[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 152 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6872-H6876]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVAL RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEBT LIMIT INCREASE
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 391
and section 1002(e) of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, I have
a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Young of Indiana moves that the House proceed to
consider House Joint Resolution 99.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 1002(e)(2)(B) of the
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, the motion is not debatable.
The question is on the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the title of the joint
resolution.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 99
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves of the President's exercise of authority to
suspend the debt limit, as exercised pursuant to the
certification under section 1002(b) of the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2014.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 391 and section
1002(e)(2)(C) of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, the joint
resolution is considered as read, and the previous question is
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to its passage without
intervening motion, except 1 hour of debate, equally divided and
controlled by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) as the proponent
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) as the opponent.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the joint
resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Some people may be wondering why we find ourselves here today. Some
people may be confused as to why we are voting on a resolution to
disapprove of the debt limit suspension 2 weeks after the fact. And
some people may be asking why I introduced this resolution of
disapproval on behalf of some people who voted ``yes'' and others who
voted ``no'' to give the President the authority to suspend the debt
limit.
The answers to these questions are much simpler than they might
appear.
We are here today because the United States of America carries a debt
load of over $17 trillion and counting.
We are voting on this resolution today because this is the procedure
that was put in place by the Senate when they crafted a package to end
the government shutdown. Many of us voted for that Senate legislation
largely because we didn't think it was responsible to risk defaulting
on our national debt.
However, I introduced this resolution, and a majority of House
Members will vote to disapprove, because it is also not responsible to
ignore the problems created by our long-term debt.
Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that a large number in this body voted
to avoid default, it would be a gross mischaracterization to say that
we approve of a debt limit suspension absent adoption of bold policy
reforms that will set our Nation on a sustainable fiscal trajectory.
We must break the habit of negotiating these fiscal deals at the last
minute. We must stop kicking the can down the road, proverbially
skipping along from crisis to crisis.
Simply put: enough is enough. Let's start talking across party lines
about how to fix our debt problems now, not the end of a deadline.
We know that programs like Medicare and Social Security are on
unsustainable footing. That is why a Democratic President and
Republican House have both offered up reforms for these programs. So if
we agree there is a problem, why must we wait until the next crisis to
address it?
We know that our Tax Code is outdated and that it has become too
larded up with narrowly tailored provisions that benefit only a small
number of special interests. That is why our House Ways and Means
chairman has met weekly with the Senate Finance chairman to discuss how
best to achieve a fairer, flatter Tax Code in a bipartisan way.
If there is agreement here, then why are we looking to self-imposed
fiscal deadlines in hopes of getting a deal? I could go on and on, but
I think the point is clear: Washington missed an opportunity during our
most recent fiscal showdown.
This resolution sends a message that ignoring our problems does not
make them go away. It sends a message that we should not wait until the
last minute, but should reach across the aisle to face these challenges
now; and it sends a message that we take these issues very seriously
because they bear directly on job creation, personal income levels, and
our collective faith in America's enduring exceptionalism.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just a short time ago, a number of us joined many others in paying
tribute to Speaker Tom Foley. There was a commemoration ceremony just
100 feet or so from here.
There was a lot of discussion, appropriately, of the need for
bipartisanship.
[[Page H6873]]
There was much reference to the role that Tom Foley played in that in
trying to reach across the aisle.
Bob Michel, the former leader on the Republican side, spoke so
eloquently as to how there was a level of trust and how there was an
effort at bipartisanship.
{time} 1745
I think what has happened in this House is that the increased
polarization has really twisted this institution and has even, to some
extent, twisted the ability to have close relationships. I say this
because I think this resolution is not within that spirit.
It was only the week before last that 87 House Republicans joined 198
House Democrats to pull this Nation back from the brink of a default
that would have magnified the economic damage inflicted by the
Republican shutdown of this government. That was a bipartisan effort
with leadership support from both sides of the aisle.
And I can understand why those who voted ``no'' on October 16 might
vote ``yes'' on this bill in order to be consistent. And while I
disagree with the policy, at least their vote would be consistent. I
think the vote would be consistently wrong, but it would be consistent.
