[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 65 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2539-H2553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0920
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT ACT
Mr. CAMP. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Foxx). Pursuant to House Resolution
202, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means, printed in the bill, is adopted. The bill,
as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 807
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Full Faith and Credit Act''.
SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON PUBLIC DEBT AND
SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.
(a) In General.--In the event that the debt of the United
States Government, as defined in section 3101 of title 31,
United States Code, reaches the statutory limit, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall, in addition to any other
authority provided by law, issue obligations under chapter 31
of title 31, United States Code, to pay with legal tender,
and solely for the purpose of paying, the principal and
interest on obligations of the United States described in
subsection (b) after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Obligations Described.--For purposes of this
subsection, obligations described in this subsection are
obligations which are--
(1) held by the public, or
(2) held by the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund
and Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
(c) Obligations Exempt From Public Debt Limit.--Obligations
issued under subsection (a) shall not be taken into account
in applying the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31,
United States Code, to the extent that such obligation would
otherwise cause the limitation in section 3101(b) of title
31, United States Code, to be exceeded.
(d) Report on Certain Actions.--
(1) In general.--If, after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury exercises his
authority under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
thereafter submit a report each week providing an accounting
relating to--
(A) the principal on mature obligations and interest that
is due or accrued of the United States, and
(B) any obligations issued pursuant to subsection (a).
(2) Submission.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
be submitted to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate.
(3) Termination.--The report requirement under paragraph
(1) shall cease to apply after the date of the enactment of
the first increase in the limitation in section 3101(b),
United States Code, after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in House Report 113-52, if offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp) or his designee, which shall be considered read and shall be
separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
General Leave
Mr. CAMP. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. 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.
[[Page H2540]]
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.
{time} 0930
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.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I wanted to state the facts here so everybody understands them. We
have called this--as the Speaker has, in essence--Paying China First,
and so many others, except for Social Security beneficiaries, come
last, come next, if at all. And here's the reason: of the prioritized
debt covered by this bill, 47 percent is foreign owned, and China
bondholders are the largest ones of that foreign ownership.
So, essentially, what this bill says is, okay, let's pay China and
the other foreign bondholders first, not American troops, not disabled
veterans, not physicians, providers who treat Medicare patients, not
small businesses holding contract obligations from the United States,
school lunch programs secondary, medical research, Pell grants,
taxpayers due refunds, and, interestingly, other Federal trust funds
holding Treasury bonds, Medicare, deposit insurance, et cetera, et
cetera. That's the fact. That's the fact.
So why do this? Well, it is said let's do this because of the
importance of paying the bonds in terms of our economy and in terms of
our bond rating.
Let me just say a word about bond rating. Here's what Fitch has said:
It is not assured that the Treasury would or legally could
prioritize debt service over its myriad of other obligations,
including social security payments, tax rebates, and payments
to contractors and employees. Arrears on such obligations
would not constitute a default event from a sovereign rating
perspective, but very likely prompt a downgrade even as debt
obligations continued to be met.
It was interesting that S&P, who already downgraded us, said this:
Still, sudden cuts that shave off, say, 6 percent of the
GDP-to-spending ratio would cause economic panic and could
affect ratings.
So, why is this being done when a former Bush administration
economist said the result is ``a bloody mess,'' or another Bush
administration official said ``prioritization is impossible.'' Is the
government really going to be in the position of withholding benefits,
salaries, and rent contract payments in order to pay off Treasury
bondholders?
So why is this being done? It's not going anywhere in the Senate. The
President opposes it. I think the reason, apparently, it's being done
is to satisfy some within the Republican caucus or maybe to try to
provide some leverage in terms of bargaining with the Democrats.
This is playing with fire, though, with the economy of this country.
Those who vote for playing with this fire are going to burn themselves.
But I think most significantly, they're going to burn the economy of
the United States of America.
I've tried to figure out who the Pied Piper is of this proposition.
It's hard to figure it out. But those who followed that Pied Piper in
the Republican ranks, those who vote for it essentially are moving
towards the cliff following that Pied Piper; but, worse off, it places
this country once again and its economy in danger of going over the
cliff. This is not only a mistaken idea, it's really a rotten one.
Let's vote ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. 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.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, as I meet with my
constituents back home, they tell me loud and clear their concerns
about our record debt and deficits. We are nearly $17 trillion in debt.
That comes out to about $53,000 per person.
My constituents back home get it. They've had to make tough choices
to live within their means and they expect Washington to do the same.
My Republican colleagues and I have been committed to getting our
fiscal house in order, growing our economy, and getting America back to
work. In fact, we passed a budget that balances in 10 years. On the
other hand, the President's and the Senate Democrats' budgets never
balance--ever.
Hardworking taxpayers and their children and grandchildren deserve
better. We need to leave them a stronger and more secure America, not a
mountain of debt.
Madam Speaker, the bill we are considering today, the Full Faith and
Credit Act, would require Treasury to make good on debt payments. The
bill also enables Treasury to pay Social Security benefits to seniors,
survivors, and those with disabilities and their families. Madam
Speaker, let me say that again. Under this bill, seniors will get their
checks, and those on disability will get their checks.
Back in 1996, we passed similar legislation to H.R. 807. Then Social
Security was getting more in revenues than it was paying out in
benefits, so full
[[Page H2541]]
Social Security benefits could be paid without hitting the debt limit.
Today, there aren't enough revenues to pay Social Security benefits.
To make up the difference, Treasury has to redeem the debt it owes
Social Security by borrowing from the public. This may cause a small
increase in the debt, because when Treasury redeems Social Security
IOUs, it must pay any interest accrued on that debt. Our bill exempts
this interest from counting against the debt limit.
Madam Speaker, according to CBO, Social Security's cash shortfall is
projected to reach $77 billion this year. Over 10 years, Social
Security's shortfall will total $1.3 trillion. These cash shortfalls
are permanent and are growing each and every year.
Madam Speaker, in closing, we owe it to the American people. In fact,
we must come together to preserve and protect Social Security.
{time} 0940
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to our
distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, the ranking member.
I rise partly in sadness, wholly in disappointment, that we are
playing this game. How sad. I tell my other friend from Michigan, his
amendment is sad, too, I want to say. It's a device to try to get
people to vote for a bill that has no merit by making Members' pay
somehow present in this bill. We ought to consider things on their
merit, not on this political gamesmanship.
Madam Speaker, for the second time, House Republicans have decided to
put our country at risk by defaulting on its obligations. They know
this bill is not going anywhere. They know the President would veto it,
and they know Republican economists think this bill makes no sense. I
won't ask the gentleman who chairs the Ways and Means Committee his
real view on this bill.
