Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with my colleague the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee Sander Levin to recognize and thank Richard (``Rick'') Foster, the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for his service to the nation. Rick retired this year after nearly 40 years of public service, including the last 18 years as the chief actuary.

Mr. Foster and his colleagues in the Office of the Actuary (OACT) have provided valuable guidance through the years to Members of Congress and their staffs on both sides of the aisle as we have worked to improve Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. OACT's estimates are used to calculate key indices and other measures used throughout Medicare's payment systems. OACT also manages the widely used and often cited National Health Expenditure (NHE) account data and projections, which measure national health spending trends in both public programs and the private sector. Whether responding to technical or confidential requests

or engaging in the annual tasks required by law and custom, Mr. Foster and his staff were responsive and thoughtful as they offered their best professional efforts.

Mr. Foster began his career in the Federal government in 1973 at the Social Security Administration (SSA), working on the development of Medicare payment rates for health maintenance organizations when Medicare was managed through the SSA. He later served as Deputy Chief Actuary at SSA for 13 years before being selected as the CMS Chief Actuary in 1995.

OACT's role is often behind-the-scenes, but critically important. Mr. Foster has been widely recognized for his tireless efforts to ensure that Congress and the Administration have access to high-quality, objective actuarial, economic, and statistical assistance, provided independently and on a nonpartisan basis and often with a dose of good humor. His adherence to the highest levels of professional independence and ethical conduct has been widely acclaimed and is deeply appreciated.

In addition to his exceptional actuarial and other technical skills, Mr. Foster was an accomplished leader at CMS. He led OACT's implementation of team-based operations in 1995, based on the successful model developed by General Electric. He emphasized professional development for all staff, continuous improvement in all projects, a cordial, cooperative work environment and a multi- disciplinary approach to work. Under his guidance, the Office of the Actuary achieved the highest or second-highest results in the annual human capital survey every year since its inception.

During his career, Mr. Foster has earned numerous prestigious awards, including the University of Maryland, Baltimore County Outstanding Alumnus of the Year in 1997, the Presidential Meritorious Executive Award in 1998 from President Clinton, the Presidential Distinguished Executive Award in 2001 from President Bush, the Secretary's Award for Distinguished Service in 2004, the College of Wooster Distinguished Alumni Award in 2006, the Robert J. Myers Public Service Award from the American Academy of Actuaries in 2006, and the Society of Actuaries President's Award in 2010. The readers of Modern Healthcare magazine voted him one of the 100 most influential persons in health care in the U.S. for the last six years.

We are pleased to honor and commend Rick Foster for his distinguished career in public service and wish him all the best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 322, I call up the bill (H.R. 2009) to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enforcing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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. 2009.

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

I come to the floor today in support of H.R. 2009, legislation that will prevent the IRS from getting involved in Americans' health care.

The IRS is already out of control, abusing its power to tax and to audit the activities of honest, hardworking Americans. The IRS has betrayed the trust of the American people. Yet ObamaCare granted the IRS 47 new powers, including giving confidential taxpayer information to other departments and applying new taxes and penalties. Well before the IRS started getting involved in your health care and sharing your information and forcing people to pay even more taxes, let's first look at the job the IRS is already doing.

Back in 2011, I investigated claims that the IRS was threatening with higher taxes donors to conservative causes. It turned out to be true. The IRS was abusing its authority, and it was harassing conservatives; but that was just the tip of the iceberg. We soon learned of more accusations about how the IRS was targeting Americans for their political beliefs. What we have found so far--and we just have 3 percent of the documents from the IRS that we have requested--is that the IRS did leak confidential taxpayer information, that they did delay applications of groups supporting conservative causes, and that they did threaten conservatives with higher taxes.

And Democrats want to give this agency more power and authority? They want this agency involved in Americans' health care? No way.

Even the agency's own watchdog says the IRS cannot handle the job. Less than 2 weeks ago, the independent Treasury Inspector General stated that they are not confident about the IRS's ability to protect confidential taxpayer information or to prevent fraud. Well, neither am I; and by every indication, neither are the American people.

It has been 3 years since the health care law was passed, and in less than 2 months, the administration claims it will be fully ready to implement the law; but in the face of all of these failures, of all of these breaches of the public trust, more Americans than ever want this law to be repealed.