What is hard to understand is how anybody who voted ``yes'' on
October 16 to avoid a default would now vote ``yes'' on this bill that
would bring about a default. So you talk about the message.
Essentially, the message of this bill is once again we will utilize the
threat of default. That is what this bill says. When you vote for it,
that is precisely what you are saying. So you are saying that serious
impairment of our Nation's full faith and credit, which economists
warned would plunge us back into recession, was a bad idea on
Wednesday, 2 weeks ago, but doing so is a good idea on Wednesday, 2
weeks later, when we vote tomorrow. That is precisely what you are
saying. That is your message. So the same person who voted one way then
is soon going to vote the other way.
Let me just say why I think this is not within the spirit of an
effort at bipartisanship that I referred to earlier and that I think is
so important, and the lack of any effort at that has really twisted--I
use that word--the strength of this institution.
Just a short time ago, a few weeks ago, as the Republicans took us to
the brink of default, the minority leader on the Senate side said:
There is no education in the second kick of a mule, and we
are not going to do this again in connection with the debt
ceiling or with a government shutdown.
That is precisely what this legislation says--precisely. It says--
forget about the second kick of a mule. What it says is that you would
do it again in connection with the debt ceiling. So that is your
message. And you would do that; you would take us to the brink of
default that, earlier this month, the Council of Economic Advisers
estimated lost 120,000 jobs that would have been created in October and
private forecasters estimated slowed fourth quarter GDP growth by
between 0.2 and 0.6 percentage point.
So I think there is no escape from the inconsistency. There is no
escape from essentially saying once again there is no real effort to
reach across the aisle. There is no real effort to try to instill some
belief that the two parties can work together. So that is a bad
message, and I guess a lot of you think you can be inconsistent because
it will never come up in the Senate. And it won't. But that doesn't
take away the fact that there is an inconsistency here, I guess to try
to cover some people's votes, to somehow minimize their impact.
But when it comes to the default of the full faith and credit of this
country, there has to be something more important than providing us
cover. We need to provide cover for the citizens of this country so
that they are not vulnerable to playing with the default and the full
faith and credit of this country.
So you shouldn't be bringing up this resolution. It will pass, I
guess. There will be enough inconsistent votes, and it will go nowhere,
but it sends the very, very wrong message.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have so much respect for the long-standing service and
distinguished tenure of my colleague on the other side of the aisle,
and I just think that there is some clarification that is required in
this body and for all who may be watching this evening's proceedings,
so let me begin by reminding those who would review the record.
I am not sure I invoked the words ``Republican'' or ``Democrat'' in
my opening comments. If I did, it certainly wasn't in a partisan
nature. Instead, I extended a hand of friendship. I tried to actually
increase trust and offered the hope that we might work together, we
might actually work together to work on the very problems that caused
me to run for office for the first time in 2010: the $17 trillion
national debt that I know has grown to a great degree during the
service of the good gentleman on the other side of the aisle who just
spoke; the unsustainable entitlement programs that, when push comes to
shove and we can no longer find the resources to fund them because
people haven't made bold enough leadership decisions, those on the
margins of society will be most adversely impacted.
I know these are issues that my good ranking member friend on the
other side of the aisle cares about as much as I do. We have just not
yet come together and found bipartisan solutions to these things.
Now, the continuing resolution vote that we passed, the package, if
you will, the vote that we passed a few days ago, accomplished a few
things. We indicated that the President could suspend the debt ceiling,
but that move could be checked by votes of disapproval in the House and
the Senate. So this was a process that was put into motion by that
earlier bipartisan vote that occurred right here in this body.
It is true that it has been made clear over in the other Chamber, the
Senate, that the leader there will never bring this bill up in the
Senate. That has been made eminently clear. The risk of default is
something that ought not be mentioned. We needn't spook the markets
here. We will pay our bills in this country. That is something I have
been proud to stand for ever since I have been in this body.
