these kids would normally die a horrible death and they are not only living, but they are returning to a normal state because of this operation. >> you were passionate enough about this issue to have a hearing on it. for those who do not know you, what is behind your passion in this area and the focus you put on it? >> all of my work on human rights and humanitarian issues is motivated by my faith. i mentioned earlier about being our brothers and sisters' keepers. we have been admonished by the scripture. i am a catholic. and i believe strongly that when the board says, "what ever you do to my brethren -- when the lord says, "whenever you do to my brethren and the least of these, you do toomey." -- you do to me."

i do not believe in one side telling the other they have to become what they are not. you have the folks in china who happen to be muslims and they are terribly oppressed. it all comes from my faith and trying to be faithful to the gospel. >> your idea of quarters of tranquillity -- corridors of tranquility to try to get aid into somalia, would you be taking that beyond an idea to either the administration or outside? >> we asked the administration to pursue it. we have a letter going over to the administration to that effect. it has worked in the past. i remember meeting with the ethiopian delegation in new york in the '80s when the famine was exacerbated by the dictator then in ethiopia.

and our big push was to get medicine because so many were dying -- was to get cor corridors of tranquility because so many people were dying. i remember we negotiated a day of tranquility to vaccinate thousands of children. whether there -- if there is a will to say, lay down your arms and let's get this assistance to people so they do not die. i think al-shabab, if that were presented by the obama administration, which they have not done yet, but they might, then we might be able to get things started. >> congressman christopher smith, thank you. >> thank you. >> and we are back with our reporters. let me begin with you on somalia, corridors of

tranquility. you heard the chairman said that. what do you think he meant? >> it might be a term interest in history where there is a conflict, but it is the people, the civilians, are suffering for whatever reason and there have been derangements -- are arrangements where the fighting side have stood back and allowed international organizations, u.n. peacekeepers to come in through a safe corridor and deliver food aid. not to stop the fighting, but to guarantee that it does not happen there so what is needed can come in. the difference here is first of all, al-shabab, a terrorist

organization it is not a government. it is not in a classic rebel group. we are hearing now, for example, that they are, in fact, benefiting from the state of famine because they are able to tell ordinary people, civilians, joined up with us. if you are hungry, joined up with us and we have food and we will help you out. i think it is a worthy proposal. i will be very interested to see where it goes. but i think your plan with a group that does not necessarily have in their interest to happen. >> is that the reason why it has not happened yet? >> yes, this is a group very similar to the taliban if not in ideology, then definitely the

influence. that has been very difficult for the administration to find a reason to work with them at all. you saw in the past few days the administration has been able to say, low, it is such a crisis -- look, it is such a crisis that we will not prosecute. we will not prosecute those groups that are trying to bring in aid. at the same time, you have heard from the administration this idea that they do not see a monolithic force, is al-shabab. that can to some extent the been supportive of. -- make the situation more difficult. >> if you could just tell the

viewers where you are watching for in somalia in the coming days. >> i think as the congressman said, there needs to be some kind of quick response. the african union is talking raid donors' conference at the end of august. -- is talking about a donor's conference at the end of august. that is not quick enough. eckert ouattara experts -- agricultural experts will tell you the long-term answers are there. yes, there has to be a better of government in place, but in terms of delivering drought- proof seeds, irrigation systems, there has to be a focus on the long term solutions not just for somalia, but the countries throughout the horn of africa. >> thank you both.

>> you can watch newsmaker again with representative christopher smith at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next week, washington journal will be looking at the job situation in america. tuesday focuses on technical education and the work force. wednesday, a look at private- public partnerships and job creation. and on thursday will have an assessment of federal jobs programs. friday, opportunities for women in the work force. washington -- "washington journal" as like everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern right here on c-span. -- is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern right here on c- span. >> with the debt ceiling bill now signed into law, watch the

debate on the house and senate floors and see what your elected officials said and how they finally voted with c-span congressional chronicle. there is video of that recession and complete voting records. and when members return into gambert, follow more of the appropriations process, including the day the floor and committee hearings aspect c- span.org/congress. >> up next, a look back at the reaction on raising the debt ceiling. the first, the debate on the final bill in the u.s. house, including reaction from members of congress and president obama. after that, reactions from democrats. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 384, i call up s. 365 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 365, an act to make a technical amendment to

the education, sciences reform act of 2002. the speaker pro tempore: the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 112-190 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour with 30 minutes equally divide and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on rules, 15 minutes equal request divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means and 15 minutes quelly divide and controlled by the chair -- equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member by the committee on budget. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. house will be in order. members, please take combingses from the floor. -- conversations from the floor. members in the rear of the chamber, please take your conversations from the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the measure before us. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i might consume and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, at this moment we are beginning debate on a measure which i believe will finally send a signal to job creators in this country and in the global marketplace that we are finally, finally getting serious about getting our fiscal

house in order. we know that we're dealing with a very sad 9.2% unemployment rate in this country, we know that there are people hurting. we all have constituents who have lost their homes, people who have lost their jobs, people who have lost their businesses, people are hurting. it is absolutely imperative that we do everything that we can to get our economy back on track. we've just gotten the report of this downward report of the g.d.p. growth rate down to 1.3%. we need to get back to robust dynamic d robust, dynamic, strong growth. we need to get to 4%, 5%, 6% g.d.p. growth. and, mr. speaker, one of the main reasons that we have not done that is that we have seen this dramatic increase in spending over the past half century on 75 different

occasions, 75 different occasions we've seen our debt ceiling increased without any effort whatsoever to get at the root cause of why it is that we've had to increase the debt ceiling. i argue, mr. speaker, that we don't have a debt ceiling problem, we have a debt problem. and that's why we're here today and that's why i believe that we, after months and months and months of partisan bickering, fingerpointing, we have at this moment begun a debate that will allow us in a bipartisan way to increase the debt ceiling, which we all know needs to be done, as simply as meeting the obligation of paying for past spending. many of us have been opponents of much of that spending but we recognize that the bill has to be paid. speaker boehner, when just days after we took the oath of office in 112th congress, received the request from the president of the united states through his

treasury secretary, mr. geithner, that we increase the debt ceiling. mr. speaker said then that he will agree it's essential for us to increase the debt ceiling but we were not going to proceed with business as usual. we're not going to continue increasing the debt without getting to the root cause of the problem. and, mr. speaker, i've got to tell you that through all of the debate that's taken place, we have gotten to the point where we have a measure, it's a bipartisan compromise, it's a bipartisan agreement that i believe will, as i said, send a signal to those who are seeking to create jobs for our fellow americans, that we now are going to have the kind of fiscal restraint and responsibility from washington, d.c., the likes of which we haven't seen in a long, long period of time. so, mr. speaker, i will tell you that i strongly support this

measure, as everyone has said it's far from perfect, but i strongly support it. and i urge my colleagues, democrats and republicans alike, to join together in support of it and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. after months' long standoff over raising the debt ceiling, congress is now forced to take action on a bill that by all accounts is deeply flawed. i think everybody today has agreed with that. why are we doing a flawed bill? because we waited until the last minute. instead of reducing the nation's debt by closing tax loopholes for oil companies and private jet owners, today's bill instead creates a supercommittee that will decide how to take over $1 trillion in cuts. this supercommittee will serve as a mock congress, leading 325 members of congress sitting on the sidelines while a group of 12 decide the shape of the country for a decade to come.

paying our debts should be a no-brainer. indeed the debt ceiling itself is an antiquated solution to a problem we no longer face and should be eliminated. it was originally created to pay for world war i, to provide our country with economic stability while at war. today we're again in the midst of war but instead of protecting the stability of our economy, some in congress have decided to question the necessity of paying our bills. as we all know by now, they've taken our economy hostage and demanded draconian cuts in exchange for not leading our nation into default. the actions have caused real and significant damage, roll call reports that because of the prolonged debt ceiling crisis, the interest rate the united states government must pay has already increased which means the interest rates for car loans and home mortgages are also increasing. the stock market has responded as expected. according to the july 29, big banks and companies withdrew

$37.5 billion from money market funds that are described as a key artery for our economy. the dow jones industrial average lost nearly 5% of its vam last week which meant 401-k's, retirement plans, all of america -- americans were put at risk and much of it was lost. baby boomers across the united states watched nervously as all those things were happening. as i mentioned earlier, this type of crisis has become the new normal in this congress. under the republican rule, the house of representatives is re-- has repeatedly led our country to the brink of unthinkable situations. first we led the country to the brink of a government shutdown, threatening the jobs and hundreds of thousands of workers and endangering vital government services relied upon by americans every day. as we speak federal aviation administration is shuttered, costing the united states government hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues.

because the majority refuses to pass a clean legislation that does not include measures that threaten rural communities and the future of the airline unions. the majority has brought us to the edge of a cliff in order to see how much they can get for not throwing the country into default. in january, speaker boehner promised the american people the debt ceiling debate will be an example of the, quote, adult moment, end quote, in washington. is this what he had in mind? just this morning my colleague on the rules committee, mr. dreier, went on national public radio to say his party has, quote, not torpedos the economy by defaulting, end quote. this statement defies reality. we've been brought to this point precisely because the leadership and his party walked out of negotiations, demanded they get ideologically driven cuts before they will vote to protect the civility of our economy. last but certainly not least the crisis of the last few months has come at the expense of addressing the true crisis in our country, the jobs crisis

that is facing millions of our fellow citizens. last month only 25 million americans failed to find full time work. many have been out of work to so long that their unemployment benefits have expired as their skills erode and they are living on savegsings or charity from loved ones and friends. in response, we have not introduced a single bill in this house designed to invest significant government resources into creating jobs. instead we have repeatedly proposed cutting funding to investments in green technology, in transportation and infrastructure, destroying the promise of putting thousands of americans back to work in the jobs that can't be outsourced overseas. they've refused to extend unemployment benefits for those who can't find jobs and are moving nowhere fast to extend the payroll tax break that's helped to create the small number of jobs that we added in recent months. mr. speaker, it's time to seriously move responsibility to

take any of the responsibilities of leadership and in doing so put an end to this self-inflicted crisis. and focus on getting americans back to work. i yield back the balance of my time -- no, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'd like to express my appreciation to my colleague for her great spirit of bipartisanship. with that i'd like to yield a minute and half to my good friend from stan stathen island, mr. grim. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york voiced for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. grimm: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to ensure that the voices of those that i represent in staten island and brooklyn are heard. and what they have to say is actually quite simple. they expect of us to use common sense, to bring solutions to problems that this nation faces. and the problem that we face is not a debt ceiling problem, it's a debt problem. and the people on staten island and brooklyn, every day they go home and they have to figure out how to manage their household.

they go to work and they have to figure out how to manage their small businesses. and you do that with common sense. that's what they ask of us. you cannot spend money you don't have. you cannot continue to rack up debt with no plan to pay it off. today this debate is about moving america forward together, in a bipartisan way, because this is not a democratic debt or a republican debt. it's an american debt which means that americans must come together to solve the problem. today is about solving problems. so i proudly stand here and i will support this bill, i will support speaker boehner and i will bring solutions to the problem, not just bickering. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts seeks control of the time of the gentlelady from new york? mr. mcgovern: i do. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr.

speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: mr. speaker, we have never cut our way out an economic recession. we've always grown our way out. but we've never grown our way out investing less than 15% of our g.d.p. in our people's potential. in fact, the last time we cut back on the way we're about to do today was in 1937 and that set us right back into an economic depression. but this time we're not going to have world war ii to rescue our economy. the federal investment in homeownership and higher education for our returning g.i.'s and the subsequent infrastructure investments in interstate highway system and the like created a permanent middle class after the war that lasted for two generations. but the middle class has never been more threatened than it is today. and this will con sign it to stay in the same condition that we find it today and it's not because we're a poor country.

our largest corporations are experiencing record profits. the top 25 hedge fund managers are making more than $1 billion a year. our corporations are sitting on more than $2 trillion of cash. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional time. mr. moran: mr. speaker, the point is i understand this train is leaving the station but it's going in the wrong direction. we need to be investing in this country, not taking away the resources that will enable it to grow and for the poor especially those striving to be in the middle class, to achieve the middle class, to education, training and infrastructure investment. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i yield a minute to my very good friend from ashland, wisconsin, mr. duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. i had a chance to watch this floor debate over the last week or so. to say the least you can say our tempers have flared.

there has been a lot of rhetoric on both sides. as we come together today, the proposal that's been negotiated with both sides, with speaker boehner, the president, harry reid. it's a deal that not everyone is pleased with. it's a deal that doesn't have in everything that i want, and i'm sure it doesn't have everything in the deal that my friends across the aisle would want. and that's why i think so many of us are hearing from our constituents. a lot on the far right and a lot on the far left saying we don't like it. but the bottom line is i think this is one of the great moments of the house where two sides come together and figure out how they are going to find a solution that doesn't work for their parties. it's a solution that works for the american people. and at this point in our history we owe $14.5 trillion. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield my friend an additional 15 seconds. mr. duffy: $14.5 trillion. it's about time this congress

come together and figure out a way to live within our means. this bill is going to start that process, though it doesn't go far enough. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. point of view gove mr. speaker, i yield one minute -- mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fatah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fatah: this is an inside job. i want to offer just in evidence that, you know, we had in the words of the treasury secretary for reagan and for bush, an admitans they were running up deficits and it was one way to starve the government. and then we had the republican party at the height of its power, the presidency, the house, the senate saying, no, we weren't going to have any tax increases even though we're running up these high deficits. we're going to cut taxes. we're going to hemorrhage trillions of dollars in revenue

and we are going to go into two wars, we're going to put a $7 trillion prescription drug plan on the financial pile of our debt. and so alan greenspan in the first weeks of the bush administration, he said, bush could leave office but our country would be entirely debt free. what happened in the reverse was he doubled the debt, walked out with eight million americans losing their jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. fatah: but said to those who wanted -- mr. fattah: but said those who would -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: i said to the next governor of indiana, my friend from columbus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker.