This so-called ``debt prioritization'' bill mandates that, in the
event we hit the debt limit, we will pay China first, not our
contractors doing business with us, not our Federal employees, not
veterans--yes, Social Security is taken care of--not our military.
We'll pay China first. That's what this bill says. No major creditor in
this country would have a debt prioritization. Now, the secondary
lenders and tertiary lenders, yes, have prioritization, but no major
lender, no big corporation. They say, if we incur a debt, we'll pay
it--not we'll pay this one first and you second or third or fourth.
We'll pay China first and other creditors before we pay our troops,
seniors, health care and veterans benefits. Yes, you've made an
exemption for Social Security, not in the original bill, but
politically that was too hot to handle, so you added Social Security.
Just yesterday, Speaker Boehner admitted that this bill means the
United States of America will voluntarily act like a bankrupt
corporation and pay China before we pay our troops. How sad. How
patently political. How transparent that we are trying to give a fig
leaf so that we can play around with the national debt. Ronald Reagan
would be deeply disappointed, and he expressed that.
Speaker Boehner said:
Those who have loaned us money, like in any other
proceeding . . . the bondholders usually get paid first. The
same thing here--pay China first.
This partisan bill is not a feasible solution to our debt problem,
and even Republicans recognize this won't work.
Tony Fratto, a former Bush administration spokesman on economic
policy--this is a Republican spokesman--said:
Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really
going to be in the position of withholding benefits,
salaries, rent, contract payments, et cetera, in order to pay
off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political
catastrophe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. Former Bush chief economic adviser Keith Hennessey--this
is an economic adviser, not a spokesperson--said this:
If the U.S. Government legally commits to paying someone a
benefit or agrees to pay a firm for a good or a service, the
U.S. Government should fulfill that agreement in a timely
fashion. To do otherwise is taking the first step to becoming
a banana republic.
That's Hennessey, not Hoyer, not a Democrat. That's a Bush economic
adviser.
Madam Speaker, we should not be admitting defeat and ranking the
losers as this bill would do. Instead of choosing to pay China or any
other holder of our debt before we pay our troops--and we ought to pay
them, and we ought to pay them on time, but that's not the issue. The
issue is the United States of America, the most creditworthy Nation on
Earth, ought to pay all its debt in a timely fashion--all--not
prioritize--all--across the board. For our wounded veterans and for the
seniors who have worked hard to build this country, we should be
working to fix the problem by coming to a consensus on a big and
balanced deal to reduce our deficit, including tax reform, which the
chairman is so assiduously seeking.
Playing politically motivated games with the creditworthiness of the
United States will only risk another downgrade.
Mr. CAMP. 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).
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Full
Faith and Credit Act.
Now, much has been said about how ridiculous it is that we find
ourselves going through this debt limit routine so darned often, but
this limit exists in order to induce this body to reflect on the folly
of our mindless borrow-and-spend practices. Such reflection ought to
lead us to serious debate and even to cooperation. It presents an
opportunity for public servants to engage in thoughtful, respectful
dialogue and to craft long-term solutions.
As we approach the limit for the third time in my 2\1/2\ years here,
we have an opportunity to work together and finally make our largest
programs of government sustainable. We have an opportunity to work
together and finally tackle long-neglected issues like tax reform so
that jobs and personal incomes can grow more quickly.
The Full Faith and Credit Act protects and advances such
opportunities for Congress to accomplish big things, and it does this
simply by removing the specter of default from the table altogether. No
one is contemplating default over our Nation's obligations. America
will always and forever pay its bills, and the Full Faith and Credit
Act makes this crystal clear--by making default impossible.
Our support for this act simply cannot and should not be regarded as
ideological or partisan, so I respectfully call on every one of my good
colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support this commonsense bill,
to take default off the table, and to put the focus squarely on dealing
with our real challenges. Let's harness this opportunity of an
approaching borrowing limit to come together as problem solvers.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 10 seconds.
Now, this bill not only contemplates default--it plans for it.
Default is default is default.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished former chairman of our
committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. I heard the last speaker, but there is no question in my
mind that when a person from the other side said that the Republican
Party's first priority is not the salvation of our country but to stop
Barack Obama, I didn't take him too seriously after the election; but I
see the campaign continues. As a political veteran, I understand that;
but let me make it clear what we are doing today.
I had a friend who was deeply in debt. He owed so much money that he
just knew he couldn't pay all of his creditors. Now, it was nowhere
near $14 trillion, but it was a lot. The creditors harassed him day in
and day out, telling him he had to make these payments. Finally, he got
annoyed, he got angry, and he called his creditors and told them, If
you keep harassing me, I will not put your name in the hat, because
every month I put all of my creditors' bills into a hat; but the way
you are treating me--calling the job, harassing me at home--your name
will not go into the hat.
[[Page H2542]]
Now, that's pretty poor policy, I would think, but if I understand
this correctly, we are telling our creditors that certain names will be
in that hat and that other people will not be in that hat.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. RANGEL. So what names go into the hat?
Communist China goes into the hat. Iran and Venezuela go into the
hat. Saudi Arabia goes into the hat. Russia goes into the hat.
Who's outside the hat?
Disabled veterans are out of the hat, and health providers are out of
the hat. A lot of people who deserve to be considered as creditors to
protect full faith and credit are out of the hat.
This is bad for my friend--it's worse for our country--and this is
not the way those people to whom we owe money should be treated.
America is greater than that.
{time} 0950
Mr. CAMP. 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.)
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this
legislation and commend Chairman Camp and Mr. McClintock.
The Full Faith and Credit Act authorizes the Treasury Secretary to
make only the principal and interest payments on our national debt if
the United States reaches its current national debt limit of more than
$16.4 trillion. The legislation also holds harmless Social Security
benefits and requires a weekly report from the Treasury Department
regarding the interest and principles payments it has made due to our
ever-growing national debt.
As almost everyone knows, our national debt is more than $16.4
trillion, a number that is mind boggling and almost unimaginable. Our
Federal Government has grown so large that trying to save a nickel for
every dollar we spend is difficult.
To put $16.4 trillion in perspective, this equates to more than
$111,500 in debt per taxpayer. If you stacked $16.4 trillion in one
dollar bills, it would stack to the moon 4 times.
If we fail to get our spending under control, it will not just be our
children and grandchildren who will suffer but everyone hoping to
retire in five to ten years as well. If we continue on this path, we
will soon be printing so much money that pensions will be worth very
little.
