who really have faith in the american people, who believe in them, and want to see them use their talent and skills and their god-given ability to continue to make the country a great country. i think getting the government off their backs and allowing

them to use their talents is the best way to do it. i think there is a great difference in philosophy in washington. we are being told all the time we need to compromise and get along. this is a hugely different philosophy toward the american people. we have a strong belief in the american people and their ability to take care of themselves. we do not think the government or the unions need to step in to look after them. i would support this role and who are my colleaguees pushing the legislation. thank you very much. >> i thank you and ms. slaughter for letting me introduce my friend who was visiting from albania. dr. faulk, union people are

americans, too. occasionally it seems that we forget in this country the extraordinary development that is pure capitalism, pure entrepreneurialism, and has been supported, as mr. andrews and mr. miller have pointed out, supported the development of the extraordinary middle-class and upper-class. many of you are not old enough to remember many of the companys that had nothing but union workers, some that still exist, and some that are gone.

i take a personal point with reference to my father who was a person who never went to school a day in his life. he lived and was born in the halcyon days of segregation in this country. in 1943 during the second world war in florida, he said to my mother that we needed to move. we moved to jersey city, new jersey. my mother went to work in a button factory in brooklyn. it was unionized. my father went to work in

hackensack, new jersey. it was unionized. he brought his brother up from georgia to become a longshoreman in jersey city. he died eight longshoremen. he was unionized. -- ms. the companys slaughter's main company, kodak, is a place where many workers from the high schools and elementary schools in florida wild up. they were unionized. mr. andrews mentioned ford motor co., who also had plants in new york and other places that were unionized.

there are countless structures in this country today that were formulated and developed in conjunction with employers and employees that were unionized. we just got through seen completed yesterday a dispute between billionaires' and millionaires about football that is unionized. unions are americans, too. somewhere along the line -- i have no qualms with any of our local or parochial interests having companies move to our areas. but bidding workers against each other within the same structure

is not my way of understanding what it is that has helped the development of this country. pressing people downward is not my way or what i think is in the best interest of this country's workers or their employers. mr. kline, in a letter to the committee, the afl-cio government affairs director robert to you and other members of the committee that this bill, in his opinion, would cripple workers, hobble the national labor relations board, make it easier for companies to ship jobs overseas, and create a new

race to the bottom for american workers. what, if any, reaction would you say in response to that statement? >> i disagree completely with that statement. i think i have made it fairly clear already today. i believe the opposite is true. i believe this decision underway right now is, in fact, crippling jobs and hurting job creation in this country and the action we would take in this bill would help create more jobs in this country rather than have been created overseas. i do want to identify myself with your remarks -- union workers are in the americans. i drive a ford ranger bill by union workers. that is not the issue. what we are talking about is an overreach by a board that administration after administration, republican and democrat, is very partisan.

i remember when my good friend mr. miller was the chairman. in this case, we had a decision by one acting general counsel starting a process that i am arguing is having a devastating affect on job creation. >> there is a lawsuit in reference to it. am i correct? are we establishing a precedent, not just in this case, but are we establishing a precedent of undermining one of the more fundamental aspects of our government -- the court system? >> i do not believe that is the case. the act remains in place. we are taking away a remedy we

are arguing is highly detrimental to creating jobs in this country. >> what then, mr. miller or mr. andrews, what would be a remedy for an american worker if and when their rights are violated? >> if this was not the law, i would say the theory would be if they can prove the case, which means there retaliated against for their legal union activities, there is the possibility of back pay.

members have five legislative

days in which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, about a minute and a half after 3:00 p.m. on july 28, 2011. at this moment we begin the

debate on one of the most crucial items that we have had or will have before us. since 1962 on 75 different occasions the united states congress has chosen to increase the debt ceiling to ensure that we paid our past obligations. it's been done 75 times whout ever having any strings atatched whatsoever. -- attached whatsoever. last november there was a very strong message sent by the american people to this institution. mr. speaker, could i ask that the house be in order? the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please remove their conversations from the floor. members in the back of the chamber, please teether -- either take seats or remove your conversations from the floor. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker.

last november we all know that there was an overwhelming message that was september by the american people to washington, d.c. and that message was, number one, create jobs. get our economy back on track and in so doing rein in the dramatic increase in the size and scope and reach of government that we witssed in the past several years. we all know in the last four years we've had an 82% increase in nondefense discretionary spending, an 82% increase. so the message that was sent was, that has to come to an end. so speaker boehner, when asked by the president of the united states to move an increase in the debt ceiling, said that he was willing to do that. he recognized, as i believe an overwhelming majority of both democrats and republicans in this institution recognize, it is absolutely essential that we increase the debt ceiling.

we've got to do everything that we can to ensure that social security checks get to those retirees. we have to make sure tt the many other obligations that we have are in fact met. and on that one issue of social security we know that on july 12 the president of the united states in a speech said that if we don't see an increase in the debt ceiling by august 2 could he not guarantee that august 3 those social security checks would go to our retirees. so, mr. speaker, what happened was speaker boehner said, we want to make sure that those social security checks get out, we want to make sure that we increase the debt so our nation doesn't default and follow the pattern of greece, portugal, ireland and other countries in the world that have gone through tremendous economic devastation.

but what the speaker said is that while we are going to, in increasing the debt ceiling, meet those obligations of the past, we are not going to do it the way it's been done the last 75 times. we are going to get to the root cause of why it is that we have to increase the debt ceiling. and that is the runaway spending that democratic and republican alike decries regularly. so the speaker said that he would increase the debt ceiling but he wanted to ensure that we cut spending in an amount that was greater than the level of the debt ceiling increase. so he began discuions, recognizing that republicans, those who won this majority last november, only control the united states house of representatives. speaker boehner does not look at

the world through rose-colored glasses. he knows that the republicans don't control the united states senate and he knows that he has to work with president obama. but he does know that the last statement that was made by the american people in november of last year was, we've got to have dramatic change in the course that we have been on. so he began negotiating. he began discussions. he ban working over the past several weeks and months to try to put together a bipartisan effort so that democrats and republicans alike could come together and ensure that tho social security checks get out and the other obligations we have are met and that we do increase our debt ceiling. we've all folled and the american people are following very closely the global markets, -- closely, the global markets

are following very closely the debates that are taking place here. it came to a head last weekend when we know the president of the united states has requested a 50% increase ithe level of taxes to be increased from $0 billion to $1.2 trillion and the speaker of the house said that that was a nonstarter. so the speaker said that he wanted to work with the bipartisan leadership of the united states congress, both houses of coress. and so last weekend we know that speaker boehner and majority leader, the democratic majority leader of the united states senate, harry reid, came together and fashioned by and large the measure that is before us today. i'm the first to say that harry reid no longer supports this measure. harry reid has indicated that he does not support it. we have this letter from the 53 enators, we have word that they're going to table this measure when it passes the house of representatives. but it's important, mr. speaker, for everyone to recognize that what is before us today is by

and large a measure that is not what speaker boehner would write if he were doing it on his own, it's a measure that is the byproduct of bipartisan discussion and, as the speaker likes to say, the ability to find common ground. and we are today in a position where we face in just a few days the prospe of those social security checks not going out. and, mr. speaker, that's why i don't like this measure but i'm voting for it. i'm voting for it because i want to get those social security checks out, i want to make sure the united states of america does not default and i believe that that's the responsible thing for us to do. what we have before us in the house of representaives is the closest ing, it's the osest