i thank the gentleman for yielding. this is a challenging time in the life of our country. our economy is struggling. millions are out of work, and now with a more than $14 trillion national debt, america's on the verge of having its debts exceed our statutory borrowing limit. now, i recognize if you owe debts pay debts. congress has an obligation to defend the full faith and credit of the united states. but this congress also has an obligation to keep faith with this and future generations of americans by restoring fiscal responsibility and discipline to our national treasury. the bipartisan budget control act that we will continue today will make it possible for the nation's bills to be paid with no new taxes, dollar-for-dollar cuts in taxes and it will give us to consider a balanced budget amendment to the

constitution. now, let me be clear, the budget control act is not so much a good deal as it is a good start. i really believe this bipartisan compromise is a modest but meaningful step in the direction of fiscal discipline and reform and i welcome it. now, while this bill doesn't go nearly far enough, it does move us in the right direction. you know, leadership means knowing when to say yes and knowing when to say no. i believe the time has come to get something done so this congress can move our national government back in the direction of fiscal responsibility and reform and begin to advance policies that will put americans back to work. last thought, there's a lot of credit taking on a day like today. a lot of bipartisan, back patting, as we say. but let me say this day where

we see the ship of state turning ever so slightly through that lone star of fiscal responsibility this day does not belong so much to any one political leader, to any one political party or to any one branch of government. this day belongs to the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pence: who have stood, who have clamored, who have come to town halls, who have demanded that this government live within its means. this is your day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much, mr. chairman. ladies and gentlemen of the house of representatives, this is, of course, a very important day, moment usus decision, difficult decision. i am going to vote for this in the best interest of our country and putting us in the area where we need to be. but i do want to point out one area of weakness that we need

to look at very carefully as we go forward and that is in the application of this 12-member committee and especially as it relates to the areas of social security, medicare and medicaid. now, my understanding is, and i think this is understanding that we certainly need to make clear, that social security and medicaid, veterans, pell grants are protected fully under this bill. but when it comes to medicare, my understanding is that there will be an opportunity in here where they will look at medicare on the provider side. the question becomes, how can you basically separate benefits of medicare patients when you have the patients, the doctors and the hospital and you can't adequately separate that? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: we must be mindful

of the medicare apparatus. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i did not come to washington to dismantle the new deal or the great society. and i did not come to washington to force more people into poverty. i agree we must avoid default and confront or long-term fiscal policies. that's why on saturday i voted for the reproposal which would have reduced our debt by hundreds of billions of dollars. but the bill before us today is unfair in so many ways. it disproportionately places the burden of dealing with our debt issue on the backs of those who can least afford it while it spares the wealthiest from contributing anything. there is something fundamentally wrong when a billionaire hedge fund manager pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, when big oil can make tens of billions in

profits every quarter but can get sweetheart deals from the taxpayer. and when we're slashing dollars for roads and bridges. and there are no new revenues in the bill before us today. only massive cuts in what is called domestic discretionary spending. but what did that actually means? it means less investment in our transportation and infrastructure. it means less investment in medical and research and education and food security. to put it simply, it means less jobs and higher unemployment at a time when millions of americans are struggling to find work. and despite the rhetoric of its supporters, the bills put social security, medicare, medicaid on the chopping block. we all know how we got into this mess. two huge tax cuts mostly for the wealthy that weren't paid for, two wars that were paid for, a massive prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for. now, there are certainly places to cut. right now we're borrowing $10 billion every single month, $10 billion every single month for

military operations in afghanistan to prop up a corrupt and competent karzai regime. but according to the congressional budget office the spending caps contained in this legislation do not apply to ending that misguided war. that makes no sense to me. 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. this bill does exactly in the wrong direction. i have two children, mr. speaker, who i love more than anything, and i don't want them to grow up in a country where the gap between the very rich and poor grows wider and wider each year. we can do better, mr. speaker. we must do better. and we can do so in a way that does not abandon the principles of economic justice and fairness that has made our nation so great. ilvote no on this bill. -- i will vote no on this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute to say to my rules committee colleague

that time and time again he criticizes the tax cuts that have been put into place. they really are the bush-obama tax cuts because we all know last december president obama signed an extension of those. i think it's important for us to look at the 2003 revenue flow and rook at what happened just a few short years later in 2007. in 2003, mr. speaker, we had $1,562,000,000,000 in -- excuse me $1,782,000,000,000 in revenues to the federal treasury. in 2007 after those tax cuts were put into place we had $2, 567,000,000,000 in revenues. that was a $587 billion increase, a 44% increase in the take that the federal government had because of the implementation of those cuts. it's important to recognize that if we can grow the economy

we can generate an increase in the flows of revenue to the federal treasury. i'm proud to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. latourette: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank you for the recognition. this moment in time on the floor reminds me exactly during a period in the 1990's. there is a lot of publicity given to the new freshman class and the freshman class of 1994 is being neglected. welfare reform was the discussion. we -- our proposals were mean to pregnant women and children and poor people. the president of the united states, plirn, decided he wasn't going -- president clinton decided he wasn't going to be the president of the rhetoric. he was going to be the president of the united states. he signed the welfare bill.

the friends at that time looked like their dogs had all died because they were so depressed. president clinton decided to lead. now, i don't know what's going on in all of the other offices but we've taken a lot of phone calls over the last four, five weeks. some people call in tell me to hold the lines. some people call in and tell me i'm an idiot. but most says you have to work it out. to the credit of the president, barack obama, he had the speaker, speaker boehner, nancy pelosi, harry reid, mcmcconnell, down at the white house to work it out. i don't think i will listen to this continuous harang of how we're being mean to people because i don't think people on that side of the aisle believes that president barack obama would do the horrible things that the people are indicating he would do. i just don't believe it. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts.

mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself 10 seconds. mr. speaker, i hear a lot about the bush tax cuts. if they were so good where are the jobs? i think it's simply wrong to have the middle class in this country bear the burden when the donald trumps are getting tax cuts. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. speaker, this is a very tough place to put america. not members of congress. we are paid to come here and do our job. but it's a very tough place to put america. and so i have a simple state of facts to present today and listen to my other colleagues, which i will, because it is a tough decision to in actuality support legislation that seems to be driven by thoughts that

the only way to get something done is to hold a whole country hostage and a whole congress hostage. on the brink of august 2, we're now throwing something on the floor that is arguably supposed to be helpful. i am concerned that there are nuances in this legislation that will hurt people that we all care about, but it's a tough decision not to say yes to having america pay her bills. i hope for once that once we get past today that we will not in any way yield again to the voices of 87 members who care nothing about america and simply cares about their way or the highway. i am upset and this is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. dreier: i was recognized, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair will advise all members to respect the gavel. the gentlewoman was out of order. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thought i was recognized. thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i'm happy to yield a minute and half to mr. which the field. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. wittman: i rise in support of this legislation -- mr. whitfield: i rise in support of this legislation and i think that president obama, the leaders in the house and the senate shall be given a warm congratulations on being able to come to some agreement to prevent america from defaulting on its debt. we all know that this is not a perfect piece of legislation. but one of the real positives of this legislation is the joint commission that's going to be established by six members from the house, six members from the senate that will come up for recommendations to reduce federal spending. and we do know that exempt from that is social security, veterans benefits as well as

medicaid. those who really need health care the most. but i've heard a lot of discussion today about this is not about jobs and i would just point out that getting our financial house in order is very important but we all recognize if you read any newspaper recently, you will find out that in this administration the excess of regulations coming out, particularly from e.p.a., has been a real hindrance to job creation in america. and not only that, but the health care bill that was adopted last year because of the sun earn -- uncertainty. so this is an important first step on getting our financial house in order. next we need to start working on removing uncertainty on the regulatory side of the government. and so i would urge everyone to support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would advise the gentleman from massachusetts has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 2 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from

massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: we one final speaker so if the gentleman has others. you're good? all right. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for dwo minutes. -- two minutes -- for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have missed, in my opinion, a wonderful opportunity. an opportunity to make a grand bargain as the speaker wanted to do, as leader pelosi wanted to do, as leader reid wanted to do, as the president wanted to do and as the vice president wanted to do. for months now the world has looked to america and asked whether we were still a nation that paid its bills. or whether thanks to the ideologicalal intrin generals of a few we would do the unthinkable and default on our obligations. we are a more responsible and honorable nation than that. we are only that the point because the far right wing for the first time in american history has chosen to hold our

economy hostage in order to enact the radical, ideological agenda far out of step with the majority of americans. if nothing else, these months have shown the american people who puts our country's welfare first and would who would rather have ideological purity at all costs. i am voting for this bill. not because i like this bill, although it does do sol things that i think need -- some things that i think need to be done. we need to bring down the deficit, we need to address the debt, we need to return to fiscal responsibility. but default for the united states is not an option. this would affect all of the people that i represent and all of the people of this country if we defaulted. at the very least this bill averts that outcome. by paying our bills through 2013, which will bring certainty to a struggling economy that

badly needs it. this bill cuts spending by $1.2 trillion and also establishes a process to arrive at additional spending cuts. the second set of deficit reductions will be entrusted to a bipartisan committee. hopefully that committee will accurately reflect the priorities of this nation. we are here because we missed, as i said, a great opportunity. may i have one additional minute? mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: the chance to pass a truly balanced agreement that relies on both spending cuts and revenue. we're not there. but i have said many times during the course of this debate , to govern is to compromise. not to sell out, as some people think on this floor that voting for a compromise is somehow a sellout. we cannot run america on that theory and that is not what democracy is all about.

i urge my colleagues to ensure that america in fact pays its bills. that america -- mr. dreier: i yield my friend additional time if he'd like. mr. hoyer: i'd be glad to yield. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. i don't know if he hearder. i closed the rule debate by talking about the connecticut compromise which established a bicameral legislature july 16, 1787, in high closing remarks here, it was called the great compromise and my friend is absolutely right. we're at that point today in dealing with an issue not of that magnitude but clearly a very important one and i'm happy to yield my friend an additional 10 seconds. 15. mr. hoyer: one minute. i yielded to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts' time has expired. mr. dreier: oh, i yield 45 seconds to my friend. mr. hoyer: ladies and gentlemen, i have said numerous times during the course of this debate about whether america was going to pay its bills, that we need

to vote not as republicans or democrats but as americans. americans concerned about the fiscal posture of their country, concerned about the confidence that people around the world have in the american dollar which is, after all the, the standard of the world -- after all, the standard of the world. that's what i think this vote is about. it should not be about partisan politics and very frankly it should not be about ideological extremes. it ought to be about responsibility. it ought to be understanding our oath of office is to preserve and protect the united states of america. this bill does that, vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognizesed. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i feel very honored to follow my good friend and classmate, the distinguished democratic whip, as we talk about this compromise

and where we are. now, mr. speaker, saving social security and medicare is a priority that i believe both political parties share. contrary to much of what has been put out there, this is something that is addressed in this measure. we're going to be able to save social security and medicare. again, working together in a bipartisan way. creating jobs, democrats and republicans alike talk about that. how is it that we're going to be able to do that? getting our fiscal house in order. it's a very, very important step in our quest to ensure that the people who are hurting and looking for jobs will have an opportunity to get them. sending a positive signal to the global market that we are the world's economic military and geopolitical leader by increasing the debt ceilinger with sending a positive signal that we are going to continue meeting our obligations and our responsibility. but at the same time dramatically reducing spending, the problem that has gotten us

to this point is what we're doing for the first time ever, after 75 times increasing the debt ceiling, we're finally getting to the root cause and the problem is, as has been said over and over again, is our debt and we're going to turn the corner on that in a thoughtful and balanced way. mr. speaker, i want to compliment the president of the united states, i want to compliment both leaders of the united states senate, harry reid and mitch mcconnell, and i want to congratulate speaker john boehner who has done an absolutely phenomenal job in ensuring that we wouldn't continue business as usual and i also want to congratulate minority leader pelosi for her effort that she's put in to getting us to the point where we are today. and so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues, i urge my colleagues to support this measure and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes members from the committee on ways and means, chairman, mr. camp from michigan, and ranking minority

member mr. levin from michigan. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, if the congress does not act and act now, america will default and that would wreak havoc on our economy and make it harder for americans to find and keep a job in an already weak economy. default cannot be an option and i am pleased that the bill before us ensures that will not occur. just as default would threaten the economic health of this country, so would increasing taxes. raising taxes on families and job creators would hinder investment, incolleague the cost of doing business and -- increase the cost of doing business and result in even less hiring and fewer jobs. that's the wrong direction when we're struggling with an unemployment rate of 9.2% and 14 million americans looking for work. the good news is that the legislation before us recognizes these basic facts, it avoid as default, it makes sure that the

government pays our bills and it does not increase taxes. and though some have argued the new joint select committee on deficit reduction could pave the way for tax increases, that is not going to happen. the committee structure, the baseline it will work off of and the fact that republicans are in the majority in the house virtually guarantees that tax rates will not go up. furthermore, this legislation finally forces washington to make serious changes to the way it spends taxpayer dollars. there are real budget reforms, there is a path to a balanced budget amendment and there are automatic spending cuts if congress does not rein in spending on its own. i applaud the efforts of all those who helped craft this agreement, especially speaker boehner and leader cantor. i urge my colleagues to recognize this opportunity to fix what is broken in washington and use this occasion to significantly cut runaway spending. mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: thank you. i now yield two minutes to my friend, a most distinguished member of the ways and means committee for a long time, mr. charles range of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york voiced for two minutes. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. speaker. while i stand on this floor as an american and a person that loves this congress so much and i'm embarrassed also as a member that a president of the united states would have his domestic and foreign policy actually held hostage because with him and only him and no other president have we decided that we would almost put in jeopardy the faith and fiscal responsibility of this country paying its dels debts. you know, a lot of people have said that we got to a $14.4 trillion debt because we got drunk and spent money like a drunken say lore.