Why? It's simple: ObamaCare has brought increased health care costs to families and individuals; it has stifled businesses from expanding; and it has forced American job creators to cut jobs, wages, and hours.

Just yesterday, at a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee, a key official from Health and Human Services could not confirm that the health care law would lower the health care costs for hardworking families in my home State of Michigan.

But wasn't this the signature promise of this administration, that premiums would be $2,500 lower? And now the administration cannot make good on that promise.

With so little time before the exchanges are set to open and for families

to plan their health care spending for next year, it is extremely concerning that the administration cannot tell the American people what their health insurance will look like or what it will cost. Simply put, this law is a failure and ought to be repealed, but it didn't have to be this way.

The House Republican alternative to the Democrats' health care law, which I authored, was the only legislation scored by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as meeting the top health priority of American families because it was the only bill that actually lowered the cost of health insurance premiums, and it didn't give the IRS a single new power. It kept the IRS out of your health care, which is exactly what this bill will do--keep the IRS off and out of your health care.

We should be cutting the IRS, not expanding it. We should reduce its power and authority and its ability to harass and abuse Americans. That's exactly what this bill does. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) control the remainder of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say there's nothing in this bill that prevents middle class families or individuals from receiving subsidies to which they're entitled. So I think it's just important to understand what the facts are. But what we want to do is keep the IRS out of control of your health care. Talk about unpopular items.

Look, businesses have gotten a waiver from the mandate--1,300 organizations, businesses, unions have gotten waivers from this law. What about individuals? What about American families?

If you want to keep the IRS out of control of your health care, vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. This amendment would prevent the President and the EPA from bypassing Congress and imposing a devastating national energy tax that would affect every American.

Struggling Americans who have been unable to find a job or have not seen their paychecks grow would pay this national energy tax every time they pay their utility bills or fill up their gas tanks or go to the grocery store. It would also be another tax on manufacturers and another increased cost of doing business under the Obama administration.

House Republicans have been fighting to fix our broken tax code to make it simpler, fairer and flatter for American families and businesses. We cannot let the Obama Administration make an end run around the Congress' Constitutional responsibility for tax policy and use the regulatory process to impose a national energy tax that will cost trillions of dollars in economic growth and lost opportunities for hard-working Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support the Scalise amendment--to ensure tax policy starts where the Constitution's Framers intended--here in the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 300, I call up the bill (H.R. 2667) to delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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. 2667.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2667, a bill that delays the employer mandate.

While it's encouraging to see the administration has finally acknowledged the burdens ObamaCare is placing on employers, we must be a Nation of laws, not blog posts, which is how the administration announced the delay.

While this bill provides employers with some temporary relief from the health care law, it provides no real relief. Even with this delay, small businesses and families will not get what they were promised-- affordable health care.

Inexplicably, the administration thinks only businesses should be exempt from the pain inflicted by ObamaCare. How is that fair? Families and individuals are already struggling in this Obama economy. They're paying more for gas, more for food, and wages aren't keeping up with the ever-increasing costs of everyday life. Don't these hardworking Americans deserve the same relief the administration is giving to the business community? That's why we must also pass the Fairness for American Families Act, which will delay the individual mandate.

House Republicans believe it's only fair that families and individuals receive the same treatment. These two bills will ensure that fairness is applied to employers and employees, as well as families and individuals.

The Obama administration claims that they are listening to the American people. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said ``ObamaCare has been wonderful.'' These claims reveal a Democratic leadership that is out of touch with reality.

When I go back to my district, I hear firsthand from constituents about the concerns with the law. They ask me: Why are my premiums skyrocketing? How can I grow my business with all these new mandates, regulations, and red tape? Why am I losing the insurance I have and like?

House Republicans share those concerns, and these bills are a positive step forward to protect hardworking taxpayers and businesses from some of the most onerous provisions in the health care law.

The administration's ``time out'' from the law doesn't change the fact that ObamaCare is unworkable. Instead, it's an admission that this law is unworkable. Just a few months ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius pledged before the Ways and Means Committee that this law would be ready on time and without delays. Well, now we know the truth. This administration cannot make its own law work.

The American people deserve real reforms that actually make health care affordable. During the health care debate, only one bill was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as actually lowering premiums--the House Republican alternative to the Democrats' health care law. It met the top health care priority of American families-- lowering the cost of health insurance premiums. We should scrap this law and get back to commonsense, step-by-step reforms on health care.