thing to a bipartisan agreement. the measure that's over -- first of all, we know that by and large there have been no other plans put forward, but the plan hat does exist, there are very few plans put forward, the plan that has been put forward by senator reid is one that does not enjoy bipartisan support and it was not put together in a bipartisan way. this one was by and large, even though it does not have the support of senator reid any longer, it was put together with -- based on the discussions they had. so i believe that this measure is deserving of strong bipartisan support here in the house of representatives and from our colleagues in the united states senate as well. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues, i urge my colleagues to, in the name of sanity and in the name of ensuring that we maintain the solvency and the strength othe greatest nation the world has ever known, that we pass this measure and that we

send it to our colleagues in the united states senate so they can do the same and so that when it's placed on the desk of the president of the united states he'll have his opportunity to ensure that what he predicted as a possibility for august 3, that being the social security checks will not go out, will not happen. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the spear pro tempore: -- the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. mcgovern: i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished democratic whip, mr. hor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there is no common ground here. nor was it sought. we find ourselves at an unprecedented place today. americans stand on the brink of default. it stands there, my friends, because the leadership of this house has failed to act in a

timely and responsible way. this is an unprecedented status for america. an intolerable place and americans are understandably outraged at the politically-caused -- politically caused impasse that confnts us. the consequences of which for every american and our country have been correctly characterized as catastrophic. for more than two centuries an american default has been unthinkable. the men and women who came before us in this chamber built up the full faith and credit of the united states until it became the bedrock of the world's economy. despite their differences they agreed that the honor that comes from paying our bills responsibly and on time was a moral obligation.

now our nation is on the verge of breaking that trust. if america fails to pay its bills and default comes the wounds of the global economy, to jobs across this country, to our standing among nations, that wound will be entirely self-inflicted. it cannot and must not cme to that. americans have overwhelmingly called on us to come to a balanced, bipartisan solution, one that pays our bills, reduces our defit and draws common contributions from all americans. not only the vulnerable and the unconnected but also those who have enjoyed the nation's prosperity. that is the consequence, that is the consensus of the vast majority of the people who send us here. they understand that my way or

thhighway is no way to govern. they understand that all of us who had a hand in accumulating our debt must share the work of paying it off. they understand that the prosperity and prestige of our country are at stake right now. and they are relying on the ability of this body to put partisanship aside. there will in fact be bipartisan opposition to this bill. but there i predict will had be no democrat for this bill. -- but there i predictill be no democrat for this bill. i'm deeply concerned that the short-term plan of speaker boehner will put us right back, right back here on the precipice of eminent default in just a few months. casting uncertainty over the

economy and leading to a job-destroying credit downgrade. each of us, ladies and gentlemen -- may i have an additiona minute? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. mr. hoyer: each of us, ladies and gentlemen in this house, have a duty to end this impasse. let's live up to that duty by voting down this partisan legislation. and then let's come together on a balanced, bipartisan solution to reduce our deficit and pay our bills. i suggest to my friend from california that majority leader reid has offered just such a plan. in fact, it incorporates exactly what speaker boehner suggested in his speech in new york city. let us embra that plan. when this fails, let the senate

send it to us. i will not yield at this point in time. this is a moment of great crisis for our country and for our citizens. a crisis that demands our putting aside partisanship and politics for the good of our people. we're not there yet but it is my great hope that we as a body ca live up to that challenge. our fellow citizens expect it, our duty demands it, our oath requires it. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i say to my friend from maryland that bipartisanship has been sought and i'm seeking it right now. i hope we are in a position where we are able to enjoy bipartisan support for this and with that i yield two minutes to my very good friend from illinois, a hardworking member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for two minutes.

mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, there is not a single member of congress or the administration who do not know that this day was coming. washington was spending tax dollars more than ever before and the debt ceiling was caving in. the question is, how do we respond? do we protest? do we argue? or do we govern? last november the voters asked for change and that's how this house stopped the largest tax increase in history and cut spending this year to levels not seen since 2008. today, we ha the opportunity to take the next step by passing the budget control act. this is a balanced compromise that will avert a default and stop the cycle of debt that is draining our economy. it makesearly $1 trillion in immediate cuts, more -- lays the groundwork for additional savings and a balanced budget amendment. in a perfect world, some of us would like more cuts.

those on the left also want a bigger plan. or at least a big enough debt increase to carry the president beyond the next campaign. but the american people care about jobs, not politics. they want solutions that will restore confidence, credit and growth in the united states, and neher a default nor a two-year budget gimmick will accomplish that task. this bill will. i urge my colleagues on both sides to recognize that good politics is about doing what's right for the american people. let's take this opportunity, cut spending and put america back on a sound fiscal path to prosperi. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, we are five days away from a historic, unprecedented and

needless default. instead of acting responsibly and in a bipartisan way to raise the debt ceiling, the republican majority continues to hold the american economy hostage to press their agenda. even though the debt ceiling was raised seven times under president bush, even though 110 current members of the majority have voted to raise the debt ceiling in the past, the majority continues its dangerous games of brinkmanship. included in this bill is $917 billion in cuts, mostly to critical public investment, education, infrastructure, biomedical research, law enforcement, food safety, they will all be slashed. and yet these progrs, which i call discretionary programs, they are only 3.1% higher than it was five years ago, less than what it was under ronald reagan and the first bush administration. it is disingenuous for this majority to continue these

republican investments, critical to job creation and economic growth are the source of our deficit problem. the primary reason the deficits have grown is because revenues are lower than they have been in 60 years. 15% lower thanks to the bush tax breaks for the wealthy and because we initiated two wars on the nation's credit card. if the majority was serious about deficit reduction they woulallow for additional revenue by asking the wealthiest americans and corporate special interests to share in the sacrifice . rather than seeking to pro-- in the sacrifice, rather than seeking to protection, which this legislation does. this bill is not about deficit reduction. it's about using the threat of default to enact a radical agenda, one that will cost jobs, undermine the american economy, where middle-class families will have an opportunity for a decent retirement. in a few months they're coming back, $1.6 trillion in cuts to

medicare, social security and medicaid. this one of hostage-taking is not responsible leadership. it's the wrong direction for our country. i urge my colleagues to vote against this incredible, outrageous piece of legislation, and i call on the majority to quit playing political games. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i say to my good friend that i believe that the majority is serious and i believe at the decrats are serious in their quest to ensure we don't default. this is their opportunity to step up to t plate and make sure that it doesn't happen. with that, mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield two minutes to my good friend from gold river, the hardworking member of the committee, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lungren: what is incredible, what is unprecedented is the amount of debt we are incurring on a daily basis and we have been for a long time.

those being hostage is the children and the grandchildren and their future. and the question we have is whether or not we are going to reach a balanced approach. what did i say a balanced approach would be? a balanced approach would be when we are once again creating jobs in this economy. what those on the other side have led us to believe is that the answer to our problems is to follow the european experience over the last 30 to 40 years. and that is to rely more on government, higher taxes with the net result of a shrinking prive economy and less jobs. what is unprecedented is that we are now in the longest period of continuous unemployment that we've seen since the great depression. what is unprecedented is that if you call this a recovery, it's the most jobless recovery in the history of modern day united states. what it is is very much like what we've seen in europe over the last 30 years, and so the

question before us is, do we follow the european experience with greater reliance on government, greater balance which translated means taxes when we know that not a single economist of any refute would tell us that the ansr to our jobless situation is to tax the who create the jobs. that's why this is such an important vote for us today. that is, we will show that the way to the future is the american way. the way we've done it in the past, reliance on the private sector, allowing the ingenuity, the creativity, the risk-taking, the courage of the american people to bring us back to prosperity. those on the other side, the gentlelady from new york just suggested that the way to do that is through the expansion of government programs. that's not the essence of how we create jobs. we are in an unprecented

period of time. that is true, mr. speaker. we must act in an unprecedented way and that is to follow the boehner plan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a statement by robert greenstein, the president of the center on budget and policy priorities who says that -- if enacted the boehner bill could really produce the greate increase in poverty and hardship by any law in modern history. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: at this point i'd li to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, my colleague on the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: mr. speaker, this smoke and mirror bill before us today stands to increase, yes, increase the deficit of the united states of america by over $100 billion. let me walk the speaker through the math here. this is why credit ratings matter. countries that have a.a. credit ratings, this is a group of them, pay an average interest

on their sovereign debt of 3.75%. countries with a a.a.a. rating, this is a 10-year, pay 2.89%. that's 1.75%, almost 2% difference between a.a.a. and a.a. in passing the bill today which only has a six-month extension we are jeopardizing our a.a.a. rating thawill be incredibly hard to ever earn back. the addition on paying an extra two percentage points on your mortgage, two points more on your credit card debt, two points more on your car debt, in addition to that, mr. speaker, the government, the biggest borrower in the country, will pay more on the debt. in 10 yes that 1.75% difference, which is just taking the average, between a.a.a. and a.a., costs over $100 billion a year in extra interest on the debt. over 10-year period, over doctor 1 triion of additional interest paid on the federal debt. so what are we doing?