The continuing resolution package also indicated that, on February 8,
the debt limit would be increased to reflect the borrowing that
occurred during the debt limit suspension period, and then the Treasury
would be given the ability to create additional headroom via so-called
extraordinary measures after the debt limit was reinstated on February
8, 2014.
So that is the larger context here. It sounds to me very procedural,
not particularly partisan. In fact, my hope was that this could be
offered in the spirit of bipartisanship. This is a messaging bill.
There was an allusion during my good friend's comments to a message
being sent as if that is somehow a negative thing. Now, most of the
bills that are introduced in this body are introduced in part, at
least, to offer a message to the broader American people, and we stand
here and argue on behalf of the message that we are trying to drive
home.
The message that I am trying to drive home is that these debt
problems have lingered on too long and that to increase a debt limit,
to suspend a debt limit, is certainly not to approve further borrowing
in the future absent the sort of bold changes that, frankly, have not
been enacted when my good friend has served many years in Congress. So
that is the larger message here, and that is how I would respond.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished freshman
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), who has had a lot of life's
experiences.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, during World War II, man, woman, young,
old, rich, poor, everyone in this Nation pulled together to bring our
country through a difficult time. It was a bipartisan effort, for sure.
After the war, we cut spending and we were a Nation that went to work.
But I ask my colleagues today, as we continue to increase our
spending and run up our debt: What is the limit? At what point do you
finally say it is dangerous, it is dangerous for the future of America?
Is there a limit? We can't keep going in this direction.
No one in this body wants America to default--that is not good for
this country--but we need to be serious about
[[Page H6874]]
what we plan for the future of this country. People are always saying,
``Do it for the kids; do it for the kids.'' We do a lot for kids, and
we can always do more for kids, but what about when those kids today
are grown up and they are stuck with all this debt? What are we doing
to them?
The Temptations, in the 1970s, had a song that said:
Papa was a rolling stone. And when he died, all he left us
was ``a loan.''
It was not a compliment. And if it was irresponsible in the 1970s, it
is irresponsible today.
I spoke earlier about the Greatest Generation and the legacy they
left. What is going to be our legacy? A legacy of nothing but debt?
Can you imagine the potential for opportunity in this country, for
investment and for jobs, if we are serious and we are on a solvent
course for the United States of America? And the sooner we go in that
direction, the more we can do to help Americans that are in need.
It is about stability. It is about certainty for the United States of
America.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman from Indiana mentioned about spooking the market--and
Halloween is in a couple of days. Essentially, what this bill says is
you would be willing to spook the market if you could. That is the
wrong message.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a
veteran of these battles and a friend of Tom Foley's.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, whoever hired the Republican consultants on
keeping the majority should be able to get their money back.
I had a thought just a few weeks ago that a small group in this House
had such an obsession with the Affordable Care Act and such a dislike
for the President that they were prepared not only to close the
government, but to attack the integrity of the full faith and credit of
the United States. The scorn and ridicule that this caused this
Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, because of this strategy to
repeal a bill that already had been signed into law and approved by the
United States Supreme Court, you would think that no one would want to
go anywhere near that again.
But still, we have a bill before us that admittedly has already been
rejected by the Senate because we want to remind the American people
how totally irresponsible we have been in the past in not only causing
our great country to lose $125 billion, not only the job loss, not only
the pain and sacrifice that so many people have gone through because
they weren't paid for the work that they were supposed to be doing, but
to have the whole country call us irresponsible and to have people who
loaned us money be uncertain as to our ability to pay it back, and then
we want to revisit this with a bill that is destined to go nowhere.
{time} 1800
I am a partisan Democrat, but I am more of a patriot, and I hate to
see the Republican Party do this to itself because I really think that
our country needs another party, not just a Democratic party. I know
that individuals don't care about the national Republican reputation,
but what has happened here is that the irresponsibility, the ridicule,
the insanity of these strategies has gone beyond the Republican Party
in the House. It has now infested part of our party, and people are
talking about the Presidency in terms of ``bring on the clowns.''
This is embarrassing to all of us as Americans, and especially as
lawmakers. This body wasn't created for us to send messages; it was
created for us to pass laws.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), a hardworking colleague.
Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Indiana
(Mr. Young) for introducing this resolution.
This is about communicating with the American people. I am not quite
sure what to say after the last speaker, who said he was a partisan
Democrat, would not want to come together, both parties, to work
together to find a problem to the $17 trillion of debt that we have.
That seems to be more of the problem in Washington today--the fact that
parties don't want to work together to find a problem to the threat to
our children and our grandchildren.
Mr. Young mentioned earlier that that was the reason that he ran for
office--because of the $17 trillion of debt that at the time in 2010
was roughly closer to $13 trillion and has only exceeded that since we
have been elected to office.
We are Americans first--not partisans, Americans--who believe that we
need to pass on a better future for our children and our grandchildren
and for future generations here in America. That is what is wrong with
Washington: too many partisans.
I believe we have got to find solutions that are going to balance the
budget, like Americans do across the country every day, whether it is
filling up gas at the gas station or whether it is the book dues for
the kids at school, health care costs, the cost of utilities.
People are trying to make ends meet. Instead, Washington is only
making it harder, through partisanship, on the American people. Both
parties, Republican and Democrat, have driven Washington $17 trillion
in debt. For decades, Republicans and Democrats offered empty promises
and cheap excuses, but our fiscal crisis cannot be ignored any more.
The national debt now exceeds our gross domestic product and saddles
every American with a $53,000 share of Washington's red ink. The facts
are very clear. Our current path is unsustainable. Although Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security will grow dramatically over the next
decade, recent budget debates between Congress and the White House have
largely ignored these key drivers of the debt. So what is going to
happen? Washington is going to continue to stumble from one crisis to
the next. This is no way to run a country.
Madam Speaker, it is irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without
tackling the underlying spending problems of this crisis. Hoosiers
don't expect Republicans and Democrats to agree on every proposal, but
they do expect us to make the difficult choices to put us on a path of
fiscal stability. Now is the time for both parties to break
Washington's cycle of manufactured crises and pay down our debt.
I thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution to the floor of
the House so we can discuss not only the spending problems, but what is
the problem underlying the spending habits and the spending problems in
Washington. Is it just ObamaCare, as the gentleman said previously?
ObamaCare is part of the problem of our spending in Washington.
Washington continues to look out for Washington interests and special
interests rather than looking out for American interests.
Mr. Young, thank you for bringing this important resolution. If there
is anything that threatens our security, it is our national debt. The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen,
said that this is the greatest threat to our national security.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman.
As I mentioned, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff in 2011, after the last debt ceiling discussion in July and
August of 2011, said that the debt was the greatest threat to our
national security.
Not only is it a threat to our ability to protect our country
militarily, but it is an even greater threat to our country
economically. Families are feeling the brunt day to day in the fact
that salaries are not increasing, jobs are not being created. This is
the fundamental crisis that our country is facing today, and we do need
to talk about it, and we do need to share with one another here in
Congress ideas and ways that we can tackle our debt problems.
Mr. Young, thank you for this resolution. I proudly support it, and I
am glad to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to tackle our debt
problems.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
[[Page H6875]]
the gentleman from Illinois (Danny K. Davis), a distinguished member of
our committee.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the
ranking member for yielding.
I hope that we have learned from 3 weeks ago, and that we are not
easing down the road to brinksmanship once again. Every American will
pay another heavy price if some of our colleagues are able to again
trigger another shutdown of the government.
I agree with President Obama that the full faith and credit of our
country is not negotiable. If there are colleagues who are thinking
about it, I would urge you not to do it. Don't create higher mortgage
costs. Don't cause investors to lose on their retirement plans. Don't
cause doctors and hospitals to wonder whether or not they are going to
be paid for treating Medicare and Medicaid patients. Don't cause
student loans to go up. Don't create anxiety for more than 10 million
seniors who will be wondering whether or not they are going to get
their Social Security checks. Don't create concern among veterans who
will be wondering whether or not they are going to get their disability
benefit checks.
