Full Faith and Credit Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 202 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from New York, my friend (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 202 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 807. This rule provides for discussion opportunities for Members of the minority and the majority to participate in this debate.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to guarantee the full faith and credit of the United States for generations to come by ensuring that our Nation will never default on our debt obligations.

Functionally, H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act of 2013, ensures that the Treasury Department will continue to make payments on the principal and interest of our debt, including debt held by the Social Security trust fund, in the event that the statutory debt limit is reached. Requiring the Treasury to make good on its obligations to the Social Security trust fund will ensure that those funds are available to honor our commitment to seniors and disabled Americans.

Moreover, H.R. 807 provides certainty to investors, small businesses, retirees, pension beneficiaries, and international markets that we will never negatively impact our economy by allowing this Nation to default on its debts.

In the larger sense, it is our opportunity to engage, in a public forum, the Treasury Department and the administration on what we believe is the right way to engage in discussions about how we will move forward in uncharted territories as it's dealing with the financial difficulties of our country.

However, today's debate is symptomatic of the larger problem. For far too long, our Federal Government has spent too much money and borrowed too much. We have spent money and not listened to the American people, nor looked ahead at the consequences of spending too much, saving too little, and not creating jobs that will help to sustain the American Dream, the next generation, and the systems which we hold so dear to the American system.

House Republicans however, today, come to the floor, under the leadership of our great Ways and Means Chairman, Dave Camp, and some ideas that have come from Congressman Tom McClintock of California, and we are working on ideas with commonsense solutions to cut wasteful spending, reform entitlement programs, and balance the budget in a way that furthers our country, strengthens what we do, and makes sure we are ready for tomorrow.

Yet at almost every turn, including yesterday, up in the Rules Committee upstairs, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opposed pro-growth agendas and pushed for higher taxes and more spending. It happens almost every single day, every single bill that we bring before the Rules Committee, a demand to increase spending and increase taxes.

Our Nation does not have a taxing problem. It has a spending problem; and until we enact meaningful reforms, we will not improve our dire financial dilemma and the circumstances that come with trying to manage a problem instead of a growth opportunity to make our country stronger.

Today, the American economy is struggling and has been struggling now in our fifth year to regain momentum and is burdened by massive amounts of Federal spending and Federal debt. Allowing our Nation to default would severely hinder what little growth there is, potentially causing the U.S. to slip back into another recession and risk another downgrading of our credit rating.

For these reasons, default is unacceptable; and that is why House Republicans, we think weeks, perhaps months ahead of trying to finally address this issue, we think it's time that our ideas are on the floor of the House of Representatives, talking openly, not just among ourselves and with the administration, but also the American people. And that is the purpose of us being here today.

House Republicans are willing to work with our colleagues in the Senate, as well, and also at the White House; and we'd like to find a compromise that would raise the debt limit, while simultaneously enacting meaningful legislation that will fix our Nation's broken tax system.

We need to create jobs through job enrichment, through a Tax Code that is vibrant and does not harm job creation, that does not do things that would cause people to want to not invest in this country because of taxes that are out of control and spending that harms their business.

So we want to rein in our out-of-control spending and reform our ballooning entitlement programs to preserve them for generations to come. It should be our responsibility.

We, as Members of Congress, were elected by the people, and we should be able to come and face tough issues with good answers. We should not try and scare people back home. We should be able to tell the truth about the legislation, and we need to be honest about the circumstances of the pathway that we remain on because of our President's and the Democrats' agenda.

So, unfortunately, President Obama has already stated that he is unwilling to negotiate with the House or the Senate over the debt limit.

It is this President when he was a Senator who voted repeatedly against a debt limit increase, called it irresponsible and a lack of leadership; and yet today he says just give him all the power, he'll take care of this himself. As such, the bill before us today is a necessary and prudent safety net designed to avoid economic calamity

should we reach the debt limit and not have resolved that between the House, the Senate, and the President.

I applaud Congressman Tom McClintock, my dear friend from California, and our great young chairman from Michigan, Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Each of them brings their work product to the floor today, as well as many of our other colleagues such as my Rules Committee member, the young man from Orlando, Florida, Dan Webster, who brought forth ideas that would help shape not only the legislation that we have today, but the desire of the Republican conference to make sure that we continue to talk about the issues and problems that we see before they become a crisis, before they become something that is unworkable and rather to share our great ideas now. So for the timeless work on this issue, I thank all three of them for working on this bill today.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I encourage them to vote ``yes'' on the rule, I encourage them to be thoughtful and truthful about the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the Members of Congress that I spoke about that not only brought pieces of this legislation to the Ways and Means Committee but really as part of the debate for our conference and to the American people is our next speaker.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Elk Grove, California (Mr. McClintock).

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

We've had an opportunity once again today, as we did yesterday, to hear from the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan. He brought his ideas, the best ideas he had, up to the Rules Committee yesterday on this same issue.

But the issues that the gentleman speaks about are attacking our answers. Their answer that they propose is tax increases and spending increases, and that way we'll simply have more money into the system. Because as we've already heard today just a few minutes ago, the more money we give in unemployment compensation, the more vitality is in our cities, more spending takes place, more unemployment compensation, more vitality, more spending in our cities.