cutting $915 billion and risking adding over $1 trillion in additional expenditures. this smoke and mirror effort before us today risks increasing the federal deficit a time that we all need -- we need to decrease federal spending. we need to decrease our deficit. the last thing we need is to set motion forward to actually up our interest rate, jeopardize our credit rating because of the short-term venture and increase the interest payments on our federal debt. i encourage my colleagues to look at these numbers and vote no on the underlying bill. i yield back the balan of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds to just say to my friend that he's absolutely right. if we go into default, if we don't extend the debt ceiling we are in fact going to see an increase in interest rates. the fact of the matter is the ratings agencies like standard & poor's say that we not only have to increase interest rates but we have to put into place a

deficit reduction plan that will pay down our debt and that's exactly what's happening. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to our hardworking colleague from the energy and commerce committee from brentwood, tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer my support for the budget control act of 2011. what i like to cut cut, cap and balance 3.0. last week the house passed cut, cap and balance 1.0 in a bipartisan fashion. not surprisingly senator reid and his democrat colleagues in the senate failed to even allow for a vote. speaker boehner en offered cut, cap and balance 2.0 which, according to the c.b.o., failed to generate sufficient savings to a company -- accompany the debt ceiling increase. so the speaker went back to the drawing board. found more cuts anreductions. i applaud him for that. once again our house will ensure the nation will take another step by enacting

legislation that cuts spending more than any increase in the debt ceiling, does not raise taxes on america's families and job creators during the time of economic hardship and ensures an up or down vote on the balanced budget amdment to the constitution. and i thank my constituents and the small business owners who have called to encourage me in this process to say, let's get this job done. let it be known this is merely a small foundational step to ensure we put this nation on the road to fiscal help and it is historic by passing the budget control act, we will take away president barack obama's blank check. for the first time debt limit legislation will cut spending, lock in these cuts, cap future spending, does not raise taxes, assures that balanced budget amendment vote and keeps our attention on the natios fiscal problems. house republicans are saying the buck stops here. let's get to work addressing

our nation's fiscal woes and cutting the spending problem in washington, d.c. for that i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the budget control act. i yield back the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a recent "new york tiles" editorial entitled "the republican wreckage." >> without objection. mr. mcgovern: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, the biggest problem in ts country is not that the american government is about to reach its debt ceiling. it's that too man american families have reached their debt ceiling. we have a jobs crisis in this country, and this should be our principal focus. now, somewhere in america today some decisionmakers are not getting much help with that jobs crisis. a hospital that's thinking

about adding a rehab lab and adding a couple hundred jobs wonders how much medicare revenue it's going to get. this bill ys, wait six months and we'll let you know. an entrepreneur who has a software company who's about to finally get off the ground is thinking about borrowing some money to hire more people, but she doesn't know what the interest rates are going to be. this bill says, wait six months and we'll let you know. and, yes, there is a diabetic, a person who is worried about whether they should keep their house or not because their health care bills are rising and they are worried medicare won't pay as many of their diabetic bills as they are now. and we're saying, wait six months, we'll let you know. we can't wait to let you solve this had proem. the republicans should listen to their own leadership. spoke out against a short-term fix to this problem. quote, we feel very strongly that one of the reasons why we

contin to see an ailing economy is that people have very little confidence, very little certainty in terms of where we are headed. i completely agree with majority leader eric cantor who said that in june. we should listen to mr. cantor's advice. we should adopt a long-term plan and put america back to work, get back to the negotiating table today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i at this time am happy to yield two minutes to our thoughtful and hardworking colleague, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: thank you. i rise in support of the budget control act. you know, first and foremost, we, the united states house of representatives, have an obligation to govern. we have tremendous responsibility to the american people to consider this plan that ensures our nation does not default on our nation's commitments. at the same time it places this country on a sustainle fiscal

path. ad let me be clear, defaulting on america's obligations to our creditors, to our seniors, disabled veterans, active military personnel, college students and many others is not an option. this bill prevents a default and it pays our bills. congress must act swiftly to deter ratings downgrade of our u.s. goverent. a downgrade that will affect families and small businesses all across the country. only a sound, credible plan that places on that sustainable trajectory will threaten that downgrade, driven in part by an unprecedented spending binge by this administration which has blown up the fiscal balance sheet. you know, a previous speaker said a few moments ago that we're playing games. i can assure you, this is no game. this is serious stuff. and speaking of serious, the white house is still refusing to offer a serious specific plan in writing that we can review. in fact, in a stinging review of

the administration, the director of the c.b.o. said, we don't estimate speeches. you know, the senate's dug in itheels too. it would be nice if they passed the bill. any bill. it's been 800 days since there's been a budget. it's time for them to act. and to move. to prevent this type of a fiscal calamity that many have predicted. so, again, i ask my colleagues to support this legislation. it's a step forward, it may not be the final product but it moves this process forward. i encourage the senate to take it up. but most importantly, you know, we have a sacred duty and a solemn obligation to lead and to act and we do have that affirmative obligation to govern for the benefit of our country and for the american people. the world is watching. americans are watching. it's time for us to lead and dmonstrate the american exceptionalism. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york,

a member of the committee on budget, mr. tong -- tonko. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding. we're here today at long last to vote on the republican default plan. after 200 days without a jobs agenda, after 200 days of saying that those hardest hit by the recession should bear the burden of unbalanced cuts, after 200 days of rhetoric and walking aw by republican -- away, my republican colleagues have brought their default plan to the floor for a public debate and a vote. so what do they offer up? courageous leadership, a grand bargain? sad sadly, no. when you walk out of -- sadly, no. when you walk ouof negotiations and spend more time talking to the press than to the president i'm not sure we expected more. we have before us the same tired policies that got us into this mess. cut taxes for millionaires, give kickbacks to special interests, pay for it all with cuts to the middle class and never forget the centratenants of the conservative agenda -- end mecare and privatize social security. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will no doubt come to the floor to say that the

bill explicitly protects medicare and social security from cuts. that claim is blatantly false. it's a desperate campaign speech to counter the backlash that comes when the american people read the bill, like they read the ryan budget. so i would ask my colleagues to take another careful look at the bill before us. it is only 57 pages long. there's even a summary online through the rules committee website and after that careful examination, i would ask you ask you to come before my -- ask you to come before my constituents and promise us with a straight face that you have no intention of using this legislation to dismantle medicare and cut social security in the next 12 months. you can't. i don't support these policies and i cannot support a plan that puts us back in the same bitter, vilifying debate in january. it may be good politics but it's not good government. i'm tired of it, my constituents are tired of it, anyone who's watched the nightly news for the last six months is tired of it.