if that is so -- sailor. if that is so the people have in "the hangover" certainly aren't the wealthy people in this country. and this decision was decided without any consideration of the people that are longing for jobs in our great country. if the republicans had to hold had the president hostage, whichish wish that they would have held him hostage on the questions that my constituents wake up in the morning and ask, not whether or not the debt ceiling has been risen, but how can i get a job, how can i really get back my dignity, how can i put food on the table? these are issues that you certainly don't resolve by cutting spending, causing people to lose their jobs and to lose their hope. so, indeed i'm glad that we're not going to default but the days a head we ought to be spending some -- days ahead we ought to be spending some time talking about what most americans want and that's a fair tax system where the wealthy who

have gained so much during this spree that we've had and not allowed a hangover to be with the people that are jobless. we still have time to close this responsibility that we have, to close the debt that we have, not by laying off people, not by just cutting programs during the recession, but by thinking how question train people, how we can research and how we can get our people back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. $14.4 trillion. $1.6 trillion every year added on to that national debt. the people in november, 2010, spoke loudly. we are listening. it is time that we in this chamber accept the fact that

d.c. has to and will change. because the american people have spoken loudly. they want us to get our fiscal house in order, they want us to bring certainty to the american markets so that we can invest in this great country again and put people back to work, not only for this generation but for generations to come. i rise in support of this legislation. it is not the cure-all, it is not the one battle that will win this war on our national debt, but it opens us up on a path to where we need to be firmly dedicated and dess minutesed to carry on -- and disciplined to carry on this battle and battles to come. so i ask all my colleagues, let us govern responsibly, let us avoid default, but continue on this battle and continue on we will as the new class, as a

freshmen member of this great chamber. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield a minute and a half to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. kind of wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this agreement. this is the wrong way to rebuild our great country. i support it because the alternative is unacceptable. defaulting on our nation's obligations for the first-time in our nation's history, doing so would be the greatest unforced error ever committed in the history of our country. and it's all political. the performance of our congress the last couple of months has a lot to be desired. if king solomon were alive today i think his metaphorical solution to all of this would be to kill both women and spare the child. if we are to achieve two fiscal solvency for our country, there are three things i think needs to half.

we need to invest in our future. you do that in investing in job creation and scientific research and the infrastructure upgrade our nation needs in brought to you by expansion. that's not happening -- needs in broadband expension. that's not happening. we need to look for smart savings in the budget start by changing how we pay for health care based on the quality and not quantity. stop appropriating for the military. it's ending taxpayer subsidies going to large agri businesses with mailing addresses in new york, chicago and san francisco. not even the working families. and finally, we need tax rrm. to simplify a code that acts like an anchor of job creation but fair. asking the most wealthy to contribute their fair share as well.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kind: i support the agreement. i ask my colleagues to do so. i yield back. mr. mcgovern: -- mr. caffer: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: i have voted twice to raise the debt ceiling. in may. i voted this past weekend for leader reid's program which had cuts. but i can't vote for this program because the first series of cuts we know the second series of cuts we don't know. i fear it's a trojan horse. if you look inside that trojan horse it's the whirlpools and the shoals and that's an odyssey in journey this country should not traverse. this country has been taken by a group of ideologues that don't want to reduce it. want to hurt employment figures to hurt the president of the

united states, mr. speaker, and i don't want to hurt him. one justice said the greatest danger is to by men of zeal. well-meaning but without understanding. justice brandaise is with us today. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: mr. speaker, it's important we know as we try to change this government that we're actually making changes in the direction we're going. without the budget control act our government will be over 23% of the size of our economy by the end of this decade. the budget control act changes that. by the end of the decade it will be about 21.5% of the size of our economy. it is comparable, come close to the shrinkage of the economy

under president reagan in his first -- in his eight years in the white house. truth of the matter is this doesn't go far enough for conservatives. you can't cut far enough or soon enough for members of congress like myself because we just believe this country is so deep, so dangerously deep in debt. but with this vote today, tonight we cut out the same amount of spending the president put in this government in that ill-fated failed stimulus bill. and later this year we get a chance to vote another cut in this government equivalent to the size of obamacare. so we start with two strong cuts reversing and strengthening the size of government. in this bill we achieve 2/3 of the discretionary cuts included in the ryan budget in the past prosperity that the republicans

, the house members believe in. someone goes, the senate passed a budget and agreed to 2/3 of your cuts. in discretionary we would have celebrated. we're not celebrating today because we know there's so much work to be done. we know also this holds -- this cuts spending today. it puts controls on future congresses in the way they spend. that's important. and holds congress and the white house more accountable for getting the size of this government back in control. without increasing taxes on families like you, on our job creators back home on main street. mr. camp: i yield an additional 30 second. mr. brady: thank you, chairman. thank you, speaker. it does so today. i support this bill as a first step, anxious to get to more spending and savings and getting this wasteful, bloated government down to size, and i know, too, any vote, my principle is tax cuts and spending cuts, if i can change

the direction of this country with bigger spending cuts, my vote will be a yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: mr. camp, i just want to ask my colleague from michigan, are you ready to close? camp camp yes, i'm prepared to close. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: oh, without objection. mr. levin: thank you. the republicans in this house have taken this nation to a dangerous and unnecessary brink . i definitely do not want our nation to default on its full faith in credit, but i also don't want our nation to default on our solemn

obligations as a nation, as a community to all of our citizens. that's why we need a balanced approach, to keep us on an even keel as we move ahead. this means savings and revenues . i repeat, this means savings and revenues. so as i vote today, as the ranking member on the ways and means committee, i will keep in mind how we must not let down our citizens who need programs. one example, unemployment insurance. it's set to expire at the end of this year. as millions desperately look for work and i just now have received a report that this

year's extension, next year's extension would cost $45 billion. we need to get those resources. if we're not on a balanced path, we will not be able to address critical needs of our fellow and sister citizens, such as unemployment insurance. we need balance to be true to ourselves. i now yield the balance of my time to the budget committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. as a member of the -- mr. levin: mr. camp, i think it takes unanimous consent to do that. i'm sorry, mr. camp. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr.

speaker. as a member of the national commission on fiscal responsibility, our debt commission, we received testimony from experts in economic policy research. and they said that when debt loads of a country reach above or at 90% of their economy or g.d.p. that results in the reduction in economic growth in that country by about one percentage point. and using the administration's economic model, that one percentage point increase in our g.d.p. or decrease in our g.d.p. costs about one million jobs. that's why this debate is so important. it is so important to get us on a path to fiscal responsibility. to begin to bring down our national debt. the plan before us today does that. it does that with spending reductions. it does it with the sort of structural reforms in terms of spending caps that are there. it also does it with an automatic reduction in

spending. if for some reason congress, the select committee that's set up in this bill, fails to come to some sort of agreement on how to reduce spending that automatic reduction, i think, is an important backstop so the select committee will take its work seriously and do everything to come to a bipartisan solution. also, there's a path forward on a balanced budget amendment in this legislation. that is absolutely critical, i think, for not just today because we know it has been possible to bind future congresses but to put in place a structure and mechanism well into the future so we don't find ourselves continuing to deal with the fundamentals of this problem that we begin to deal with the problem, we make progress on the problem, and that progress will mean job creation and obviously that's something we're all looking for. i thank the speaker and urge a yes vote on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the

members of the budget committee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, may i ask how much time is remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 7 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from maryland has 8 1/2 minutes. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield 3 1/2 minutes to a member of the budget committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. speaker. i say i'd love for people to come to oklahoma city anytime they have the opportunity to do that. but to be able to talk to the great folks in my district, i can tell you one thing that comes up again and again, they are really frustrated and they're looking for things to really be able to change here in washington. they see how broken our system is. they see the way we interact. they're really legitimately

frustrated. i can tell you they have lost trust in how we're doing and what we're doing. as a federal government we're trying to do too many things and we can't afford all the things we're doing. so in some very simple way this whole process has united the nation to be able to look simply at $14.3 trillion in debt and to say as a nation, we have a problem. that is a good first step. now, for the conversation that's been happening around congress over the past serviceable months now, it's now dealing with how do we resolve the problem and what is the core of the problem. is the problem the debt ceiling vote? is the problem tomorrow or is the problem $14 trillion in debt? i feel like sometimes we've been trying to either figure out how to get past tomorrow or how to get past solving this issue of $14.3 trillion in debt. that has created seven months of debate and seven months of conversation that i fear has made an unrealistic expectation of how much we can really do in

one piece of legislation. quite frankly, no piece of legislation can solve $14.3 trillion in debt all in one moment. no piece of legislation can be a perfect solution. there is no perfect ideal piece of legislation that's going to solve it all. are there major issues i think are in every piece of legislation? i'm sure there are in every one of them. this one i would say it's not perfect but it takes us down that first step to start getting out of this. if there's a perception that we can solve it all in one piece, i think everyone's underestimated the size and the scope of what it really means to deal with this large of a debt and this large of a deficit. it is a single step on a very long journey. it doesn't solve all the problems. does it cure cancer? no. does it get us out of all the wars? no. does it locate amelia earhart's body? no. it doesn't solve everything we'd like to do with it, but it

does begin to put a framework around the federal government for the next 10 years to set spending caps in place to say we're going to stop the growth of government. we've grown very quickly very fast. we got to first stop that growth of government and put some boundaries around it. it's a good first step on that. it puts a square focused on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution which 80% of the american people say they want some version of the balanced budget amendment. quite frankly, this creates a moment for republicans and democrats to be able to have an honest conversation about what should that text be for a balanced budget amendment, how can we work together. the constitution is not owned by one party. it is owned by the people of the united states of america. so that is both parties coming together to have a very frank conversation if we're going to have a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, how do we get it done, what is the text for that and how do we do best for our nation? but the key piece of this legislation today is focused on not just getting us past tomorrow but starts us down a

process, that single first step of starting us down a process that in the days ahead our children will not live in the shadow of this kind of debt, of this kind of deficit and we as a nation can get back to doing the things we love to do rather than worry about what creditor we're going to pay and which one we're not. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we should never have gotten to the point where our troops in afghanistan had to ask whether they were going to be paid. that's a scandal. and it's scandalous that our republican colleagues would threaten for the first time in american history to torpedo america's credit worthiness and american jobs unless they succeeded in enacting a budget plan to end the medicare guarantee, slash medicaid and slash critical investments in education in our future.

that was the plan. they wanted to do that now and they wanted to have this whole debate again six months from now. why? not to reduce the deficit. if the goal is to reduce the deficit why refuse to end taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies? if reducing the deficit was the purpose, why refuse to end special breaks for corporate jets and the folks at the very high end of the income scale? that wasn't the plan. the plan was to use this moment to threaten the economy, to try and slash the social safety net and those critical investments in education innovation in our future. and guess what? they failed. they failed to do that. they failed to end the medicare guarantee. they failed to slash medicaid. they failed to slash education. in this measure we succeeded in protecting medicare and social

security beneficiaries. we succeeded to protect seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities and poor kids who depend on medicaid for their health care. and we succeeded in providing room for critical investments in education and america's future. don't get me wrong, mr. speaker, there's much in plan i don't like. we did not succeed in shutting down special interest tax loopholes that add hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficits. our republican colleagues refused to cut those subsidies for big oil companies, they refused to cut the others and now we're going to have a great debate, we're going to have a great debate about how to grow the economy and reduce our long-term deficit. it will be a debate about our national priorities. i hope we will support the balanced approach that the president has called for. i have very limited time, i'm sorry. one that refuses to put greater burdens on medicare

beneficiaries in order to provide greater tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. and in the coming months our republican colleagues will be given the following test. will they choose to protect special interest tax breaks over investments necessary to keep our nation strong and secure, will they finally demonstrate a willingness to pay for our national defense rather than put it on the credit card? mr. speaker, let's get on with that big national debate and let's finally focus on jobs and getting the economy going as we reduce our long-term deficit. thank you, mr. speaker, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time? the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentlelady, a member of the budget committee, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for one minute.

ms. moore: thank you so much for yielding. so many of my colleagues have said that it was necessary to storm the white house and take the country hostage in the name of their grandchildren. so i wanted to go on record talking about what i want for my grandchildren. i want head start for my grandchildren. i want w.i.c. programs and early childhood education for my programs, i want my kids to go to a school where they can participate in the science fair. i want immunizations for them. i want research done for food safety to make sure the chicken nuggets are safe, i want clean air and clean water for them. i want jobs where they invent things like new energy sources and, yes, i want them to be contributing citizens and pay taxes and i want a safety net for them in case they are disabled and when they become elderly and if they get cold in the cold winters of wisconsin to still have some energy assistance. i want my grandchildren to get

the american dream. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield a minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you for yielding and also for your very bold and effective leadership, mr. van hollen. i rise in strong opposition to this unbalanced debt ceiling bill. this is an unbalanced approach, we all know that, we've heard that. and furthermore this debt ceiling bill should have never been an option in terms of having to come to this floor to debate this and we should have, like democrats and republican presidents have done in the past, we should have lifted the debt ceiling. rightfully so, many of us are concerned about these discretionary cuts.