Mr. Speaker, that's the wrong way to go. The Republican Party does not believe that we should create a permanent underclass of people who receive unemployment compensation or who are afraid of facing the truth about where this country is headed.

The facts of the case are other countries are ahead of us on this curve. Most of them are in Europe, and they ignored the signs that Republicans are here talking about today, the signs of spending too much, relying on its people to raise taxes for them to bring money in, and a big government continuing to put rules and regulations and impediments in front of people.

The facts of the case are simple. We are here today because it is President Obama and the Democrats who spent too much money, who are destroying jobs, and who even today are holding back the Keystone pipeline, what could be thousands of jobs for people in this country, lessen our reliance on other parts of the world for our energy, and bring back American-made jobs. This is exactly why we are having problems.

So, it's the Republican Party that is trying to offer a public discussion, a public debate, including our great Speaker, John Boehner, who says we need to make sure that part of the debate comes down to, if we get to that point, that we pay back the people who loaned us money in the first place. They need to have confidence that they can continue loaning us money because we are still having to borrow a lot of money.

I can think of few things that would be worse than to publicly announce we are going to pay somebody else before we pay back our creditors. That is how creditors no longer lend any money to you.

So, what Republicans are doing is having a public debate. We are bringing this to the floor. And I do recognize our friends on the other side, our Democrat friends, that they want to spend more and tax more. They have never seen enough spending in this place. They want more and more. They are like our President--they have an insatiable appetite to spend people's money. And then, like, literally, somebody who started a fire, is an arsonist, show up as the firefighter, the hero, to say, but I want to save our country.

They created the economic malaise that we have. It is overspending, it's holding back job creation, and Republicans are going to stand on the floor and have this debate with the media and the American people and the administration and say, let's know what we are going to do when we get there months ahead of time so that we don't falter like we did some time ago, and take on the President's idea again of sequestration only to have him argue against his own idea later and then try to mislead the American public what this whole issue is about. It's about the economic demise of the United States of America and how we are having to work here to make sure that we publicly discuss this before it becomes too late.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge Mr. Cooper's presence here today. His idea was valid and, in fact, was utilized in what we have done.

The slight difference of how I'd like to describe this to the gentleman is: we did not say that Members cannot be paid. What we said is that no new debt can be used to pay Members. So, if we're spending 40 percent too much money today and if 60 percent were coming in, we could be paid out of that amount, but we could not be paid out of the debt-side amount, which is what this legislation is about and why this legislation is germane.

I do thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for his idea that Members of Congress should equally suffer or equally gain as the American people have. In this circumstance, it's a loss for all of us, and that is why Chairman Camp included this as an amendment. It was to make sure that we clarified: As part of this bill, Members of Congress could not be paid with new debt that was being brought to the United States.

So I hope that clarifies not only the success that we believe that Mr. Cooper brought with his ideas but also the intent of what this legislation actually does, what we spoke about in the Rules Committee and the fine line between paying a Member and whether it comes from new debt or whether it comes from operating entities that would be within the 60 percent that would not be the new debt. I hope this clarifies not only what we are trying to do but that we speak forthrightly to Members about what this legislation actually is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the Member from the Fifth District of Texas, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Except for my final close, I do not. And I thank the gentlewoman.

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

I have been around this place a long time, and I've heard of people who did not read bills. I have heard of people who did not understand bills, but I have never seen a circumstance such as today where the truth was being held hostage.

The facts of the case are very simple. Republicans today are offering a mechanism to the President of the United States and the American people that says, if we do get in a circumstance where we do not extend our debt to further allow the Federal Government to buy more debt to pay its obligations, then we offer this opportunity, and that is that the government can, even when we're in a circumstance where we cannot borrow more money, and let's say we spend 60 percent that we get money in but 40 percent is the debt that we can no longer have available to pay our obligations, about a 60/40 split, then we're allowing the Federal Government to go borrow more debt to pay its obligations so that it doesn't compete against the money that does come in to pay the bills of the United States as the President of the United States would choose.

I've never heard of a more reasonable option. We're not telling the President how to spend the money. We're giving authorization for new debt to pay our debt obligations. That's not cutting people off. It's not truthful to say we're going to do that. Anybody that tells you that didn't read the bill.

What this is about is to say, if we go into a debt circumstance where we cannot come to an agreement, then we are authorizing the Federal Government, the Treasury, to go get more debt, only enough to pay debt obligations to where we do not default, and then we work on the circumstances of how much money comes in.

This has been miscast. The truth has been held hostage, and I am disappointed in Members of Congress who came down here and misled the American people about what this bill is. It is nothing more than allowing the Treasury to go borrow money to pay its already obligations to people who loaned us money. It says nothing about how they will pay normal bills to people. And to come to this floor and to suggest this is simply a disservice to the obligations I think that we have to be open and honest about what our job is.

I urge my colleagues to understand the simplification of what this bill is about, to not try to twist it to have it become something that it is not. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 202, I call up the bill (H.R. 807) to require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 807.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act. This legislation credibly and permanently removes the threat of default on a U.S. debt payment and ensures that Social Security benefits are paid in full and on time.