washington loves to kick the can down the road, that's how we got here in the first place. this is our moment, we need a plan, not another republican manifesto. and there are better plans out there, let us vote on them, i ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and get back to work. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield two minutes to our good friend and presidential candidate, the gentleman from michigan, mr. mccotter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccotter: i thank the gentleman from calornia. we hear a lot of talk about plans, we hear a lot of talk about secret default plans, senate plans, the reid plan. but we've yet to hear about the president's plan. we live in a period of time where we are engaged in a struggle against economic stagnation. where 30 million people can't trade jobs because there are no

better ones out there. where 14 million people are unemployed. this is a period of time where inflation is rising, real wages are clining. in short we live in a period of time in which we are being neither led nor governed. we are seeing postures, not plans. with one exception -- the house republicans have endeavored to meet the duty that was entrusted to them by the american people which is to put forward a plan that will prevent the default of the united states and a diminishment of our economic credibility in the world. unfortunately what we get in response is not an attempt at honest, bipartisan collaboration . instead it is more political rhetoric, more partisanship, more posturing.

at this point in time we have before us a plan that can work. it is not a perfect plan, people on both sides of the aisle have their qualms with it and yet it is a plan that can be helpful to the american people, that can be helpful to ensuring that our economy does not further deteriorate, a plan that can make sure that big government no longer crushes the aspirations of the american people to grow this economy, to find employment, to secure their pursuit of happiness around the harget of home. -- harth of home and for that i will support this bill and i would urge my colleagu to do it because the american people deserve no less. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to

the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: what's not safe under the boehner default plan? social security, medicaid and medicare are not safe under the boehner default plan. in just seven months it forces nearly 1.6 -- $1.6 trillion in cuts from these programs, they will be unrecognizable. jobs are not safe under the boehner default plan. it will force twmillion americans to lose their jobs, putting greater strain on struggling families. our economy is not safe under the boehner default plan. this short-term deal could lead to an automatic tax increase for every american with a mortgage, car loan or credit card. it would leave a cloud of uncertainty. businesses won't invest and our economy won't groge grow. nothing is safe under the -- won't grow. nothing is safe under the boehner default plan except tax breaks for big oil companies that ship jobs overseas and the rich. we must reject this ideological

proach and come together on a balanced solution that will ensure that every americanill have a safe and secure ture. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the chair how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 12 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has 17 minutes remaining. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. moran: mr. speaker, according to grover norquist who is apparently the real republican strategist, this is about ensuring that democrats will never again have the revenue to govern as democrats. but what does he mean by that? is he talking about when roosevelt rescued us from the great depression? in the 1930's? or when saved the world for democracy in the 1940's? or when we built the middle class with the g.i. bill in the

late 1940's? or when we won the race to space in the early 1960's? or when we started medicare and passed civil rights laws in the mid 1960's? or when president clinton raised taxes, balanced thebudget, generated $20 million -- 20 million new jobs, cut poverty, grew the middle class, passed on projected surpluses as far as the eye could see and enabled those at the top tax rates to take home more after tax income than in any prior time in american history? the fact is that democrats have made this nationreat by investing in all our people and by raising the revenue necessary to meet our obligations and to secure our future. this is the alternative, this is about an iology that lowers our sights, diminishes our statue and sells short our

future. that's why it should be rejected, mr. speaker. the eaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, in light of the disparity here, i'd like to continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition t the budget control act because i honestly believe that this nation is better than this bill reflects. scruft so we're clear on the difference here between -- just so we're clear on the differences here between our positions, this amendment seeks to place the overwhelming burden of this crisis on the backs of senior citizens and it forces seniors especially to make enormous sacrifices while at the same time it allows the richest americans and oil companies and hedge fund operators to escape any responsibility or sacrifice. this is not how we should be treating america's greatest generation who survived the great depression, who fought in world war ii and who made the sacrifices in their time when

their country called upon them. thiss not the way to treat the frail elderly or any senior who at the end of their working lives are now on a fixed income. the way we deal with this crisis will say a lot about ameri. i think hubert humphrey said it best he said that the true test of any society is how we treat those citizens in the dawn of life, our children, those in the twilight of life, our elderly, and those in the shadow of their lives, our poor and disled at the end of their lives. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. lynch: thank you. i just want to say, as republicans are rallying to the ramparts to save the millionaires from suffering from any loss of a tax loophole, i take full measure of pride at where the democrats in this house are standing on this issue. i urge my colleagues to stand with seniors and vote no on this amendment. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i

mentioned last november, sent 87 nerepublicans to the house of representatives, one of them is the very thoughtful gentleman from indina, mr. buechon. at this time i'd like to recognize him for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. buchanan: mr. speaker, i rise today -- burebbureb mr. speaker, i rise today for america's financial future. we're at a time when we need to make every effort to save our nation's credit rating. the rating agencies have said th raising the debt ceiling is not enough. while i prefer the cut, cap and balance plan, the budget ctrol act vote today and the balanced budget amendment vote tomorrow is the best remaining approach to reduce spending and help avoid a downgrade. mr. bucshon: we can reform today. however, the bill isn't perfect. i wantedore and frankly all of our constituents deserve more. the reality is our friends on the other side of the aisle won't allow it.

with years of reckless spending by the federal government instead of making tough choices to address our spending problems , the other side wants to raise taxes on the american people, to finance funding washington, d.c.,'s spending spree. in addition they want us to give the president a blank check to get him through the 2012 election. well, that's not going to happen. the united states has alys maintained a a.a.a. credit rating and the threat of inaction by oucolleagues in the u.s. senate and no plan offered by the administration puts that at risk. the house has and will take action. we need to send a clear message to the american people that we are willing to make the tough choices and work together on behalf of our nation's citizens. i urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill and take the first step to restoring fiscal responsibility to our nation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i

would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, a member of the budget committee, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank my colleague. mr. speaker, congress' approval rating is up in down around 10% and given the debate on this politically induced default crisis, i have to ask myself, who are these crazy 10%? the american people are looking at this institution right now and they're asking, what on earth are you thinking? they're sick of these games and they're sick of us. they want this default crisis reduced, resolved now, they definitely don't want to repeat it six months om now and they understand that a real solution means a real compromise. our constituents have made it clear they want shared sacrifice where millionaires, billionaires and oil companies contribute their fair share. they want their social security and medicare benefits to be protected, but this bill, the republican default agenda, does none of that. in fact, this reckless bill is actually a stealth attack on medicare and social security

because it requires large cuts next year that can only cut -- come from those programs. the boehner plan would increase borrowing across local and state government and citizens, producing essentially a back door tax hike on the american people. it does damage to seniors and the we are going to run our country in the ground, failing to respond to the crisis. the american people are demanding better. we need to defeat this bill so we can move on to a real solution. i yield back. the spear pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, at this juncture i think i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. uon. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. sutton: i'm frustrated as we sit on the drink of the financial unknown people in my district are left hanging, worrying about jobs. and the bill before us fails to address the number one priority of creating jobs. instead, it puts us in the exact same position six months from now. it protects tax cuts for millionaires and big corpgs that ship jobs overseas. it's been 200 days of this new republican-led congress and what sh we seen? we've seen targets at medicare and working families, the environment and education. we have even seen them use up time to target energy-efficient light bulbs. but what we have not seen them do is target job creation. i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this risky plan and responsibly raise our debt limit so america can pay its bills d this congress can get serious about creating good-paying jobs. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: can i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 10 3/4 minutes remaining and the gentleman from massachusetts has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one inute to the gentlen from new mexico, mr. lujan, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. mr. lujan: thank you, mr. speaker. it's very clear that we have to act to prevent a default and a downgrade of our nation's credit rating. sadly, the house republican leadership's plan is not a serious plan to avoid such a downgrade. more smoke and mirrors. we heard that talked about lately it will put us right back in the same position in a few months, requiring another vote to raise the debt limit, putting america in further area wherwe might be able to see the potential downgrade, costing americans $100 billion a year, $1 trillion over 10 years. a short-term increase in the debt limit has already been rejected by economists a credit rating agencies which