I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join us and support this legislation. Vote to treat American families and individuals the same as businesses. Vote ``yes'' to codify the delay of the employer mandate, and vote ``yes'' to delay the individual mandate.

At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) control the remainder of the time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is already forcing workers to lose coverage. CBO has said that employers will drop health care coverage. CBO has said that employers will lay off workers and reduce coverage. That is already happening, and workers in this country are suffering.

Even the Teamsters union has said so in a letter to Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi, and let me just read from one paragraph of this letter from the Teamsters union and other unions:

When you and the President sought our support for the

Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health

plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is

under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama

administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter

not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the

foundation of the 40-hour work week that is backbone of the

American middle class.

The only way to fix this is to reject this motion, delay the employer mandate, and vote for this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that ObamaCare increases premiums, and we know ObamaCare will force Americans to pay more for their health care.

It's not me that says this--although, I do--it's CBO. The Congressional Budget Office confirms that ObamaCare drives costs up of health care for working Americans. The only way to control health care costs and reduce health care costs is to delay ObamaCare until we can repeal it.

The only bill, the only legislation that the Congressional Budget Office scored as lowering premiums was the bill Republicans offered during the health care debate.

The President of the United States, through a blog post, delayed the employer mandate. This House just voted to delay the employer mandate. We owe it to the American people to give them the same treatment the President has given corporate America.

Defeat this motion. Pass the Fairness for Families Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Today, I rise to welcome Pastor Ron Dunn to the House floor and to thank him for sharing his inspiring words this morning.

Pastor Dunn has served in a number of ministry roles for the last 15 years. Currently, he is the senior pastor to the Revolution Church of God in Harrison, Michigan, where he has encouraged the church to serve the community by offering counseling services and donating items such as clothing, diapers, and formula.

Before joining the ministry, Reverend Dunn was a member of the United States Army for 8 years and served in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He and his wife, Stephanie, have three daughters-- Chelsea, Abigail, and Sara--and they join us here today.

On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I would like to thank Pastor Dunn for offering this morning's prayer and for his service to God, his community, and our country.

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jerry Luptak, a Michigan resident, a veteran, and a hero of one of World War II's most infamous battles--the ``Battle of the Bulge.''

Jerry began his military career in the ROTC at Michigan State University. His group was called into duty and assigned to the 36th Infantry division. Upon landing in Italy, he and his unit fought through southern France, advancing the Allied line.

During the Battle of the Bulge, Jerry served as a 2nd Lieutenant in the 131st Field Artillery Battalion. He was positioned as a forward Artillery Observer on a bridgehead on the German side of the river, the very front of the Allied line. From his position in the fourth floor of a building, Jerry saw the enemy advancing with an overwhelming force of troops and tanks. Thinking quickly, Lieutenant Luptak called for his fellow troops to take cover, then called in an artillery barrage on the German advance. Still exposed in his fourth floor position, Jerry put his own life in danger to give the American forces their only chance at avoiding defeat. His quick decision-making and bravery proved successful, and the artillery barrage defeated the German advance.

Lieutenant Luptak was awarded a silver star for his gallantry in action. According to his citation, Jerry ``effectively directed artillery fire was of material aid in crushing enemy attacks.'' This battle was an important stepping stone in halting the German opposition during World War II.

Jerry's vast combat experience and tactical knowledge provided vital tools to the United States Armed Forces. In addition to his silver star, he also received the American Theater Service Medal, German Occupation Medal, and the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal.

As Memorial Day approaches, all Americans should remember our brave servicemen and women, like Jerry Luptak, who dutifully and nobly answered the call to service for our nation, and the debt of gratitude we owe to them. On behalf of Michigan's 4th Congressional District, the Members of the Michigan Congressional Delegation, and all Americans, I thank Jerry Luptak for his dedicated and selfless service, and bravery in the face of the enemy.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 45, legislation to repeal ObamaCare. In March of 2010, then-Speaker Pelosi famously said, with respect to the President's health care law:

We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in

it.

Well, Washington Democrats passed that bill, and virtually every week since has been an expensive, eye-opening experience.