what are these cuts going to do as it relates to our senior citizens, low income veds and the poor? -- individuals and the poor? this debt ceiling bill does nothing to address the real crisis in our country, the lack of jobs and economic growth. at a time when investments are needed to jump start our economy and put people back to work, this deal and its cuts only approach which it is, it's the wrong approach. it's an outrage that as we stand here today that we could not raise the debt ceiling by voting for that. thank you again. i intend to vote no on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey who has been a -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. van hollen: a fighter on this battle. mr. andrews. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, what

brings us together as a -- is a need to create jobs for the american people. and i think people would agree there's three things we need to do to create jobs. the first is not fall off a cliff and have a default on our national obligations. this bill accomplishes that. the second thing is to make sure we have an interest rate environment so that our businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs, so they have some predictability. by making a 25% to 30% down payment on reducing our deficit in a fair and equitable way, this bill does that. and finally i think most of us adepree that we need investments in our education, research and development, infrastructure, other activities to create jobs in our private sector for our people. by making sure that at least in the first two years of this agreement that the reductions in those areas are either nonexistent or moderate, i think that we give ourselves the freedom so our appropriators can put valuable investments forward in that way. this is a well reasoned,

bipartisan agreement to create jobs for the american people. i urge a yes vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has four minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, as i said at the outset, we should never have reached this point in our country. we should never have reached the point when our troops wondered whether they were going to get paid or whether individuals on social security wondered whether they were going to see their earned benefits. that should never have happened and this is the first time in history, first time in history that we've seen members of this congress threaten to close down

the american economy in less than -- unless they got their particular budget plan through, ones that ends the medicare guarantee, slashes medicaid and would deeply cut our investments in education and innovation. we protected those investments in this bill. the plan did not work, it didn't work now and the plan to do it again six months from now didn't work. so now we will have that great debate over our priorities, we're looking forward to it. let's get on to talking about jobs and the economy and with that i yield one minute to the very distinguished democratic leader who has been a fighter for america's priorities, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the distinguished minority leader is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and every chance i get i want to salute him for his tremendous leadership as a top democrat on the budget

committee, for the work he did with mr. clyburn and the bipartisan talks, as they strove to have what the american people want, a balanced, bipartisan, fair agreement to lift the debt ceiling and take america forward. unfortunately that did not happen. what did happen and it brings to mind the question, why are we here? and i would divide, as we say in legislation, i would divide that question into why are we here and why are we here today? we are here because all of us in this body care about our country , have decided that public service is a noble pursuit and that we have come here to make the future better for future generations. that is what our founding fathers visualized for america. that every generation would take

responsibility to make the future better for the next. that's why, mr. speaker, our founders, in addition to writing our founding documents, the declaration, the great deck -- declaration which embodies fairness in it and equality, then the constitution they declared independence, they fought the greatest naval power in the world, they won, they wrote the constitution, the bill of rights, making us the freest, greatest nation in the world, founded on a principle that all people are created equal. that had never been done in the history of the world. and when they did that they, as i've told you before because i love it so much, they also created the great seal of the united states. and that great seal of the united states has on it know us have order seclorum. a new order for the centuries,

for the ages, forever. so competent were our founders in their idea about generational responsibility, one to the next, that they were confident that our country, that what they were putting forth would exist for the ages. for the ages. that was the challenge they gave us. that is the responsibility that we have. and for a couple of hundred years or more that has always been the case. every generation has always believed that it would make the future better for the next. for their children and for their their grand charron. -- grandchildren. we're here today because we believe that and we believe that the public policy that we put forth, the legislation we put forth should result in public policy that makes the future better for our children and our

grandchildren. that we are committed to their education, the economic security of our families, dignified retirement, of our seniors and also safety and security of their neighborhoods and of our country and with that, we would do it in a fiscally sound way that did not give our kids any bills, public or perm. and -- personal. and so if we believe all of that and that's why we are here in congress, it's hard to believe that we are putting our best foot forward with the legislation that comes before us today. i'm not happy with it but i'm proud of some of the accomplishments contained in it and that's why i'm voting for it. it takes me to the second question. why are we here today? why are we here today?

within 24 hours of our nation going into default, after months of conversation about how we would address the debt ceiling, not to have had future spending, but to pay our past obligations and i won't go into it again, how we got here. but i will say that time is one of the most important commodities any of us have, the most precious, the most finite. and during that period of time when our country could have been more productive, more optimistic, more confident in the tradition of our founders, instead a cloud of doubt placed on it because of the delay, the delay, the delay in lifting debt ceiling. as my distinguished colleague, mr. van hollen, said, this has never happened before. we've never, never tied the hands of a president of the united states. we never placed any doubt in the public markets as to whether

this would happen. . we never knew the consequences of our action. i'm more concerned about the kitchen table, because this delay and uncertainty has a tremendous impact on america's families, as they sit around the table and talk about how they are going to make ends meet, how they are going to pay their bills, is sorle security going to be intact for them and will their checks arrive, is medicare and medicaid something they can count on. well, after months and months and months to reach an agreement that could have been reached a long time ago, it's not so great it took so long to achieve, it could have been accomplished months ago and at least have the merit of instilling confidence

sooner rather than at the last possible moment. we must make sure that we are -- we say why are we here today -- that we aren't here some other day to go through these motions and that's the reason i'm supporting this bill. the president was successful in impressing upon the congress that we need the full 18 months so the americans at their kitchen table, people sitting around that table and aboard room table will know that you can rely on the united states of america to meet its obligations, ok? and another reason to support this bill, even there are plenty of reasons not to, is that it stops cuts in social security, medicare and medicaid. this is the most important assignment given to democratic

leadership going to the table, to make sure there are no cuts in benefits in medicare, medicaid and social security, that was achieved. another issue of importance to us, as we protect and defend our country, we measure our strength in the health, education and well-being of the american people. we have a 50-50 split between our expenditures for defense and expenditures defined in other ways for our country. these are some reasons why those who may have the luxury of not wanting to vote for the bill, i feel the responsibility to do so. we cannot, because of certain objections in the bill -- and one of the main ones is that there's not one red centcoming from america's wementiest families and god bless them for

their success, but not one red centcoming to help reduce the deficit while we are willing to cut title 1, education for the poorest children in america. it's too bad for those children and terrible for our country. for things not in the bill, like revenue, i urge my colleagues to think about our seniors and think about the 18 months and what that means in terms of confidence in our society and what it means also to have the 50-50 in terms of defining the sfreng of america. we cannot -- the strength of america. we cannot, despite our reluctance to vote for this bill for some of us, allow seniors and veterans who are dependent on receiving their check from the government or their security

over time, we cannot allow our seniors and veterans to be caught in the collateral damage on the assault of the middle class that is being waged in this congress. this is no manifestation of making it harder for the future for the great middle class, which is -- and those who aspire to it, is the backbone of our democracy. if we are going to honor the vows of our founders and carry on the great legacy and their determination, their hope for the future, that we would last for ages, but we would last for ages as a democracy, not an ever broadening disparity of income and equity in our country that undermines that. please, my colleagues, if you are on the fence about this, i certainly am and have been even though i worked very hard to

support the president in preserving what i said about no cuts in medicare, medicaid, social security, about this 18 months and about the 50-50 split . please think of what could happen if we defaulted. please, please, please, please come down in favor of again preventing the collateral damage of reaching our seniors and our veterans. i urge you to consider voting yes, but i completely respect the hesitation that members have about this. and again, i want to commend our distinguished colleague, mr. van hollen, and mr. clyburn and the president of the united states and those who tried to work in a bipartisan way to accomplish something. i hear our republican colleagues have said they got 98% in the

bill and i hope their votes real flect that. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin has four minutes. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mchenry: mr. speaker, the america -- mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, the american people want more jobs and less debt. the american people are telling washington you have to quit spending money you don't have and quit borrowing 42 cents on the dollar much of it from the chinese and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. our crisis today is not the debt ceiling, it is our debt and it is a spending-driven debt. that is why we are here today,

mr. speaker. i would like toe say this bill solves -- like to say this bill solves our problem. it doesn't. it is a doll i had first step. nobody, nobody on the aisle wants to increase our debt ceiling. it's not in our d.n.a. but we do believe you ought to stay current on your bills and you got to quit spending money you don't have. and in this bill, although the sums are very, very small, when we pass this bill, if the president sinings it into law, it -- signs it into law, it will be the first time in my lifetime that for two years in a row we have actually cut discretionary spending in washington, d.c., and made a very slight directional change in the right

direction. the numbers are small, the directional change is huge, but more importantly, the seeds are planted in this bill and that is the balanced budget amendment to the constitution. the american people aren't looking for a balanced approach but for a balanced budget and for it to work, it needs to be in our constitution. this bill will ensure for the first time in 15 years, both the house and the senate vote on a balanced budget and those are the seeds of the solution to save our next generation and i urge adoption. the speaker pro tempore: jask has two minutes remaining. mr. ryan: i yield myself the remaining of the time. from this debateu it's very clear that we have difference of opinions. we have different philosophies on how to address these issues, but we are coming up to a deadline we must all recognize,

default. and what this has done, it has brought our two parties together. i would like to reflect for a moment the fact that we have a bipartisan compromise here. that doesn't happen all that off en, but that's a good thing. first thing as my colleague just said, this is a down payment on the problem, good step in the right direction, and it is a huge cultural change to this institution. both parties got us in this mess . both parties are going to have to work together to get us out of this mess. and the real problem, i would add, mr. speaker, is the fact that we spend way more money than we take in. we have to address that. to my friends on the left, i think they would like to take

comfort in the fact the way the spending cuts are designed. to my friends on the right, we are cutting spending. we have been trying to get discretionary caps in law for years. i have been here for 13 years trying for it every year, and this is the first time. the last time we were in the majority, we couldn't get it in the republican congress, now we are getting discretionary caps. that is a big achievement. number two, we newsed to sneak these in budget resolutions and now it's in here in plain sight. and what are we doing? we are actually cutting spending while we do this. that's cultural. that's significant. that's a big step in the right direction. we are getting 2/3 of the cuts we wanted in our budget and as far as i'm concerned, 66% in the right direction is a whole lot

>> the house passed the vote. during the vote, rep giffords made a surprise turned -- return. here is a look.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 2 --

the speaker: on this vote the yeas are 269, the nays are 161. the bill is passed and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> permission to speak out of order. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: kids who are at the back that you can't see because you're standing in front of them, this is the first time we've ever had pages here had not in two small groups but in one summer group. these pages are going home this week and they have had a chance of being here to see history in the making on several different fronts. i wish you'd give them -- before you do that, page board consists of representative xx from new york, myself, representative

kildee, i yield to the gentlelady frocolorado. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i want to thank all of the wonderful pages who had are in the back of the room. ms. dette: you've seen history in the last six weeks here in congss and we're so honored and proud to have all of you here with us and i'm sure this may not be my place but we all want to welcome back our wonderful colleague, congresswoman giffords here. with that i yield back.

mr. bishop: mr. chairman, i also yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. killed kill mr. speaker, i'd like to take this -- mr. kildee: mrspeaker, i'd like to take this opportunity to express my gratitudeo all the pages for what they have done here in the 112th congress. to become a page, mr. speaker, these young people have proven themselves to be academically qualified. as we all know, the job of a congressional page is not an easy one. along with being away from home, the pages must possess the maturity to balance competing demands with their time and energy. you pages ve witnessed the house debate, issues of war and peace, hunger and poverty, justice and civil rights. you have lived through history. and before yielding, mr. speaker, i would like to thank the members of the house page board who provided such fantastic service to this institution. the chairman, congressman rob

bishop, the vice chairman, congresswoman diana degette, congresswoman virginia foxx, clerk of the house karen haas, sergeant at arms bill livinggood, and mrs. lynn silversmith kline. i want to thank them for their service on the house page board and i thank the departing pages and you've seen a wonderful bit of history take place today. mr. bishopreclaiming the time, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to include the page summer class in the official record and ask this body to recognize the pages for the services they have rendered us this year. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker: without objection, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi, is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i too want to join our colleagues in recognizing the

contribution of the pages to the conduct of the house of representatives. i thank them. and they have, as mr. kiee said, and others have mentioned, borne witness to many important historical occasions here. but i can't think of any that is more special and means so much to o country tn to witness the return of our colleague who was the personification of courage, of sincerity, of admiration throughout the country. congresswoman gabrielle giffords brings us --

ms. losi: her presence today, to make sure that we honor the obligations of our country great country important and symbolic. hepresence here in the chamber as well as her service throughout her entire service in congress brings honor to this chamber. we are all privileged to call her colleagues, of us very privileged to call her friend. throughout america there isn't a name that stirs more love, more admiration, re respect, more wishing for our daughters to be like her than the name of congresswoman gabby giffords. thank you, gabby, for joining us today.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> some members gathered for the congressional progressive caucus. this month about 15 minutes. -- this runs 15 minutes.