made it clear that this plan will likely result in an unprecedented downgrade to our credit rating, leading to higher interest rates for mortgages, student loans, for all americans in addition, this reckless plan leaves the door the open -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield for just one second, mr. speaker? i want the gentleman to cite -- mr. lujan: mr. speaker -- mr. dreier: i'm sorry. i thought he yielded. mr. lujan: i don't believe i did yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico controls the time. mr. lujan: how much time is left -- mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 25 seconds. mr. lujan: it leaves the door open to the same damage as the ryan's plan to attack medicare, medicaid and social security while protecting tax breaks for billionaires and corporations. mr. speaker, it's portant that we talk to the american people about this and that we

have this conversation. i urge my colleagues to reject the partisan gamesmanship and seek a responsible and balanced solution to this crisis and with that, mr. speaker, i think there's a little bit of time left and yield it back to the minority. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'd like to engage in a discussion with my friend just to ask exactly -- i'm sorry -- did the gentleman not yield to me. i'm confused. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california controls the time. mr. dreier: ok, thank you very much, mr. speaker. well, at this time i'm happy to yield to the next governor of indiana, the gentleman from columbus, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd like unanius consent to vise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: mr. speaker, i come to the floor to rise in support of the budget control act of 20. which is a negotiated

compromise between the speaker of the united states house of representatives and the republican and democratic leadership of the united states senate. let me say that again. the budget control act that we will bring to the floor today is a compromise. at a time when people across america long for washington, d.c., that is able to reach across the aisle, lower the volume, solve the problem, this legislation cos to the floor. and i'm proud to support it. and the truth is it's a difficult time for people across my beloved indiana and all across this country. our economy's struggling. unemployment's at 8.3% in indiana and 9.3% nationally. and i believe that runaway federal spending bboth

political parties is a cause and a barrier to our economic recovery today. we simply must put our fiscal house in order. now, i know the administration wanted to simply raise t debt ceiling without conditions, but that was rejected. i think almost unanimously in the united states senate. and we rejected it as well in this body. what needs to be done today is we need to recognize that if you owe debts, pay debts. we have to raise the nation's debt ceiling so we have the money to pay the nation's bills, but we also owe a debt to this generation of americans struggling in this economy and to the next generation of americans that we can only repay through fiscal discipline and reform. and the budget control act does that. the budget control act does two things that i believe are worth highlighting. number one, it ensures in this first installment that there will be a dollar in budget cuts

for every $1 in increase and borrowing authority by the united states, and that's crucial. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield my friend an additional minute. mr. pence: secondly, the agreement around the budget control act also ensures that there will be a vote in this body, now tomorrow, and a vote in the united states senate this fall on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states. there are other aspects of this bill that are meritorious. a hard spending caps, more enforceable than spending cap of the past. the creation of a bipartisan commission to negotiate spending discipline and reforms for the next installment of a debt ceiling increase. but for my part, making sure that any increase in the debt ceiling is matched, dollar for dollar, with spending caps in

this bill and for the first time in 15 years bringing a bipartisan version of the balanced budget amendment to this floor of the house and soon to the floor of the senate. a worthy note. and they should endorse this approach. this is a very serious time, mr. speaker, and i welcome the budget control act as eviden that congress can still compromise. we can still come together across the aisle. we can find a way to pay the nation's bills and do so in a way that reflect our commitment t fiscal discipline and reform. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado, a former member of the rules committee, and we miss him, mr. perlmutter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. perlmutter: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts. and mr. speaker, i think we got to go back 10 years and talk about where we were at that time. under bill clinton this country had a surplus. revenues exceeded expenses. things were going along great. we were adding jobs by the

millions. we have a republican administration. two tax cuts. couple trillion dollars lower revenue. two wars. couple triion dollars more expense. a crash on wall street. $3 trillion in expense to this country. that's where this expense comes from. that's why we have bills to pay. we had a tough 10 years. most of it under republican administration. we got to pay those bills, but the republican leadership has brought us to the brink of default. something the united states has had full faith in credit for 235 years and they want to bring that right to the brink of default. ladies and gentlemen, we are better than that. we have a responsibility. we can't live in turmoil. we need to rebuild the american dream for people who want to -- a shot at getting ahead in life, not a brinksmanship. this is a bad bill and must be

defeated and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from cifornia. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: yes, mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from georgia who serves on the financial smbs committee, mr. scott. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. america, we really need to pay close attention here. first of all, this is a terrible bill at the wrong time. here we are, the number one issue facing the american people is jobs, and this bill is a major job killer of the highest magnitude. it will average a loss of 4,000 -- 40,000 public service jobs in the public sector each month. all we have to do is look at the record from the month of june, and the month of june the private sector created 58,000 jobs, but because of massive cuts in the public sector there

was a loss of 40,000 jobs each month. in addition to that, this bill will drastically end medicare. it will reduce medicaid payments to the states, and it will severely cut back the checks to our social security recipients. by an average of $1,000 each month. now, ladies and gentlemen -- mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield my friend additional time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield my friend additional te, if i might. may i yield my friend additional 30 second, and will the gentleman yield to me? mr. scott: well, since you yield 30 seconds which you've already taken my last 30 seconds. mr. dreier: well, i'll yield additional time if i need it. where in this bill can he point to where cuts in medicare are going to take place? and i thank my friend for

yielding. i've gone through it. mr. scott: you know perfectly well, mr. dreier, that the nounced cuts in this bill and thsetting up with this commission and also your party has already set a record on a roll -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia controls the time. mr. scott: let me go back and i want to answer your question, but it's very important, mr. speaker, that we also understand that the other dangerous part about this bill is that in six months we will be right back here again which will add greater instability to the markets and further undermine our credibility rating. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds simply to say to my friend there are exemptions in this bill to ensure that social security and medicare are not touched, and we need to remember that. when it comes to this sequestration process that it's not touched. and for those who are saying

that this measure will in fact bring about the cuts have not read t bill and are mischaracterizing it. mr. scott: there is nothing in this bill that exempts -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to yield 30 secon to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i want to ask the gentleman from california a question. i'd yield. is the gentleman saying the text says if t commission set up reports back a cut in social security benefits that that may not be enacted by the commission? i yield. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. andrews: i do. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. and let me say the sequestrations in this bill -- mr. andrews: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. mrdreier: my friend said that this measure -- mr. andrews: reclaiming my time, mr. speaker. the spker pro tempore: the house is not in order. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, reclaiming my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i'm not talking about the sequestrations. i'm talking about the fact that this commission's instructed to find $is.8 trillion in cuts, and -- 1.8 trillion in cuts, and medicare and social security are not exempted from those cuts. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. andrews: this is a road map, a user's guide as to how to cut social security and medicare. we rejecit. i yield to my friend. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. let me say, this is not a commission. members should not refer to this as a commission because the idea of a commission, some sort of outside entity, we're talking about our colleagues in the house and senate who will be members of the joint select committee -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i yield 10 seconds. mr. andrews: the gentleman is correct, it's not a commission. it's a committee that is empowered to cut medicare and social security. we will not stand for it.