The bill is really quite simple: it requires the Treasury Department to issue debt not subject to the statutory limit to make principal and interest payments. And here are the facts about who holds that debt: American families and businesses hold the overwhelming majority of U.S. debt--teacher pension funds, individual Americans, our military retirement fund, and the list goes on and on. So by ensuring that Treasury has the ability to honor our debt obligations, we are in fact ensuring Americans will be paid.

This legislation is the first step in protecting our credit rating. Two major credit rating agencies--Standard and Poor's and Moody's--have indicated that they differentiate between debt and other payments when determining whether or not to review our credit rating. To that end, this bill specifically addresses the default on U.S.

debt obligations that these agencies have identified.

Additionally, Standard & Poor's was crystal clear as to why it downgraded the U.S. credit rating following the debt negotiations in the summer of 2011, and I quote:

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal

consolidation plan that Congress and the administration

recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be

necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt

dynamics.

In plain English, they downgraded the U.S. credit rating because we have not addressed the primary drivers of our debts and deficits.

It's nearly 2 years later, and neither the President nor congressional Democrats have offered a serious plan that would address the problems that caused the downgrade in the first place. This legislation places that responsibility on the Obama administration and encourages the President to be more involved with taming our debt, something Republicans have long called for.

Some critics of this legislation have claimed that it opens the door for Treasury to issue new debt for new spending or that it is simply raising the debt limit by another means. This is categorically false. This bill does not increase the debt limit. Instead, under this legislation, Treasury loses the authority to issue debt above the limit if doing so creates any room under the existing old debt limit.

Treasury may not issue new debt above the statutory limit again until the limit is reached. Additionally, any new debt issued to pay principal and interest is not exempt from the statutory limit unless issuing the new debt would cause Treasury to exceed the statutory limit.

The American people agree, and that support transcends party lines. A majority, 55 percent, support requiring the government to pay the principal and interest on the debt before it pays for other government expenses. Support for the proposal is strong among Republicans, 65 percent; Independents, 53 percent; while Democrat voters are split evenly between favor, 46, and opposed, 47.

Clearly, we cannot default on our debt. The consequences of doing so could be very serious. A default would at the very least hinder an already stagnant economic recovery, and, in a worst-case scenario, lead the country back into a recession.

Failure to make a debt payment will increase our borrowing costs and threaten our ability to make any of the other payments we owe. If signed into law, this legislation would prevent such an unacceptable situation.

The President and Congress must work to reduce the growing burden of our debt and deficits, but we must do so without imposing more tax increases on hardworking families and job creators. There are bipartisan policies we can enact to reduce wasteful Washington spending and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

The Ways and Means Committee has already begun to examine those policies and will continue to do so over the coming months. In the meantime, we must act to make it clear to the American people and the world economy that the U.S. will not default on a debt payment. The legislation before us accomplishes that important goal, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting for its passage today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Since the gentleman raised the question of who holds our debt, this chart shows that the vast majority of our debt is held by Americans. That's a fact. Thirty percent of the debt is held by citizens, pension funds, and you go down the list. Two-thirds of our debt is held by Americans. We need to make sure that Americans are paid first.

With that, I would yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, Mr. Johnson.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Dr. Boustany.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), a distinguish member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. LaMALFA I appreciate my colleague from Michigan allowing me to speak here today. My colleague from California, I'm glad to be a cosponsor of this very important measure.

``Full faith and credit,'' what does that mean? What does it mean to the American people? When we ask for them to send us to Washington, to send us to this august place, we're asking for their faith in what we do with their money, with their tax dollars.

And so when we report back to them, what does that look like to them? Have we upheld their faith? Have we done everything we can in this Nation to keep the credit rating of America on line?

This measure is a giant step towards keeping that faith, to paying our bills on time, to paying the types of things that keep our credit rating in a best possible fashion for our country.

We default on that, we put our whole economic system in peril. We drive up the cost of doing business for our government, and more tax dollars it costs to run our government when we do that.

We hear talk about pay China first. Well, that's kind of funny, because if we wouldn't do that kind of business with China, if we'd pay attention to our own level of spending and growing the economy of this country instead of having to do things that cause debt to go up higher, we wouldn't be having to contract with them for more debt.

So that comes back to this place here, reforming the way we do business. We don't need to run up more debt. We don't need to put ourselves in a position where we can't get together on getting the budget done, on getting the debt ceiling adjusted whatever it takes so we don't fall into this default position.

So I think this is a giant step in the right direction. I commend my colleagues for making this happen. And let's uphold the faith that we've asked of the people of this country by paying our bills on time, by paying the debt, the interest that it takes to keep our credit in line as best possible as we can in this country.

So this is a measure that deserves support and puts the priorities first. I ask for support for it.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

I would like to include for the Record a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that says this bill has no budget impact.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, April 26, 2013

Hon. Dave Camp

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 807, the Full

Faith and Credit Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jared

Brewster.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Sunshine

(For Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director).

Enclosure.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

H.R. 807--Full Faith and Credit Act

H.R. 807 would allow the Department of the Treasury to

issue debt to pay principal and interest on debt held by the

public and debt held by the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance

Trust Fund and Disability Insurance Trust Fund, if the

statutory limit on debt is reached. The bill would require

the Treasury to provide a weekly report to the House

Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance

outlining the exempted transactions until a new debt limit is

enacted.