In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a
report on February 5th of this year projecting the United States will
be making a total of more than $224 billion in interest payments on our
national debt. By 2023 it is estimated we will be making $857 billion
in interest payments on our national debt, almost quadrupling our
yearly interest payment.
This legislation is a thoughtful, creative way to not dig ourselves
further into this hole. We cannot continue our reckless spending ways
and expect our creditors to continue funding a Nation that borrows
money just to make its own interest payments.
Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the sponsor of the bill,
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I had hoped that amidst all the controversies that grip Congress,
certainly we should at least be able to agree that the full faith and
credit of the United States should not hang in the balance every time
there's a fiscal controversy in Washington. I also want to thank
Chairman Camp and his Ways and Means Committee for revisions that make
this solution much simpler and more practical than the original draft.
Madam Speaker, this bill simply guarantees that the sovereign debt of
the United States Government will be paid in full and on time under any
circumstances.
Most States have had similar provisions to guarantee their debt in
their laws or constitutions for generations. Last year, in testimony to
the Senate, Ben Bernanke praised these State provisions for maintaining
confidence in their bonds. He told our House Budget Committee that a
similar measure at the Federal level would help to protect us against a
sovereign default, which he called a ``very high priority.''
And yet, this President and his followers in Congress, who have taken
our Nation on the biggest borrowing binge in its history--who've run up
more debt than almost all of his predecessors put together--oppose this
commonsense measure to strengthen the credit upon which that debt
depends.
This bill tells credit markets that even in the event of an impasse
on the debt limit, their loans to this government are absolutely safe.
The Democrats have raised three arguments in opposition. First, the
whip just said that guaranteeing the Nation's sovereign debt is just an
excuse for not paying our other bills. What utter nonsense. I challenge
him to name one Member of Congress who has ever suggested that this
measure is an acceptable substitute for not paying our other bills. Do
they actually suggest that all these other States that have guaranteed
their sovereign debts for generations have ever used these guarantees
as an excuse not to pay their other bills?
On the contrary, by providing clear and unambiguous mandates to
protect their credit first, they actually support and maintain their
ability to pay for all of their other obligations.
The second argument that we have heard ad nauseam is that this bill
will pay China before it pays our troops. Well, I would remind them, as
the chairman said, that more than half of our debt is actually held by
Americans, often by American pension funds. China holds just 11
percent. So this measure actually protects Americans far more than the
Chinese.
But whether our loans come from China or from grandma's pension fund,
without the Nation's credit, we cannot pay our troops or any of our
other obligations.
We are borrowing a quarter of every dollar that we spend, and under
this administration we have amassed a debt that is now larger than our
Nation's entire economy. Our Nation's credit now carries a greater
strain and burden than it ever has before. This measure strengthens our
credit by guaranteeing that our sovereign debt will be paid in full and
on time.
Perhaps the most bizarre argument that we've heard is that by
guaranteeing the Nation's credit, we actually undermine it and risk
another downgrade in our credit rating. After all, as the ranking
member said, a downgrade followed the last debt debate in Congress.
Here are the facts: Standard & Poor's officials had warned for months
that Congress had to reduce the projected 10-year deficit by $4
trillion in order to maintain its AAA credit rating. Because of
Democratic intransigence, this Congress could only reduce it by $1.2
trillion. So we lost the rating. Facts are indeed stubborn things.
But the opponents are correct in one point--that several officials
did express a concern that the impasse could have caused a default in
the Nation's sovereign debt. That is precisely what this measure would
protect us from in the future.
No one advocates that the government delay paying any of our bills,
and this legislation does no such thing. Indeed, this legislation
protects our ability to pay all of our other bills because paying those
bills depends on maintaining the Nation's credit.
Given the precarious state of our Nation's finances, principled
disputes over how the debt limit is addressed are going to happen from
time to time. Just a few years ago, then-Senator Barack Obama
vigorously opposed an increase in the debt limit that was sought by the
Bush administration.
When these controversies erupt, as they inevitably do in a free
society, it is imperative that credit markets are supremely confident
that their loans to the United States are secure. That's what this bill
does.
For once, let us set aside all this partisan posturing and act in the
Nation's interest.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I want the record to be clear: of the public debt prioritized by this
bill, foreign holders own 47 percent and China holds 22 percent of
that.
I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another distinguished member of the
Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McDermott.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, we haven't done anything in this House
all week, and here we are working on a
[[Page H2543]]
plan on how the government can default on its debts. That's what this
is really all about.
It reminds me of the derivation of the word ``bedlam.''
Bedlam was a large mental hospital in the middle of London. It was
really called ``Bethlehem,'' but people locally called it ``Bedlam.''
This is a policy that came out of bedlam and will create bedlam.
If we don't pay our debts, we are going to create problems in our own
country, as well as in the world economic system.
If you want to lose the United States dollar as the currency that is
used by the world, start by not paying your debts. Everybody will say,
Why do we want a dollar? Those folks don't pay. That's what you're
creating--bedlam--here today.
I urge everyone to vote ``no.''
Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, Dr. Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, from the very origins of this country,
the very beginnings, this country has always made good on its sovereign
debt.
Let me be clear what this bill does. It ensures that the United
States shall never default on its sovereign debt.
What does it not do? It's not a solution to the debt problem. We have
a serious long-term liability problem in this country and a failure by
our colleagues on the other side to recognize that we have to deal with
this. Simply raising taxes ad nauseam is not a solution. We need to
come to a real solution so that seniors are not left behind on their
Medicare benefits and Social Security is taken care of.
What does it not do? It's not a pay China first bill. China's
holdings are less than 8 percent, and the ranking member's figures were
wrong because he failed to account for the Social Security trust fund
in that calculation. What we have used are the accurate figures from
the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
What does it not do? It does not authorize new spending and new debt.
This bill just simply says the United States shall always make good on
its sovereign debt. It doesn't provide a solution to the long-term
problem. We've got to solve those problems. We need to come together
and come up with solutions for the longer-term liability with Medicare
and all the other spending programs that are bankrupting this country.
It's been said that the national debt of the United States is a
threat to our national security in the long run. We need real long-term
solutions and not demagoguery and not disingenuous arguments.
The language is very clear. We have seen what the language is in
these credit rating agencies as they did this downgrade. It was
basically a failure of Congress to come together and work with the
administration to come up with a real long-term plan. That is the
issue.
The United States will not default on its debt, and this provides an
extra tool for Treasury.