mr. dreier: mr. speaker, may i yield myself 10 seconds to say to my friend, this is not a committee that's empowered to cut social security and medicare. it is a committee, a joint selectommittee that is empowered for the first time to submit to both houses of congress a recommendation that we will have an up or down vote on. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: who yields time? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'd yield two minutes tohe gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the underlying bill. this is nothing more than political posturing by the republican majority and i think it's important for the american people to understand that this majority has asked us time and time again to vote to end medicare, to cut social security , to cut medicaid and they're doing it once again. no question about it. what's being offered up by this majority is nothing short of

recklessness. absoluly nothing. the speaker and the republican party know that the president and the senate are going to reject the bill. i don't even know why we're here on this floor, mr. speaker. rather than spending the last several months developing a real plan that would avoid default, the republicans have spent months stripping away health care protections, attacking the e.p.a., jeopardizing jobs, not creating jobs and here we are once again to end medicare, social security, cut away medicaid benefits and attack the mst vulnerable in our communities. i have to say, mr. speaker, if it weren't sad it would be laughable. the plan would require $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years. cut $915 billion at the offset and another $1.8 trillion in december. they're coming after american social security checks, they're

coming after medicare, they're coming after medicaid. that's what this majority is doing. let's not be fooled by it. it's time for the american people to stand up. the bill threatens our ability to pay our obligations. they're not interested in paying our obligations. these are debts that we've already incurred and yet they won't take the money that they've given away to the wealthiest 2% of this country. no, they can't give up theirs. the oil and gas companies can't give up theirs. the companies that have offshored jobs can't give up theirs but they're asking the american people to sacrifice social security, medicare, education, medicaid. it's unfair and weon't stand for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i yield myself 10 seconds to say to my very grood friend from maryland, she has just accurately described the measure that has been proposed by the senate majority leader, harry reid. with that i'm happy to yield a

minute to my very good friend from lafayette, louisiana, a hardworking member of the ways and means committee, mr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i think it was a gross distortion of what's being proposed here and again she -- the previous speaker just condemned the majority leader's, harry reid, the senate majority leader's bill in the senate. that's the only democratic bill we've had. so i think it seems to me there's a little bit of a fight going on over on the other side of the aisle between their house members and senate. to my friend from new jersey, this committee that's formed is a committee of active sitting members of the house and senate. so in order for anything to be recommended this committee, it would require in all likelihood all of the democrats to support it. mr. andrews: would the gentleman yield? mr. boustany: i yield.

mr. andrews: if they wanted to close tax loopholes would they need a simple majority? mrboustany: it would be a simple majority. a simple majority. mr. andrews: it's your position that a simple majority of both houses could raise taxes? mr. boustany: that's correct. hat's what we need. we need that to force some movement -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time 's my privilege to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, the distinguished assistant leer, mr. clyburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina for two minutes. mr. clyburn: i thank my friend for yielding to me. mr. speaker, father clock is ticking, the republican majority is dickering and the american people are hurting. our financial markets are on pace for their worst week in nearly a year. state governments are bracing for downgrades in their borrowing capacities and the gap between those in our society who have a lot and those who have very little is growing.

the republican majority continues their efforts to divert attention from the self-inflicted crisisith manufactured controversies, holding the american economy hostage to their reckless and dispassionate demands. as the clock ticks toward default and the pain it would bring to middle income families and those who aspire to become middle iome, my friends on the other side continue to play politics. speaker boehner does not even pretend that this is a serious attempt to solve the problem. he sold this bill to his conference by telling them that it wasn't bipartisan and with divided government, a plan that isn't bipartisan is no plan at all. it's just a game. the president and the democrats in congress, as well as the american people, have advocated a balanced approacho reduce the deficit while growing the

economy and protecting the most vulnerable, including medicare, medicaid and social security beneficiies. anwe have been willing to make tough, politically difficult compromises. this bill on the floor today, just like the bill from last week, is yet another partisan time waster. our constituents are not interested in any of us voting to cut medicare or cap social security or balcing the budget on the backs of medicaid recipients. a six-month extension is another waste of time. we must resolve this better now and ensure the full faith and credit of the united states. let'defeat the boehner bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining. mr. mcgovern: i'the final

speaker. mr. dreier: i'd encourage my friend to proceed and then i'll ofr -- mr. mcgovern: are you the final speaker? mr. dreier: yeah. mr. mcgovern: how much time left, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: 3 1/4 for you. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous con sent to insert into the -- consent to insert into the record an article abourepublican leaders vote for debt drivers they blame on obama. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this bill does nothing to solve our long-term fiscal challenges because everybody here knows that this is isn't going anywhere. instead it's -- that this isn't going anywhere. instead it's a political stunt. instead it hurdles us closer and closer to a devastating default. for years presidents and congresses of both parties have raised the debt ceiling, recognizing that endangering the full faith and credit of the united states would be a grave mistake. it's amazing to me how many republicans i've heard who dismiss the potential of default

s no big deal. no big deal? tell that to the family who would have to pay higher interest rates on their mortgage, their car loan, their student loan. it would be a very big deal to them. many of my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't just stand as we created these massive deficits. they were active participants. they voted for two huge tax cuts, mostly for wealthy people, that weren't paid for. two wars that weren't paid for. a massive prescription drug program that wasn't paid for. and now their solution is to punish the very americans who can least afford it, all in th name of keeping their rich friends and their special interests happy. the boehner plan is unbalanced and unfair. it slashes programs like social security and medicare that benefit the middle class and the poor. but e republicans insist on protecting tax breaks for oil and gas companies, just today

exxon mobil announced profits of $10.7 billion for the second quarter. do they really need special tax breaks? the ameran people sure don't think so. poll after poll shows that the vast majority of our citizens prefer a balaced approach. yes, we need to cut spending. yes, we need to reform our government. but everybody needs to chip in, to do their part, including the very wealthy who have benefited the most. now, there are certainly places to save. how about ending wars that aren't paid for? right now we borrow $10 billion every month for military operations in afghanistan alone to prop up a corrupt and incoetent karzai government. how about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies? how about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rates as their secretaries? the truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal situation is to grow our

economy. that means creating jobs and putting people back to work. the last election i thought was about jobs. we haven't talked about jobs at all since the new republican majority became -- came to power. that means investing in things like education and inastructure and green technology and medical research. that's the kind of economic future the american people deserve. the boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong direction and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, as i listen to my friend from the other side of the aisle, mr. mcgovern, talk about what has caused the problem that we're in right now, he failed to mention the failed stimulus bill, he failed to mention the failed health care bill, both horribly expensive. but i think it's important for us to look at the facts on one of the items that he mentioned.

they continue, mr. speaker, to engage in this class warfare, us versus them, the multibillionaires, the -- all this sort of stuff, over and over and over again. we happen to recognize that we're all in this together and there should be shared sacrifice. i think that's why it's important for us to look at the facts. let's look at the facts here. as we continue to hear people decry the so-called bush tax cuts, which as we all know are no lger bush tax cuts, they are the bush-obama tax cuts, they became that last december when president obama supported the extension of them, let's look at what happened with the 2003 growth-oriented tax cuts. in 2003, mr. speaker, the federal government had $1,782 ,000,000 in revenues. that was in 2003 before the growth-oriented tax cuts went into effect. mr. speaker, in 2007 the federal

government had a 44% increase in the flow of revenues to the federal treasury by virtue of those 2003 tax cuts. they went from $1,782 ,000,000,000 to $2,567,000,000,000. that's a $785 billion increase in the flow of revenues to the federal treasury after the now bush-obama tax cuts were put into place. so this mularkey about the notion of those who are successful are not paying their fair share of taxes is absolutely preposterous. i want to take the time that i have remaining to shatter a few myths that are out there. first of all, we know right now that we're facing a crisis. both democrat and republican alike in these remarks have made it clear that we're facing a crisis. i have yet to hear anyone, i think maybe the minority whip mentioned the reid plan, all anyone's done on the other side