Over the past 3 years, it's become clear that ObamaCare is irreparably flawed, fails to deliver on its promises and causes serious harm to our economy. The legislation before the House is the first step toward fixing all of these problems. We must first repeal this onerous law and then move forward and work with stakeholders to develop step- by-step, commonsense reforms that actually lower the cost of health care and respect the patient-doctor relationship.

The President's health care law is, at its core, a flawed policy. It puts the Federal Government precisely where it doesn't belong, between Americans and their doctors. Instead of families deciding what coverage is best for them, or families and employers deciding how much they can afford, this law has the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the IRS making those decisions.

ObamaCare also falls short of almost every one of the President's and congressional Democrats' promises for the law. It doesn't control costs, doesn't let Americans keep the insurance they have and like, doesn't protect jobs, doesn't ensure seniors have access to their doctors and hospitals, and doesn't prevent 21 new tax increases, including more than a dozen that will hit middle class families. Simply put, it's a resounding failure.

If that wasn't enough, the health care law is causing serious harm to our economy at a time when it's struggling to climb out of the hole dug by the administration's failed economic policies.

We've received countless reports of businesses reluctant to hire, or shifting employees from full-time to part-time employment because of the steep costs associated with complying with the law. This is simply unacceptable. Well over 11 million Americans remain unemployed.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to repeal this burdensome law and continue working toward real reform that lowers costs and improves the quality of health care in this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

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

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee for the purposes of controlling the balance of our time.

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.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I 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 rise today to pay tribute to Tom Valliere for his years of service as Midland County Fair Manager.

Tom Valliere concluded his 32-year career at the fair this spring. Through his vast wealth of experience and dedication, he has brought an astounding 300,000-350,000 people to the Midland community each year for the fair and other events.

Tom was first hired by the Midland County Fair Board as manager in 1980. Since then the fair has seen major changes under his direction. Some of Tom's most valuable contributions to the fair have been his work on modernizing its infrastructure. The fairground now has one of the most revered horse arenas in the area, as well as all-weather facilities for merchants. The fair has also hosted concerts featuring some of the biggest names in music.

Although Tom's tenure at the Midland County Fair has come to an end, his place in the community will forever be remembered. On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, I congratulate Tom Valliere for his 32-year career as the Midland County Fair Manager. I wish him well in his much-deserved retirement.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a Federal budget that balances so we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs, and allow American workers to start seeing an increase in their paychecks again.

I know we can do it. I was a part of a team, a Republican Congress and a Democrat President, that balanced the budget for the first time in a generation. We focused on areas where we agreed and we made some tough choices, and we should do that again.

Balancing the budget is not just about the economy. It's about critical programs like Medicare and Social Security and the benefits they provide to millions of Americans. Social Security is already spending more money than it brings in, and the Medicare trust fund is going broke fast.

What does that mean?

Well, if Congress and the President don't act, America's seniors will face significant benefit cuts. That means smaller Social Security checks, up to 25 percent less, and fewer doctors willing to take Medicare.

So what should we do?

First, we pass a budget that balances, and that's what Republicans are doing. The Democrat substitute continues a policy of borrowing and spending and raising taxes and never gets to balance. Our budget, with pro-growth tax reform, has been scored by outside experts to create a million jobs in the first year alone.

Second, we need to look at the areas where we agree with the President and start making the reforms necessary to save programs like Social Security and Medicare.

The President said he's willing to use a different formula, chained CPI, to determine Social Security benefit increases. I know that policy will be included in the RSC budget. It's an area of agreement between the parties. Well, Mr. President, if we agree, then let's do it.

The same goes for reducing Medicare subsidies.

The same goes for reducing Medicare subsidies for wealthier seniors.

The American people expect us to make progress where we can. Let's not let our differences stand in the way. And if we agree on a policy, let's come together to start protecting and preserving critical programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 107, I call up the bill (H.R. 890) to prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 890.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 890, Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement and TANF Extension Act of 2013.

In July of last year, the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services issued an information memorandum saying they would accept and approve applications from States seeking to waive the requirement that 50 percent of their welfare caseload be engaged in or preparing for work.

This work requirement was a critical part of the 1996 welfare reforms that created the current Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, cash welfare program. Those reforms also led to more work, more earnings, less welfare dependence, and less poverty among families headed by low-income single mothers.