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 807, by itself, would

result in no costs or savings to the federal government

because it would not change any of the government's tax or

spending policies. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not

apply. In addition, CBO estimates that the bill would not

significantly add to the Treasury's administrative costs.

H.R. 807 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jared Brewster.

This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant

Director for Budget Analysis.

In August of 2010, Chairman Admiral Mullen said that the most significant threat to our national security was our debt. And since that time, we have added hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it's helpful in a debate like this to start with the facts. And I would just say it's illustrative of just how out of touch and irresponsible the other side is when they assert that our debt is $14 trillion. Our debt is over $16 trillion. They've just lost $2 trillion? No wonder they don't think this is an urgent problem. They don't even know what our debt is.

This legislation is very similar to 1996, legislation that was passed in a bipartisan vote and was signed by then-Democrat President Bill Clinton.

Many States guarantee their government debt, or what is often called their sovereign debt, and they have done that for decades. If we default on our government or sovereign debt, the consequences are so severe that no one gets paid--our military, our seniors, our veterans, our farmers. All Americans deserve a strong economy, and that means getting our debt under control.

And let's just clear up another fact. The top two-thirds of our debt is held by Americans and their retirement funds, including the U.S. military retirement fund.

Now, one reason we're in this position is that this administration has racked up more than $5 trillion in debt, more than the previous four Presidents added together. That's why we're in this situation. We have a debt problem. This legislation ensures that the debt of the United States will be paid.

So I urge support for H.R. 807, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act, permanently takes default off the table, as we've been debating, but this amendment makes a couple of simple

changes. It clarifies that any debt issued pursuant to this bill may not be used to pay salaries of Members of Congress--of the House and of the Senate.

It also makes clear that each and every time the Secretary of the Treasury uses the authority provided in the bill, that the Secretary must report weekly on the amount of debt issued and the reason for the issuance to ensure transparency so that Congress is fully informed.

So I urge support for my straightforward amendment and support for the underlying bill and reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just wanted to say I also have great respect for the gentleman from Maryland who spoke a couple of speakers ago, who is the distinguished minority whip. We have worked closely together on other issues as well.

I would just say that this legislation is very similar to legislation that was passed in a bipartisan way in 1996 and signed by then- President Bill Clinton. So, this is not something that is brand-new in terms of an approach for this Congress to take when dealing and struggling with debt and our debt issues.

I think it is also important to remember as we go through this debate that now our debt is larger than our entire economy and that the debt that has been incurred under this administration is larger than the debt of the previous four Presidents. We have a path that is unsustainable that has gotten worse, and this has gone on for far too long.

I think it is important, though, that we make these clarifying points in this amount. Clearly, we've heard a lot about demagoguery about who gets paid first. The vast majority of our debt is held by Americans. Americans and the U.S. military retirees will be paid first under this bill; and their retirement funds, their pensions, their savings, that's very important.

This is about making sure that the debt of the United States--that the United States has incurred, not the ongoing payments, but the debt of the United States--is paid. That takes default off the table. That allows us then to move forward to get the larger bipartisan solutions on this growing and difficult problem with our debt that we need to address.

The amendment makes it clear that Members of Congress' salaries won't be paid, that any debt issued will not pay that. It also makes clear that the Secretary of the Treasury must report weekly on the amount of debt. We need transparency. We often don't get the latest information. We need that, both House and Senate. So, this is a straightforward amendment. It's clarifying.

I urge support for the amendment, I urge support for the underlying bill,

and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion.

Madam Speaker, you know, this body just spent the last hour listening to the other side saying how we can't default. But the irony of this motion to recommit is it actually mandates default. The irony of this motion is that it mandates default that would send our economy into a tailspin. It would ensure that nobody gets paid.

Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I really begin, I want to make clear that what the President said in his statement of disapproval and veto, that he would not negotiate over this foolish bill, that he was not going to negotiate what to do if we go into default because his intent, as well as the intent of the Democratic Party, is not to default.

It's right honest, but instead of really talking about today lifting the debt limit, we're going to discuss the usual do-nothing legislative agenda: let's fiddle while Rome burns and pass a one-House bill that the Senate will never touch and the President will never see, which is what we do here once, sometimes twice, a week.

But today, I think they've really outdone themselves. Instead of wasting time on a bill that can be characterized as redundant like we do the 35, 36 times that we vote against health care, the majority is now considering legislation that treads into the realm of the precarious.

Regardless of whether the legislation before us is approved by this Chamber, the very fact that the majority is proposing policies to manage the economic default is by itself a threat to our economy. Both the Treasury and outside experts have made clear that picking and choosing which debts we pay is legally questionable and logistically impossible.

The President has, as my colleague said, warned that in the highly unlikely event that this bill reaches his desk, he will unequivocally veto it. But instead of listening to this fact, the majority is moving ahead with a proposal and a debate that puts us on the road to default. They do so even as The Washington Post reports this morning that the economy is improving, revenues are up and spending is down, which undermines the stream of doom that we hear. But today the irresponsible actions of the majority are, once again, needlessly encouraging the economic recovery.