{time} 1000
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Lewis), another very distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. LEWIS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Levin, for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Pay China First
Act. We are the United States of America, and we pay our bills. Madam
Speaker, I cannot believe that this body would even entertain or
consider a bill that puts the Social Security check of 56 million
seniors and people after China. How can we justify putting 2 million
American military personnel, many of whom are in harm's way, after
China? That is not right. That is not fair. As a Congress, we can do
better, much better.
Let me be crystal clear. Default is not an option. The United States
of America pays all of its bills as they come due. This is the American
way.
Let's stop playing games and do what is right; do what is just; do
what is fair. Let's do what every American citizen has to do, pay our
debts. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
Pay China First Act. We have a moral obligation to do what is right.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), a distinguish member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman.
I think it is important to say first and foremost that no matter how
passionate you are, no matter how loud you scream, it doesn't convert
nonsense to facts. The point is China's debt holdings are less than 8
percent. It makes for a great talking point. I understand that.
Madam Speaker, nobody wants to hit the debt ceiling. In fact, no one
wants to get anywhere near it. On the contrary, we are the ones that
are trying to get Washington's spending under control so it will live
within its means. That's why we talk about budgets and spending and
living within our means, because House Republicans fight that fight. If
we weren't doing it, we wouldn't even know that there are limits to our
spending. The House budget does just that, balancing the Federal budget
in 10 years.
We understand that we must take precautions to protect the
creditworthiness of the United States. We can hope for the best, but we
must prepare for the worst. And the worst that can happen with the debt
ceiling is a government default. The bill before us today takes default
off the table, period. No more, no less.
We've been told by the credit-rating agencies that the greatest
factor affecting our national credit rating is the government's ability
to pay its debt-holders. This bill makes sure that it will. This bill
requires--not allows--requires Treasury to continue to pay principal
and interest on existing debt if, and only if, we hit the debt ceiling
before a deal is reached. This is a backstop that takes default off the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. With it we can focus on the other issues of
debt and spending that created the problem in the first place. We can
have an honest debate about what is driving government debt and how to
deal with it. I hope we don't get anywhere near the debt ceiling limit.
I hope we use the next few months to negotiate and reach an agreement
that avoids any risk of hitting the debt ceiling; but until then, we
should agree that it's our duty to protect America's credit rating.
I look forward to voting for this measure, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in supporting it.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), another very distinguished member of our
committee.
(Mr. NEAL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to the Republican
proposal today to pay China first.
Now, I think that there is another way that we might describe this
legislation from our Republican friends, and it would go like this:
let's balance the budget when Bill Clinton is President, and let's
balance the budget when Barack Obama is President. But in the
intervening 8 years, let's go on a reckless spending spree and cut
taxes by $2.3 trillion, engage two wars internationally, embrace a
prescription drug bill, spend the country into oblivion, and cut taxes
for the wealthiest people.
Recall: balance the budget when Bill Clinton is President, and
balance the budget when Barack Obama is President. Worry about the debt
not when George Bush is President, but only when you have Democratic
Presidents.
This is a reckless proposal today, and everybody knows it.
Speaker Boehner is quoted in one of the dailies this morning as
saying of course we pay the bondholders first. That's a fact. The
previous speaker didn't mention that. He said, let's deal with the
facts. So who are the bondholders? They emphasize, they suggest that
it's the American people. Foreign debt is held by the Chinese and the
Japanese second, and everybody knows it.
So it's austerity for the American people, but make sure that the
bondholders are paid. It's cut back on everything for the American
people, but
[[Page H2544]]
make sure the bondholders are paid. Cut taxes by $2.3 trillion, and not
to worry about the austerity of the American people.
Recall: balance the budget when Bill Clinton is President; balance
the budget when Barack Obama is President.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding and for bringing this bill forward, Congressman McClintock's
Full Faith and Credit Act. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of the bill
because what the bill does is clearly take default off the table as an
option when we're having negotiations over the debt ceiling.
Now, people would say why is this even an issue. Unfortunately, it's
an issue because the only people in town who have been threatening
default are President Obama and liberals in Congress. And you've heard
some of the speakers against this bill today talking about the threat
of default. What's so good about this bill is it takes default off the
table. It takes away their ability to default on our Nation's debt.
In fact, President Obama in the last debt ceiling negotiation almost
2 years ago was the one running around the country threatening to
default on our credit, so much so that it scared the markets and hurt
our economy. And, in fact, it is one of the things that led to a
downgrade, the first time in our Nation's history that our credit
rating was downgraded because the problem that gets us to the debt
ceiling is that Washington has a spending problem. It's spending that
continues to force us to hit the debt ceiling.
And so when we're negotiating on the debt ceiling, we shouldn't be
worried about the President running around threatening default; we
should be focused on fixing the spending problem. Americans sent us
here to tackle the tough issues, not to be clouded and confused by the
President's threats of default. Unfortunately, the GAO has even said
the President can prioritize. He should. It would be responsible to pay
your debts, but the President himself has said he would consider
defaulting if we hit the debt ceiling.
And so what this bill says is you pay Americans first. As the
chairman of Ways and Means pointed out, it is American citizens who own
the bulk of our debt. They would be paid. Social Security would be
paid. But then we could focus on the spending problem, and the
negotiations on debt ceiling would be about solving the spending
problem in Washington that continues to force us to hit the debt
ceiling so that we can stop living from crisis to crisis and finally
get our economy moving again. I urge passage.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Larson), another distinguished member of our
committee.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman. I rise today to
oppose the Pay China First Act, and I do this with a heavy heart
because I know the number of talented individuals that we have on this
committee and the process that we've been through where we're working
together. It astounds me that somehow the ideological tail of the Tea
Party wags the whole Republican effort in this area, and the
ideological reach of the Tea Party exceeds the certainty that we should
be bringing to the American people.
{time} 1010
Instead, we're playing hostage politics again, holding up the
American people, creating all the uncertainty that we don't need in
this kind of climate instead of demonstrating that we can sit down and
work together.
I get the politics. I understand how you have to accede to a group
that continues to take us to the precipice and then pull back. The
American people are through with it.
Let's sit down, deal with this, and then move on; create the
certainty that will create the jobs here. Let's not find ourselves in a
situation that becomes almost oxymoron, where we're paying China first,
at the expense of Americans when there is no good reason why we should
be dealing with this issue whatsoever, other than the hostage politics
that it creates to deal with an ideological minority that drives the
other side.
Mr. CAMP. 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.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I rise in opposition to the Pay China First Act.