i have a statement from the progressive caucus that i'm like to share with your right now. while voting to increase the debt ceiling is a necessary step, the deficit reduction measures included will further harm our economy. with unemployment still above 9% and stagnating economic growth, taking money out of the economy that will only place a heavier burden on american families. this is the wrong move at the wrong time. it goes against our basic values. for that reason, we come and many members of the progressive

caucus, will be voting no. we want prosperity for the middle class and we believe in reasonable debt reduction can be achieved while advancing our values. the reduction deal falls short. republicans seek to dismantle services while spending more to support billionaires' and in corporations. deficit reduction should be enacted -- should not be enacted in a hostage situation. we have long said default on the full faith and credit of the u.s. is not acceptable. if this bill is defeated, we urge the president to use his power under the 14th amendment and executive authority to raise the debt ceiling and for default. we will fight for programs for working families. the congressional progressive caucus stood with people across this country to protect social

security, medicare, and medicaid from being cut in the deal today. preventing the worst from family -- from happening is not enough. americans will not stand by while their livelihood becomes under attack. reconstruct this that in defense -- a structure the said that it benefits everybody. we need a vision for country not based on what americans cannot choose but what they can. that is the type of leadership american needs now. i will invite my co-chair and other members of the progressive caucus to speak. >> thank you very much. the statement that key to just read represents the consensus of the members of the progressive caucus -- disappointment in the deal, frustration with the deal, frustration at the items we wanted to put on the agenda that needed to be heard in terms of revenue generation, concerns that we have expressed for an

extended period of time dealing with the commission, its powers, and the trigger mechanism, and the negotiations from the inception have a paste vital domestic programs on the chopping block in the areas that we indicated, tax breaks for corporations and individuals, were left off of the table. it is not just one built off of the idea, but we offered these over and over repeatedly and to present a balanced and fair package. we believe in the concept of fair sacrifice and compromise, but we do not believe in a concept that is not a compromise, all give, no take, and a back-and-forth.

this is not a compromise. we stand in opposition to this, and we believe there is a better way. the president news is the unilateral review under the constitution, he should. we should proceed in a calm, rational way to look at spending and revenue generation. absent that, we are trapped in the tea party agenda. they want. they should be able to deliver the votes that they need to pass what is essentially their package. let me introduce barbirolli, who has been a leader in the progressive -- barbara lee, a leader in the progressive caucus, the black caucus, and someone we count on to raise the issue is going forward. >> thank you. let me thank you for your leadership for bringing together the progressive caucus to once again come forward and be the

voice of the american people. none of us want to see our nation default, but after having reviewed this deal, for a number of reasons, i am unable to support it. isis date myself with all of the remarks that have been made already. the lack of jobs and economic growth. at a time when investments are needed to jump-start the economy and put people back to work, i believe this deal and it cut only approach, and that is what it is, allows the false link between the debt ceiling and the deficit to gain any credibility, i believe was a mistake. it is an outrage that we stand here today with a reasonable and balanced approach with reduction that has been a long required. while i can appreciate that some provisions to limit the impact were included, this falls very

short. the harsh reality is that cuts of this size will likely result in massive cuts to vital human needs and safety net programs and will cripple our ability to help our most vulnerable communities, including seniors, the poor, and low-income people struggling each and every day just to get by. it includes no revenues and no guarantee of revenues going forward. with 45 million people living in poverty and the astronomical wealth gap, we must demand -- demand -- the super rich, big oil come and big corporations that enjoy tax giveaways and loopholes also contribute to this deficit reduction. it is entirely unacceptable to me that this deal would open the door to cuts in social security, medicare come and medicaid. enough is enough. we cannot allow the extreme tea party republicans to advance

their agenda to dismantle our government while rewarding their extreme tactics. i continue to support the president using the 14th amendment, if necessary, to raise the debt ceiling and i will be voting no. thank you. >> we voted for a clean debt ceiling increase this spring. we voted over this weekend for the compromise, but on saturday we said that we would not vote for anything worse than a compromise. this is worse today. i, for one, and those standing with me, will not stand it anymore. i will not vote for this bill. this is not a balanced approach.

it does not ask for shared sacrifice. it puts a virtually the entire burden on the middle class while asking nothing -- and i mean nothing -- on millionaires, billionaires', and huge corporations as well as corporations that send jobs overseas. this does nothing to address the biggest challenge we face today, jobs. for ordinary americans just getting by, just struggling to pay bills, who go to bed worried every single night, this deal has nothing to offer them. i cannot believe something as routine as a debt ceiling is using $2.50 trillion in cuts from investments that american people need. we can reduce spending without taking it out of the ordinary people.

it is not their responsibility to fix this. we can meet our challenges in a way that is fair, within our constitutional right, and with all americans doing their part. i will vote against the bill whenever it comes to the floor. >> i think my colleagues have articulated the feelings of this community and country. i but like to thank -- i would like to thank our leadership in caucus.ression ave this deal that was cut is very disappointing. it is disappointing for a number of reasons. i cannot understand how we can walk daughter of a deal to raise the debt ceiling not

having gotten any revenues in the deal. all we have are cots. -- cuts. i am reminded that this is a fragile economy in so many ways. first of all, the unemployment rates are just astronomical. we have a 9.2% rate in this country and in minority communities, 17% +. in some communities, they are 35%-40%. add to that the loss of wealth by latinos. a 63% loss in household wealth and african-americans have over a 50% loss. we need to be talking about stimulating the economy. just think about this. instead of stimulating the economy, we are about to take federal money out of the economy. there will be a loss of jobs

with these cuts in there will be no way to deal with the predicament we are in. i am very very disappointed that we have allowed the tea party to drive this deal. it seems to me that what we have here is a small number of people, own and they have held hostage the democratic party and the american people hostage with the threat of not allowing us to lift the debt ceiling and are using this as a way to dismantle this budget. i am disappointed our negotiators were not tough enough. they did not bring us to the point where everyone could agree that we did not want to default. here we are today with some of

the worst public policies that i think that have ever been made in the history of this institution where a lot of people are going to be hurt, where the economy is going to be even more for agile, and where our citizens -- even more fragile come and where our citizens will feel the loss of jobs and opportunity for years to come. i think the progressive caucus for standing for all and standing strong. -- i thank the caucus. >> this is not the first time the progressive caucus has taken a leadership role on tough issues. i have lived through and managed to see a segregated america where people lived separately and retreated differently. i simply want to give this restatement. it is not really about the member standing here who represent a number of constituents, advocacy groups

who speak for constituents, but this is about whether america wants the country to continue on this path or they want change. never in my lifetime that i think that i was going to see the tyranny of the minority. these are the bonuses that have been so strident -- the voices that have been so strident, the darlings of change. they are not. they are simply individuals who want to say, "my way or the highway." my message is this. there will be votes coming up on this issue into the fall. the question is whether america will rise up and rushed to this capital and announced that enough is enough. although the voices of the minorities should be heard, they have a right under this plan that they will not control this nation in the most this tasteful ways that they have done to

undermine those who cannot speak for themselves. that is what we are facing today, and some have some very tough decisions to make. >> we have a few minutes before we can go vote. >> by all indications, on most members are very dissatisfied and many will be voting no, but we do not have account. >> by voting no, are you willing to accept partial responsibility with the tea party? >> the answer to that is a definitive know. the reason is because all of us voted for a clean debt ceiling, and we voted for reid's. ronald reagan got 17 and bush

got seven. it is the normal course of congress to raise the debt ceiling. we have all done and are prepared to do it now. what drove us to this point? it is beyond dispute that toppling the debt ceiling with the debt reduction is what got us here. -- coupling the debt ceiling and debt reduction. >> congressman waters said the negotiators were not tough enough. did you think the president through you under the bus? >> the president has been given a hand to fight from. he was the president at the time these people made these unreasonable demands to undermine and hurt basic social services and had all but three in their sights. look. if we have any dispute, it is

tactical. in principle, we know that these are core democratic values, core american values, to stand up for basic programs to help americans be better off. finally, we do support the president in using his constitutional executive authority to protect the full faith and credit of the united states. he has our full support on that. with that, we have to go vote. thank you very much. >> on tuesday, the senate

agreed by a vote of 74-26. president obama called on congress to fashion number of initiatives including pending free-trade deals and infrastructure banks as well as an extension of unemployment benefits. he spoke briefly from the rose garden. garden. it was a long and contentious debate and i want to thank the american people for keeping the pressure on their official to put politics aside and work together for the good of the country. this compromise guarantees more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction. it is an important for step in

ensuring that, as a nation, we live within our means. yet, it allows us to keep making investments in things like education and research that leads to new jobs to ensure we are not cutting too abruptly while the economy is still fragile. this is, however, just the first step. the compromise requires that both parties work together on a larger plan to cut the deficit which is important for the long- term health of our economy. since you cannot close the deficit with just spending cuts, we will need a balanced approach where everything is on the table. yes, that means making some adjustments to protect health care programs like medicare so there are there for future generations. and also means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share. it means getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas

companies and loopholes that help billion years pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses. -- to help billionaires' pay a lower tax rate. we cannot balance the budget on the backs of the people who have borne the biggest brunt of this recession. we cannot make it tougher for young people to go to college or ask seniors to pay more for health care or asked scientists to give up on medical research because we could not close a tax shelter. everyone will have to chip in. it is only fair. that is the principle i will be fighting for during the next phase of this process. in the coming months, i will continue to also fight for what the american people care most about -- new jobs, higher wages, and faster economic growth. washington has been absorbed in this debate about deficits, people across the country are asking, "what can we not do to

help the father looking for work? what do we do for the single mom who has seen her hours cut back at the hospital? what we do to make it easier for businesses to put up the the "now hiring close "?" -- "now hiring" sign?' the economy has already had to absorb an earthquake in japan, the economic headwind from europe, the arabs bring, the rise in oil prices, -- arab spring, and all of which have been challenging for the economy. these are things we could not control. we did not need washington to come along with a manufacturing crisis to make things work. it is likely that the uncertainty around the raising of the debt ceiling, for businesses and consumers, has been unsettling and just one more impediment for the full recovery that we need.

it is something we could have avoided entirely. voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure did not vote for a dysfunctional government. they want us to solve problems. they want us to get this economy growing and adding jobs. well that this reduction is a part of that agenda, it is not the whole agenda. growing the economy is not just about cutting spending. it is not about rolling back regulations to protect our air, water, and keep people safe. do moreing to have to than that. that is why when congress gets back from recess, i will urge them to immediately take some steps, a bipartisan common sense steps, that will make a difference. it will create climate for businesses can higher, people have more money in their pockets to spend, people out of work can

find good jobs. if you have more money in your paycheck, you are more likely to spend it which means ibusinesses will all have more customers which means they will be in a better position to hire. we need to make sure millions of workers who are still looking for jobs to support their families are not denied needed unemployment benefits. through patent reform, we can cut the red tape that stops inventors and on condors from turning ideas into a thriving business which holds the economy back. i want congress to pass trade deals that we have already negotiated that will help the displaced workers and looking for new jobs and allow

businesses to sell more products in asia and south america of with the words "made in america." we need to give more opportunities to construction workers. we can put them to work right we can put them to work right now . and infrastructure bank would help us put them together. while on the topic of infrastructure, there is another topic involving the aviation industry. politics. another washington-inflicted wound on america.

we need these people to get back to work. these are some of the things that we could be doing right now. there is no reason for congress not to send me those bills so it can sign them into law right away as soon as they get back from recess. both parties share power in washington and both parties need responsibility for improving this economy. it is not a democratic responsibility or a republican responsibility. i will be discussing additional ideas in the weeks ahead to help companies hire, invest, and spend. spend. washington has the ability to focus when there is a timer ticking down and a looming disaster. it should not take a disaster feet -- a catastrophe get people

to work together. all across the country, people are looking for work and they have done for a while. they are making do with your hours connect your customers, or just trying to make ends meet. that ought to compel washington to act in a compromise. it ought to be enough to get all of us in this town to the jobs we were sent here to do. and i am looking forward to working with congress to make this happen. >> happy birthday, mr. president.

>> you will hear remarks from senate republican leader mitch mcconnell and senate majority leader harry reid. this is 20 minutes. mr. mcconnell: over the past few weeks congress has been engaged in a very important debate. it may have been messy, it might have appeared to some like their government wasn't working, but in fact the opposite was true. the push and pull americans saw in washington these past few weeks was not gridlock. it was the will of the people working itself out and a political system that was never meant to be pretty. you see, one reason america isn't already facing the kind of crisis we see in europe is that presidents and majority parties here can't just bring about change on a dime.

as much as they might le to from time to time. that's what checks and balances is all about. and that's the kind of balance americans voted for in november. the american people sent a wave of new lawmakers to congress in last november's election with a very clear mandate: to put our nation's fiscal house in order. those of us who'd been fighting the big-government policies of democratic majorities in congss welcomed them into our ranks. together we've held the line, and slowly but surely we've started turning things around. that's why those who think that no proem is too big or too small for government to solve are very worried right now.

they're afraid the american people may actually win the larger debate we've been having around here about the size and the scope of government. and that the spending spree may actually -- actually be coming to an end. they can't believe that those who stood up for limited government and accountability have actually changed the terms of the debate here in washington. but today they have no choice but to admit it. now, i know that for some of our colleagues, reform isn't coming as fast as they would like, and i certainly understand their frustration. i, too, wish we could stand here today enacting something much more ambitious. but i'm encouraged by the thought that these new senators will help lead this fight until we finish the job. and i want to assure you today that although you may not see it this way, you've actually won this debate.

in a few minutes the senate will vote on legislation that represents a new way of doing business in washington. first, it creates an entirely new template for raising the nation's debt limit. one the most important things abou this legislation is the fact that never again will any president from either party be allowed to raise the debt ceiling without being held accountable for it by the american people. and, in addition to that, without having to engage in the kindf debate we've just come through, because, you see, mr. president, whoever the nt president is will be back asking to rates debt ceiling again. it will provide another opportunity for us to focus on the subject raised by the request to raise the debt ceiling. so we will be back at it, probably in the early part of