Let me be clear: the legislation does not raise the debt ceiling, which is the only way to take away the threat of default; but, instead, the bill guarantees that when we hit the debt ceiling, our foreign creditors and the Social Security trust fund will be paid in full while the well-being of millions of Americans--vendors and people we owe legitimate debts to--are left to chance.

Under this legislation, the majority is actively putting the interests of China before millions of Americans, including Active military servicemembers, veterans, and even the men and women who clean the floors of the Capitol and fold napkins in the Members' dining room. Every single one of these citizens relies upon their paycheck and upon the United States Government to pay the debts in order to put the food on their tables and to make ends meet.

With today's bill, the majority is proposing that the welfare of these Americans be left to chance while they protect China and foreign bondholders from the threat of default. In addition, the majority is endangering the regular payments owed to infrastructure projects, food safety inspectors, education programs, and public health research. It is a reckless plan that would directly hurt the most vulnerable members of society who already struggle in the sequestration to get by.

Furthermore, the act of choosing whom we will repay when we default on our debt is in and of itself an act that will threaten to throw our economy back into recession. During the recent hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means, the MIT economist Simon Johnson warned that if we default on even a portion of our debt, the unemployment rate would more than double, countless companies would go out of business, and investors would flee the United States.

Meanwhile, The Economist magazine has written:

Failure to raise the debt ceiling would force immediate

spending cuts equal to 6 percent of GDP. Not only would that

threaten to send the economy back into recession; it would

also deprive doctors, pensioners, contractors, and millions

of others the money needed to meet their own obligations and

set off a chain reaction of defaults. Even a few days'

default would roil the global financial system which relies

on Treasuries in countless transactions. The mere possibility

could incite skittish investors to dump their holdings,

driving up interest rates.

Tony Fratto, a former spokesperson for President George W. Bush, said:

Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really

going to be in the position of withholding benefits,

salaries, rent, contractual payments, and so forth in order

to pay off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political

catastrophe.

It should be clear by now that the act of even bringing a bill such as this to the floor for debate can scare investors and endanger our economy. This type of economic brinksmanship is extremely dangerous. The majority's games are compounded by their uninterest in repealing the sequester. As we speak, the sequester is preventing thousands of cancer patients from receiving lifesaving treatment and keeping thousands more children from receiving the education--I think 70,000 is the figure--through the Head Start program. These are some of the devastating cuts that don't go away simply because the majority refuses to take action and repeal the sequester in full.

Tragically, the majority's willingness to endanger our economy is not new. In August of 2011, the majority headed down the road to default for the first time in our history by threatening to default on our debts. Despite the opportunity to reach compromise with the administration, the majority claimed a zero-sum political game that had serious consequences. And because of their actions, August 2011 was the worst month for job creation in 3 years. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 2,000 points, and our Nation's credit rating was downgraded for the very first time. The effects were very real and very dangerous. A responsible legislative body would never head down that road again a second time. But that's exactly what we're doing here today.

For more than 225 years, this Chamber has been dedicated to preserving the order and stability of our government even in the most partisan of times. Despite their differences, generation after generation of legislators has known that when it comes to the integrity of our Nation, we must succeed together or else fall alone.

Dangerously in the last 2 years, the majority has taken step after step to undermine the central pillar of our government, including the proposal that they put forward today. We've frequently done so through a closed legislative process. And while the majority states that today's legislation is moving forward under a structured rule, it is only structured for the Members of the majority.

For the second time this week, the majority is bringing forth a rule that denies consideration of a single Democrat amendment. As a result, we debate a dangerous proposal and one that puts the interests of China before the welfare of the American people and the economic stability of the United States.

Yesterday, the Speaker of the House was asked if the proposal laid before us would indeed pay China before paying U.S. troops. He admitted that it would and said:

Listen, those who have loaned us money, like in any other

proceeding, if you will,

court proceeding, the bondholders usually get paid first. The

same thing here.

That simple statement tells us what we need to know.

I refuse to put China's interests before the interests of the American people, and I refuse to sit silently as the majority moves us one step closer to default.

I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member on Ways and Means.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, one of our impressive freshmen, Mr. Huffman.

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to talk about what it is we're trying to pay for on our side:

Pay and benefits for 1.4 million active duty troops and 780,000 troops in reserves will not be paid while China is paid;

Benefits to 3.4 million disabled veterans;

1.3 million veterans receiving education or home purchasing assistance;

Earned payments to American small businesses;

Payments to 1.1 million doctors and health care practitioners who provide care to seniors with Medicare;

Payments to schools for nutritious lunches served to 32 million children;

Payments to 44,000 National Institutes of Health grantees.

With that, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has any more requests for time?

I thank the gentleman.

Let me introduce the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act.

If Congress doesn't act, next month undergraduate students across the country will see a hike in their student loan interest rates. If my Republican colleagues want to talk about debt priority, this should be a part of the dialogue.

To discuss the proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

The fact that this Chamber has dedicated valuable time and resources to the consideration of an unconstitutional bill that will put our Nation on the road to default is regretful. The fact that this legislation puts the economic interests of China before paying our soldiers' salaries and providing benefits to our veterans is a disgrace.