Yet, without any thought of consulting Congress, as is required by law, the administration saw fit to unilaterally waive the work requirements and risk the progress that has been made in the last 16 years. And that's why we are considering this legislation here on the floor today.

Simply put, this bill would block waivers, so HHS can't allow States to bypass the work requirements and financial penalties Congress put in place in 1996 for failing to engage welfare recipients in work.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that Republicans are making a big deal out of nothing and that we're responding to a problem

that doesn't exist since no States have applied for waivers--yet. But the American people have made their views clear. A survey last year revealed 83 percent support a work requirement as a condition for receiving welfare.

Clearly, the best way out of poverty is a job, and it's critical that our laws both foster job creation as well as ensure welfare is always a pathway to work. That's what this legislation is about: ensuring that work and other productive activities remain a central part of the TANF cash welfare program, as the 1996 reforms intended.

Setting aside the success of the work requirement in moving low- income individuals from welfare to work and the overwhelming support the policy enjoys among the American people, current law prohibits the administration from waiving the welfare work requirement. Waivers of certain State report requirements are permitted under the TANF program, but the work requirement may not be waived.

A summary of the 1996 reforms prepared by Ways and Means Committee staff immediately following the law's enactment could not be clearer on this point. It plainly states:

Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not

override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory

work requirements.

As a Member of Congress who helped write the welfare reform law and served as a conferee on the bill, the statement in this report actually captures the correct intent of Congress.

Historical precedent is not on the Obama administration's side, either. No prior administration, Republican or Democrat, has ever attempted to waive the work requirements in the 16 years between the law's enactment and the July 2012 information memorandum.

Following the July 2012 action, the Government Accountability Office looked into this and ``did not find any evidence that HHS stated it has authority to issue waivers related to TANF work requirements.'' In short, no administration attempted to waive the work requirements because they knew it was illegal to do so.

Finally, if we need more evidence that, despite their promises to the contrary, the administration's policy would weaken the work requirement, we need look no further than the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. This legislation saves $61 million over 10 years because CBO recognizes the administration's waivers will allow some States that may otherwise pay penalties for failing to meet the work requirement to avoid such penalties through a waiver.

In addition to preventing the administration from waiving the work requirement, the legislation before us extends the TANF program's authorization at current funding levels through the remainder of this calendar year.

The TANF program provides helpful assistance to individuals most in need of a safety net as they look and prepare for work. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Education

and the Workforce,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2013.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 890,

the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of

2013. Thank you for consulting with the Committee on

Education and the Workforce with regard to H.R. 890 on those

matters within the committee's jurisdiction.

In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of

H.R. 890, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will

forgo further consideration on this bill. However, I do so

with the understanding that this procedural route will not be

construed to prejudice the committee's jurisdictional

interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my

committee in the future.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the

Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in

a conference with the Senate. I also request that you include

our exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional

Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

John Kline,

Chairman.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, for 5 seconds that in the Statement of Administration Policy we got yesterday, they say that no States formally applied for State waivers.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that waiving the work requirement isn't going to get more people into work.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland), a cosponsor of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

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

I would just say--as other speakers have mentioned--the 1996 welfare reform law has been tremendously successful. It has lowered welfare roles, it has lifted people out of poverty, it has reduced poverty for single mothers, and reduced poverty for children. And before that, before we had the 1996 welfare reform law, whether times were good or bad, welfare rolls only increased.

Clearly, the welfare reform law has been successful. Frankly, we need to protect the law from this administration, because what this administration wants to do is undermine the work requirement in welfare.

And what are we talking about here? The work requirement is really that only half of the welfare caseload has to be in work. That means for the other half, States have ultimate flexibility to determine how to move those people into job readiness and to work. For the half of the people that need to be in some form of work requirement there are 12 definitions of what is work in the law. Let me just list those off:

Subsidized private employment, subsidized government employment, job search, community service. You can be in community service and that qualifies for work.

Work experience, on-the-job training. If you're getting training related to your job, that counts as work.

Vocational education. So you can be training in a vocational discipline and still have that qualify for work.

Caring for the child of a TANF recipient in community service. So you can care for somebody else's child and that counts as work. And we're only talking about half of the welfare caseload.

Job skills training, education related to employment, completion of secondary school. That all counts as work.