2013, trying to continue to make progress toward reducing the size and scope of government and reducing our spending. this kind of discussion isn't something to dread. it's something to welcome. and while the president may not have particularly eoyed this debate we've just beethriewrks it was a debate that washington very much needed to have. as for the tks, this legislation -- as for the particulars, this legislation caps spentdzing with a mechanism that ensures that these cuts tooley stick. it protects the american peoe from government default that would have affected every single one of them in one way or another. it puts in place a powerful joint cmittee that will recommend further cuts and much-needed reforms. it doesn't include a dime, not a dime in job-killing tax hikes at a moment when our economy can least afford them. and crucially, it ensures the

debate over a balanced budget amendment continues and that it actually gets a vote. now, this is no small feat when you consider that just last week the president was still demanding tax hikes as part of any debt ceiling increase, and that as recently as may, the president's top economic advisors said it was, quote, "inse," end quote for anybody to even consider tying the debt ceiling to spending cuts. it's worth notg that 2 1/2 months later that advisor is no longer working at the white house, and the president is now agreeing as a condition of raising the debt ceiling to trillions of dollars in spenng cuts. so let me be clear. the legislation the senate is about to vote on is just a first step, just a first step. but it is a crucial step towards fiscal sanity and it's

potentially remarkable achievement given the lenhs to which some in washington have gone to ensure a status quo that's suffocating growth, crippling the economy and imperfectlying entitlements. now, we'vead to settle for less than we wted. but what we've cheefd is in no -- achieved is i no way insignificant and we did it because we had something democrats didn't have. republicans may only control one half of one-third of the government in washington but the american people agreed with us on the nature of the problem. they know that government didn't accumulate $14.5 trillion in debt because it didn't tax enough. and if you're spending yourself into oblivion, the solution isn't to spend more, it's to spend less. now, neier side got everything it wanted in these netiations. but i think it was the view of those in my party that we try to get as much spending cuts as we

could from a government we didn't control. our view was we'd get as much spending reduction as we could from a government we didn't control. and that's what we've done with this bipartisan agreement. this is not the deficit reduction package i would have written. the fact that we're on a pace to add another $7 trillion to the debt over the next ten years is certainly nothing to celebrate. but getting it there from more than $9 trillion the president continued to defend until recently is no defeat, either. and slowing down the big-government freight freezing rain its current trajectory will give us the time we need to work toward a real solution or give the american people the time they need to have their voices heard. so much work remains. and to that end, our first step will be to make sure that republicans who sit on the

powerful cost-cutting committee are serious people who put the best interests of the american people and the principles that we've fought for throughout this debate first. but before we move to the next step, i'd like to say a word about some of those who made today's vote possible. and i'll start with speaker boehner. it should be noted that he helped set the terms of this debate by insisting early on that we oppose any debt limit that didn't include cuts that were greater than the amount the debt limit would be raised. and he stuck to his guns. mr. speaker and i worked should to should over the past few months and it's certainly been a pleasure. he's been a real partner and i assure my colleagues we wouldn't be here without him. so i want to thank the speaker and the entire republican leadership in the house for standing on principle, and i want to thank my republican colleagues here in the senate

for their determination, their ideas, and their support. we wouldn't be here without them, either. d i want to thank my friend, the majority leader, for his work in getting this agreement over the finish line. we may disagree lot, but i hope everyone realizes it's never, ever personal. and i think today we can pve that when it comes down to it, we'll get together when the greater good is at stake. i also want to thank the president and the vice president. and everyone on their staffs w believed as we did that despite r many differences, we could all agree that america would not default on its obligations. it's a testament to the goodwill of those on both sides we were able to reach this agreement in time. neher side wanted to see the government default, and i'm pleased we were able to work together to avoid it.

now, this bill does not solve the problem. but it at least forces washington to admit that it has one. the bill doesn't solve the problem, but it forces washington to admit that it has one. and it puts us on a path to recovery, where -- we're nowhere near where we need to be in terms of restoring balance but there should be absolutely no doubt about this: we have changed the debate, we're headed in the right direction, and people are wondering how it happened. well, it happened because the american people demded it. so in the end, we're back to where we started. the only reason we're talking about passing legislation that reins in the size of washington instead of growing it is because the american people believed they could have a real impact on the direction of their government. they spoke out, a we hea

them. and it's only through their continue he participation in this process and lawmakers who are willing to listen to them that we'll complete the work we've begun. as winston churchill once said, "courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." swrat of a -- i can't think of a better way to sum of this last year a in particular these last few months right here in washington than that. the american people want to see accountability and cooperation in washington, and they want to see tha they're working together to get our fiscal house in order. this legislation doesn't get us there, but for the first time in a very long time, i think we n say to the american people that we're finally facing in the right direction, and for that,

we have them to thank. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority lear, the senator from nevada. mr. reid: the eyes of washington and the world have been watching washington this past week very closely. while they witness a lot of political wrangling they also saw congress make some historic, important decisions. and averted a default on our debt that has been so concerning to all of us for such a long period of time. our country was literally on the verge of a disaster. it was on the brink of a disaster. one day left, we were able to get together and avert that disaster. now, this compromise that we've reached is not perfect. and i feel it's important -- mr. president, can we have order, please. the presiding officer: the senate will please come to order. we welcome all our visitors and

want to make it clear think disturbance or manifestation of apoval or disapproval is prohibited under the senate rules. the majority leader may proceed. mr. reid: i appreciate the kind words that my counterpart mr. mcconnell has stated on the floor, i've gotten to know him and speaker boehner a lot better this past month or two. especially the speaker. even though i disagree vehemently with the direction the speaker's legislation took with no bipartisan support at all, it is not the product we have here. the product we have here is one of compromise. the winners,ithout trying to outline who the winners are, ther is principally one winner through this, and ities american people. weettled for less than what we wanted, so do did my friend, the leader of the republicans, settle for less than they wanted. that's the way legislation works, the way compromise

works. but i can't let go without responding to my friend who boasted about in his own way about this -- the new senators and the new members of congress who came here. i welcome them all, but a result of the tea party direction of this congress the last few months has been very, ry disconcerting, and very unfair to the american people. it stopped us at arriving at a conclusion much earlier and we must go forward. and also, mr. president, i recognize we have to do more. of course we need to do more. and that's why we have the joint committee set up that i'll talk about in just a minute. the american people are not impressed with the new revenue. the vast majority of democrats, independents, and republicans think this arrangement we've just done is unfair because the richest of the rich have contributed nothing to this.

the burden of what has taken place is on the middle class, and the poor. my friend talks about new taxes. mr. psident, if their theory was right, these huge taxes that took place during the bush eight years, the economy should be thriving. these tax cs have not helped the economy. the loss of eight million jobs during the bush eight years, two wars started, unfunded, all borrowed money, these tax cuts all on borrowed money. if the tax cut were so good, the economy should be thriving. if you go bac to the prior eight years, during president clinton's administration, 23 million new jobs were created. we had when president bush took office a surplus over 10 years of $7 trillion. that has evaporated and now we're talking about a $14 trillion debt.

the compromise we reached is imperfect. and we're going to send legislation to the president today that will not only avert a default but make significant deficit reductions. is it enough? i repeat, no, not enough. this legislation will provide our economy with sbility it desperately needs and to assure congress we will continue working -- and i said this yes, i say it again -- i appreciate my friend, the republican leader, putting his arms around the idea that i came up with to have this joint committee. they've worked in decades past, there's no reason it can't work now. no supermajority, each leader will appoint three, a commiee of 12. we need to do something because the trigger that kicks in is very, very difficult. we need to do this. and it has to be one that's fair. the american people demand fairness. it can't be more cuts to programs that have made this country what it i there must be a sharing of

sacrifice. it's really unfair for billionaires and multimillionaires not to be contributing to the arrangement that we've just made, but they're not. my friends, the republicans, held firm. and no revenue, which is really too bad. we need to have a fair approach 0 this joint committeend i'm confident we will do that. and one reason we're going to do that is because the trigger mechanism that kicks in. now, this committee that was going to have -- be appointed, the members i say here must have open minds. we've had too much talk the last few days of republicans as ely as this morng, republican leaders in the senate saying there will be no revenue. that's not going to happen. otherwise, the trigger is going to kick in. the only way we can arrive at a fair arrangement for the americ people with this joint committee is to have equal sharing.

it's going to be painful. each party if they do the right thing, it's going to be painful for them because to be fair, we have to move forward. there has to be equal spending cuts, there has to be some revenue that matches that. the legislation is going to be sent to the president today ends a stand-off that ground the work of washington to a halt this summer. so congress must now return to its most important job, creating jobs. now, mr. president, there are things we can do to create jobs. know that. we pasd out of here quickly the patent bill. 270,000 jobs we're told that legislation will create. so we'll move to that first time we get back to that after the summer break. we're going to move to the patent legislation. important we do that. the are other things we can do. there are things out there that should be bipartisan in that it that we can do. we have a highway bill that's due. i've spoke to the chair -- the

chairman of the finance committee today. there are ways we can fund that that should be in keeping with a bipartisan approach to this. the important part, the important thing that we have mr. president, with these infrastructure jobs we need so very much is that for every billion dollars we spend in infrastructure, we create 47,500 high-paying jobs. a lot of other jobs spin off from that. these aren't jobs you have a billion dollars and have you all these jobs are jobs that the federal government does. these are moneys that go to the private sector to build roads and bridges and dams. we need to do tt and we can do that. clean energy jobs. they're changing the face of this nation. we need to do that. i'm optimistic and hopeful that the spirit of compromise has taken root in washington over the last several

days will endure. i hope my republican colleagues will join forces with democrats to bring america back to work an not be looking for winners and political parties. let's start looking for winners with the american people. we've made progress toward cutting the goal -- we made progress toward our goal of cutting the deficit spending that we have around here. this nation still faces a jobs deficit as well. there's no issue more important to the american people than job creation. tell every american who chooses to work and fina job, our job is undone. so we're going to continue making jobs our number-one priority. we ask the republicans to join with us in this regard. adlai stevenson once called politics "the people's birks the most important business there is." that's what adlai stevenson said. so, mr. president, it's time for congress to get back to doing the people's business, creating jobs. nothing is more important than that.

mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion to concur. >> the senate approved the debt ceiling agreement. next, reaction from senate republicans and senate democratic leaders. this is about 20 minutes. >> i know you all are going to miss this. obviously, the biggest concern the american people have is jobs and the economy. things actually have gotten worse since the president came to office. we need to move in a different direction. we do not believe and the american people not believe that raising taxes, job-killing tax increases in the middle of this serious recession is a direction we ought to take, and the bill we just passed avoided doing

that, even though the administration desperately wanted to raise taxes. every meeting i am in talks about the regulatory burden that we are experiencing throughout the american economy. massive increases in regulation. i am often asked what i would do to get the economy going, and my answer is always the same -- we need to quit doing what we have been doing. " borrowing, could spending, quit trying to raise taxing -- quit borrowing, quit spending. so we have a chance to have a growing economy which will produce more revenue for the government. that ought to be our single focus, not only at home during the recess, but when we come back here. one very big thing the administration could do is get those trade agreements up here. they enjoy bipartisan support. they will create jobs in america for americans. we hope they will be waiting for

us when we get back from the august break. >> i am always amazed when people leave the president's rhetoric can override the substance. the moment we got this debt ceiling issue behind us, the president decided to pivot to job creation. as leader mcconnell pointed out, republicans have never taken our eye off of job creation. just to illustrate with a very specific example of one of the things we had to deal with during this debate about the deficit and the debt ceiling, one of the taxes that the president actually proposed that we increase was the subject of a report by his own small business administration office of advocacy, and they reported that

this particular tax could ultimately force many small businesses to close. that is a direct quotation. while the president today would have all of us believe that now he has gotten the light and wants to put it to job creation, i would just ask -- what about the whole debate we had over the last month or so about the pernicious effects of your tax proposals on job creation? that is why republicans were so fixated on stopping these job- killing tax increases. >> senator rubio said yesterday washington is talking about the debt but americans are talking about jobs. the president has pivoted to jobs, and usually, he begins by claiming his predecessor for the problems he has inherited. we do not blame the president for the problems he has

inherited, but we do hold a irresponsible for making the economy worse. he has made it worse in terms of unemployment, in terms of the federal debt, in terms of higher gas prices, individual health insurance premiums are higher. home values are down. the projections are up. he proposes high-cost energy plants. he has basically thrown a big, wet blanket over private sector job creation and, given the chance, we know how to make it better with simple taxes, fewer loopholes, lower rates, fewer regulations, less debt, more exports, fewer health-care mandates, job training, and finding more american energy and using less. our goal is to make it easier and cheaper to create private- sector jobs. >> i, too, want to welcome the white house and administration and the bearcats to the debate about jobs after two and a half years of piling up the record,

as senator alexander just alluded to. if you think about this administration so far, it is chronic high unemployment and massive amounts of debt. they have added 35% to the dead, and we have unemployment over 9%. we saw last week the anemic growth numbers for the second quarter. this economy is sluggish, and the reason is because the job creators out there, the small businesses in this country are worried about what washington will do next. i think that was probably verify in a poll done by the u.s. chamber of commerce in which they pulled small business about what they will do with regard to job creation this next year. 64% said they would not add to their payrolls. 12% said they were going to cut jobs, and of the businesses who responded to the survey, half of them said the reason for that as

economic uncertainty because of washington, d.c., policies and this day they came into office. i am delighted to welcome him to the debate about jobs after two and a half years of being missing in action. >> when the president came to office, unemployment rate in this country was 7.8%. now, it is 9.2% unemployment. millions of americans looking for work and cannot find someone to employ them. a lot of that has to do with regulations coming out of washington. in the past month alone, the 31 days of july, there have been approximately 300 new expensive regulations coming out of washington. 10 of those are major regulations in terms of impact, which means they have an impact over -- of over $100 million. the total impact has been almost $10 billion of expenses when you look at these hundreds of millions of regulations in the month of july alone.