The plan presented by the majority fails to raise the debt ceiling, which is the only way that we can prevent economic default. Instead, it simply wastes another week of valuable time and the $24 million that it costs to run this House of Congress for a week and moves us that much closer to yet another downgrade in our Nation's credit rating, something that had never happened until this majority assumed control of the House. And now it is actually possible the majority would lead us to the second downgrade of the Nation's credit over the course of 2 short years.

On May 19, our Nation will reach its debt ceiling, and emergency measures would be put into place to delay default. We've seen this film before, and we know how the movie ends--a twisted plot with terrible consequences that come by refusing to pay our bills. I urge my colleagues not to walk down that road again.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues most enthusiastically to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I would like to see this bill withdrawn.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to speak on H.R. 807, which would result in the Congress refusing to pay obligations it has already agreed to. American families do not get to choose which bills to pay and which ones not to pay, and the United States Congress cannot either without putting the Nation into default for the first time in its history.

I oppose this bill because not only will it be bad for America, but devastating for Houston. Just as our nation's economy has begun to show signs of sustained improvement, along comes H.R. 807 to further depress the economy of the parts of Houston which have not been fortunate enough to benefit from the economic recovery. The city of Houston has a half-trillion dollar economy which is threatened if the United States economy begins to falter because of the sequester already in place, and misguided legislation like this bill.

This bill would threaten the full faith and credit of the United States, cost American jobs, hurt businesses of all sizes, and do irreparable damage to the economy. It is important to note that the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 15,000 for the first time ever, and jobless claims fell to a five-year low this week.

Why would we want to jeopardize this progress with a bill like H.R. 807, which is a step in the wrong direction.

This legislation would cause the Nation to default on payments for Medicare, veterans, national security, and many other critical priorities. This legislation is unwise, unworkable, and unacceptably risky. Earlier this year, the Congress took a sensible approach to paying the bills it had already incurred by raising the debt limit. By contrast, the proposal in H.R. 807, which chooses which bills to pay, is a deeply irresponsible approach that is simply default by another name.

Americans want a clean debt limit increase, which has been done numerous times but the normal process by which the Treasury Secretary consults with the President and Congress, seems to have hit a major roadblock. This obstructionist governing is based on a practice that seems to put ideology over pragmatism and politics over common-sense legislating.

Madam Speaker, another reason I cannot support H.R. 807 is because it gives preference to making payments to foreign bond holders such as China, Iran, and the Cayman Islands over the payments needed for critical services for our veterans, and those payments required under Chapter 31, United States Code, which insures the savings of Americans.

I would hope that my colleagues on the other side realize that these are trying times for the American people and brinksmanship is not the answer. This body must come up with a sensible solution to the pressing financial problems which plague our economy. We cannot continue to hold our Nation hostage, keeping the benefits of recipients of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare who must have sleepless nights because they are worried about the disappearance of their monthly checks.

I support a long-term increase in the debt limit that would increase certainty and economic stability. The bill before us this morning, H.R. 807, is a short-term measure with unnecessary complications, needlessly perpetuating uncertainty in the Nation's fiscal system, and I would note that the Obama Administration is also in opposition to this woeful piece of legislation that allows China to be paid first.

My colleagues want to buy time so that they can figure out how to squeeze the American taxpayer even more by devising bone-crunching cuts and slashes to entitlement programs--all of which is driven by rabid ideology--as opposed to sitting down and working with Democrats to come up with reasonable budget reforms which do not hurt Seniors and the disadvantaged.

Madam Speaker, Social Security is currently the only source of income for nearly two-thirds of older American households receiving benefits, and roughly one-third of those households depend on Social Security for nearly all of their income. Half of those 65 and older have annual incomes below $18,500, and many older Americans have experienced recent and significant losses in retirement savings, pensions, and home values. Today, every dollar of the average Social Security retirement benefit of about $14,800 is absolutely critical to the typical beneficiary.

Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing. Social Security must pay all benefits from its own trust fund. If there are insufficient funds to pay out full benefits, benefits are automatically reduced to the level supported by the program's own revenues.

I would add that instead of short-term management of self-inflicted fiscal crises, I truly believe we have an opportunity to strengthen the economy by putting the Nation on a sounder fiscal path. Progress has already been made towards that goal. In 2011, the President signed into law $1.4 trillion in spending reductions, not counting additional savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to seize this template and move forward--not backwards, in the direction of H.R. 807.

The fiscal agreement the President signed at the beginning of January increased revenue from high-income households by over $600 billion. Together with interest savings, these two steps will cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion over the next decade. We should have done more to address our revenue problem.

The President has made clear that he remains willing to work with both parties in the Congress to budget responsibly and to achieve additional deficit reduction consistent with the principles of balance, shared growth, and shared opportunity. By adding Chained CPI to the discussion it is clear that President Obama is willing to go more than halfway to meet the House Majority; but they have not reciprocated.

The President has also made clear that he will not have another debate with the Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they have already racked up through the laws that they passed. The President has made clear that the Congress has only two options--pay their bills, or fail to do so and put the Nation into default. And I am in complete agreement.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, spending for Medicare and Medicaid is projected to increase from 21 percent of non-interest federal spending in 2010 to 31 percent by 2020. The numbers are wonkish sounding but in terms of real dollars, the increase is mammoth. That is why we must address the spending issue in earnest but not using the paltry monthly income of Seniors to pay for yachts for millionaires.