of the aisle is malign the boehner plan. and mischaracterize it, quite frankly, mr. speaker. but i think it's important to look at what it is that we face. we know that the president of the united states said that if we don't increase the debt ceiling by august 2, on august 3 he does not know whether or not the social security checks will actually go out. well, mr. speaker, we all want to make sure that the social security checks go out. this is going to be our one opportunity to vote for a measure that will ensure that we increase the debt ceiling, so that those checks will go out, and for the first time in the 75 times that the debt ceiling has been increased since 1962 we're going to get to the root cause of the problem. in the past four years we've had an 82% increase, an 82% increase in nondefense discretionary spending. and guess what? the american people last november said, that has to come to an end. and you know what? it's going to come to an end when we pass this measure. i also want to say that we know

that the threat of default is out there and if we don't take actions we know that our credit rating will be downgraded. we know that that will happen. all of the rating agcies have predicted that. they've also said thatimply increasing the debt ceiling is not adequate, we need to make sure that we geturselves on a path that reduces the debt and reduces our deficits. well, mr. speaker, what we need to do is we need to recognize also that those agencies have said, these proposals are that path. there was a report that s&p 500 had said that we in fact, if we didn't have $4 trillion in cuts which i frankly wish we could, but light of the fact that this is a bipartisan effort we're not going to get that high, but they said that if we didn't have $4 trillion in reductions that we would still threaten the credit rating. well, yesterday, the president of standard & poor's testified

before the financial service committee and said, well, we must get on a path toward reducing the deficit and debt, it was inaccurate. it was inaccurate to say that it had to be a $4 trillion level and that's why, as my friends have been quoting these different sources i was trying to get them on record to say who in fact is saying this. . we have to increase the debt ceiling and get ourselves on a path that will reduce the annual deficits and the gnat debt. the plan before us is far from perfect. speaker boehner doesn't like it, i don't like it, but the rest of us recognize that we have a democratic president and a democratic united states senate. if we are going to increase the debt and are going for the first time, first time ever ever change the course on the issue of debt ceiling increases by cutting spending, we have to pass this measure. it grew from this bipartisan compromise last weekend.

harry reid no longer supports it. i haven't heard anyone on the other side sy they supported it, but it was a bipartisan compromise. let's support this measure, mr. speaker. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. now in order under the rule to have 30inutes of debate controlled by the committee on ways and means. 15 minutes will be controlled by the chairman of the committee, mr. camp of michigan and 15 minutes controlled by mr. levin from michigan. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. i mr. camp: i support the act which cuts out-of-control spending and responsiblend necessary plan to avoid a

default on our nation's debt. as we know under president obama, we are experiencing our third straight year of deficits in excess of $1 trillion. in four years, president obama's actions and projected budgets will add more than twice to our debt than was added during the previous eight years. all told, the debt will double under president obama's watch and reach a staggering $26 billion by 2021. doble the debt in half the time when compared with the previous administration. congress must act to cut spending and get our debt under control and that's what the legislation before us does. first, the bill cuts more than $900 billion in federal spending and meets the expectations of the american people that we cut spending more than we increase the debt limit. second, the bill guarantees the house and senate will vote on a balanced budget amendment. more than half of the states ha a balanced budget

requirement and it's time washington's books are balanced as well. third, the bill demands reforms to the way washington works by setting up a joint house and senate committee to find at least $1.6 trillion in additional savings. its work product would enjoy expedited consideration in the house and senate and could not be filibustered. despite what you have heard from the critics of this approach, that this is the most common way the debt limit has increased for a short duration and tied to spending reforms and history is pretty clear on this point. over the last 25 years, congress and the president have acted 31 times to increase the debt limit. 22 of those 31 times were r less than a year. only three of those, 31 increases lasted longer than two years. these debt limit increases are tied to spending reforms and preceded by short-term

increases. three examples, 1987, three short-term debt limit increases prior to a longer term increase that included deficit targets and automatic sequestration provisions. 18990, there were six short-term increases before long-term increases. and in 1996, there were two very shorterm increases to ensure full funding of social security and other federal funds before a longer tm increase included in the contract of america advancement act. what we are doing today is what has happened before. i would also point out that the increase in the debt limit and the binding process to achieve spending reform in washington is exactly what the financial markets need and expect from us. time is sho and this bill may be our lt, best chance to prevent a default. if we fail to act and the government defaults on its debt, the financial and economic shock waves that will ripple across

this country are unpredictable and unimaginable. i want to say a few words about what is not in this bill and that is tax increases. while the president insists that tax increases be part of any debt limit, he failed to convince his own party. in december of last year when democrats controlled both the house and the senate, congress refused to raise taxes and now even senator reid's own plan to increase the debt limit which the president has thrown his support behind, does not include tax increases. given the need to get our fiscal house in order for the future, we must pass the budget control act and i urge a yes vote on this bill and i rerve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is rognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. levin: as i have been listening to this debate, i think it's critical that the house needs some truth in speaking. this bill is not bipartisan. the vote will soon show that. this bill is not a compromise. it is not a compromise. it does not seek bipartisan common ground. indeed, it is orchestrated onlt to find enough common ground among house republican partisans. this bill does not reflect compromise. it would compromise indeed medicare and social security. it forces massive cuts consistent with the ideological republican budget that was unanimously opposed by

democrats. this bill does not promote certainty for our nation's economy. inead, it brings more un certainty for families facing major financial decisions, for businesses deciding whether to invest or hire, for markets unsure when the next shoe might drop. this bill is not balanced. instead, it embraces the republicans' one mantra just expressed by the chairman of our committee. no end to unjustified tax loopholes or tax breaks for the very wealthiest even as so many middle class families have be losing ground. in a few words, our nation's economy and jobs are too much to risk on a bill that is a bridge to no where between our two

houses. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan,r. camp. mr. camp: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. herger. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. herger, 90 seconds. mr. herger: we must act now to enact critical spending reforms. while the ite house has refused to offer a plan, the budget control actwould accomplish this goal. will it solve all of our economic problems? no. but instead of discussing how much more washington will spend, we're now talking about reducing our spending and how to live within our means, just like all americans must do. for example, budget control act would cut nearly $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years, establish firm spending caps and

require the senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment. i urge the senate and the president to stop playing politics and support this bill. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: iyield two minutes to another member of our committee, mr. neal of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts, two minutes. mr. neal: thank you, mr. levin for yielding. this argument today is not about new spending. the argument today is paying our bills. this is the credit card that has come due for the irresponsibility tt we witnessed in this chamber and across this congress for eight years of the bush administration. two wars and $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts, a prescription d

medicare drug bill that came due . the president's chief economic adviser at the time said it was going to cost $300 billion in iraq. they fired him. dick cheney said $60 billion in iraq and in and out in six to eight months. 10 years later, we are in iraq. we have created 2.2 million new veterans. they are going to need our care for years to come in our health centers, for the v.a. it's going to be expensive. paul wolfwitz, in and out of iraq in a few months, a few billion dollars. the bill, our friends, hasome due. we cannot send a message to markets anywhere that the full faith and credit othe united states of america is at risk. in the aftermath of world war ii, when finances were strained as never before, president truman had the vision not only

pay off the debt of world war ii, but to embrace the marshall plan, one of the greatest achievements in history. think of what mr. lincoln might have said durinthe midst of a civil war, america's worst moment, that america would forfeit expenditures as the bill has come due. mr. jefferson and mr. hamilton met in new york with one of the ost fateful decisions in american history, to accept the debt of the states, which moved us away from the articles of the confederation to a constitutional system. and now, at this moment, a political party in our history that always embraced fiscal responsibility, the bill has come due and it's our obligation to pay it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee and chairman of the joint economic

committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: the bill has come due. since world war ii, because congress held the puffers strings we ran the numbers. democrats have ron up 90% of the debt that is held by the public. 90% of the debt that we owe to foreign countries, and foreign countries you and me have been run up by one side of the aisle. woun't it be great if the democrats joined us, but the won't. republicans will take responsibity for their mess. we are going to make sure this country pays its bills, but we are going to make sure we start cutting up the credit cards and change the financial behavior of this country and actually give our kids and grandkids a future that they can cnt on, that they can afford, a country that is much stronger than the one we are facing today if we don't

address this health problem. you can't cut soon enough or deep enough for me. but the budget control act starts us on the right step. it cuts $2.7 trillion in two steps. we cut more than we allow to be borrowed and make sure there are no tax increases on our children, on our small businesses, on your families. we make sure there is finally a real straight up and down vote on the constitutional amendment to balance washington's budget. we get more than half of the spending cuts in the republican budget proposed by our budget chairman, paul ryan. more than half of those cuts are put in place because of this bill. it doesn't solve the problems of america. but i tell you what, if you vote this bill down, all we have done is write a blank check to the president. we have given everyone a free ride in washington until next election and they will not be held accountable. no one in congress, for getting our financial house in order.