this administration seems to be fixated on finding ways to make it tougher and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs in america. >> looking forward, one of the most important things to come out of this debt ceiling agreement is a commitment for a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution some time by october. when you look at everything congress can do, it cannot bind future congresses, which is one of the biggest challenges we have had, which is why i believe a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is absolutely essential. all 47 republicans have co- sponsored a version of that balance budget agreement, and now, we have taken a small step in the right direction toward fiscal responsibility, and we have to finish the job by passing by a 2/3 margin a balanced budget in the house and senate and sending it to the

states for ratification. we know there's a lot we can do between now and the time that amendment is ratified, but ultimately, the question is -- will we be living by the same rules that apply to every family, every small business, and 49 states, which is that they cannot spend more money than they have? i think we have all seen that this is really the ultimate measure of fiscal responsibility, and i congratulate our leadership for getting that commitment. as you know, being in the minority, we cannot get a vote on anything unless harry reed agrees to give us a vote. we have a right to that vote, and that is what the national conversation will be about going forward, and this is one of the most important things to come out of this agreement. >> we will take a couple of questions. >> [inaudible]

>> i am going to be considered these -- considering these appointments. senator kyl and i will be considering them together. i will be acting very soon. >> [inaudible] will the federal government spent more money or less money in 2011? >> anybody got the top line on that? >> [inaudible] >> slowed the rate of increase. >> i do not have that in my head, but we set the number on the discretionary side for 2012 and 2013. it should be immediately available to you. that allows us to have a normal appropriations process. normally, the senate would pass a budget. you know it has been over 800 days since we actually passed a budget in the senate. the house will pass one, we

would say it is done, you would reconcile the differences, and then get to the top line. not being optimistic that we would have a budget process, we put into the measure that was just passed, the top line for fiscal year 2012 and 2013. >> you talk about the white house as saying a cut from defense and even further cuts from the joint committee. >> the joint committee is not going to gridlock in my opinion. the joint committee is designed to function and tackle some of the very difficult problems that we have been unwilling or unable to deal with. the trustees appointed by the president, of medicare and social security, said both are in trouble, medicare sooner than social security.

we have not yet been able to do anything on the tax reform side. we decided to concentrate power in this joint committee because we have an extraordinary problem. it's the normal way we do business was adequate, we would not have a $14 trillion debt and over $50 trillion of unfunded liability. we need to do something different, and this is clearly not kicking the can down the road. they will report by november 23. it will be voted on by the end of the year. i would not focus a whole lot on what would happen if they did not function because i think they are. >> [inaudible] will come out of defense in the next 20 years. >> [inaudible] >> well, we are so late.

fiscal year 2012 begins at the end of next month. and probably will be difficult to have a normal appropriations process. they will have to be called together, but in 2013, we now know well in advance with the top line will be. it is my hope and i know it is the majority leader's hope that we will be able to do the basic work of government, which is the appropriations committee reporting bills, moving them across the floor of the senate, and getting them done, but this year, we are so late it will be very difficult to have that kind of normal process for fiscal year 2012. what happens, as you know, we do not have enough time, so we end up in either a cr or putting together several of the appropriation bills. that is not the best way to do it. hopefully, that will not be done in 2013. i do not see any way to avoid it in 2012 because it begins in a

few months. we will see how we sorted out, but it will be hard to move a 2012 bill across the floor in the month of september. thank you, everyone. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the debate was long. it was not easy. for weeks, the american people have watched and wondered whether congress can get its job done. well, we got it down and brought our economy back from the brink of disaster. in the end, the two sides came together. that is how our system works. neither side got what they wanted. each side woman some of the things we had to give up, but that is the way it is.

it is that way because that is how our system works and that is what compromise is about. it was not the right wing cap, cut, and whatever it is over there. that was not bipartisan. it is nothing that we could agree to in the short term. it was really a disaster for america. this agreement cuts the deficit by $1 trillion and lays the groundwork for much more in the near future. we look forward to the work in the committee to make sure that millionaires and billionaires and corporate jet owners and people who have those dots who get tax benefits, oil companies get these huge tax subsidies, that that is in the midst of rethinking what is going on. that is what the committee will be about. we need to do more for families. the number one job we have as a congress must be creating jobs for the american people.

there is a number of things we're going to do. senator shuler is going to address that in a few minutes. today, we made sure that america will pay its bills. now, it is time to make sure that all americans can pay theirs. senator durbin. >> with this vote, we have averted a crisis. america has avoided defaulting for the first time in our history on our national debt. the fears and concerns of americans across the board were considered by this congress, and, as a result, we have come together on a bipartisan basis. i did not vote for this with a great deal of enthusiasm because the down payment on the deficit included in this bill comes primarily from working families and those who are struggling in america. if we're going to have true deficit reduction and address this debt, we have to put everything on the table and bring everyone to the table for shared sacrifice. the joint committee has a

particular responsibility here, called on together, another $1 trillion or $1.50 trillion in savings. let us make sure that when we do it, we do it in a fair and just manner for all the people in america. when we return, to make sure that we address the number one issue in america -- creating good paying jobs right here at home for the people who are struggling in this economy. >> well, now washington, the nation, the world can breathe a sigh of relief. the horrible crisis that would have occurred if with a vaulted, the likelihood of a recession if we defaulted has been averted, but we have a lot more work to do. a lot more work to do. the bill, which had things that leader durbin manchin, had a lot of things we did not like. particularly making sure that no

benefits -- but it had a lot of things we did like, particularly making sure that no benefits for medicaid and medicare were cut, but now it is time for congress to get back to our regularly scheduled programming, and that means jobs. while washington has been consumed with averting a default, our nation's unemployment problem has been worsening. it is time for jobs to be moved back to the front burner. with this debt reduction package completed, the decks are now clear for a single-minded focus on jobs in september by removing the threat of default for the next 18 months and by proving that both parties can come together to get our deficits under control, we have provided certainty to the credit markets. the debt limit agreement largely results the budget for the next two years, so the wrangling over spending should be greatly reduced in coming months. we now have the chance to pick it away from budget battles to

jobs. we can reset the debate, and that is what we intend to do. the jobs issue will not have to play second fiddle to the deficit issue any more, and that is what the american people want. the public is glad to see we have moved to rein in our deficit, but now the we have put the political premium on efforts to create jobs, as democrats, that is our strong suit, our high ground. we welcome this chance to shift the playing field to jobs. >> this was obviously a very important vote. we needed to raise the debt ceiling to avoid an economic calamity, and we needed to cut spending and start getting our deficit and debt under control, but we still have a very long, a critical road ahead of us, and we will keep working hard to make sure that as we tackle these challenges in front of us, we do it in a fair and balanced way for americans across this

country. it is time now to get back to our priority number one, getting our economy back on track and people back to work. this vote we just had begins to address the budget deficit, but as every family and business in this country knows, we also have an infrastructure deficit, and education and skills training deficit, and a jobs deficit. we want to get back on track and address the critical issues all- american families can feel secure again that they will have a paycheck, and their families will be able to put food on the table and send their kids to college. importantly, i think this vote just showed us that we can work in a bipartisan way. i hope that we can do that moving forward that to address the number one issue for every family -- jobs. what with the special committee be more successful in addressing either taxes or entitlement programs when group or the

boehner-obama talks failed? >> the answer is pretty obvious -- hanging over the head of the joint committee is this trigger that is pretty drastic. >> is there anything to keep this from happening again? is there a chance that the house speaker and caucus could once again say, open a " no, we are not going to support a debt ceiling increase after 2013"? >> first of all, the trigger kicks in, and i think it makes it pretty easy for the ensuing years. course, there will have been an election take place between then and 2013. >> [inaudible]

>> yes, i have said that there are 80,000 jobs at least on the line. we have a new airport tower there. we started the construction about two weeks ago. that is a huge project. nearly $100 million project. barbara boxer just told me they have a problem with the control tower, and as i understood, she said they have shut down construction on that. so that is difficult. the essential air service is a program that i believe in, but i also believe that $3,500 per passenger is a little extreme. that is what it is in nevada. sometimes you have to be reasonable, and i think we learned that this big deal was just done, and sometimes you have to step back and find out what is best for the country and

not be bound by some of your own personal issues, and i am willing to give that up, and i hope other senators will do the same period >> [inaudible] >> we are going to have -- we are working on it these next few weeks. we will do it during recess. but there are all kind of things. for example, i will file cloture today on a motion for speed of the patent bill. that is important. that will be the first vote we have when we get back. it is too bad it has taken so long. that is 270,000 jobs. we have other things, right? i indicated to my friends here that i spoke to spokebaucus -- spoke to chairman baucus today, and he has found a source of money to complete the highway bill. there are many things we can do.

there are many energy jobs that are out there, and we have a lot of other things. we do not have them finalized yet, but we will. >> [inaudible] >> i think that people going on the joint committee should be open to solving the debt problems of the country and not let ideology stand in the way. this is more about saving our country from the future long- term deficit problems we have then political ideology. >> [inaudible] >> under the law, you have to do it within 14 days after the president signs the bill. thanks, everyone.

>> on friday, standard and poor's cut the u.s. long term credit rating from aaa to aa + over concerns about the nation's deficit and debt problems. we look at a hearing from last month where credit agency officials talked about the debt ceiling of possible threats to the u.s. credit rating. this portion is about 25 minutes. >> could you, on the evaluation

for the potential of a downgrade on the president was a position or his solution to the problem as whether we will still get a downgrade? >> congressman, the way our sovereign analyst look at this -- they look at five variables to assess the credit worthiness of the commercial debt of a sovereign. we look at the fiscal aspects, the monetary, the economic strength of the country, but liquidity and funding, and then, of course, the political institutions -- >> i only have so what time. i realize the 5-1 analysis, and one of those points is with structural changes that the congress is going to pass. were you able to look at what the president has presented and be able to give an evaluation on that, whether that is sufficient? >> our analysts say there has to be a concrete plan to reduce the debt burden as well as the debt

level. >> i serve on the budget committee and there is now that infamous statement from the cbo where they say they do not evaluate speeches. is there something you are able to evaluate where they say the plan is credible? >> there have been a number of plans that have been announced by the administration. >> have you been able to look at them? >> we think some of the plans to reduce debt levels could bring the u.s. debt burden as well as the deficit levels in the range of a threshold for a aaa rating. we have analyzed it, but we are waiting to see what the final proposal is for a sovereign analyst to analyze it more surly and then decide on it. >> the story is -- at least one of the stories out there -- is with regard to the reid plan, it would be better to ensure that we do not get a downgrade according to some of the ratings agencies. is that story true? i say that parsley with regard to your own analysis of july 14

that says what we really need to have in order to avoid a downgrade is a $4 trillion structural change. as far as i know, the plan does not reach that level. would that be satisfactory? then a congressman, i think we were misquoted. we do not comment on any specific plan or political choices or policy choices being made. we're just commenting on what is the level of debt burden, the level of deficit that must meet the threshold to retain the aaa rating. since the $4 trillion number was put forward by a number of congressmen as well as by the administration, our analyst was just commenting on those proposals, that that would bring the threshold within the range of what sovereign debt would require. >> so you would require something under the potential still being able to retain a aaa rating? >> i will leave it to our analyst to determine that.

it is a decision made by our readings committee and our sovereign analyst. we have a criteria around sovereign debt that we have published. we have thresholds that are out in the public domain -- >> i know the original plan, the so-called grand plan, was on the $4 trillion side. the reid plan is substantially under that. you have not made any announcements since the july 14 letter saying that where is $4 trillion would be satisfactory, we have seen other potential plans, and they would not -- you have not produced any documents in that regard. >> know, congressman, we have not. >> does moody's want to chime in? >> i am not a reading analyst, but moody's has placed the rating for the u.s. government under review for possible downgrade. looking at two dimensions, one being short-term risk of disruption, and two of the and longer-term issue of the level of debt in relation to the overall economy.

>> right. do we -- and i know you are not the analyst, so do the plans that we have seen either from the white house, which would be on paper, or from reid, which would be more specific, do they satisfy those criteria? >> to my knowledge, moody's has not published anything in regard to specific policy issues or specific parameters that the rating committee will consider. >> do you want to chime in? >> i do not think rating agencies have the wherewithal, the intellectual range, the experience to be doing readings -- ratings on sovereigns and other countries around the world. i question whether this is the job of a private-sector entity to be looking at the united states government or, frankly,

any other government and reaching decisions on their levels of credit worthiness. what we have seen throughout history is a constant activity of being a day late and a dollar short and running around in front of the parade. is this new news? what makes these organizations -- we are not qualified to do this. we are too small. i question whether private enterprise should be in this business for pay. >> i thank you. now, the gentleman from texas. >> do you believe that the amount of debt held by the united states poses a systemic risk to our economy? >> our sovereign analyst in the publication has highlighted that the debt burden and the growth rate of the debt burdens is something that does need to be

addressed for us to continue to assess the credit worthiness of the sovereign commercial debt at aaa levels. >> in the political discourse that we are seeing today, do you think it is the job of a credit agency to get involved in trying to make a decision one way or the other on a political basis? do you think that is interference on the part of the credit rating agencies to be stepping in at this stage and making an assessment? >> sovereign debt is a large asset class that many investors around the world invest in. our role is to provide an independent view and future forward-looking view for the investors as to what the risk levels are for those assets that they invest in. that is what we are doing today. we are, for the benefit of investors, giving them a perspective and point of view that says what we believe and

the risks are rising for any sovereign. we're doing the same thing that we do in any part of the world that we're speaking to the risk that the investors invest in. this is a large asset class that investors invest in, and they are the ones that determine what to pay. >> do you honestly believe that the united states could default on its debt? >> our analysts do not believe they would. by the way, retaining a rating does not believe it would. it means there is a very low probability of a default. that is all it means. if we change a rating, it simply means the risk levels would go up. it does not mean that it would default. we believed that, we would change it to default status. that is their information to which moody's and s&p have access to that your firm cannot access? >> a significant amount,

actually. >> in addition, there is quite a sro'sat asro's thateven cannot access. it created an ability for structured products or data that is being used by a paid-for rating to be shared and accessed by another nrsro an unsolicited rating. we do not have access to that. what kroll would not necessarily have access to things like the biggest in two and collateralized debt obligation security. clo's are not covered in the asset-backed securities that are really covered under 17 g5, and the sec does not have purview

over the loans themselves, the underlying collateral for those types of securities. there is a whole world of information that none of us have access to the really would open up the space to competition as well as providing the investor community information that they directly could use if that information was directly available to them. >> thank you. mr. kroll, would your answer be the same or different? >> as an nrsro, we do have access to most of the information. for example, we have just in the last 30 days rated 3, and in two weeks, it will be five commercial mortgage-back deals. we are privy to the same information that the oligopoly gets if they are on those deals.