National spending on health care has grown about 2 percentage points per year faster than GDP over time. Federal revenues, however, have not kept pace, growing at roughly the same rate as GDP.

As a result, federal deficits will be driven upward by federal health programs unless their rate of growth is tamed. This discrepancy must be dealt with sooner rather than later, but no matter how you couch it, there is no better translation than the word: b-r-o-k-e.

I hasten to add that Community Health Centers provide much needed, high-quality healthcare to over 20 million Americans. These centers are able to serve vulnerable portions of the American population, including racial and ethnic minorities, as well as rural and low-income Americans.

I want to give some pertinent facts about my district and why the uncertainty provided by H.R. 807 is a step in the wrong direction.

The Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown Metropolitan Area consists of 10 counties: Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, San Jacinto and Waller.

The Houston metro area:

It ranks sixth among U.S. metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 5,867,489 as of mid-2009, and it covers more than 10,000 square miles, and has a gross product of $403.8 billion, according to The Perryman Group. This area recorded 2.54 million payroll jobs in November 2010, more than the job counts of 31 U.S. states, including Arizona, Colorado and Alabama.

The Houston economy has experienced a resurgence but let's remember the economic history:

The recession hit Houston in September '08. Our region lost 152,800 jobs through January '10. We began to recoup jobs starting in February that year and by October '11, the region had gained 153,000 jobs, or 101.1 percent of what we lost in the recession.

And though Houston faces some challenges in the near term, the long- term outlook is bright. The challenges are those of managing growth rather than economic stagnation. The long-term outlook for the Houston metro area is positive, and steady growth will be the norm for Houston for the foreseeable future. What Houston cannot afford right now is continued uncertainty from Washington, DC.

Moreover, given the uncertainty of final funding decisions and the possibility that across-the-board spending cuts will drag us back into a recession unless Congress and the President can reach agreement to prevent the currently scheduled ``sequester,'' it is critical that we work towards bipartisan solutions to our nation's financial woes. Given the U.S. economy is showing signs of progress, it is crucial that we continue to fund government programs without interruption.

Lastly, as a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees I understand the importance of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection mission to enforce drug, trade and travel laws in efforts to keep our borders safe; and the importance of ensuring

that our nation remains safe from terrorists and others who would do harm to our nation.

In summation, I urge my colleagues to reject this poll-driven exercise in futility and give a clean debt ceiling vote so that the American people can carry-on with the business of achieving prosperity.

Doing a clean debt limit bill is not a new law, new outlay, or some random, esoteric exercise in the fulfillment of the Obama Doctrine. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, since March 1962, Congress has enacted 76 separate measures that have altered the limit on federal debt. Typically, the Treasury Secretary consults with the President and Congress, and the limit has been subsequently raised to accommodate our fiscal needs.

And I close with the sacred words from our Constitution. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states clearly that: ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.'' And a great nation pays its debts. That is why I oppose H.R. 807.

I urge my colleagues to resoundingly reject H.R. 807.

Madam Speaker, today we find ourselves debating a bill that could result in the United States of America defaulting on our debts. It seems that the Republican majority of the 113th Congress has decided to continue the practice of governing from one manufactured crisis to another.

H.R. 807, the Pay China First Act, is a part of this majority's campaign of playing politics with our national economy at a time when the number one priority of this Congress should be putting Americans back to work.

Madam Speaker, we raise our nation's debt ceiling to pay the bills that our nation has already accrued. The Republican majority's insistence on using the debt ceiling in their crusade against a short- term deficit crisis that doesn't exist, has already harmed our nation's recovery.

This bill, which the Republican majority knows full well has no chance in the Senate, is nothing more than political posturing at its worst. It is nothing more, Madam Speaker, than an attempt by the Republican majority to wash their hands of the calamitous effects their economic policies are having on the American people who want nothing more than their Congress to stop playing politics and get about the work they were elected to do.

Instead, the Republican majority has continued their crusade of irresponsible spending and tax cuts which disproportionally affect those who need it the most.

The number one priority of the 113th Congress should be putting Americans back to work and supporting policies that promote growth.

Madam Speaker, the people of Brooklyn's 9th Congressional district, whom I have the honor of representing in this body, are tired of the 113th Congress undermining the recovery our nation needs. This bill is not worthy of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I submit an article in today's New York Times that, using analysis from leading public and private-sector economists, lays out the harm that the majority's focus on irresponsible spending cuts is having on our struggling economy.

[From the New York Times, May 8, 2013]

Economists See Deficit Emphasis as Impeding Recovery

(By Jackie Calmes and Jonathan Weisman)

Washington--The nation's unemployment rate would probably

be nearly a point lower, roughly 6.5 percent, and economic

growth almost two points higher this year if Washington had

not cut spending and raised taxes as it has since 2011,

according to private-sector and government economists.

After two years in which President Obama and Republicans in

Congress have fought to a draw over their clashing approaches

to job creation and budget deficits, the consensus about the

result is clear: Immediate deficit reduction is a drag on

full economic recovery.