Anybody that might be thinking about it, I would urge you not to do
it. Don't attempt to hold the debt ceiling hostage. I would say, as it
was said in the Book of Isaiah, Come and let us reason together,
because if we don't, then the whole country will suffer. Come and let
us find the way to work in a way that our problems can be dealt with. I
believe that we can do it. It has been done before.
I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I end with: let's do it.
Let's show the American people that we can work in a bipartisan way and
solve the problems and meet the needs of the people of this country.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a distinguished colleague.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my
colleague from Indiana bringing this before the House for discussion.
The reality is, the staggering fact is that since the President's
reelection through to the next debt limit vote, Washington will have
added about $1 trillion to our national debt--in exchange for what? For
no spending reductions, in exchange for maintaining the status quo.
This is not, as Democrats would argue, about paying our bills; it is
about mortgaging our Nation's future. Not only must we vote ``yes'' on
this resolution to disapprove of this culture of debt, but it is also
time to bring long overdue transparency to the process.
As we approached the so-called ``default deadline,'' the White House
press secretary told reporters that Secretary Lew did not say we risked
default at midnight on October 17; only that we were likely to exhaust
our borrowing authority that day. The press corps, as you might recall,
responded in disbelief that their doomsday default clocks may actually
be wrong. Let's be clear: we were not going to default.
Why do I say that? Ask the Vice President, who disappeared for a
couple of weeks. It was the Vice President who went to China in August
of 2011 and told the Chinese we would never default. Moody's said we
were not going to default. The markets showed little volatility. They
knew we would not default. Default was just a scare tactic to scare the
American people, and we as elected Representatives had no access to the
actual data to determine how much borrowing authority the Secretary and
the administration had left. We were simply left to take Jack Lew's
word for it. In the future, I believe we must require a fuller
accounting of how extraordinary measures are used, reported, and are
remaining by any administration. In the words of Ronald Reagan, we
should ``trust, but verify.''
Madam Speaker, earlier this year, the President sent us a budget that
never balances. In fact, he has done that now for 5 years straight.
That means under his plan, time and time and time and time and time
again, we would only add to our national debt and never pay it off.
A vote today to disapprove this debt limit increase may have little
impact on the previous $17 trillion in debt or the next $600 billion in
debt that we approved as a body a few weeks ago, but it does say three
things:
It is time to end our culture of debt;
It is time to end the Washington status quo;
It is time to end the crisis of out-of-control spending and massive
debt.
I appreciate my colleague's leadership on this matter.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding
time to me.
I rise in opposition to this resolution, but I am strongly in favor
of the process that we are using to deal with the debt limit. There is
a difference.
If this resolution to force an unprecedented default passes both this
House and the Senate, the President can decide to sign it or not. Even
if he doesn't sign it, Congress will have another opportunity to stop a
debt ceiling raise.
This is a process that the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell,
first suggested in 2011 and has been used in debt limit bills to avoid
defaulting since. It is good enough to use right now, it has been good
enough to use for 2 years, and it is good enough to help us avoid these
manufactured crises on a permanent basis.
This is a process that helps us separate the true need for
congressional intervention on the debt limit from those that are
manufactured and motivated by politics. This is a process that works
and helps us avoid unnecessary pain. We should never have a replay of
the hostage-taking and brinksmanship that we recently went through to
get to this point.
We know what we have to do, and we know we should not be playing
games with the debt limit. That is why I offer a bill that would make
this process permanent and keep this Nation fiscally solvent. Senators
Boxer, Schumer, and Hirono introduced this very same bill today in the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HONDA. I support this process, and I hope my colleagues will
support my efforts to make it the permanent solution to the debt
crisis.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution, but I support this process
that allows it.
{time} 1815
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), a distinguished member of the
Ways and Means Committee and my friend and colleague.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
House Joint Resolution 99, offered by the gentleman from Indiana, my
good friend and colleague on the House Ways and Means Committee.
And I want to be clear: this is not a resolution for default. This is
an opportunity to talk about how we have got to, when raising the debt
ceiling, deal with the underlying drivers of the debt.