Simply by putting this legislation on the floor, it does real damage in
terms of putting questions in the minds of people around the world who
to this point have been giving billions of dollars to the United States
Government to be able to pay for past spending at record low rates.
I listened to the last speaker opine that we need to do everything to
justify the faith in the American people. Well, the reckless threats
that we saw 2 years ago, where, for the first time, we really were
staring into the face of the abyss and it was a real possibility that
they would withhold the votes, deny increase in the debt ceiling and,
for the first time in our history, not pay for spending already
incurred, in fact, ironically, the Ryan budget would have required a
massive increase in the debt ceiling. The American people know this,
and no amount of subterfuge here is going to eliminate that doubt, that
concern, that apprehension. It may give the illusion of a few more
days' breathing room with the debt ceiling.
What we need to do is set this aside and get to business. I would
note, with no small amount of irony, that my friends on the other side
of the aisle who have been so interested in a budget now refuse to
appoint members for a conference committee so that the House and the
Senate can come together and do that. That would be a lot more
productive than this charade.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kind), another distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I, too, rise in opposition to the Pay China First Act.
Madam Speaker, I, for the life of me, do not understand why we are
even seriously considering this legislation which would call for the
default on our Nation's financial obligations for the
[[Page H2545]]
very first time in our Nation's history, completely jeopardize the full
faith and credit of the United States of America, jeopardize the
economic recovery, which still needs help right now, and it would be
the greatest unforced, self-inflicted wound that this body can commit
against the U.S. economy in our Nation's history.
But let's be clear. This has very little to do about true fiscal
responsibility. This issue, this legislation is being driven by a very
narrow bunch on the other side with a radical governing philosophy
which basically says, I hate my government so much that I'm willing to
jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States and bring
this economy down until we get our way. That's what's driving this
legislation right now. That's the jeopardy that we face with it.
And I doubt that this has a serious chance of passing. But what the
answer to this is is for us to go to conference on the budget
resolutions that have now passed the House and Senate and start talking
and listening to each other to find the common ground we need to reach
a long-term deficit reduction agreement.
But defaulting on some of our obligations will mean putting great
doubt in the rest of the investors in the United States in regards to
who will be next. And that's what this legislation is promising: a
default with some, a payment of China and others at the expense of the
U.S. economy.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived
legislation.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great
State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another distinguished member of our
committee.
Mr. PASCRELL. I rise, Madam Speaker, in strong opposition to the Pay
China First Act. This is a Pyrrhic proposal if I ever saw one.
By the way, the firefighters are in town today and tomorrow, and I'm
going to go to every firefighter I see in Washington, D.C., and tell
them how foolish--you know, the sponsors of this legislation believe
that the Federal Government has no responsibility to firefighters or
police officers anyway. It's strictly a local thing. So they're not
trying to balance a budget.
If this bill becomes law, the government will still be borrowing
money and our deficit will increase. It's what this bill allows us to
borrow money for that is so shameful.
Is the government allowed to pay our Active Duty military? No.
Can we add to our deficit to fund veterans' benefits? No.
What about Medicare? Sorry, we're not going to pay those bills.
However, the government is allowed to borrow to pay back foreign
bondholders. The majority apparently believes it's okay to borrow money
and add to our deficit to pay China, but not to honor the obligations
we have to our troops, our veterans, our seniors, et cetera. Shameful.
There is simply no other word.
The United States of America pays its bills, period, end of sentence,
case closed. We've done it for 200 years, whether it's obligations that
we have to our troops or seniors, we have to those who have bought our
bonds.
We all saw what happened in the summer of 2011. We don't need a
repeat.
{time} 1020
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another member of our
committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Pay
China First Act. This is a very dangerous debate that we are conducting
today because I think it has ramifications beyond simple debate. It
calls into question whether or not America will pay its bills. You
could also call this bill the Put America Last Act because that's
exactly what this bill does. It's a bill that will actually make the
Tea Party policies a reality, turning us into a deadbeat nation, a
nation that does not pay its bills.
This Republican bill will codify into law a new low for America. It
will ensure U.S. taxpayers always pay China and other regimes and
foreign banks before our veterans, before our seniors on Medicare, and
even before our enlisted troops bravely serving overseas. That's right.
We'll pay these folks before we pay these folks. We pay these folks
under this bill if it were to become law before we pay these folks.
That simply is wrong and unacceptable to the American people.
Even the sponsors of this bill admit that in addition to putting
China first and America last, their bill will also increase the
deficit. Let me say that again. This bill will also increase the
deficit and will pay China first. What the Republican majority is doing
with this bill is announcing to the world--everyone from small
businesses who sell services to the government to grandmothers buying
savings bonds for their grandchildren--that this Congress is not
serious about paying our Nation's bill.
My colleagues, please, put Americans first, put our troops first and
China last. Do not pass the Pay China First Act.
Mr. CAMP. 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.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from
Michigan. I strongly oppose this bill which, as our colleagues have
said, says we should pay the government of China before we pay our
troops, before we pay our veterans, and before we pay other bills here
in the United States.
Of all the bad ideas that have come to the floor of this House, this
one is one of the worst. It's a reckless, irresponsible proposal that
says the United States of America is not going to pay all the bills
that are due and owing. That will have a terrible impact on our
creditworthiness, it will undermine the full faith and credit of the
United States, and it would wreak havoc in the economy.
Look, Madam Speaker, our constituents don't have the luxury of waking
up one morning and saying: Do you know what? I'm only going to make my
mortgage payment. I'm not going to make my car payment, and I'm not
going to make my credit card payments.
If they did that, what would happen? They would lose their
creditworthiness. For the United States of America to say we're going
to pay some bills but not all would have hugely damaging impacts on the
economy.
And it gets worse, because when they say, We've got to pay some, but
not all, you've got to decide whom you're going to pay first. And what
they decide here
[[Page H2546]]
is they're going to pay China first, and they have to decide who is not
a priority. In this bill, our veterans are not a priority, and our
troops risking their lives in Afghanistan are not a priority. China is
a priority; they're not.
Now, Madam Speaker, what will happen here is that people will lose
faith in whether or not the country pays its bills. People need to
understand very clearly that this is not about expanding the debt
ceiling in order to take on new obligations. This is about paying our
existing obligations. And if we announce to the world that we're
planning on not paying our obligations, whether they're to bondholders
or to our troops, guess what happens? People will lose faith in the
United States Government, and the economy will get hit hard.
Let's vote against this bill that says China comes before our troops
and our veterans.