Let's look at the Statement of Administration Policy. They say that no States have formally applied for waivers. No States are asking for this because they already have tremendous flexibility.

But let me just say, if you're going to change the law--and what this administration is trying to do is change the law--you don't just send a letter, or what they're calling an information memorandum. What is that?

Frankly, when the Government Accountability Office looked at this, they said they can't do business this way. This is a rule. And to follow a rule they need to follow the Congressional Review Act, they need to follow the law. And the law says they need to notify Congress, which they did not do. This is something they did on their own.

So on many levels we need to turn this around. They've entered into a gray murky area that we really don't know what they're doing, whether it's legal or not, whether States will have authority to do this or not. Given that the law was explicit that there is no waiver of this work requirement, given that this work requirement was a condition for States getting a cash payment, a block sum amount in welfare, and given the flexibility that was written into the law, it's very important that we make this clear.

Frankly, I think my friends on the other side should be joining Republicans in protecting the constitutional authority of the Congress to make the laws, not the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services. So I would ask my friends, vote for this bill, support the work requirement, support the ability of the Congress to make the laws under the Constitution of the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most unnecessary and meaningless motions to recommit I've seen in my time in Congress. The definition of who's eligible for TANF is left to the States. So the idea that somehow this motion to recommit singles out unemployed parents, TANF applies to unemployed parents. TANF applies to people that are veterans. TANF applies to people who are grandparents. It's about getting the unemployed jobs.

So I have to say, I'm puzzled by this. It seems totally political and completely unnecessary. None of these groups mentioned in this motion to recommit are excluded from receiving TANF benefits.

What this is about is not weakening the work requirement. I understand why the administration may want to weaken the work requirement since their record on job creation is so atrocious. But the fact is that States have tremendous flexibility here. Half of the caseload doesn't have to meet the work requirement. They can be engaging in whatever activity or no activity the State determines. The other half has 12 different categories, including vocational training and other job readiness activities, that will qualify as work.

This is a straight extension of current law. This is an extension of current law that has proven extremely successful. Let's not weaken the requirement. Let's extend the welfare program, the TANF program, at current levels, and let's get people back to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Margaret Heintz, a long time member of the Governing Board of EightCAP, Inc. Margret recently retired from her position at the age of 93--leaving as a highly respected and beloved figure within the community.

Her many years of involvement with EightCAP provided a vast array of community services to many in-need individuals contributing to programs like Head Start, and Michigan Works, as well as assisting as a senior companion, promoting charter school funding, and providing weatherization programs for low-income home renters.

Margaret has served on the EightCAP board for over 30 years, providing thorough oversight and a vast array of experience to the agency's many causes. During her tenure, she assisted in overseeing more than $330,000,000 in State, Local, and Federal funding to state programs. These programs provided beneficial services to Ionia, Montcalm, Gratiot, and Isabella counties.

Margaret recently stated that her reason for retirement was to attend more to her large family of 8 children, 28 grandchildren, and 38 great-grandchildren--further exemplifying her everlasting desire to give to others. On a personal level, Margaret has been a friend and an acquaintance of mine for over 50 years.

On behalf of the Fourth District of Michigan, I congratulate Margaret Heintz upon her retirement and thank her for her service to the people of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 39, I call up the bill (H.R. 325) to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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. 325.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 325, the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013. This legislation directs Members of the House and Senate to adopt a budget resolution by April 15, 2013. If either body does not adopt a budget resolution by April 15, 2013, Members of that body will have their pay withheld until they pass a budget. It's simple: no budget, no pay. The American people understand that they don't get paid if they don't do their job, and neither should Members of Congress.

In addition, to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the U.S. Government, this legislation allows Treasury to issue debt between the date of enactment and May 18, 2013. However, Treasury may only issue enough debt necessary to pay bills coming due before May 18. I want to be perfectly clear on this point: this bill does not allow Treasury to run up an unlimited amount of debt between now and May 18.

The debt authorized under this bill must be tied to bills coming due during that timeframe. Further, on May 19, a new debt limit is automatically established.

So that's what this bill does. The larger question is, why are we even talking about the debt and debt limit? Our Nation's debt is not just some abstract number. It has a direct impact

on American families. During the President's fiscal commission, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, we heard nonpartisan testimony that when the debt is this large in comparison to the economy, it costs the country the equivalent of about 1 million jobs. Think about that. If Washington got its debt and spending under control, then 1 million more Americans would be working today.