History shows numerous instances in which spending cuts and reforms
have been coupled with increases in the debt limit. This dates back to
the inception of the debt ceiling limit in 1917. It also includes two
instances during the 110th Congress when President Obama served in the
Senate.
Further, in March 2006, then-Senator Obama voted against raising the
debt limit. And we have heard some folks tonight talk about how they
agree with President Obama. Well, let's listen to what he said in March
2006:
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and
internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here.
Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices
today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better.
Well, I also agreed with then-Senator, now President, Obama. And it
is abundantly clear that no one is going to fail to raise the debt
ceiling. No one is going to jeopardize our credit, but we must speak
out on the failure to address the debt drivers.
In July 2008, then-Senator Obama said that adding $4 trillion to the
national debt over 8 years was ``irresponsible'' and ``unpatriotic.'' I
agree with what he said then.
Since he became President in 2009, President Obama has increased the
[[Page H6876]]
total Federal debt from $10.6 trillion to over $17 trillion. One has to
wonder what then-Senator Obama would have to say about President Obama.
He has continually called for raising the debt ceiling during his
Presidency without implementing any of the necessary reforms needed to
get our Federal spending under control.
My focus has always been on working with anyone who is willing to
find a real, long-term solution to Washington's spending addiction.
This resolution shows the House is ready to start talking across party
lines about how to fix our debt problems now, not at the next deadline.
Late last year, CNN reported that ``the United States spends about 71
cents of every Federal tax dollar it collects on what is called the Big
4--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt.''
If nothing is done, in just 13 years the Big 4 could eat up every
penny of tax revenue collected by the Federal Government, leaving
nothing to pay for the discretionary spending that we like. That
includes spending on defense, veterans benefits, education, roads,
national parks, museums, medical research, food safety and air traffic
control, to name a few.
CNN further said that ``by 2040, more than half of all Federal tax
revenue would be eaten up by interest payments on the debt alone.''
In 2006, then-Senator Obama said those ``interest payments are a
significant tax on all Americans, a debt tax that Washington doesn't
want to talk about.''
But let's be clear: House Republicans in Congress, and the voters who
put us here, are the only reason--the only reason--anyone in August of
2011 talked about the debt problem and reached a debt deal. Otherwise,
the President would have simply had the debt ceiling raised, and there
would have been nothing done structurally.
And we are the only reason why we talk about it now. Otherwise, it
would be a clean debt ceiling increase with no strings attached.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
resolution and getting our excessive spending under control.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time, and
I will speak very briefly because the message here is so clear, that
those who vote for this bill are saying they are willing to use the
threat of default once again, and we shouldn't be doing this.
I don't think the Nation believed that this government and its
programs would be shut down; but it turned out, because of the way the
Republicans handled it, this government was shut down, and programs
were very much undercut that were needed by the people of this country.
We came within a flicker of default. The consequences of playing with
that were very, very substantial.
So now, once again, the Republicans bring up a bill, and whatever the
reason is, are giving people a chance, once again, to say that playing
with default is a legitimate method of operation. You shouldn't do
this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to
reiterate five key points:
One, our current national debt exceeds $17 trillion, an amount that
is greater than our annual GDP, the size of our economy.
Two, while I and so many others in my party agree with many of my
colleagues across the aisle that risking default is irresponsible, it
is just as irresponsible to ignore why our debt is so darn high and
what it means for the future of our country.
Three, we can and must work across partisan lines to avoid default in
conjunction with a debt ceiling vote or a default related to a
continued failure to address the largest drivers of our debt; and we
must begin that work now, not at the last minute, or the next self-
imposed fiscal deadline.
Four, those who have served here for decades have known for decades
that our population was growing older, that health care costs were
rising, and that our long-term fiscal trajectory was unsustainable; but
nothing has happened.
Five, this recognition that Washington continually misses
opportunities to put our country on a path to fiscal health ought to be
something on which we can all agree.
I urge all my colleagues who want to see our country address our
long-term challenges before it is too late to vote ``yes'' on this
resolution of disapproval.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Joyce). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the statute, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________