Mr. CAMP. 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.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished Member, the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. I rise in strong opposition to this Republican pay
China first bill, which would jeopardize the full faith and credit of
the United States. This legislation dictates which of our Nation's
bills we will pay and which we will not, and poses a serious, dangerous
threat to our economy. The Republicans put foreign creditors ahead of
our veterans, Active Duty military, Medicare recipients, and small
businesses.
The Republicans' refusal to pay our Nation's bills inflicts another
round of unnecessary wounds that weakened our economy in 2011. American
families, American workers, and American small businesses have battled
economic uncertainty for far too long, and this deeply irresponsible
legislation will only exacerbate the challenges we face.
Instead of moving us closer to common ground on a balanced,
responsible path for economic growth, Republicans' brinksmanship
threatens to undermine consumer and investor confidence and slows
economic growth.
I urge opposition to this legislation and instead that we do what we
have always done as Americans: pay our bills, pay them on time, pay
them in full and protect America's economy and our financial standing
in the global economy.
Mr. LEVIN. Can I ask our distinguished Speaker how much time remains
on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has
6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CAMP. I have no further speakers.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Veasey).
Mr. VEASEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Pay
China First Act. Once again, the Republican majority has chosen to play
politics with the credit of our Nation. Instead of coming to the table
with solutions, they are ensuring that we will come to a default on our
Nation's debt.
This bill accomplishes one simple goal: pay China first. If the
Republicans cause a default on our debt, H.R. 807 would guarantee that
bondholders in China and other foreign nations will get paid before our
men and women in uniform. Honorable veterans and the doctors and the
hospitals that take care of our senior citizens on Medicare will all
lose out. Are these truly the right priorities for our country, Madam
Speaker?
Democrats are focused on job recovery, job growth, and securing a
future for our hardworking taxpayers and the middle class. We are ready
to act now on commonsense budget proposals that are balanced and fair.
I ask the majority now to stop playing political games and let's work
together on commonsense solutions to strengthen our country.
Mr. LEVIN. So, Mr. Camp, are you ready to close this part of our
debate?
How much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I just want to read the facts why this bill essentially
says ``China first.'' I want everybody to understand this isn't
rhetoric; this is reality.
The Republicans, under this bill, prioritize $14.3 trillion in debt,
of that, $2.7 trillion in Social Security and $11.6 trillion in public
debt. Of that public debt, $5.6 trillion is foreign. So when you come
up and talk about all of the American public, you are not talking about
what is in this bill. And of that foreign debt, the largest creditor is
China, with over $1 trillion.
{time} 1030
So it's absolutely true that essentially what you're saying is pay
the largest of the foreign creditors instead of American troops,
veterans, physicians, school lunch programs, universities doing medical
research, taxpayers getting refunds, and other Federal trust funds
holding Treasury bonds, Medicare--these are Americans'--deposited
insurance, highway trust funds, et cetera, et cetera. That's the fact.
Now, there's some effort here to say, oh, we're not defaulting. Yes,
you are. You're not defaulting on sovereign debt, but you're
defaulting, except for Social Security, on everything else. Republicans
are becoming lead defaulters in terms of paying our debt.
As I said earlier, the credit agencies have said, and I'll close with
this:
It is not assured that the Treasury would or legally could
prioritize debt service over its myriad of other obligations
. . . but very likely prompt downgrade, even as our debt
obligations continued to be met.
This is a drastic, serious mistake. Vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Camp
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, after line 17, insert the following (and
redesignate succeeding subsections accordingly):
(c) Prohibition on Compensation for Members of Congress.--
None of the obligations issued under subsection (a) may be
used to pay compensation for Members of Congress.
Page 7, line 2, insert ``the authority is in use'' after
``week''.
Page 7, strike line 13 and all that follows through line
17.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 202, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. 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
[[Page H2547]]
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.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm just going
to speak for a short time and then yield.
I respect the chairman of the committee; we've been friends for a
long time. It's really sad this amendment is here. There can't be money
used under the bill for salaries. There's no lack of clarity here.
Essentially, this is an effort to give some kind of fig leaf, or
whatever it is, for a terrible, terrible bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have already spoken about this amendment. I think this amendment is
as sad as the bill.
We continue to play games because we think that, in a way, we will
compel people to vote for something they don't want to vote for--and,
in my view, are not going to vote for. I think it's sad. I think we
continue to demagogue this institution and its Members. That's sad. We
leaders should not do that. This is a serious bill.
Now, I want to tell the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee, I know what the debt is. And I know that debt
has been incurred because we bought a lot of things we didn't pay for,
including over $1 trillion of Afghanistan and Iraq, including a
prescription drug bill that projects over $2 trillion, including tax
cuts that were $2.3 trillion that not a penny were paid for. I
understand, and I think it's serious.
The sad thing is that this is not a serious response. This is an
irresponsible response. This is a response that, as I said earlier,
says that we will pay some people first, but we won't pay all our
debts. The richest country on the face of the Earth, the most
creditworthy nation on the face of the Earth, we won't pay all our
debts.
There is a simple way to do this: stop demagoguing one another. And I
want to say to the gentleman, as he knows, Democrats have demagogued
this issue when we've had Republican Presidents and Republicans have
demagogued it when we've had Democratic Presidents.
We all know that we've incurred debts and we're going to pay them.
That's all this is. It's very simple: we're either going to pay our
debts or we're not.
Now, I want to tell my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, I know
about the debt. The gentleman refers to $5 trillion. I'm sure the
gentleman knows these statistics:
Under Ronald Reagan, the debt was increased 189 percent; under George
Bush, 55 percent--the first George Bush, 55 percent; under this
President so far, a little over 40 percent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. Every Republican President with whom I've served, Madam
Speaker, every Republican President has increased the debt as a
percentage of GDP higher than either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Bill
Clinton was the lowest, 37 percent. This President is a little over 40
percent of GDP. It's just like saying the minimum wage now is $7.25,
which is so much higher than it was in 1970--which is not the case.
Now, as a dollar, a nominal figure, it's higher, and the gentleman
knows that very well. He is my friend and I have great respect for him.
But this bill is unfortunate. This amendment is--I won't characterize
it as harshly as I feel about it.
We have to stop playing games. We have to be serious. We need to come
together and adopt a big plan that's balanced, that can pass and will
put this country on a fiscally sustainable path; and, in the process,
we ought to pay our bills because we incurred them. We incurred them
honestly for objectives that this House, this Senate, and the President
of the United States signed for.
{time} 1040
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield that minute and a half to the vice chair of our
caucus, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of our
committee.