>> were you disappointed or pleased with the provisions of dodd-frank related to credit- rating agencies? >> by and large, i was disappointed with them. the idea behind it, in my understanding, with regard to rating agencies, was increased transparency, accountability, increase competition. in fact, what i think happened was a lot of punitive, directed initiatives towards the big three with unintended consequences that hurt the variety of us who would consider firmsnrsro's for those that are. ultimately, innovation and competition in the space is what will evolve it, and i do not think as a whole it helps contribute to that mission. >> as a non-sro player in an entrenched field, what is the biggest challenge your firm faces? >> i think there is still a

certain amount of -- or a decent number of institutional investors that are paying attention to the nrsro before they will pay attention to the non-sro in part because of the regulation in the environment that continues to support them. for us, we do not mind the hard work. we are in this for the long term and in this to grow our business, and doing the hard work and explaining our ratings to a variety of potential and current users is very much part of what we do, but we are trying this example of the quarterly ratings affirmation. we believe we are leading the field in best practices in certain areas and will continue to try to do that. we are prepared to compete, but obviously, it becomes harder with certain faults, given the entrenchment. >> thank you. i see that i am out of time, mr. chairman. thank you very much.

>> in consultation with the ranking member, we are going to provide members another round of questions. so i will start that. in the last six or seven months, have you had conversations with secretary geithner about the ratings of u.s. sovereign debt? >> like we do for all entities that issue debt, we meet with management. in this case, the treasury is management. our team has had ongoing dialogue, and we do this not only with sovereign governments around the world, we do that with companies. we meet them regularly and sometimes quarterly when they have no updates to information. our sovereignty and has been meeting and discussing and

dialoguing with the treasury as well as other parts of the administration and some members of the public to just understand what the situation is, what plans are being formulated, how credible they would be. so we have a regular ongoing dialogue in order to get a better understanding. >> let me restate my question -- have you and secretary geithner had a conversation about the reading of u.s. sovereign debt? >> no, chairman, i have not had any direct conversation. >> i know this sovereign debt thing is not just a u.s. issue right now, but it is a global issue, particularly in european union and the european central bank. have those entities been having ongoing dialogue about how you might be reaching their debt in the same respect?

>> first of all, our sovereign analysts meet with the central banks and finance ministries, treasuries, and other policymakers around the world on a regular basis. we rate about 126 countries, and we have 100 analysts in sovereign, so they are meeting with people around the world all the time. from time to time, yes, i do in my role meet with central banks and treasuries a while -- around the world to adjust exchange views, but not on their ratings, .er swe >> here is a question -- what about countries that can monetize their own debt like the u.s. and some other countries? would a country that can print money get a higher credit rating than a country that does not have that ability available to it? >> chairman, yes, i an hour criteria we explicitly say that countries that can have their own currency and in this case,

the u.s. is a global reserve currency, so it does get a lift. i am not exactly sure how much, yes, they do. >> it would be interesting for me and some of my members to know what the list is for countries that can print money. >> we may have published it. >> another question is we are looking at the potential -- what you think the risk of default is. what percentage of a country's government expenditures attributed to interest would begin to cause you to enhance the potential for defaults? in some countries, their interest is 5% or 10%. some countries are 25% interest. at some point in time, squeezing out the amount of government expenditures and forcing either

traditional taxes or -- would that be a factor? >> it is, and cost of debt is an important factor, as is the total debt level, as is the deficit, as is the economic growth prospects. they all include the trajectory of the growth of the debt levels of the country, so they are clearly -- clearly, we have thresholds', for each rating category, against many indicators we look at. at this point in time, i do not know explicitly what the threshold is four a aaa for the debt servicing, but we can look at our public documents to see if it is there. >> for countries that the debt levels are increasing -- in other words, the interest kerry is increasing at a faster level -- the interest carry is

increasing at a faster level than the growth in the economy -- what is the pathway for that country? >> it is a function of that as well as a function of -- the total debt level is a function of the deficit as a function of the economic growth. and then, of course, what steps will be taken to address all of these things. you can change the trajectory by using a number of other variables. as you mentioned, the dollar as a global reserve currency also brings some benefits to the credit worthiness. >> would you say this is a fair assumption that the commons recently you made about the u.s. debt was not whether we were going to default or not but whether we were going to actually address the massive deficits that this country is running? >> chairman, that is exactly -- the more important issue is really the long-term growth rate of the death as driven by the debt burden as well as the deficit. that is the more important issue

at hand. to your point, that is the more important issue. >> thank you. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i just want to point out that i have the bloomberg news report on the second circuit opinion. it deals with underwriters. apparently moody's and ctenophores -- i cannot imagine why they would see you as underwriters. no one would consider you to the underwriters. you are in the business of making thoughtful, professional opinions. i guess i do not know the legal claim. i am glad you in the case. but that has nothing to do with other cases that may come. i wanted to pursue another area. i am not sure whether colorado is a muni type of bond. are you in that category? >> as far as an issue? no, sir. we do not issue bonds.

we acquire assets and pay benefits, but we are not a part of the state. we are an arm of the state, but not part of the state for purposes of issuing debt. >> i appreciate that. i have been chasing the credit rating agencies for years before this problem, and it really had to do with -- because i am a former mayor, and i was giving you a taste of what i got from my nine years as mayor. i did not like it. when you guys came in the door, i had to jump through hoops that were ridiculous to get ratings that were below what i deserve, and when i got here, i realized i did get ratings below what i deserve because my risk of default, which is really the only basis on which i thought anybody worked, was significantly in a different standard. the credit was supposed to address some of these things, and i guess i would like to pursue as to whether it has. in the last couple of years -- i have the numbers before me, but they are up until 2008.

i have not updated and your prior to told the senate, the ratings of all rating categories were 97% less likely to default but were rated lower appeared by s&p, there were 45 times less likely to default, yet rated lower. have you changed your ways? are you now reaching municipal and other governmental agencies as if they were corporations? again, based on one thing and only one thing, which is the risk of default? >> ranking member, we have always had one consistent scale that we have tried to adopt across all our asset class is. as a result, you will see our municipal ratings are generally higher than corporate and other types of financial institutions.

we have made vigorous attempts to make our ratings very comparable, whether it is muni or corporate or financial institutions are in the u.s. or europe, so we are striving to get comparability of our ratings across all asset class is an job categories. >> the reason i asked, because in 2008, again, not updated, but i know it has changed a little bit. my guess is -- let me ask you this basic question -- are you aware that munis have defaulted at any higher rate than corporate bonds? >> i do not have the data exactly, but as i mentioned, we are aiming to get comparability of the readings across all asset classes. >> that would mean basically that you would now start reading what was once rated in 2008 as may be a ba or bb up to a aaa.

they had approximately the same default rate, and i would argue that since that is really all that matters in the final analysis -- again, am i wrong to think the only thing that matters is the likelihood of getting repaid? if that is all that matters, based on historic data, munis should be -- -- bba munis should be rated aaa. >> we are working towards that. we have in fact be calibrated our criteria across many areas including structured finance, sovereign government, and we are also be calibrating hour criteria on municipals, with the aim and objective to have comparability of readings across all sectors, across all asset classes and geographies. >> has moody's made progress on this as well? >> yes, mr. congressman. i am aware that since 2008,

moody's has formally recalibrate it all of the u.s. public finance ratings and move them onto a scale that is comparable to corporate ratings. >> based on historic default rates? >> there was a research piece and a lot of analysis are around that the calibration that i can try to provide you. >> my staff will be in touch with both of you to try to catch up on some of the data. do you do governmental issues? >> we do not, but i would point out, and i am not sure the data you are pointing to, but a lot of the municipal issuance were injured, so you definitely have a skewing of defaults that is -- a lot of the municipal insurance work in shared. >> i believe then that munis were being chased into insurance that they did not need. >> i was just clarifying. >> mr. kroll, do you do munis? your microphone, please. >> yes, we do.

we're just starting. we will release a study in the timber, taking the 200 most liquid muni issues -- many in all states and some involve cities -- and we are looking at the actual financials. we will not be using dated information. sometimes a year or year and a half dated, to come up with our ratings of this. so stay tuned until september. >> thank you very much. >> financial leaders from around the world discuss the stability of the markets today after the s&p downgrade of u.s. credit. according to the associated press, officials from the group of 20 held a conference call on minimizing shots -- shocks to the market, and financial ministers from the group of seven are planning to talk before asian markets open for the week. japan says it may intervene in the currency markets again to protect its recovery from the earthquake and tsunami in march. south korea's central bank said there would be no sudden change in its foreign reserves and

added the s&p downgrade had not changed its confidence in u.s. treasuries, saying there is no alternative as safe as the u.s.. china, the largest foreign holder of u.s. debt, did not comment on the downgrade after the meeting. some officials said any weakness in the u.s. bond market was unlikely to last. the u.s. still retains its top credit rating with the two other major credit ratings agencies -- moody's and fitch. earlier on "washington journal," we talked with the manager a tao financial group on managing a tough economy. this runs about 45 minutes. from new york. patricia paul. good morning a thanks for being with us. >> thanks for having me. host: pressing all the buttons for a panic attack in the new york times the word commonly uses is fear paced on what happened last week. dow thirst day and then friday with the s&p.

what's your advice? >> think don't pan sick always good advice. never lead use to a really good decision. this and the reason i think people are panicking o are very concerned is the memory of 202008 is2008 and we came close to economic collapse. that's not by the slightest measure near what happened 202008. it's ugly and the markets have been brutal for two weeks. and it's worldwe. but i think don't pan sick really the best advice. >> how much influence does standard & poor's have on the market and this credit rating while fish and moodys kept tate sterling rating? >> i think they're in flunlt and they knew that why it was clear when they did the ground rating they did it after the

markets and gave us whole weekend to try to digest it. i know there was political work to the administration going back and fth but i think it was clear what impact this would have on the market. >> we heard many refer to the last and lost decade with japan and now some see if sit facing that economically? is that affair analysis? >> i think the concept of a lost decade is feasible. i think we already did that. if you look at the last 10-years what this economy went through between the.com bubble bursting and the economic fall out. and 9/11 and the economic fall out and msive fall of enron and then the economic crisis of 20200

2008. i think we could argue that investors have had a tremendous impact on pensions and 401ks. every aspect of society. >> you talk to some people that want to break even with some investments and many- have lost a lot of money you hear the sentiment you can't even g ahead. >> during last 10-years i's been very difficult to get ahead and stay ahead. and you certainly take a lot of knocks but the answer to the last 10-years and the answer to the next 10-years is probably the same, is you have to have diversity. you can't just do a no-brainer kind of investment approach whether i put all my money in s&p index fund and it'll be fine in the long run. i think people have to do a much better job of allocateing a lot of work has been done on past

investing leading people to bad results. >> what's your advice as individuals try to imagine personal finance when the savings rate is at a miss a his low. there's no return on any savings account. what can you do? >> it's tough and i tnk the first thing you have too dos differentiate between your short-te money and long-term money. your short-term should not be invested. classic mistake people makeover and er. i have another tuition payment due in january and the stock market starts to fall apart and then i'm panicked because i need that money in january. that kind of money belongs in a cash reserve safe secure. i like banks and f dic guarantee on that kind of money. but for your long-term money you have to go beyond and you have to take care of yourself if your

ever going to retire you need to participate in things like 401k that maybe your employer sponsors. then you have to participate in the ira. you are at some point not going to want to work and doing nothing now is not going to be personally helpful to you. >> let's put out a scenario you're a individual that makes $75,000 a year. how much should you be saving and put into retirement fund and typically if you retire at 65 or 68 how much to you need to retire for 20 year? >> okay. little bit tough the way you laid it out. so i'm going to sort of skirt around it a bit. $75,000 person i don't know. one income or two income. there's a lots of factors the younger you are, i think the ez year it is to get starter but most people wait.

and the sooner you get started the better off you are. you take a kid just getting out of college. start immediately on your first job putting money away. you'll never feel it. i would suggest to you. someone that put 10% of their money away over their entire career would never he a problem in retirement. that's a pretty strong statement. it's nothat hard. i know most young college graduates are not starting out at 75,000. they might start out at 40,000. a $40,0 living is substantively as 46 thousand but the outcome of that 10% is light years way from somebody that spends everything they make. >> patricia joining us from new york. who do