this bill is the first step and right step and where we need to move forward. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to mr. doggett of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas two minutes. mr. doggett: my neighbors in texas are saying, work together to resolve this crisis without jeopardizing medicare and social security. adopt a balanced approach that balances the budget by closing some tax loopholes athe same time we cut spending. but agreing has not been possible so far when so many of our house colleagues pride themselves in big disagreeable. instead of protecting the full faith and credit of these united states in the same manner as our republican colleagues voted to do seven times, proposing it

with george bush, today's bill really represents little more than a ransome note who are using thisritical issue to hold our country hostage. . they demand we jeopardize the security for the very young with educational opportunities and for the old with social security and medicare. their ransom demands do not share the sacrifice but they sure do spread the pain. to the young, to the old, to those who are trying to climb up the economic ladder or just not slide backwards. they talk about tightening the belt. the only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages that they've taken. i believe now is the time to stand firm for those families and to affirm that america will always pay our bills by rejecting this bill and then moving forward with more reasonable legislation. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. e gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield one minute to a distinguished mber of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from louisiana, dr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. we've heard a lot of talk about the past and how we got here. the american people get it. we have debt. serious debt. a threat to our national security and a threat to our economic prospery. and a default, putting the full faith and credit of the united states on the line, would make that worse. this house has passed cut, cap and balance. we stood up to our responsibility and passed a bill. now we've got a second bill because it didn't get through the senate. we have a second bill brought forward consist went our principles. we're going to cut more than we're going to borrow. we're going to cap spending with real statutory caps and we're going to ensure that there will be a vote on balanced budget amendment in both houses. that's what the american people want. they're demanding it. this is a solid first step to

getting that debt under cotrol. we need to move forward now. let me be clear, this house must act now. the time is running out. the senate must act on this bill and the president must sign it. let's upholdur responsibility. we have a responsibility to the american people. let's uphold our responsibility and dohat's right for the country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: could i inquire of our time, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 9 1/2 minutes and mr. camp has seven. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. blumenauer of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: for? for how long? mr. levin: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. i didn't hear. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, this proposal that is brought for us today can be characterized by three words. reckless, hypocritical and abusive. it's reckless because for the first time in history we're having people play an elaborate gamef fiscal checken -- chicken, threatening the full

faith and credit of the united states for their own ideological agenda. 102 times we have increased the debt limit since 1917, seven mes for george bush, even though he was fighting unfunded wars and proposing massive tax cuts. pele are already paying the price right now as we're starting to see stock markets slide, premiums are increased for ensuring our debt and there's doubt about where we're going forward. it is hypocritical because the republicans have refused to actually back up some of the fanciful rhetoric in their cut, cap and balance amendment that would require massive cuts to budgets. earlier this week one of the friends from the republican study committee had the temerity to offer an amendment to the bill that's being debated this week on appropriations for

interior and e.p.a. that would have been 11%. and what did the republicans do when faced with a bill that would actually make them impose the cuts that they envision? they ran away from it. 104 of them voted with responsible democrats saying, we're not going to go that way. but they don't want to go that way, they're not stepping up and actually doing the cutting, they want to do it far in the future. and, lafment, it's abusive. we have a divided govement. the american public want a balanced solution. they welcome tax reform and modest closing of loopholes to be able to avoid massive cuts in the future and be able to get on a path to fiscal responsibility. but the republican minority has decided, no, it's our way or the highway, even if it means threatening our fiscal future. ject this sham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker.

at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. buchanan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. buchanan: mr. speaker, we need to cut spending today and reduce the deficit. and avoid the dangerous prospects of putting america for the first time in default. the bill before us today will accomplish that without raising taxes on the american people. with uneloyment being what it is today in terms of looking a small businesses, it will not rae taxes on small businesses who are the job providers either. i support the budget control act because the time is now for congress and the president to do what's in the best interest of the american people. our economy is struggling. our current national debt is over $14 trillion and we're adding $4.5 billion a day to our deficit and debt. $188 -- let me break that down, $88 million per hour to our

deficits and debt, $4.5 billion a day. this reckless pattern of borrowing and spending has put our country on the road to bankruptcy. washington needs to show the american people that we can deal with these challenges today and in the future. i urge my colleagues to support the budg conol act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another distinguished member of ourommittee, mr. pascrell from the great state of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. chairm. i have the greatest amount of respect for the chairman of our committee, mr. chairman. ways and means. but i think you're wrong on what you're trying to do today. do you remember may 31, mr. chairman? of this year? we took a vote may 31. in fact, we took a vote on raising the debt limit. the vote was based upon a

resolution introduced in this house by the chairman of the ways and means committee. and he said when he introduced the piece of legislation on this floor that he hoped it would il. he said, you are not going to get enough votes to get this done, so he set out to undermine his own resolution. now j.f.k. said, i do not shrink from this responsibility, i welcome it. i welcome my responsibility today, what i have to do. i'm going to have a pleasure to vo no. because i know what's happened since may 31, a day of infamy. so i'll make it known that the bill couldn't pass so we'll release the american people to understand that. the american people don't want us to tell them what they need or what they want. they should tell us what they need and what they want. we think we know and most of the time we don't know on either side of the aisle.

they're choosing to extend the state of economic and political turmoil another six months in this bill, we want to go through the holidays doing this back an forth? won't that be sweet? we'll make people think we're working. it's been over 200 days and still not one piece of job legislation from the majority on this floor. decades of ma jorts policies -- majorities' policies exploded the deficit. the cause of just the bush tax cuts will be 40% of the federal debt by 2019. and when you add in the two wars, it will be 47%. who are we kidding here? the republican budget bill this year added $6 trillion to the national debt. i rest my case. live up to your responsibility, that's what the american people want us to do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp.

mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. reid -- reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of this bill. as a proud member of the freshmen class that came to washington, d.c., in november of 2010, i can tell you the culture of thici is changing. when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle put forth the argument that because we've raised the debt ceiling 102 times and seven times under president bush that mehow it makes it right for us to raise the debt ceiling without dealing with the problem that's causing it to exist in the first place and that is the uncontrolled spending that has gotten us to this point of $14.4 trillion of national debt. as a member of the freshmen class, we have changed the culture of this place because now the debate is happening on the floor of this house and

we're going to have to -going t take it to the senate so they take it to the ploor of the senate and for once openly and honestly debate the issues of the day. but yet they still in the senate have not heard that call. but through this process they will. we wanted more but we realized that this is just a step in the process. the battle will go on, we will act responsibly today by passing this out of the house and cure the risk that comes from the risk of default. but don't make any mistake about it. the battle will go on and this is just the beginning. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. about a shera of the great state of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. becerra: i tha