Mr. CROWLEY. I have reservations about the constitutionality of this
amendment. What I will say is I would gladly give my pay if it meant
that these guys don't get paid. I will give my salaries to the
defenders of this country, the men and women who are the front line, if
their pay was in question. If all the money in the Congress in our pay
could do that, I would gladly do that.
But I say we should definitely pay these guys before we pay these
guys. That's what your bill does. The overriding bill would have these
guys get paid before these guys. Forget about us guys.
This amendment is a farce. It's to divert attention from the fact
that you want to pay these guys before you pay these guys. At the end
of the day, that's what the overriding bill is about--putting China
first, paying China first, putting our troops last, putting the
American people last. It's about putting them first and us last.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
15 seconds remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I will use it by saying, a default is a default is a
default. This bill is a serious mistake, as is the amendment. People
can do what they want on the amendment. Vote ``no'' on the basic bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. 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,
[[Page H2548]]
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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
[[Page H2549]]
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.
Ms. CLARKE. 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
[[Page H2550]]
economist at OppenheimerFunds, wrote, ``I join the likes of
the I.M.F. in cautioning that too much austerity, too soon,
is likely counterproductive.''
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 807,
the Full Faith and Credit Act, which is simply a plan to default on the
full faith and credit of the United States.
Under this measure, the Treasury could not borrow above the federal
debt limit for any other purpose than to pay selected holders of our
debt, many of whom are outside the United States.
While supposedly prioritizing this debt, all other already-incurred
debt would still be paid by general revenues on a cash-flow basis.
Forcing Treasury to default on many of our fundamental obligations,
such as paying our active-duty troops, paying doctors and hospitals
that care for our seniors on Medicare, paying veterans' benefits, and
before American small businesses are paid.
Raising the debt ceiling to pay bills already incurred should not be
negotiable, and certainly should not be held hostage for cuts to
programs that serve everyday Americans.
The pursuit of this bill is not in the best interest of Americans. It
rebuts economists who say that debt prioritization is an awful, if not
impossible policy, especially in light of the fact that the Treasury
makes 80 to 100 million payments per month. The Bipartisan Policy
Center and the Council of Inspectors General on Financial Oversight, as
well as the Treasury itself, all agree on the conclusion that it would
be simply impossible for them to pick and choose which bills are paid
and which are not.
By virtually ensuring a state of daily defaults on legal obligations
of the federal goverment, this misguided proposal is more likely to
create chaos in credit markets than ease investors' fears.
We should not forget the lessons of 2011, when we last neared default
over disagreements to raise the debt ceiling. Political brinksmanship
with the debt ceiling caused uncertainty on Wall Street, the U.S.
government's credit rating was downgraded for the first time in
history, and we saw increases in borrowing costs to the tune of $1.3
billion according to a report from the Government Accountability
Office, which will add up to $19 billion in unnecessary additional debt
over the next decade.
The consequences of a default would be much worse and reverberate
across our economy, affecting every American through higher interest
rates, investors fleeing the U.S. market and broad economic
uncertainty.
This legislation has a very clear purpose--forcing the United States
government to default on its obligations during forthcoming debt
ceiling negotiations.
America is not a delinquent nation, and we cannot risk becoming one.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill, H.R. 807, the Full
Faith and Credit Act.
Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Full
Faith and Credit Act. As a conservative, ensuring that our nation pays
its bills on time is a top priority.
The Full Faith and Credit Act would protect America's credit rating
by ensuring that we do not default on our nation's debt. It requires
the Treasury to continue to make timely payments on our principal and
interest in the event that our nation's debt limit is reached.
Furthermore, what this does is take the politicization of the debt
limit debate off of the table. Without a chance for default, we can
negotiate in good faith with the President and Congressional Democrats
on a plan that addresses our real problem--out of control spending.
I look forward to having this debate, and I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 807,
the Full Faith and Credit Act. Instead of working productively with
Democrats, my Republican colleagues seem content to continue dabbling
in debt limit chicanery that threatens the economic security of this
country.
Let me be clear: H.R. 807 offers no comprehensive solution to the
debt limit. It is a legislative blueprint for how the United States
should pay its bills after it defaults. More baffling is the fact that
the bill prioritizes debt payments to Chinese bondholders over paying
our troops, supporting our veterans, and making Medicare payments to
seniors.
That Republicans continue to push bills like this indicates they have
no real interest in fixing the sequester or putting in place the kinds
of policies that will contribute to stable economic growth. This will
have a seriously debilitating effect on financial markets at a time
when we can ill afford it. In addition, H.R. 807 could lead to another
downgrade of our country's credit rating because the bill indicates to
markets that it assumes a default will actually occur.
Madam Speaker, this is irresponsible policymaking at its finest. H.R.
807 threatens to undo the full faith and credit of the United States, a
promise that has stood for over 200 years and is the foundation of
global capital markets. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan
differences and act in the country's best interests by voting this bill
down.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, the purpose of the Full Faith
and Credit Act (H.R. 807) is to protect the full faith and credit of
the United States by requiring the Treasury Secretary to issue such
debt as may be necessary to prevent a sovereign default. During the
consideration of this bill in the Ways and Means Committee, I offered
an amendment to clarify the relationship between debt issued under the
authority in this bill and the statutory debt limit. This amendment was
adopted by voice vote and is part of the bill as ordered reported by
the Ways and Means Committee.
This bill provides additional and limited authority to the Secretary
of the Treasury to issue new debt obligations on behalf of the United
States solely for the purpose of paying the principal and interest on
specified debt obligations of the United States once the statutory debt
limit has been reached. The intent of this bill is that debt
obligations issued under the authority provided by the bill will count
against the debt limit with one exception. This exception provides that
if counting the full amount of these newly issued obligations against
the debt limit would cause the debt limit to be exceeded, then the
amount of the newly issued obligation that is in excess of the debt
limit shall not count toward the limit.
The following is a hypothetical example to explain the intended
operation of this bill. Assume the debt limit has been reached and the
payment of principal and interest on an existing debt obligation
amounting to $100 requires the Treasury Secretary to issue $101 of new
debt obligations using the authority provided in this Act. In this
example, $100 of that new obligation would count against the debt limit
while $1 would not. Importantly, applying this provision is a continual
responsibility. If at some future date the stock of debt subject to the
limit were reduced by $1, then the $1 that originally did not count
against the debt limit would now count toward the debt limit. Under no
circumstance can there be both room to issue new debt obligations
without exceeding the statutory debt ceiling and an outstanding stock
of debt obligations issued under the authority in this bill that is not
subject to the debt limit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the amendment will be followed
by 5-minute votes on a motion to recommit, if ordered; passage of H.R.