Hardly a day goes by when either government analysts or the

macroeconomists and financial forecasters who advise

investors and businesses do not report on the latest signs of

economic growth--in housing, consumer spending, business

investment. And then they add that things would be better but

for the fiscal policy out of Washington. Tax increases and

especially spending cuts, these critics say, take money from

an economy that still needs some stimulus now, and is getting

it only through the expansionary monetary policy of the

Federal Reserve.

``Fiscal tightening is hurting,'' Ian Shepherdson, chief

economist of Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors, wrote to

clients recently. The investment bank Jefferies wrote of

``ongoing fiscal mismanagement'' in its midyear report on

Tuesday, and noted that while the recovery and expansion

would be four years old next month, reduced government

spending ``has detracted from growth in five of past seven

quarters.''

That period roughly coincides with the time that Mr. Obama

and Congressional Republicans have shared governance since

Republicans took control of the House in 2011, promising an

immediate $100 billion in spending cuts. Republicans did not

get that much then, but the series of budget compromises with

the president since--while not so great as they wanted--will

soon reduce annual discretionary spending for domestic and

military programs to the lowest level in half a century.

As for revenues, Mr. Obama forced Republicans to acquiesce

in January to higher taxes from wealthy Americans. But worse,

in the macroeconomists' view, both parties agreed not to

extend a two-year-old cut in Americans' payroll taxes for

Social Security, reducing their spending money.

In all this time, the president has fought unsuccessfully

to combine deficit reduction, including spending cuts and tax

increases, with spending increases and targeted tax cuts for

job-creation initiatives in areas like infrastructure,

manufacturing, research and education. That is a formula

closer to what the economists propose. But Republicans have

insisted on spending cuts alone and smaller government as the

key to economic growth.

The results, Mr. Obama has taken to saying, despite his

complicity, are ``self-inflicted wounds.''

``The only way the problem does get fixed is if both

parties sit down and they say, `How are we going to make sure

that we're reducing our deficit sensibly?' '' he said last

week at a news conference. ``How are we making sure that

we're investing in things like rebuilding our airports and

our roads and our bridges, and investing in early childhood

education, basic research--all the things that are going to

help us grow?''

Mr. Obama added, ``I cannot force Republicans to embrace

those common-sense solutions.''

Speaker John A. Boehner stood by the Republicans' policies

during a session Tuesday with reporters. ``After four years

of mediocre job creation, it's obvious that we don't need

more tax hikes and more government spending,'' he said. ``We

need smarter policies to make America more competitive and

expand opportunities for everyone in our country.''

``We're the ones pushing this town to do the right thing

when it comes to the economy and jobs,'' Mr. Boehner added.

The Federal Open Market Committee, which sets policy for

the central bank, noted signs of improvement in the private

sector last week in a statement. ``But fiscal policy is

restraining economic growth,'' it added, echoing public

comments that Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, has made for

months. In April, the International Monetary Fund said the

United States would achieve further growth ``in the face of a

very strong, indeed overly strong, fiscal consolidation.''

Thursday will capture as plainly as any day lately the

differing approaches of Mr. Obama and Republicans toward the

economy and government's role.

Mr. Obama plans to travel to Austin, Tex., to visit

technology students, workers and entrepreneurs and promote

his ideas to support efforts like theirs--the kind of

initiatives that Republicans have blocked.

House Republicans expect to pass a measure that would allow

the Treasury to ``prioritize'' debt payments if Congress and

Mr. Obama cannot agree this year to increase the nation's

debt ceiling so the Treasury can keep borrowing money to pay

all creditors. Under the bill, as tax receipts came in, the

first priority would be paying creditors--like China,

Democratic opponents argue--and second would be Social

Security checks. But the measure would likely die in the

Democratic-controlled Senate.

The ``prioritization'' proposal first arose in 2011 from

among the most conservative House Republicans, those who were

driving hardest against the White House on raising the debt

ceiling and expressing unconcern about default, but it has

now become mainstream in the House ranks.

Economists and financial analysts generally dismiss the

idea as unworkable if not dangerous, and count on Democrats

to block it. Gregory Daco, a senior principal economist at

IHS Global Insight, said the Republicans' proposal was the

kind that caused his clients to ignore the fiscal policy out

of Washington, and rely instead on the Fed to buttress the

recovery.

``Whenever I talk to our customers or clients, they sort of

brush off everything that's related to fiscal policy,'' Mr.

Daco said. ``The view is, 'Oh, it doesn't matter.' That's

what I hear a lot.''

``What we try to convey is that it does matter,'' he said.

``It is important in terms of growth. It's also important in

terms of confidence.''

He noted that the economy was much stronger than Europe's

largely because the United States initially opted for

stimulus measures and allowed deficits to increase when the

recession and financial crisis hit five years ago. European

governments pursued austerity policies to cut their debts,

further stalling economic activity and in turn inflating

deficits.

The more recent austerity policies here are helping to

bring annual deficits down, as a new report of the

Congressional Budget Office shows, after four years of

trillion-dollar shortfalls. Yet many analysts would prefer

that the measures had been timed for when the economy is

strong and unemployment below 7 percent.

``While I agree that the U.S. must get its fiscal house in

order,'' Jerry Webman, chief

economist at OppenheimerFunds, wrote, ``I join the likes of

the I.M.F. in cautioning that too much austerity, too soon,

is likely counterproductive.''