And if that wasn't sobering enough, Fitch Ratings recently warned that the failure to come up with a plan for reducing our debt would likely still result in a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. A lower credit rating is sure to mean higher interest rates. That means higher credit card payments, higher car payments, higher student loans, and certainly higher mortgage payments.

Despite these nonpartisan warnings, the Democrat-controlled Senate has not produced a budget in more than 1,300 days. That's 4 years without a budget. How can we begin to get our debt under control when Democrats won't even produce a budget? This bill is the first step in forcing Democrats to put forward a budget so we can start holding Washington accountable for its out-of-control spending.

Every day, American families have to make decisions about their household finances. They have to adjust their spending to cover a whole host of things: groceries, student loan payments, braces for children, and a replacement for that aging refrigerator. Of course, they can't buy everything they want. Every day, they have to make tough choices.

It's time for Congress--the House and the Senate--to make some tough choices. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, this isn't a tough choice where I come from. Where I grew up, if you didn't do your job, you didn't get paid. It's time for Congress to start living with the same facts of life everyone else in America has to live with. I support the No Budget, No Pay Act because it brings back a bit of accountability and common sense to Washington. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill.

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

I yield myself 15 seconds just to say that Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating on August 5, after the Budget Control Act was passed. In doing so:

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.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the House Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say that we've already increased the debt limit over $5 trillion in the Obama administration. That's an almost 50 percent increase in the debt limit.

Let me also just say that we've had several temporary short-term increases in the debt limit before there's been a more permanent longer-term increase--in 1987, in 1990, and 1996. So it is not unprecedented, the action that we're going to be taking today.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to place in the Record a letter from the Executive Office of the President, a Statement of Administration Policy, that says:

The administration would not oppose a short-term solution

to the debt limit and looks forward to continuing to work

with both the House and the Senate to increase certainty and

stability for the American economy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 325--Temporary Suspension of Debt Ceiling

(Rep. Camp, R-MI, and Rep. Miller, R-MI, Jan. 22, 2013)

The Administration supports a long-term increase in the

debt limit that would increase certainty and economic

stability. Although H.R. 325 is a short-term measure and

introduces unnecessary complications, needlessly perpetuating

uncertainty in the Nation's fiscal system, the Administration

is encouraged that H.R. 325 lifts the immediate threat of

default and indicates that congressional Republicans have

backed off an insistence on holding the Nation's economy

hostage to extract drastic cuts in Medicare, education, and

other programs that middle-class families depend on. For

these reasons, the Administration would not oppose a short-

term solution to the debt limit and looks forward to

continuing to work with both the House and the Senate to

increase certainty and stability for the economy.

Instead of short-term management of self-inflicted fiscal

crises, the President believes there is now 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. 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. 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.

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.

H.R. 325 would temporarily allow the Congress to fund

commitments to which it has already agreed. A temporary

solution is not enough to remove the threat of default that

Republicans in the Congress have held over the economy. The

Congress should commit to paying its bills and pass a long-

term clean debt limit increase that lifts self-inflicted and

unnecessary uncertainty from the Nation's economy.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

The gentleman, my friend from Michigan, talked about certainty. And yes, there is certainty, because the Senate majority leader just announced they will take up this bill and pass it. And I think every American understands that we must get our debt and deficit under control. We've had over $5 trillion in increases in deficits in the Obama administration--almost a 50 percent increase in our national debt.

And let me just say that we have had many short-term increases in the debt limit over time. What was business as usual when the Democrats were in the majority? We had nine short-term debt increases--three of them in 1987 and six of them in 1990--before longer, more permanent debt limit increases were made. So what was business as usual for the Democrats they now call ``flirting dangerously'' for Republicans.

I think it is very important we move forward on increasing the debt limit for this limited period of time while we can then address the issues that will help affect our long-term debts and deficits, including the sequester and the continuing resolution.

When the long-term debt of the United States was lowered to a AA-plus rating on August 5, 2011, they said that the downgrade, which was after the Budget Control Act was passed, reflected their opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to--meaning the Budget Control Act--falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics, meaning we didn't do enough to address the drivers of our long-term debt. We must do that.

I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 325, to support the No Budget, No Pay Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.