807, if ordered; and approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 340,
nays 84, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 140]
YEAS--340
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carney
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
[[Page H2551]]
Honda
Horsford
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--84
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Fattah
Fudge
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Hoyer
Huffman
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pocan
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sires
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Davis (CA)
Doggett
Flores
Pearce
Pingree (ME)
Ryan (OH)
Speier
Tsongas
{time} 1111
Mr. GUTIERREZ and Mrs. BEATTY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. LOFGREN, Mrs. CAPITO, Messrs.
VELA, COURTNEY, BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, POLIS, HINOJOSA, HIGGINS,
Ms. BONAMICI, Messrs. HONDA, and TIERNEY changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 140, had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. MAFFEI. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. MAFFEI. In its current form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Maffei moves to recommit the bill H.R. 807 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON DEFAULT THAT PAYS CHINA FIRST INSTEAD
OF PROTECTING AMERICA'S SENIORS, VETERANS, AND
THOSE HARMED BY NATURAL DISASTERS.
This Act shall not take effect if it would result in the
United States Government defaulting on its legal obligations
for the first time in its history, as evidenced by the
Secretary of the Treasury taking any of the following
actions:
(1) Making payments of debt obligations to foreign bond
holders, including those in China, Iran, and the Cayman
Islands, before making payments of debt obligations required
under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, for the
Deposit Insurance Fund and the National Credit Union Share
Insurance Fund, which insure savings for Americans.
(2) Failing to make a payment of a debt obligation to the
Social Security and Medicare trust funds or redeem a debt
obligation held by those trust funds.
(3) Failing to redeem a debt obligation held by a trust
fund providing veterans benefits, including the Veterans
Special Life Insurance Fund, the Veterans Reopened Insurance
Fund, the Armed Forces Retirement Home Fund, and the Court of
Veteran Appeals Retirement Fund.
(4) Failing to redeem a debt obligation held by an
intragovernmental fund with the purpose of assisting
Americans during a natural disaster, including reserves for
the National Flood Insurance Program and other disaster
relief funds appropriated to the President.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes in support of
his motion.
Mr. MAFFEI. Madam Speaker, I am offering this amendment today as the
final amendment, which will not kill the bill or send it back to
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final
passage, as amended.
Madam Speaker, the American people want us to work together--
Republicans and Democrats--to reduce our debt, pay our bills, and avoid
an economic catastrophe, which would result from default. But how can
Democrats work with the Republican leaders of this House when their
plan for America is to default?
Madam Speaker, Republicans today proved this by bringing forth this
legislation, which presumes it will happen and maps out not if but what
happens when the United States defaults.
Their plan ensures that foreign creditors such as China, Japan, and
OPEC countries Iran and Saudi Arabia would continue to get paid while
we halt other payments to groups of Americans who have earned those
benefits. This bill prioritizes Chinese lenders ahead of American
seniors and veterans and college students. That's why it's called the
Pay China First Act.
The House Republican bill would stop pay for 1.4 million Active Duty
troops and almost 800,000 activated Reserves and National Guards. It
would end benefits for 3.4 million disabled Americans; eliminate
education benefits and home purchasing assistance for 1.3 million
veterans; put American small businesses that sell goods and services to
the government on the hook for major losses; and stop payment to
doctors and hospitals who take care of the 50 million Medicare patients
around this country.
{time} 1120
Madam Speaker, the Republican plan that we debate here today ignores
the needs and priorities of the American people; and it does so, Madam
Speaker, so that the Republican leadership can sidestep the political
problem that, after being fully complicit in running up our Nation's
credit card debt, their side doesn't want to pay the bill.
It strains the bounds of cynicism to think that any elected leaders
would prioritize a policy of political convenience over the well-being
of those injured from fighting for America's freedom; but that is
what's happening today.
We need to come together as a Nation to fix our debt, and we need to
do it in the right way, not on the backs of our middle class families
and seniors, and certainly not by defaulting on the debt we owe our
veterans.
[[Page H2552]]
Instead of finding ways to pay China first, we should be using this
time to find a way to balance our budget and avoid defaulting on any of
our obligations.
We should be working together to come up with a plan that addresses
the very serious fiscal challenges facing this country. And these are
not easy choices, but they are why our constituents sent us here,
Democrats and Republicans, to answer the challenges of our time as our
forebears did in theirs.
The brinksmanship that Congress has put us in time and time again has
created uncertainty in the economy. It prevents economic growth. It
stifles job creation.
This Republican plan will plunge our recovering economy back into a
recession. It will raise unemployment. It might even freeze credit
worldwide. It is a reckless plan to default for the first time in our
Nation's history, and economists agree it will be devastating.
What this side is proposing is nothing but a plan to fail.
Madam Speaker, I didn't come here to plan to fail. I came here to
focus on jobs and growth and a stronger middle class and promote a
commonsense budget that's balanced and fair, that expands our economy
and responsibly reduces deficit.
Instead of prioritizing China and foreign sovereign funds, we should
be protecting our American troops who are in harm's way as we speak,
our veterans; our seniors who rely on Medicare and Social Security;
American small businesses; and college students who earned Pell Grants.
That's what this amendment does. It would stop the horrible
consequences of default. It is a simple choice: plan to default on our
debts or reject this plan and work together to avert catastrophe.
Which one will my Republican colleagues choose today?
Madam Speaker, above your august chair, and even above our great
American Flag, the symbol of freedom, are the words: In God We Trust.
And through good times and bad, that trust has been rewarded.
Madam Speaker, the American people, our seniors who depend on
Medicare, our students who have worked hard to earn a Pell Grant to pay
for college, our small businesses who have sold their wares to the
Federal Government at a fair price, and our veterans who have
sacrificed for our freedom, they have put their trust in us.
For 237 years, this Nation has paid its debts, not just some of them,
like the ones to foreign creditors. Our forebears have always kept
faith with the American people. They didn't pick and choose. They did
their duty, and so must we.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time
in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CAMP. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MAFFEI. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200,
noes 227, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 141]
AYES--200
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--227
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
[[Page H2553]]
NOT VOTING--5
Braley (IA)
Doggett
Flores
Kelly (IL)
Pearce
{time} 1132
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 141 had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 141 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 207, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 142]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--207
Amash
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--4
Doggett
Flores
Pearce
Peterson
{time} 1139
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________